Octopus Overlords

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:21 pm But there is exactly zero evidence, that I am aware of, that they have ever done that. If anything, that sounds like pro-Trump disinformation to explain leaks by blaming them on Mueller rather than the actual leaker (e.g. Trump implying that Mueller's team "disgracefully" leaked the list of questions, when they couldn't have done so given that the list was written by Trump's own lawyer).

I don't know if there is any consensus based on who knows whom, but couldn't this just as easily be a leak from Cohen's team in an effort to get Trump moving against the investigation(s)?

"Donny, I think they were listening when I talked to That Guy about That Thing I told you I talked to That Guy about."

The thing is, if Meuller controls the dissemination of information and it isn't classified, there would be no leak. It would be an authorized disclosure. Evidence that it was Meuller's team, on the other hand, would be a leak.

I'm not saying this was his, or that he has actually done it (again, this is something he has been rumored to do), but it should still be considered on the list of possibilities.

And....there's nothing to the wiretap story:





I guess my question now is whether NBC misunderstood what they were being told, or whether the leaker misunderstood and told NBC the wrong thing.

Nice work NBC. Because the screams of "fake news" weren't already deafening enough.

I'm curious though, would the "pen register" still need to be signed off on by a federal judge? Still seems like sort of a big deal (although not nearly as much) if they're willing to sign off on something like that for the sitting President's attorney.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:31 pm Nice work NBC. Because the screams of "fake news" weren't already deafening enough.

This is where the rest of us should point out that respectable news organizations actually correct stories that turn out to be untrue.

Sepiche wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:35 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:31 pm Nice work NBC. Because the screams of "fake news" weren't already deafening enough.

This is where the rest of us should point out that respectable news organizations actually correct stories that turn out to be untrue.

1,000 times this. Wife's students have the hardest time grasping the difference between fake news and honest errors. As far as they're concerned, it's all fake news if the facts are wrong...no distinctions necessary.

Sepiche wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:35 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:31 pm Nice work NBC. Because the screams of "fake news" weren't already deafening enough.

This is where the rest of us should point out that respectable news organizations actually correct stories that turn out to be untrue.

Oh, I don't disagree at all. And I'm very relieved they did that in this situation, as opposed to doubling down on the lie and continuing to run with it, a la Fox News.

But still...

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:44 pm

Sepiche wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:35 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:31 pm Nice work NBC. Because the screams of "fake news" weren't already deafening enough.

This is where the rest of us should point out that respectable news organizations actually correct stories that turn out to be untrue.

Oh, I don't disagree at all. And I'm very relieved they did that in this situation, as opposed to doubling down on the lie and continuing to run with it, a la Fox News.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to throw shade on you, just building on your point.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:38 pm

Sepiche wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:35 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 5:31 pm Nice work NBC. Because the screams of "fake news" weren't already deafening enough.

This is where the rest of us should point out that respectable news organizations actually correct stories that turn out to be untrue.

1,000 times this. Wife's students have the hardest time grasping the difference between fake news and honest errors. As far as they're concerned, it's all fake news if the facts are wrong...no distinctions necessary.

I'm also doubtful that this story and retraction is going to move the needle for many people on whether they trust Trump or not. You're either in the Trump / conservative news bubble or you're not, at this point.

Plus the retraction happened before the evening cable news cycle, which I think should lessen the impact.

And there it is.

NBC NEWS is wrong again! They cite “sources” which are constantly wrong. Problem is, like so many others, the sources probably don’t exist, they are fabricated, fiction! NBC, my former home with the Apprentice, is now as bad as Fake News CNN. Sad!

Problem is, like so many others, the sources probably don’t exist, they are fabricated, fiction!

Insanity. Everyone I hate does what you see here. They probably make things up. They all LIE!

He knows this because it's shown daily how much he makes things up, he has non existent sources to back him, and he flat out lies.

tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 10:50 am

Translation: We haven't yet told him which lies he should be spewing.

A column that I read yesterday said that Trump treats his legal team the same way he treats all of his sycophants: They are in constant competition for the head man's approval. If they were to agree on a cohesive story and stick to it, Trump would quickly grow bored and replace them with more entertaining people. His own version of events depends on which story he likes best, and that's always changing along with the team's favorability standings.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1I51WE

“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia said.

At tense hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the judge said Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in his Russia probe and that the charges against Manafort did not arise from the investigation into Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:17 pm https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1I51WE

“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia said.

At tense hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the judge said Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in his Russia probe and that the charges against Manafort did not arise from the investigation into Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

"You can't charge me for the dead hookers in the crawlspace, the warrant was only for drugs!"

That courthouse is just a couple of blocks from where I work. It's unfortunate I can't just head over and take in the spectacle.

Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:17 pm https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1I51WE

“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia said.

At tense hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the judge said Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in his Russia probe and that the charges against Manafort did not arise from the investigation into Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Meh. All that article does is tell you the judge wondered my the charges were brought by Mueller rather than the Virginia AG. It doesn't say the charges are unfounded at all.

Heh. It's like people still think Rip reads the articles he posts.

TheMix wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:48 pm Heh. It's like people still think Rip reads the articles he posts.

I consider Reuter's to be fairly good (and not so politically motivated by "hooray for our side!"). What I am missing? I will freely admit that I look at the URL before deciding to click and there are plenty of sites that I'd spend the effort to look at the URL precisely so I don't spend the effort to click followed by the effort to read. I only recently learned after so many tries, for example, that a site like dialymail is one of them.

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:30 pm Meh. All that article does is tell you the judge wondered my the charges were brought by Mueller rather than the Virginia AG. It doesn't say the charges are unfounded at all.

It's also clearly within Mueller's mandate which the letter they submitted under seal will indicate.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:08 pm

TheMix wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:48 pm Heh. It's like people still think Rip reads the articles he posts.

I consider Reuter's to be fairly good (and not so politically motivated by "hooray for our side!"). What I am missing? I will freely admit that I look at the URL before deciding to click and there are plenty of sites that I'd spend the effort to look at the URL precisely so I don't spend the effort to click followed by the effort to read. I only recently learned after so many tries, for example, that a site like dialymail is one of them.

Wasn't commenting on the article itself. But rather the process of "Rip posts something... Someone follows with a post pointing out that what he posted doesn't say what he's suggesting/implying". I thought it has been proven pretty clearly that he either doesn't bother reading most of what he links to, or he doesn't care and intentionally chooses to make his own interpretations.

TheMix wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:20 pm asn't commenting on the article itself. But rather the process of "Rip posts something... Someone follows with a post pointing out that what he posted doesn't say what he's suggesting/implying". I thought it has been proven pretty clearly that he either doesn't bother reading most of what he links to, or he doesn't care and intentionally chooses to make his own interpretations.

For me, I'll bit on just about anything I consider "real" rather than what amounts to habitual editorials pretending to be fact based news. I'm all about discussions on what's up today, even if I have a wildly different understanding. I just don't play giving someone advertising traffic to waste my time on screaming about an editors agenda while the editor and link and thesis try to pass the editorial off as fact based or "news." Habitual defenders eventually get remembered and essentially <plonk>ed.

Sepiche wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:16 pm

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:30 pm Meh. All that article does is tell you the judge wondered my the charges were brought by Mueller rather than the Virginia AG. It doesn't say the charges are unfounded at all.

It's also clearly within Mueller's mandate which the letter they submitted under seal will indicate.

Apparently not the one they gave him so far, it was redacted to hell and back. Ball is in their court to unredact it enough to satisfy him I guess.

TheMix wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:20 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:08 pm

TheMix wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:48 pm Heh. It's like people still think Rip reads the articles he posts.

I consider Reuter's to be fairly good (and not so politically motivated by "hooray for our side!"). What I am missing? I will freely admit that I look at the URL before deciding to click and there are plenty of sites that I'd spend the effort to look at the URL precisely so I don't spend the effort to click followed by the effort to read. I only recently learned after so many tries, for example, that a site like dialymail is one of them.

Wasn't commenting on the article itself. But rather the process of "Rip posts something... Someone follows with a post pointing out that what he posted doesn't say what he's suggesting/implying". I thought it has been proven pretty clearly that he either doesn't bother reading most of what he links to, or he doesn't care and intentionally chooses to make his own interpretations.

Hard to do since I didn't suggest or imply anything.

Sepiche wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 1:57 pm

em2nought wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 1:39 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 7:23 am You'd almost think someone besides Trump wrote those tweets, but when "played no roll" popped up the author of them becomes clear.

Trump should admit that it's been Baron tweeting everything all along. Bahahaha!

Because they are obviously the rambling, cluttered thoughts of a child?

See, it has a whiff of plausibility.

Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:36 pm Hard to do since I didn't suggest or imply anything.

That's what I mean. That plus a url that has a tendency to pass editorials off as news from where I sit leave, lordmortis, not clicky. But I Reuters is not one of URLs for me.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 10:13 am And there it is.

I love the oddly placed apprentice call out.

Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:36 pm

TheMix wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:20 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:08 pm

TheMix wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:48 pm Heh. It's like people still think Rip reads the articles he posts.

I consider Reuter's to be fairly good (and not so politically motivated by "hooray for our side!"). What I am missing? I will freely admit that I look at the URL before deciding to click and there are plenty of sites that I'd spend the effort to look at the URL precisely so I don't spend the effort to click followed by the effort to read. I only recently learned after so many tries, for example, that a site like dialymail is one of them.

Wasn't commenting on the article itself. But rather the process of "Rip posts something... Someone follows with a post pointing out that what he posted doesn't say what he's suggesting/implying". I thought it has been proven pretty clearly that he either doesn't bother reading most of what he links to, or he doesn't care and intentionally chooses to make his own interpretations.

Hard to do since I didn't suggest or imply anything.

Sure you did. Your quote selection makes that clear.

So since we discussed the Logan Act so much I wonder if Kerry is going to be criticized for violating it?

Oh, do you have interest in that now? Is that right?

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 1:09 pm Oh, do you have interest in that now? Is that right?

I think the law is out of touch horseshit, but it was used to strongarm Flynn. Why should Kerry get a pass. Sounds to me like he is helping Iran, which is helping the Russians by proxy. Mueller looking into that yet?

I'm sure that's outside the scope of his investigation.
But to your point, are democrats in charge of starting investigations? So strange how they control senate, house, and executive but their DoJ is rogue?

Also, of the dozens of crimes he was indicted for, not one was a violation of the logan act.

So, strong arm Kerry all ya want with the Logan Act - then when it's discovered that he has a bunch of bank deals with Iran - then it will be interesting.

I don't know where this goes - it kind of hits on everything.

Another judge rejects Mueller attempts to drag things out while he tries to get people to talk with trumped up charges.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... lay-570627

A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Yeah, you're right, Rip. It doesn't look too good for Trump right now.

Rip wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 1:22 pm Another judge rejects Mueller attempts to drag things out while he tries to get people to talk with trumped up charges.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... lay-570627

A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

You... didn't read the article, did you?

This is entirely about indictment of Russians--some of them Russian intelligence agents--who are unlikely ever to appear in American courts.

The procedural issue about timing is complex, but to assert that these are "trumped-up charges" requires an absolute ocean of conspiracy Kool-Aid.

Interesting article on Cohen's business "dealings":

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/busi ... trump.html

A few notable points:

1) Given the multitude of shady people Cohen has been involved with, I'm pretty sure he's tied up in illegal activity.
2) Some of his actions look a lot like money laundering
3) Why would a "reputable" business man use such a shady lawyer?
4) Why would a presidential campaign let such a shady lawyer appear in the national media again and again as a presidential surrogate during the campaign? This is all kinds of stupid.
5) How Cohen thought he would pass a security check and get a post in the administration is crazy.

I have little doubt that Cohen is guilty of some sort of crimes given the his business "associations". After that, it's just a matter of if he cracks and what he knows and can offer the feds.

'S'all good, man.