Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:21 am

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:01 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:28 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:41 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:26 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:54 pm I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

It's all about that bass base.

But...why bother? They aren't going anywhere. Is he not getting enough love in his twitter feed or something?

Two Minutes Hate

I agree with this, but I don't think he's doing it deliberately to brainwash. I think he's doing it because he enjoys the feeling he gets from it, and feeling the hate flow from his base. He's more like a stupid Palpatine than a plotting Hitler.

Yes. The whole reason Trump loves Twitter is that he gets an immediate flood of hundreds of MAGA fans praising him and calling him the greatest. It's like one of his rallies, but he gets to feel it three or four times a day.

But there is some brainwashing as well. Or least setting the terms of the narrative and redefining what counts as True in TrumpLand--as well as in Trump's head. This is how narcissistic personality disorder actually works, only he's playing it out on a scale of millions rather than just friends and family.

It's all part of his ongoing campaign to discredit (his own) DOJ, against the day that they release proof of his crimes. Gotta keep throwing shade lest some sunlight break through.

Fox News still running the Chinese ate Clinton's baby story, claiming sources refute FBI's refutation.

Or something. I'm not actually sure. Mostly it just repeats Drumpf's accusations, or is Drumpf repeating theirs?

It was not clear and I suspect it only makes sense to their target demographic.

In any case, Fox still reporting it as if it's true, no allegedlies to be found.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:54 pmMostly it just repeats Drumpf's accusations, or is Drumpf repeating theirs?

Fox News and Trump have formed a two person Human Centipede.

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:41 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:54 pmMostly it just repeats Drumpf's accusations, or is Drumpf repeating theirs?

Fox News and Trump have formed a two person Human Centipede.

When Trump says something it's news so Fox can report it as "the President says X", and then once Fox reports it Trump can point to that and say "see, real media is backing me up on what I said."

Yeah, but it wasn't "the president said stuff". It was "the Chinese had completely compromised Clinton's server according to multiple sources, despite FBI claims to the contrary".

There were some names in there like I'm supposed to know who they were or why they mattered or mattered more than the FBI claims or...something.

Like I said it wasn't clear, but it probably was to a drumpinista.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:54 pm Fox News still running the Chinese ate Clinton's baby story, claiming sources refute FBI's refutation.

Or something. I'm not actually sure. Mostly it just repeats Drumpf's accusations, or is Drumpf repeating theirs?

It was not clear and I suspect it only makes sense to their target demographic.

In any case, Fox still reporting it as if it's true, no allegedlies to be found.

It wasn't the FBI that discovered the breach, it was the ICIG.

As far as I can tell, this whole story is sourced from reporting by The Daily Caller, so you know it must be true.

Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:08 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:54 pm Fox News still running the Chinese ate Clinton's baby story, claiming sources refute FBI's refutation.

Or something. I'm not actually sure. Mostly it just repeats Drumpf's accusations, or is Drumpf repeating theirs?

It was not clear and I suspect it only makes sense to their target demographic.

In any case, Fox still reporting it as if it's true, no allegedlies to be found.

It wasn't the FBI that discovered the breach, it was the ICIG.

Oddly enough, I don't entirely distrust Daniel Coats as a Trump Cronie and apologist. So, how does he weigh in? As of right now I'm not seeing his name tied to this.

With regard to the Inspector General, the Daily Caller is the sole source I see mentioning Michael Horowitz and their snipe reads like "I'm just asking the questions" but they do extensively source tweets from the head of the GOP our very own president of the United States.

Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:08 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:54 pm Fox News still running the Chinese ate Clinton's baby story, claiming sources refute FBI's refutation.

Or something. I'm not actually sure. Mostly it just repeats Drumpf's accusations, or is Drumpf repeating theirs?

It was not clear and I suspect it only makes sense to their target demographic.

In any case, Fox still reporting it as if it's true, no allegedlies to be found.

It wasn't the FBI that discovered the breach, it was the ICIG.

It wasn't even them, they were the first notified of "anomalies" that might have been related to a breach.

To the best of my knowledge, no one discovered a breach. As in, there was no breach.

That's why this is so much fun.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:13 pm As far as I can tell, this whole story is sourced from reporting by The Daily Caller, so you know it must be true.

Exactly. Yet Fox is proceeding like it's all established fact, but they haven't established any facts. No one has, as far as I could figure out. Except for the FBI categorically denying it of course.

I expect this from sources that tell Rip what to think, but I expect a little more from Fox.

Will be interested to see if Fox pushes this over the next few days or backs down. And if they do push it, what evidence they have to support it.

Holman wrote:As far as I can tell, this whole story is sourced from reporting by The Daily Caller, so you know it must be true.

Which was founded (and still owned? ) by Tucker Carlson of Fox, of course.

Trump is now literally trying to use both "they're being mean to me" and "but...but...Hillary!" as legal defenses.

.@realDonaldTrump asks judge to dismiss NY AG lawsuit over Trump Fdn., b/c former AG Schneiderman criticized Trump, and didn't do enough to investigate the Clinton Fdn. (tho Schneiderman didn't file the suit -- he resigned before it was filed).

Everyone knows that prosecutors need to compliment criminals if they want to sue them. That's Law 101.

Apparently Trump's legal team and Giuliani are already drafting the rebuttal of a report they haven't seen yet.

How do you rebut accusations you haven't even seen? Probably hard to do unless you already know what you've done wrong.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:04 pm Apparently Trump's legal team and Giuliani are already drafting the rebuttal of a report they haven't seen yet.

How do you rebut accusations you haven't even seen? Probably hard to do unless you already know what you've done wrong.

If Giuliani is drafting it, it will be 30% manic gibberish and 70% confession-to-treason-because-why-not?

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:59 pm If Giuliani is drafting it, it will be 30% manic gibberish and 70% confession-to-treason-because-why-not?

I still think there are skeletons and Drumpf knows what and where they are (because he has the same ones. Like, some serious real estate corruption in NYC). How else do you explain the complete insanity that is Giuliani, or Drumpf being somehow satisfied with the insanity that is Giuliani?

Wasn't the conventional wisdom that Mueller would drop a big report today? After today we'll be in election season, although that might not matter anymore after 2016.

msteelers wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:40 pm Wasn't the conventional wisdom that Mueller would drop a big report today? After today we'll be in election season, although that might not matter anymore after 2016.

DOJ policy encourages silence as elections approach, but the notion that rules somehow forbid any public statement by an investigator after September 1st is a fiction of the Trump legal team.

Holman wrote: the notion that rules somehow apply is a fiction.

FTFY.

Also, I believe that 60 day window doesn't start until next Friday.

The Patten guilty plea seems pretty big to me. That’s a direct tie between foreign money and the Trump campaign (inauguration). Can he prove Trump knew?

The other interesting news I read, though I forget where, Chuck Todd maybe? Anyway, Mueller associates are saying pretty consistently that if there wasn’t something big that Mueller would long since have ended the investigation and handed the pieces back to the DOJ. Of course that’s speculation so some skepticism is warranted. And it plays in nicely with what I’d like to believe which is that there has to be trail he’s following or this would long have been over. Mueller seems like the type that wouldn’t drag this out if he didn’t have to. Confirmation bias, but I’m hopeful today.

He's attempting the 'But the emails!' defense in court?



Can we switch this over to Judge Judy? I wanna watch.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:18 pm Also, I believe that 60 day window doesn't start until next Friday.

Does the 60 day window before an election apply the the person you're talking about isn't up for election? Hell, given the general sense that Mueller directly indicting a sitting President, would it apply to unelected officials serving in the administration of a President who isn't up for election?

I think he should be able to drop it two weeks before the election as a makeup for Comey's (unintentional or not) sabotage of Hillary's campaign.

A nice little recap of the Witch Hunt® outcomes to date, courtesy of the BBC.

Chaz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:40 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:18 pm Also, I believe that 60 day window doesn't start until next Friday.

Does the 60 day window before an election apply the the person you're talking about isn't up for election? Hell, given the general sense that Mueller directly indicting a sitting President, would it apply to unelected officials serving in the administration of a President who isn't up for election?

Yeah, that's the thing. I haven't read the guidance myself, but it can't be that anything that could impact a race is verbotten. All sorts of federal enforcement actions are high profile and could have some sort of splash damage on important races. I'm pretty sure the guidance just says that you shouldn't do stuff regarding candidates close to elections involving said candidates.

Like, you 100% shouldn't announce that you are reopening and investigation of a candidate a couple weeks before people go to the polls to vote on that candidate - just to pick an example.

But, golly, that's totally obvious, and nobody in their right mind would do something like that.

I don't find "lied to the FBI" to be particularly compelling convictions. That could mean anything, and far too often means they trapped you into saying something you thought was true, but was not. That's hardly justice. If you lied about crimes, that's one thing, and the "lied to the FBI" conviction should be accompanied by "convicted of crimes they lied about".

That list is not inspiring, although Manafort and Cohen are "gimmes" in my opinion. If convictions couldn't be obtained for those two, there's not much to hope for bigger fish.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:33 am I don't find "lied to the FBI" to be particularly compelling convictions. That could mean anything, and far too often means they trapped you into saying something you thought was true, but was not. That's hardly justice. If you lied about crimes, that's one thing, and the "lied to the FBI" conviction should be accompanied by "convicted of crimes they lied about".

I don't completely understand your line here. The law is that if you are speaking to Federal agents you have a responsibility to not obstruct justice by lying. There is an alternative. They can choose not to speak at all. Instead knowing that the vast powers of the Federal government have been investigating them they choose to make statements to attempt to lead them astray. Is it a blockbuster charge? No. But that isn't the point. It is how the government builds complex cases. They need tools to find the truth. That there isn't some other criminal conviction has to be taken in context. A big part of the 'lied to FBI' charge is that it is used to compel cooperation.

That list is not inspiring, although Manafort and Cohen are "gimmes" in my opinion. If convictions couldn't be obtained for those two, there's not much to hope for bigger fish.

I get this - I too wish for this to move faster since immense damage is being done day by day - but in context this investigation is moving at a relatively fast pace for a Federal case. And there are a number of indictments out there that probably won't be adjudicated but are a key part of the narrative to consider. And Manafort's 2nd trial approaches quickly as well and that one is far more germane to the Russian conspiracy.

My point is that "lied to the police" can mean literally anything, from "I didn't bury the body in the woods" even though I did to "I arrived home for dinner at 6" but the police know it was 5:30 and you just misremembered.

Both those lies are the same crime. When I see someone convicted/plead guilty to lying and there are no other convictions mentioned, my first thought is a bogus technicality conviction, with no other crime associated with it.

Assuming Mr. Fed is honest, these kinds of convictions are common. I have no idea what they have to do with justice.

I have no issue with the speed of the investigation. It takes as long as it takes. I'm just unimpressed with the results thus far, as outlined in Max's article. That's not the same as being disappointed or even critical of the investigation.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:55 am My point is that "lied to the police" can mean literally anything, from "I didn't bury the body in the woods" even though I did to "I arrived home for dinner at 6" but the police know it was 5:30 and you just misremembered.

Both those lies are the same crime. When I see someone convicted/plead guilty to lying and there are no other convictions mentioned, my first thought is a bogus technicality conviction, with no other crime associated with it.

Sure but I can also argue that is in big part just an artifact of lack of information. You don't know what considerations and negotiations led to it being that charge versus a smorgasbord of other charges. That is why I'd push back on assuming it is some technicality.

Assuming Mr. Fed is honest, these kinds of convictions are common. I have no idea what they have to do with justice.

Again - these type of 'technical' infractions are used as leverage to flip people. Is it always in the blind ideal of justice? I doubt it. The police make mistakes too but it is how a system that has a 5th amendment works to break down complex conspiracies.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:55 am My point is that "lied to the police" can mean literally anything, from "I didn't bury the body in the woods" even though I did to "I arrived home for dinner at 6" but the police know it was 5:30 and you just misremembered.

Both those lies are the same crime. When I see someone convicted/plead guilty to lying and there are no other convictions mentioned, my first thought is a bogus technicality conviction, with no other crime associated with it.

Well, police and FBI are different animals. You're not going to get a charge for misremembering during a Police investigation.

Also, on a minor technicality, I'm guessing you're probably less likely to get a guilty plea. "You said you had an omelette for breakfast on January 21st, 2004, but we have evidence that it was a frittata...." isn't that compelling and I doubt someone is going to plead out unless it's to avoid a greater charge.

Granted, IANAFL nor a former federal preosecutor, but a guilty plea for lying indicates, to me, some fire with the smoke. Or a terrible defense team.


Also, it makes me think of this song:

The ones that pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI must have had a reason to plead guilty. We're not talking about Average Joes with no resources to mount a legal defense against trivial nuisance charges. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I'd say the most logical reason for cutting a plea deal is if they were able to offer something to the investigation that was of greater value than their own hide, with Manafort being the example of what they can expect if they don't play ball. He's already looking at potentially spending the rest of his life in prison, and that's just from the first round. He's got plenty of super fun court time coming up.

Maybe Max. What's a high priced lawyer gonna do when they have tape of you saying 6 and pictures showing 5:30?

Mr Fed suggests that you're wrong. I'm not saying he's right, but I am more inclined to believe him than blindly hope that a man with decades of experience talking about his area of expertise is mistaken because the cops and the justice system wouldn't be perverted like that.

I might be more inclined to believe your line of thinking if the plea deal was to something meaningful and not a standard, bullcrap trap used on nearly everyone about everything.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:55 am My point is that "lied to the police" can mean literally anything, from "I didn't bury the body in the woods" even though I did to "I arrived home for dinner at 6" but the police know it was 5:30 and you just misremembered.

Both those lies are the same crime. When I see someone convicted/plead guilty to lying and there are no other convictions mentioned, my first thought is a bogus technicality conviction, with no other crime associated with it.

That's why it's called a plea deal. The government gets a cooperating witness against Bigger Fish, and you escape being charged with the worst of your crimes.

In all of these cases, future failure to cooperate (or proof that the cooperation was partial or deceptive) means all of the other charges come back into play.

I'm comfortable assuming that Mueller's team of experts invested in national security aren't playing the same game they play down at the precinct with minor drug dealers.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:10 am

Granted, IANAFL nor a former federal preosecutor, but a guilty plea for lying indicates, to me, some fire with the smoke. Or a terrible defense team

Sure, neither am I. And yet it's a big enough problem that Mr. Fed brings it up over and over again. When talking about his own cases and when providing analysis for other higher profile cases.

When I read both you and Max it feels like you disagree with Mr. Fed's general assessment simply because...reasons.

I don't see anything that makes these cases special or reasons for simply assuming Fed's general assessment is not applicable in these specific cases.

Mr. Fed's job is to push back on zealous prosecution, so to speak.

There's a big difference in time served for lying to the Feds and the underlying crimes. That's why you have an incentive for a deal.

Manafort benefitted from the unreasonableness of a sole juror. So both sides have bullcrap traps.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:48 pm Manafort benefitted from the unreasonableness of a sole juror. So both sides have bullcrap traps.

Er, one is no crime exists until the FBI shows up and creates one, the other is the entire basis for the justice system and it's working as designed.

What a strange comparison.

I found a Popehat Lawsplainer on the George Papadopoulos plea deal last year. He sure does use a lot of words to say nothingburger.

So what did he do, anyway?

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint and the factual statement he accepted, Papadopoulos lied to FBI agents during a January 27, 2017 meeting (note that's before the appointment of the special prosecutor) about his interactions with Russian nationals in connection with his role in the Trump campaign. Specifically, he lied about the nature and extent of his contacts with Russians during the campaign. He told the FBI that Russians offered "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails" before he joined the Trump campaign, when it was actually after, and characterized conversations with Russians as minor in consequential when they were actually extensive. In addition, after a second interview with the FBI in February 2017, Papadopoulos deleted a Facebook account which contained some of his communications with the Russian nationals, and created a new one. The FBI was nonplussed.

What does this show about the nature and status of the Special Counsel's investigation into whether the Trump Campaign improperly communicated with Russians?

It shows that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's contact with the Russians not later than January 2017, that the Special Counsel continued that investigation, that they've obtained emails showing communications by at least some people with Russians, that Russians told campaign representatives that the Russians had "dirt" in the form of emails about Clinton, and that the Special Counsel is (for now) continuing the investigation.

He does note, however, that Papadopoulos might have gotten away scot-free if he had followed the standard Popehat free legal advice of just keeping his mouth shut and not talking to the po-po.

Awesome. And they convicted him on the lie and nothing else. Sure he murdered those 4 coeds but at least we caught him lying about it.

If/when the FBI uses his testimony (as moliere suggests) to burn someone who matters on something that matters, I'll be satisfied. In the mean time, justice served, I guess?

As reminder, this is where we started:

I don't find "lied to the FBI" to be particularly compelling convictions.

After reading Max's quotes, that holds doubly true now.