Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:12 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:25 pm I didn't actually consider Abramson and Mensch in the same category, but maybe I'm wrong. As we all continue the slide into madness it's hard to keep things straight anymore. I'll endeavor to do better and refocus my hate more accurately.

Also, Mitch McConnell is a douche.

Abramson's definitely a cut above Mensch (who is pretty clearly either a lunatic or a fraud), but he's not *that* much above her. Mensch is looney tunes "marshal of the Supreme Court has a sekret arrest warrant for Trump" land. Abramson is more "why the font choice in Mueller's complaint shows that Trump is in trouble", i.e. stuff that's not bonkers *on its face*, but tends to make overconfident predictions from little to no evidence.

Smoove_B wrote:

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:30 pmAny particular reason today? Or just a general observation?

Nope. It's just a constant, unwavering feeling I have.

Backed by over a decade of evidence.

In a court filing Thursday, a Russian company indicted early this year referred to a “nude selfie” obtained by special counsel Robert Mueller.

No other details were provided, including the identity of the individual or individuals in the selfie.

link

Pleasedontleakpleasedontleakpleasedontleakpleasedontleak.

A pretty good read...

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective
By Sarah Grant, Chuck Rosenberg Friday, December 14, 2018, 8:00 AM

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

...

These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.

...

As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.
However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:00 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:12 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:25 pm I didn't actually consider Abramson and Mensch in the same category, but maybe I'm wrong. As we all continue the slide into madness it's hard to keep things straight anymore. I'll endeavor to do better and refocus my hate more accurately.

Also, Mitch McConnell is a douche.

Abramson's definitely a cut above Mensch (who is pretty clearly either a lunatic or a fraud), but he's not *that* much above her. Mensch is looney tunes "marshal of the Supreme Court has a sekret arrest warrant for Trump" land. Abramson is more "why the font choice in Mueller's complaint shows that Trump is in trouble", i.e. stuff that's not bonkers *on its face*, but tends to make overconfident predictions from little to no evidence.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:02 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:00 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:12 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:25 pm I didn't actually consider Abramson and Mensch in the same category, but maybe I'm wrong. As we all continue the slide into madness it's hard to keep things straight anymore. I'll endeavor to do better and refocus my hate more accurately.

Also, Mitch McConnell is a douche.

Abramson's definitely a cut above Mensch (who is pretty clearly either a lunatic or a fraud), but he's not *that* much above her. Mensch is looney tunes "marshal of the Supreme Court has a sekret arrest warrant for Trump" land. Abramson is more "why the font choice in Mueller's complaint shows that Trump is in trouble", i.e. stuff that's not bonkers *on its face*, but tends to make overconfident predictions from little to no evidence.

That postal tub is being used for no official postal business. I'm calling the Inspection Service!

It doesn't appear to be marked properly for USPS property.

News is going around now that Manafort's lawyers botched the redactions on their response to Mueller this week, making it possible to read that Manafort is said to have met personally with Konstantin Kilimnik (a Russian intelligence agent) in Spain about Trump campaign strategy. They're also said to have discussed a "peace plan" for Ukraine on more than one occasion.

It's hard not to see this as trading Crimea Sanctions for election interference.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:07 pm News is going around now that Manafort's lawyers botched the redactions on their response to Mueller this week, making it possible to read that Manafort is said to have met personally with Konstantin Kilimnik (a Russian intelligence agent) in Spain about Trump campaign strategy. They're also said to have discussed a "peace plan" for Ukraine on more than one occasion.

It's hard not to see this as trading Crimea Sanctions for election interference.

And gave him 2016 internal polling data that presumably could be used to help with that election interference.

Seems pretty collusion-y.

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:13 pm And gave him 2016 internal polling data that presumably could be used to help with that election interference.

Seems pretty collusion-y.

NO COLLUSION! NO COLLUSION!! *YOU'RE* THE COLLUSION.....ER!

Since it's appropriate for this thread: Rod Rosenstein is leaving the Justice Department in about a month, or after William Barr is confirmed as the new AG.

NBC does state that Rosenstein is not being forced out, but that this was planned all along for him.

Of course, Trumpalos in Congress are pleased.

My sense is that Rosenstein's usefulness as a shield for the Mueller investigation basically ends with a new AG anyways, so this development doesn't mean much.

Read a couple commentators who were actually calling it a shockingly normal example of how things are supposed to work.

Michael Cohen has agreed to testify publicly before the House Oversight Committee on February 7.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:18 pm Michael Cohen has agreed to testify publicly before the House Oversight Committee on February 7.

Elijah Cummings (Oversight Comm Chair) has said that he will consult with Mueller to avoid making problems for the investigation.

Meanwhile, Schiff's Intel Committee is planning a closed hearing with Cohen as well...

In other investigation news (huge but obscured by the cloud of Trump's border Wall antics), the botched-redaction leak that Manafort definitely colluded with the Russians probably makes a pardon politically impossible. No doubt Manafort's team is adjusting strategy accordingly.

Holman wrote:the botched-redaction leak that Manafort definitely colluded with the Russians probably makes a pardon politically impossible.

I have no faith in that statement in MAGALand.

Well then.

What a news cycle today, yikes.

Wow. That's a bombshell. Time for a new and bigger distraction?

Long read, but this is some very interesting analysis. Tl:dr version:

The analysis that follows is lengthy and takes a number of twists and turns before laying out what I think is the significance of the whole thing. Here’s the bottom line: I believe that between today’s New York Times story and some other earlier material I have been sifting through and thinking about, we might be in a position to revisit the relationship between the “collusion” and obstruction components of the Mueller investigation. Specifically, I now believe they are far more integrated with one another than I previously understood.

Wait, there were people that thought Comey's firing was not about obstruction?

Whoa.

I went to bed early and just saw this news. The story is that rather than just being focused on 2016 (as most media and Trump's own flailing defenders have assumed), Mueller has also been coordinating a real-time counterintelligence investigation on the administration itself this whole time. And this investigation has been done with cooperation from allied intelligence agencies who have been focused on Putin/Trump like nothing else since 2016.

It's pretty hard to overestimate the significance of this. I hope we're ready.

And the tweetstorm has begun...

He's slamming Comey (irrelevantly) and calling the FBI a corrupt mess. Hasn't called it the Deep State yet, but I imagine he's dreaming of a purge.

I don't think Trump's presidency survives 2019. I have a feeling that when the shoe drops, it's going to be YUGE.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:31 am I don't think Trump's presidency survives 2019. I have a feeling that when the shoe drops, it's going to be YUGE.

I agree it likely doesn't survive 2019 at this point. If it does, then the United States as a Republic will almost certainly fall sometime thereafter. Someone or some group with competence will come along "to solve" our never ending political problems. If he goes, we need to think about massive reform of our form of government. Either Congress has to take back powers or we need to re-write parts of the Constitution. Hoping that we return to norms of governance is naive. Especially since we've gotten a glimpse of the abyss.

Check this article out. Gives an interesting perspective.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... l-theories

What if there were no collusion or conspiracy but simple cognitive bias on both sides, where the actions of one seemed to confirm precisely the suspicions of the other?

We now have a clear picture of what the two sides were seeing at the start of the Trump administration. At the FBI, investigators, including then director James Comey, actively considered the unthinkable possibility that the president was controlled by Russia. At the White House, Trump believed his associates and campaign had been placed under investigation by officials with close ties to Democratic figures. What happened next could be a lesson in cognitive bias, and it could explain a lot.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:04 pm Long read, but this is some very interesting analysis. Tl:dr version:

The analysis that follows is lengthy and takes a number of twists and turns before laying out what I think is the significance of the whole thing. Here’s the bottom line: I believe that between today’s New York Times story and some other earlier material I have been sifting through and thinking about, we might be in a position to revisit the relationship between the “collusion” and obstruction components of the Mueller investigation. Specifically, I now believe they are far more integrated with one another than I previously understood.

Great piece. Well thought out and written. Long, but necessarily so.

Newcastle wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:40 pm Check this article out. Gives an interesting perspective.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... l-theories

What if there were no collusion or conspiracy but simple cognitive bias on both sides, where the actions of one seemed to confirm precisely the suspicions of the other?

We now have a clear picture of what the two sides were seeing at the start of the Trump administration. At the FBI, investigators, including then director James Comey, actively considered the unthinkable possibility that the president was controlled by Russia. At the White House, Trump believed his associates and campaign had been placed under investigation by officials with close ties to Democratic figures. What happened next could be a lesson in cognitive bias, and it could explain a lot.

It is interesting but I think he gets major elements of his theory wrong on the FBI side. One, the dossier wasn't the source of the investigation. That it might have influenced the investigation is a possibility but he places heavy weight on it being a key factor for his theory. He also appeals to the authority of others about its veracity even though evidence that was confirmed is likely classified. There is no reason to believe it or not to be honest based on the public record.

His thoughts about Carter Page ignore that Page was under surveillance for years and had multiple FISA warrants authorized against him. In other words, there is very likely other evidence the public isn't privy to that also influenced a decision to pursue a counterintelligence operation. For example, there was the bombshell that Manafort passed internal campaign polling data to a suspected russian intelligence asset this week. There is the bizarre 'adoption meeting' in Trump tower too. So there is a lot of smoke for the counterintelligence argument. Pinning it on cognitive bias is...not too persuasive just based on that alone much less the detailed evidence the FBI likely has access to.

The half about how Trump sees things is far more plausible. Is Trump a russian asset? Almost certainly not. He is a narcissist braggart and fool. Maybe that makes him a great recruit but it also seems like he'd be a big risk. Still, It is possible that Trump was involved and agreed for many reasons including appeals to his greed and ego, financial pressure, or plain old trickery on Russia's part. Or he had no idea it was happening and he just happened to be guided into hiring people who were all aligned with Russian interests...though that seems pretty far fetched at this point.

Edit: @RadioFreeTom has a slightly different way of 'criticizing' the Turley piece as well.

Nothing suspicious here. No sir.

House committee chairs can call the interpreter to testify.

Then it will be up to Trump to claim "executive privilege," at which point it goes to the courts.

Great look for the POTUS.

He went on Fox News last night and attacked everyone involved with the Putin Washington Post story including Bezos saying that the meeting with Putin was open for everyone there. Widely reported as not true. He is frantic at this point. I'm beginning to believe the man is 100% caught and knows it.

He also threw out a quality implied threat about Cohen's father-in-law. Basically he said something along the lines of they should look into Cohen's father-in-law because there is a huge story there. Then Pirro asked what his name was...and Trump said he didn't know. Which would have been hilarious in its own way if he wasn't making an implied threat to keep Cohen's mouth shut. This is insanity.

I'm hoping for collateral damage to Fox, but since I'm still not convinced anything will come of any of this (except maybe in the polls), it's not much of a hope.

Read another disingenuous headline from Fox last night that I refused to click on. I don't remember what it was, only that it was disgusting in how it chose to spin things.

If Drumpf goes down I hope it comes to light that Fox knew things that it kept from the American public. Every single thing the MSM is accused of applies specifically to Fox. I get that conservatives need a larger voice in media, but Fox is not the answer. Changing reality so it matches your political outlook is dishonest and dangerous, and I'll call out any media that does it, not just Fox.

New Chair of the House Intel Committee wrote:Last year, we sought to obtain the interpreter’s notes or testimony, from the private meeting between Trump and Putin. The Republicans on our committee voted us down. Will they join us now? Shouldn’t we find out whether our president is really putting “America first?”

"The Republicans on our committee voted us down."

I was wondering why there had been no public follow-up on Trump's several private meetings with Putin.

Now we know. The GOP is so desperate for there to be no collusion that they literally refused to look into it.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:59 pmI was wondering why there had been no public follow-up on Trump's several private meetings with Putin.

Now we know. The GOP is so desperate for there to be no collusion that they literally refused to look into it.

I don't think this is a surprise. Many have been complaining about this since the beginning. The Republicans were constantly carrying water for the WH especially in the House. It became absurd at times with Nunes literally huddling with administration folks before returning to 'investigate' them. FWIW - some of this was previously covered. Specifically a Congressional interview with the interpreter was debated in the 'public sphere' last summer.

It turns out that the military still has the death penalty on the books for treason (broken down as aiding the enemy; espionage; lurking as a spy or acting as a spy; mutiny or sedition), but despite having 14 prisoners on death row, none have been executed since 1961. So the odds of the CinC facing a firing squad are even lower than I had thought. Not that Trump is likely to face a military tribunal anyway, but one can dream.

I just want off this ride. It's just too much for my poor heart.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:59 pmNow we know. The GOP is so desperate for there to be no collusion that they literally refused to look into it.

My (educated) guess is that the reason they don't want the investigation to happen is because many more of them have been bought and sold with Putin's money. What's hilarious is that it probably wasn't even a ton of money either. Likely just a token amount that went into their campaign coffers with on one the wiser and the promise they'll look the other way and/or adopt a policy of non-interference.And they did it because no one - not Trump, not the GOP and certainly not the general public believed Trump was going to actually win. Go back -- look at the photo from election night of Trump in his campaign headquarters. He has the "Oh shit..." face while everyone else is thrilled. He never wanted any of this and was hoping to somehow pivot his political run into another scam that he could pass on to his children.

I can only hope these reports are true and that Mueller has them all dead-to-rights. Remember right after the election the prediction was that Trump will die in a jail cell? Here's hoping - and that he has plenty of company.

malchior wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:55 am He also threw out a quality implied threat about Cohen's father-in-law. Basically he said something along the lines of they should look into Cohen's father-in-law because there is a huge story there. Then Pirro asked what his name was...and Trump said he didn't know. Which would have been hilarious in its own way if he wasn't making an implied threat to keep Cohen's mouth shut. This is insanity.

This would likely have raised howls for impeachment for any President prior to Trump. Sadly, we've become so desensitized to his insanity that it barely even registers anymore. The whole "frog in a boiling pot" analogy is certainly apt for where we are as a country these days.

It did draw him a warning from multiple House Oversight Committes though, for whatever that's worth.

What are the chances that Cohen, Drumpf's long time attack dog lawyer, or his father-in-law have money through illegal means, that Drumpf knows about, but somehow Drumpf isn't involved in?

Let me say it another way.

If Cohen's father-in-law is involved in dirty money, and Drumpf knows about it, Drumpf is almost certainly also involved in it.

i.e. careful what you wish for, Mr. President.

Also, if any of what I'm suggesting is true, Drumpf continues to demonstrate how he is the stupidest man to ever sit in the WH. Lastly, why on earth would you make your threats in public for the whole world to witness? Good lord.