TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED

[syscom3]

“The very good news for the president is that the indictments are firm in saying that any Americans contacted by the 13 charged Russians, including Trump campaign associates, did not know they were dealing with Russians.

The indictments also state forcefully that despite their social media efforts, which ranged from creative to clumsy, the Russians had no impact on the election results.


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced those findings in a flat monotone that belied their significance.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,” he said. “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the election”

 

[syscom3]

@WhiteOutNow I agree we don't want Pence either but I hope they are all taken out and removed. But History repeats itself and so it will be with Pence similar to another Republican V.P. who took office after his President fell - see Gerald Ford:

View attachment 1710397

America’s 38th president, Gerald Ford (1913-2006) took office on August 9, 1974, following the resignation of President Richard Nixon (1913-1994), who left the White House in disgrace over the Watergate scandal. Ford became the first unelected president in the nation’s history. A longtime Republican congressman from Michigan, Ford had been appointed vice president less than a year earlier by President Nixon. He is credited with helping to restore public confidence in government after the disillusionment of the Watergate era.

Ford understood that his decision to pardon Nixon could have political consequences, and it probably cost him the presidency in 1976. That year, he lost a close election to Democrat Jimmy Carter (1924-). Ford took the loss in stride, however, telling friends that he had planned to retire from Congress that year anyway. He viewed his brief tenure in the Oval Office as an unexpected bonus at the end of a long career in politics. Ford often said that he was pleased to have had the opportunity to help the nation emerge from the shadow of Watergate.

ref: http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/gerald-r-ford

Except the indictment states the Trump campaign officials were exonerated.

 

[cuckoldroy]

THIS WAS THE ULTIMATE BOGUS-MOGUS STORY AND A BLATANT FLAT-OUT LIE THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER LEFT HIS LIPS. THIS IS WHY HE HAS ZERO CRED AND HAS STOKED THE IRE OF MANY IN THIS COUNTRY. CANT EVER RESPECT SOMEONE LIKE THIS WHATSOEVER.

View attachment 1224977
View attachment 1224978
WHAT LIES WILL HE SPREAD NEXT. HIM AND HIS BESTY P U T I N ARE ALREADY DOING A GOOD JOB TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL OVER THE WORLDS EYES THAT THEY ARE ON THE OUTS. LOVERS QUARREL.
THE LYING DAYS FOR AGENT ORANGE ARE NUMBERED.
View attachment 1224982
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wiretapping-smoking-gun-evidence-unmasking-susan-rice-2017-4​

 

[cuckoldroy]

View attachment 1710354
View attachment 1710355
TUCK FRUMP!!!!! - HIS RUMP IS ALMOST COOKED.
I WAS 100% RIGHT ON MY CALL FROM DAY-ONE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN - THE NON-BELIEVERS ARE LATE AND SLOW TO WAKE-UP.
WHAT MUELLER DID TODAY WAS ABSOLUTE GENIUS.
NOW THAT HE HAS INDICTED RUSSIANS AS COMMITTING A CRIME IN MEDDLING IN THE US ELECTIONS AND BETTER YET THE WHITE-HOUSE ATTORNEY MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT - TRUMP NOR ANY OF HIS SUPPORTERS CAN NO-LONGER BE IN DENIAL AND SAY THAT ITS JUST 'FAKE NEWS'. BUT THATS NOT THE BEST PART.
THE BEST PART IS THAT ANY AMERICAN'S WHO KNEW OR AIDED THE RUSSIANS HERE ARE NOW ALSO ACCESSORIES TO A CRIME. YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING. GET READY EVERYONE, THIS IS WATERGATE WE ARE WATCHING ALL IN THE MAKING - CONNECTIONS TO FLYNN-MANAFORT-PAPADOPULOUS-GATES-KUSHNER TO RUSSIA, COMEY INVESTIGATING, TRUMP FIRING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE FROM BEING ADMINISTERED !!!!!
THREE MEN ALREADY CLOSE TO TRUMP'S CIRCLE HAVE ALREADY FLIPPED TO MUELLER, MANAFORT IS NEXT!!!!!!
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!
View attachment 1710358
Seven key takeaways from the Russian indictments

Anthony Zurcher North America reporter @awzurcher on Twitter

• 16 February 2018

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has dropped another Friday blockbuster with his sweeping indictment of three organisations and 13 Russian nationals for meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.
For the first time the special counsel's team has taken dead aim at its central mandate in the investigation and laid bare the scope of what it alleges was a multi-million-dollar Russian operation to sow discord in American politics as far back as 2014.
Here's a look at some of the key passages of the 37-page indictment and what they mean.
No knowledge, no collusion
"Some defendants, posing as US persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to seek to co-ordinate political activities."
This is the key passage for the White House's effort to downplay the threat this indictment poses to Donald Trump and his presidency.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in announcing the indictments, added that there was "no allegation in this indictment that any American had knowledge" of Russian activity.
Critics will highlight the "in this indictment" portion of that statement. While Mr Mueller's document asserts no Trump-connected individuals knew they were dealing with Russians, this isn't the end of the investigation.
Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!​

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 16, 2018​

Report

End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
The president, via Twitter and in a White House statement, insists this is proof that there was no collusion. It's better to say that there's no collusion alleged here. That certainly bolsters the White House's principal argument, but it doesn't cover any possible indictments to come. What this indictment, if it is substantiated, does do is devastate Mr Trump's past insistence that allegations of Russian meddling were a hoax.

• The Trump-Russia saga in 200 words
• Full text of the Russia indictment

It wasn't just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
"They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump."
The indictment paints a picture of a multi-year, multi-prong effort to "sow discord" in the US political process dating back to 2014, before Mr Trump entered the presidential race.
The Russians, according to Mr Mueller's team, familiarised themselves with the US political process and then took action to support - or undermine - a variety of political candidates. They allegedly attacked several of Mr Trump's rivals in the Republican primary and backed Bernie Sanders, who mounted a populist challenge to Mrs Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

They also used social media, investigators say, to rally support for Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the general election, including an Instagram account that told black liberal activists to "choose peace and vote for Jill Stein" and that it wasn't "a wasted vote".
In several key Mid-western states, the number of Stein votes was greater than Mr Trump's margin of victory over Mrs Clinton.
A cloak and dagger operation
"Krylova and Bogacheva, together with other Defendants and co-conspirators, planned travel itineraries, purchased equipment (such as cameras, SIM cards and drop phones) and discussed security measures (including "evacuation scenarios") for Defendants who travelled to the United States."
One of the more breathtaking revelations of the indictment was that Russian attempts to influence the US presidential election went well beyond "virtual" efforts on social media. It included actual Russian nationals entering the US under false pretences and posing as Americans to conduct clandestine activities, according to the document.
It's the kind of espionage activity that harkens back to the Cold War and an indication of the seriousness and sophistication behind the Russian efforts.
Crimes were committed
"Defendants, together with others known and unknown to the grand jury, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the US Department of Justice and the US Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities."
There had been a line of argument from some Donald Trump supporters that Russian meddling efforts, even if proven, wouldn't constitute a criminal offence and a connection between Russia and the Trump campaign, if established, wouldn't be a fatal blow.

• The tactics of a Russian troll farm
• Trump Russia affair: Key questions answered
• Who's who in Russia scandal?

Mr Mueller's indictment lays out a number of ways in which what Russia is alleged to have done constitutes actual violations of criminal statutes - including wire fraud, identity theft and violations of election law.
It seems unlikely in the extreme that any of the individuals named in this indictment will end up facing any trial in the US. The Russian government has already said that the allegations are "absurd". That is probably not the point. This all matters because it establishes that any Americans who had knowledge of the Russian activity participated in a criminal endeavour and consequently could be vulnerable to prosecution.
No Americans have been named, of course, the investigation isn't over yet.
A targeted effort
"Defendants and their co-conspirators, posing as US persons, communicated with a real US person affiliated with a Texas-based grassroots organisation. Defendants and their co-conspirators learned from the real US person that they should focus their activities on "purple states like Colorado, Virginia & Florida."
This is another of the more remarkable revelations of the extent to which Russian nationals tried to gather information about US electoral process and strategy as part of their alleged attempts to influence the US presidential race.
They contacted actual US political experts, who directed them to target key states in the Electoral College - including Virginia, Colorado and Florida.
It appears, from the indictment, that the Russians paid particular attention to Florida, which Mr Trump would eventually win by a 1.2% margin (Mrs Clinton carried the other two states mentioned).
Real people, real rallies
"Defendants and their co-conspirators updated an internal organization list of over 100 real US persons contacted through organization-controlled false US persona accounts and tracked to monitor recruitment efforts and requests."
Up until now, much of the attention on Russian election meddling had been focused on their social media efforts - fake Twitter accounts, Facebook adverts and the like. The indictment, however, details much more.

Hundreds of Americans were allegedly contacted and recruited to support pro-Trump efforts. Individuals were paid to attend Trump events, including one who went to several dressed like Mrs Clinton in prison garb, investigators say. They even allegedly ordered the construction of a mock cage for the Clinton impersonator that could be transported on the back of a flatbed truck.
Rallies themselves were organised and promoted. A Florida-based grassroots activist was allegedly wired money to purchase materials for a Miami event.
All in all, Russian operatives were effectively engaging in - and funding - traditional on-the-ground campaign activities. Mr Trump has asserted that the "results of the election were not impacted".
While it's impossible to tell whether Russia's alleged multi-million-dollar effort tipped the balance to the Republican, it's much more difficult to say it had no effect whatsoever.
It didn't end on election day
"After the election of Donald Trump in or around November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used false US personas to organise and co-ordinate US political rallies in support of then president-elect Trump, while simultaneously using other false U.S. personas to organise and co-ordinate US political rallies protesting the results of the 2016 US presidential election."
If the real point of the alleged Russian meddling was to "sow discord" in the US political system, those efforts wouldn't conclude upon Mr Trump's election - and, according to the indictment, they didn't.

In the days after the election, Russians were playing both sides against each other - encouraging rallies both for and against Mr Trump.
The president's supporters have cited this as evidence that the Russians were as interested in undermining their man as much as helping him - although that's undermined by actual communications Mr Mueller cites in the indictment, in which "specialists" were told the organisation supported Mr Trump and Mr Sanders.
What the post-election rallies demonstrate, however, is that the Russian efforts haven't ended. US intelligence officials, in testimony before Congress earlier this week said essentially the same thing - that the Russians, undeterred, will seek to continue to foment chaos in the days ahead, including during the 2018 US congressional midterm elections.
The question, then, is what the US does - or does not do - to prepare and respond.
ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43093260
NAH - NAH - NAH - NAH - HEY HEY HEY - GOOD-BYE SUCKAZ!!!!!
View attachment 1710360

 

[BigBlackBull76]

Except the indictment states the Trump campaign officials were exonerated.

“The very good news for the president is that the indictments are firm in saying that any Americans contacted by the 13 charged Russians, including Trump campaign associates, did not know they were dealing with Russians.

The indictments also state forcefully that despite their social media efforts, which ranged from creative to clumsy, the Russians had no impact on the election results.


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced those findings in a flat monotone that belied their significance.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,” he said. “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the election”

LOL - you believe that is just the end then your very sadly mistaken and more lost or brainwashed than I thought. Trump cherry picked from the indictment to tweet out that he is exonerated but clowns like him and his followers have short-sighted understanding of how you build a legitimate case. Mueller had to first establish in the Federal courts that a crime had been committed which now refutes everything Trump says about this being a witch hunt. Thats fact and Point 1.

That was only the begging and while Mueller didn't call out any ties to the Trump campaign specifically in those indictments its only the tip top of the iceberg in which the moutain of evidence against Trump's cabal lay beneath the surface of what Mueller knows and why he wants to question Trump directly to catch his lying coninving ass under oath. He has Flynn, Papadopulous, and he will flip Manafort eventually unless that rat decides to ******* himself to avoid speaking first.

Its also why Trump and his cabal with Faux News and Nunes have expended so much time to fight and try to discredit the Steele Dossier Memo as they know they are in deep ******* with every investigative lead being followed which Mueller has already done. There is way more of preponderance of information and evidence leaning towards Trump colluding than there is his hands being squeaky clean.

But don't take my word for it, here take it from some ex-CIA INTEL officers who can tell you better than anyone. Of course you'll just say its the Deep State but remember Comey, Rodstein, Mueller (who all received their political appointments by Trump) and more than half of the US INTEL Services are republicans not liberal Demos.


This piece was originally published on Just Security.
Recent revelations of Trump campaign connections to Russia have revived interest in the Steele dossier. The dossier is composed of a batch of short reports produced between June and December 2016 by Orbis Business Intelligence, a London-based firm specializing in commercial intelligence for government and private-sector clients. The collection of Orbis reports caused an uproar when it was published online by BuzzFeed just 10 days before Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Taken together, the series of reports painted a picture of active collusion between the Kremlin and key Trump campaign officials based on years of Russian intelligence work against Trump and some of his associates. This seemed to complement general statements from U.S. intelligence officials about Russia’s active efforts to undermine the 2016 election. The greatest attention was paid to the first report, which conveyed salacious claims about Trump consorting with prostitutes in Moscow in 2013. Trump himself publicly refuted the story, while Trump associates denied reported details about their engagement with Russian officials. A lot of ink and pixels were also spent on the question whether it was appropriate for the media to publish the dossier.
Almost immediately after the dossier was leaked, media outlets and commentators pointed out that the material was unproven. News editors affixed the terms “unverified” and “unsubstantiated” to all discussion of the issue. Political supporters of President Trump simply tagged it as “fake news.” Riding that wave, legendary Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward characterized the report as “garbage.”

For professional investigators, however, the dossier is by no means a useless document. Although the reports were produced episodically—almost erratically—over a five-month period, they present a coherent narrative of collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. As a result, they offer an overarching framework for what might have happened based on information from individuals on the Russian side who claimed to have insight into Moscow’s goals and operational tactics. Until we have another more credible narrative, we should do all we can to examine closely and confirm or dispute the reports.

Many of my former CIA colleagues have taken the Orbis reports seriously since they were first published. This is not because they are not fond of Trump (and many admittedly are not) but because they understand the potential plausibility of the reports’ overall narrative based on their experienced understanding of both Russian methods and the nature of raw intelligence reporting. Immediately following the BuzzFeed leak, one of my closest former CIA colleagues told me that he recognized the reports as the obvious product of a former British Secret Intelligence Service officer, since the format, structure, and language mirrored what he had seen over a career of reading SIS reports provided to CIA in liaison channels. He and others withheld judgment about the veracity of the reports, but for the reasons I outline further below they did not reject them out of hand. In fact, they were more inclined for professional reasons to put them in the “trust but verify” category.

How should we unpack the Steele dossier from an intelligence perspective?

So how should we unpack the Steele dossier from an intelligence perspective?

I spent almost 30 years producing what CIA calls “raw reporting” from human agents. At heart, this is what Orbis did. They were not producing finished analysis, but were passing on to a client distilled reporting that they had obtained in response to specific questions. When disseminating a raw intelligence report, an intelligence agency is not vouching for the accuracy of the information provided by the report’s sources and/or subsources. Rather it is claiming that it has made strenuous efforts to validate that it is reporting accurately what the sources/subsources claim has happened. The onus for sorting out the veracity and for putting the reporting in context against other reporting—which may confirm or disconfirm the reporting—rests with the intelligence community’s professional analytic cadre. In the case of the dossier, Orbis was not saying that everything that it reported was accurate, but that it had made a good-faith effort to pass along faithfully what its identified insiders said was accurate. This is routine in the intelligence business. And this form of reporting is often a critical product in putting together more final intelligence assessments.

Steele’s product is not a report delivered with a bow at the end of an investigation. Instead, it is a series of contemporaneous raw reports that do not have the benefit of hindsight. Among the unnamed sources are “a senior Russian foreign ministry official,” “a former top-level intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,” and “a close associate of Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.” Thus, the reports are not an attempt to connect the dots, but instead an effort to uncover new and potentially relevant dots in the first place.

Let me illustrate what the reports contain by unpacking the first and most notorious of the 17 Orbis reports, and then move to some of the other ones. The first two-and-a-half page report was dated June 20, 2016, and entitled “Company Intelligence Report 2016/080.” It starts with several summary bullets and continues with additional detail attributed to sources A through E and G (there may be a source F but part of the report is blacked out). The report makes a number of explosive claims, all of which at the time of the report were unknown to the public.

Among other assertions, three sources in the Orbis report describe a multi-year effort by Russian authorities to cultivate, support, and assist Donald Trump. According to the account, the Kremlin provided Trump with intelligence on his political primary opponents and access to potential business deals in Russia. Perhaps more importantly, Russia had offered to provide potentially compromising material on Hillary Clinton, consisting of bugged conversations during her travels to Russia, and evidence of her viewpoints that contradicted her public positions on various issues.
The report also alleged that the internal Russian intelligence service, FSB, had developed potentially compromising material on Trump, to include details of “perverted sexual acts” which were arranged and monitored by the FSB.

The report stated that Russian President Putin was supportive of the effort to cultivate Trump, and the primary aim was to sow discord and disunity within the U.S. and the West. The dossier of FSB-collected information on Hillary Clinton was purportedly managed by Kremlin chief spokesman Dimitry Peskov.

Subsequent reports provide additional detail about the possible conspiracy, which includes information about cyberattacks against the U.S. [BBB76: Now proven true by Mueller's 1st Indictment] They allege that former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort managed the plot to exploit political information on Hillary Clinton in return for information on Russian oligarchs outside Russia, and an agreement to “sideline” Ukraine as a campaign issue. [BBB76: Which is what Manafort is indicted for now and the Russian Oligarch has filed a countersuti against Manafort partly related to this.] According to the report, Trump campaign operative Carter Page is also said to have played a role in shuttling information to Moscow, while Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly took over efforts after Manafort left the campaign, allegedly providing cash payments for Russian hackers. In one account, Putin and his aides expressed concern over kickbacks of cash to Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which they feared might be discoverable by U.S. authorities. The Kremlin also feared that the U.S. might stumble onto the conspiracy through the actions of a Russian diplomat in Washington, Mikhail Kalugin, and therefore had him withdrawn, according to the reports.

In late fall 2016, the Orbis team reported that a Russian-supported company had been “using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.” Hackers recruited by the FSB under duress were involved in the operations. According to the report, Cohen insisted that payments be made quickly and discreetly, and that cyber operators should go to ground and cover their tracks.
What should be made of these leaked reports with unnamed sources on issues that were deliberately concealed by the participants? Honest media outlets have reported on subsequent events that appear to be connected to the reports, but do not go too far with their analysis, concluding still that the dossier is unverified. Almost no outlets have reported on the salacious sexual allegations, leaving the public with very little sense as to whether the dossier is true, false, important, or unimportant in that respect.

What should be made of these leaked reports with unnamed sources on issues that were deliberately concealed by the participants?

While the reluctance of the media to speculate as to the value of the report is understandable, professional intelligence analysts and investigators do not have the luxury of simply dismissing the information. They instead need to do all they can to put it into context, determine what appears credible, and openly acknowledge the gaps in understanding so that collectors can seek additional information that might help make sense of the charges.

In the intelligence world, we always begin with source validation, focusing on what intelligence professionals call “the chain of acquisition.” In this case we would look for detailed information on (in this order) Orbis, Steele, his means of collection (e.g., who was working for him in collecting information), his sources, their sub-sources (witting or unwitting), and the actual people, organizations and issues being reported on.

Intelligence methodology presumes that perfect information is never available, and that the vetting process involves cross-checking both the source of the information as well as the information itself. There is a saying among spy handlers, “vet the source first before attempting to vet the source’s information.” Information from human sources (the spies themselves) is dependent on their distinct access to information, and every source has a particular lens. Professional collectors and debriefing experts do not elicit information from a source outside of the source’s area of specific access. They also understand that inaccuracies are inevitable, even if the source is not trying to mislead. The intelligence process is built upon a feedback cycle that corroborates what it can, and then goes back to gather additional information to help build confidence in the assessment. The process is dispassionate, unemotional, professional, and never-ending.

Faced with the raw reports in the Orbis document, how might an intelligence professional approach the jumble of information?
The first thing to examine is Christopher Steele, the author of the reports, and his organization Orbis International. Are they credible?
Steele was the president of the Cambridge Union, and was a career British intelligence officer with service in Moscow, Paris, and Afghanistan prior to work as the head of the Russia desk at British intelligence HQS. While in London he worked as the personal handler of Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko. He was a respected professional who had success in some of the most difficult intelligence environments. He retired from SIS in 2009 and started Orbis Business Intelligence along with a former colleague. Prior to his work on the Russian dossier for Orbis, he was best-known for his investigation of the world soccer association FIFA, which provided direct support to the FBI’s successful corruption case. Steele and Orbis were also known for assisting various European countries in understanding Russian efforts to meddle in their affairs. [BBB76: Christoper Steele is 100% far more credible and has credentials that back him up than Trump, Faux News, or Nunes]

Like any private firm, Orbis’ ability to remain in business relies on its track record of credibility. Success for Steele and his colleagues depends on his integrity, reliability, and the firm’s reputation for serious work. In this regard, Steele is putting his reputation and his company’s continued existence on the line with each report. Yes, as with anyone operating in the murky world of intelligence, he could be duped. Nonetheless, his reputation for handling sensitive Russian espionage operations over the years suggests that he is security conscious and aware of Russian counterintelligence and disinformation efforts. His willingness to share his work with professional investigative agencies, such as the FBI and the British Security Service, also suggest that he is comfortable opening his work to scrutiny and is seen as a serious partner by the best in the business.

The biggest problem with confirming the details of the Steele “dossier” is obvious: We do not know his sources other than via the short descriptions in the reports. In CIA’s clandestine service, we spent by far the bulk of our work finding, recruiting and validating sources. Before we would ever consider disseminating an intelligence report, we would move heaven and earth to understand the access, reliability, trustworthiness, motivation, and dependability of our source. We believe it is critical to validate the source before we can validate the reliability of the source’s information. How does the source know about what he/she is reporting? How did the source get the information? Who are his/her sub-sources? What do we know about the sub-sources? Why is the source sharing the information? Is the source a serious person who has taken appropriate measures to protect their efforts?

One clue as to the credibility of the sources in these reports is that Steele shared them with the FBI. The fact that the FBI reportedly sought to work with him and to pay him to develop additional information on the sources suggest that at least some of them were worth taking seriously. At the very least, the FBI will be able to validate the credibility of the sources, and therefore better judge the information. As one recently retired senior intelligence officer with deep experience in espionage investigations quipped, “I assign more credence to the Steele report knowing that the FBI paid him for his research. From my experience, there is nobody more miserly than the FBI. If they were willing to pay Mr. Steele, they must have seen something of real value.”

As outsiders without the investigative tools available to the FBI, we can only look at the information and determine if it makes sense given subsequent events. Steele did not have the benefit of knowing Trump would win the election or how events might play out.

In this regard, does any of the information we have learned since June 2016 assign greater or less credibility to the information?

Were the people mentioned in the report real? Were their affiliations correct?

Did any of the activities reported happen as predicted?

To a large extent, yes.

Were the people mentioned in the report real? Were their affiliations correct? Did any of the activities reported happen as predicted? To a large extent, yes.

The most obvious occurrence that could not have been known to Orbis in June 2016, but shines bright in retrospect is the fact that Russia undertook a coordinated and massive effort to disrupt the 2016 election to help Donald Trump, as the U.S. intelligence community itself later concluded. Well before any public knowledge of these events, the Orbis report identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to reportedly discuss the receipt of stolen documents. Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate.

The U.S. government only published its conclusions in January 2017, with an assessment of some elements in October 2016. It was also apparently news to investigators when the New York Times in July published Donald Trump Jr.’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton in a meeting that included Manafort. How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton unless at least some of its information was correct? How could Steele and Orbis have known about the Russian overtures to the Trump Team involving derogatory information on Clinton?

We have also subsequently learned of Trump’s long-standing interest in, and experience with Russia and Russians. A February New York Times article reported that phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian officials in the year before the election. The Times article was also corroborated by CNN and Reuters independent reports. And even Russian officials have acknowledged some of these and other repeated contacts. Although Trump has denied the connections, numerous credible reports suggest that both he and Manafort have long-standing relationships with Russians, and pro-Putin groups. Last month, CNN reported on “intercepted communications that US intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort … to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton’s election prospects” including “conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.”

We learned that when Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, he met with close Putin ally and chairman of the Russian state oil company, Igor Sechin. A later Steele report also claimed that he met with parliamentary secretary Igor Divyekin while in Moscow. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff reported in September 2016 that U.S. intelligence sources confirmed that Page met with both Sechin and Divyekin during his July trip to Russia. What’s more, the Justice Department obtained a wiretap in summer 2016 on Page after satisfying for a court that there was sufficient evidence to show Page was operating as a Russian agent.

While the Orbis team had no way to know it, subsequent reports citing U.S. officials claimed that Washington-based diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was an undercover intelligence officer and was pulled out of the Embassy and sent home in summer 2016.
The Orbis documents refer repeatedly to Manafort’s “off-the-books” payments from ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, and Russian concerns that it may be a vulnerability that could jeopardize the effort. According to the Orbis report, the Russians were concerned about “further scandals involving Manafort’s commercial and political role in Russia/Ukraine.” And, indeed, there have been further scandals since the Orbis reports were written. Those include Manafort being compelled in June to register retroactively as a foreign agent of a pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine, and special counsel Robert Mueller’s and the New York attorney general’s office reported investigation of Manafort for possible money laundering and tax evasion linked to Ukrainian ventures.

We do not have any reporting that implicates Michael Cohen in meetings with Russians as outlined in the dossier. However, recent revelations indicate his long-standing relationships with key Russian and Ukrainian interlocutors, and highlight his apparent role in a previously hidden effort to build a Trump tower in Moscow. During the campaign, those efforts included email exchanges with Trump associate Felix Sater explicitly referring to getting Putin’s circle involved and helping Trump get elected.

Further, the Trump administration’s effort lift sanctions on Russia immediately following the inauguration seems to mirror Orbis reporting related to Cohen’s alleged promises to Russia, as reported in the Orbis documents. A June Yahoo News article by Isikoff described the administration’s efforts to engage the State Department about lifting sanctions “almost as soon as they took office.” Their efforts were halted by State Department officials and members of Congress. Following the inauguration, Cohen was allegedly involved, again with Felix Sater, in back-channel negotiations seeking a means to lift sanctions via a semi-developed Russian–Ukrainian plan—which also included the hand delivery of derogatory information on Ukrainian leaders. This also would fit with Orbis reporting related to Cohen.

The quid pro quo as alleged in the dossier was for the Trump team to “sideline” the Ukrainian issue in the campaign. We learned subsequently that the Trump platform committee changed only a single plank in the 60-page Republican platform prior to the Republican convention. Of the hundreds of Republican positions and proposals, they altered only the single sentence that called for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military. The Trump team reportedly changed the wording to the more benign, “appropriate assistance.”

A slew of other revelations has directly tied many of the key players in the Trump campaign to Russian officials also mentioned in the reports.

Consider, in addition, the Orbis report saying that Russia was utilizing hackers to influence voters and referring to payments to “hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign.” A January Stanford study found that “fabricated stories favoring Donald Trump were shared a total of 30 million times, nearly quadruple the number of pro–Hillary Clinton shares leading up to the election.” Also, in November, researchers at Oxford University published a report based on analysis of 19.4 million Twitter posts from early November prior to the election. The report found that an “automated army of pro-Trump chatbots overwhelmed Clinton bots five to one in the days leading up to the presidential election.” In March 2017, former FBI agent Clint Watts told Congress about websites involved in the Russian disinformation campaign “some of which mysteriously operate from Eastern Europe and are curiously led by pro-Russian editors of unknown financing.”

The Orbis report also refers specifically to the aim of the Russian influence campaign “to swing supporters of Bernie Sanders away from Hillary Clinton and across to Trump,” based on information given to Steele in early August 2016. It was not until March 2017, however, that former director of the National Security Agency, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, in Senate testimony said of the Russian influence campaign, “what they were trying to do is to drive a wedge within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group.” A March news report also detailed that Sanders supporter’s social media sites were infiltrated by fake news, originating from “dubious websites and posters linked back to Eastern Europe,” that tried to shift them against Clinton during the general election.

John Mattes, a former Senate investigator who helped run the online campaign for Sanders, said he was struck by Steele’s report. Mattes said, Steele “was writing in real time about things I was seeing happening in August, but I couldn’t articulate until September.” It is important to emphasize here that Steele’s source for the change in plan was “an ethnic Russian associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump [who] discussed the reaction inside his camp.”

A slew of other revelations has directly tied many of the key players in the Trump campaign—most notably Manafort, Page, Cohen, and Michael Flynn—who are specifically mentioned in the Orbis reports to Russian officials also mentioned in the reports. To take one example, the first report says that Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was responsible for Russia’s compromising materials on Hillary Clinton, and now we have reports that Michael Cohen had contacted Peskov directly in January 2016 seeking help with a Trump business deal in Moscow. This was after Cohen received the email from Trump business associate Felix Sater saying “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this.”

To take another example, the third Orbis report says that Manafort was managing the connection with the Kremlin, and we now know that he was present at the June 9, 2016 meeting with Trump, Jr., Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Rinat Akhmetshin, who has reportedly boasted of his ties to and experience in Soviet intelligence and counterintelligence. According to an Aug. 21 New York Times story, “Akhmetshin told journalists that he was a longtime acquaintance of Paul J. Manafort.”

The Orbis reports chronicle, and subsequent events demonstrate, that the Russian effort evolved over time, adapting to changing circumstances. When their attack seemed to be having an effect, they doubled down, and when it looked like negative media attention was benefiting Clinton, they changed tactics. The Orbis reports detail internal Kremlin frictions between the participants as the summer wore on. If the dossier is to be believed, the Russian effort may well have started as an anti-Clinton operation, and only became combined with the separate effort to cultivate the Trump team when it appeared Trump might win the nomination. The Russian effort was aggressive over the summer months, but seemed to back off and go into cover-up mode following the Access Hollywood revelations and the Obama administration’s acknowledgement of Russian interference in the fall. Perhaps they realized they might have gone too far and were possibly benefitting Clinton.
However, when Trump won, they changed again and engaged with Ambassador Kislyak in Washington to get in touch with others in the Trump transition team. As this process unfolded, control of operation on the Russian side passed from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the FSB, and later to the presidential administration. It should be noted in this context, that the much-reported meetings with Ambassador Kislyak do not seem to be tied to the conspiracy. He is not an intelligence officer, and would be in the position to offer advice on politics, personalities and political culture in the United States, but would not be asked to engage in espionage activity. It is likewise notable that Ambassador Kislyak receives only a passing reference in the Steele dossier, and only having to do with his internal advice on the political fallout in the U.S. in reaction to the Russian campaign.

Russia’s goal all along has been to do damage to America and our leadership role in the world.
Of course, to determine if collusion occurred as alleged in the dossier, we would have to know if the Trump campaign continued to meet with Russian representatives subsequent to the June meeting. As mentioned, in February, the Times, CNN, and Reuters, reported that members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian officials in the year before the election, according to current and former American officials. Subsequent reports cite receipt of intelligence from European security agencies reporting on odd meetings between Trump associates and Russian officials in Europe. And perhaps the best clue that there might be something to the narrative of meetings in summer 2016 was former CIA Director John Brennan’s carefully chosen phrase in front of the Senate intelligence committee about the contacts—“frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late.” This period will likely be the one most closely scrutinized by FBI investigators.

There is also information in the Steele reports that appears wrong or questionable. For example, the notion that Steele and his team could develop so many quality sources with direct access to discussions inside the Kremlin is worth serious skepticism. The CIA and other professional intelligence services rarely developed this kind of access despite expending significant resources over decades, according to published accounts. It is also hard to believe that Orbis could have four separate sources reporting on the alleged sexual incident at the Moscow hotel. The reputation of the elite hotel in the center of Moscow depends on the discretion of its staff, and crossing the FSB is not something taken lightly in Russian society. A source that could be so easily identified would be putting themselves at significant risk.

Further, additional information in the reports cannot be checked without the tools of a professional investigative service. Of course, since the dossier was leaked, and we do not have additional follow-up reports, we don’t know if Orbis would have developed other sources or revised their reporting accordingly as they were able to develop feedback. We also don’t know if the 35 pages leaked by BuzzFeed is the entirety of the dossier. I suspect not.
So, more than a year after the production of the original raw reports, where do we stand?

Want More SCOTUS? Subscribe to Amicus.

Join Dahlia Lithwick and her stable of standout guests for a discussion about the high court and the country’s most important cases.
I think it is fair to say that the report is not “garbage” as several commentators claimed. The Orbis sources certainly got some things right—details that they could not have known prior. Steele and his company appear serious and credible.

Top Comment

Since Trump has repeatedly called out the ****** thing as being especially false I am ****** to conclude that not only did it happen it was probably much worse than originally reported. More...


One large portion of the dossier is crystal clear, certain, consistent, and corroborated. Russia’s goal all along has been to do damage to America and our leadership role in the world. Also, the methods described in the report fit the Russians to a tee. If the remainder of the report is largely true, Russia has a powerful weapon to help achieve its goal. Even if it is largely false, the Kremlin still benefits from the confusion, uncertainty and political churn created by the resulting fallout. In any regard, the administration could help cauterize the damage by being honest, transparent and assisting those looking into the matter. Sadly, the president has done the opposite, ensuring a Russian win no matter what. In any event, I would suspect the Russians will look to muddy the waters and spread false and misleading information to confuse investigators and public officials.

As things stand, both investigators and voters will have to examine the information in their possession and make sense of it as best they can. Professional investigators can marry the report with human and signals intelligence, they can look at call records, travel records, interview people mentioned in the report, solicit assistance from friendly foreign police and intelligence services, subpoena records and tie it to subsequent events that can shed light on the various details. We, on the other hand, will have to do our best to validate the information at hand. Looking at new information through the framework outlined in the Steele document is not a bad place to start.

John Sipher is a former member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service.

ref: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...eele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

 

[BigBlackBull76]

“The very good news for the president is that the indictments are firm in saying that any Americans contacted by the 13 charged Russians, including Trump campaign associates, did not know they were dealing with Russians.

The indictments also state forcefully that despite their social media efforts, which ranged from creative to clumsy, the Russians had no impact on the election results.


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced those findings in a flat monotone that belied their significance.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,” he said. “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the election”

This is false and although you, the White house and FAUX news all tried to pick up on this line to highlight this article and actual event that occurred flys in the face and blows that line up completely and this is only the start as other Americans (many in Trump's circle) who aided and albeited the russians are now accessories to a crime which Mueller can use as leverage to hang their asses.

This is the start of the ending, Chump knows it and his headaches are only getting worse and worse and he'll be too sick to stay in office in anyway. Divine Retribution and karma for the ultimate purveyor of fake-news with his 8yr run on Obama being born in Kenya and a secret Muslim.

TUCK FRUMP!

ref: https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-61#post-1701922

 

[BigBlackBull76]

I have just one word for you, just one word, are you listening....

Ok actually a few words.

NETFLIX
The CONFIDENCE MAN

FRUMP TUCK is going down in the most blazing fire ball of shame that even Nixon will be shaking his head at amazement. There is just so much ******* slowly rising to the surface on this guy. Collusion, sexual assault, numerous adulterous affairs, obstruction of justice, multiple ethical conflicts of interests with his business and POTUS office, mental instability, still facing lawsuits for fraud which he settled on a few but many have rejected the class-action settlement to ******* him to trail which they are very confident he will be found guilty, demonstrates character unbecoming the highest office of the land and total loss of respect for that person occupying the position, diminishing the standing of the nation in the eyes of the global community, and complete absolute bold-face lying to the American people.

The Netflix documentary features so many people that worked directly with Trump in his organization talking about how much he has no idea of what he is doing but is a master marketer. Also the people who do believe in him and support him sound so uninformed and brainwashed (I would use the word unintelligent but chose not to as to not be so offensive to them).

WOW - what country are we living in - an idiocracy obviously.​

 

[syscom3]

Still no indictments or any evidence that Trump was involved. All we have are indictments of Manafort accused of money laundering. Which the Clintons did with impunity too.

You guys are grasping at straws. Get used to saying “president Trump” for the next three years.

Lol

 

[BigBlackBull76]

Still no indictments or any evidence that Trump was involved. All we have are indictments of Manafort accused of money laundering. Which the Clintons did with impunity too.

You guys are grasping at straws. Get used to saying “president Trump” for the next three years.

Lol

Back to my favorite topic on here.


Investigations by Special Prosecutors don't start and stop with just one crime being committed but any crime. See the Clinton Impeachment investigation and the 2nd Season of "HOUSE OF CARDS" for some education of how zig zag those things can go.

Hang on to your "Make America Again" Trump hats cause your gonna be in for one hella of a rough ride and I'll make sure to make you remember it everyday when he's outta of here in disgrace.

​

 

[BigBlackBull76]

Still no indictments or any evidence that Trump was involved. All we have are indictments of Manafort accused of money laundering. Which the Clintons did with impunity too.

You guys are grasping at straws. Get used to saying “president Trump” for the next three years.

Lol

Keep smoking that Trump crack-pipe and living those pipe dreams. We'll see who has the last laugh.

Mueller is doing this the right way, building an indefensible air-tight case which the REPUBs have no choice to ******* and swallow on the slam-dunk smoking gun shoved down their throats of evidence that no-one would be able to refute.

Ask yourself the same questions as has been posed in the great article below.


Today’s guilty plea by Rick Gates might be one of the least surprising developments in the Mueller investigation: It had been clear that the former Trump campaign aide would likely seek a deal almost since the day Gates and his business partner and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort were indicted in October, and we’ve seen reports for weeks that negotiations between Mueller and Gates have been underway.

The move does, though, apply new pressure to Manafort, who will now face in court not just the bank records that originally led to his indictment but also testimony from his former close associate and accomplice in the money-laundering scheme that allegedly involved upward of $60 million. When it comes to Manafort, Gates—who was also a Trump campaign and transition official—knows where the bodies are buried.

That only became more obvious on Thursday, when the special counsel unveiled a new set of charges against Manafort and Gates, a so-called superseding indictment that added more specifics to the money-laundering and bank fraud case brought against them in October. Coupled with the Gates plea, it’s clear that Manafort’s legal problems are likely to get much worse.

Indeed, Mueller's probe is accelerating. Yesterday's new indictment—together with Tuesday’s guilty plea by Alex van der Zwaan, a Dutch lawyer associated with Gates, Manafort, and Ukraine; last Friday's bombshell indictment of 13 Russians and three Russian entities; and now the Gates plea—underscores that Mueller is applying the full strength of the US government’s resources to follow every thread of the investigation. His indictments have astounded Washington with their level of specificity and detail, delivering a litany of facts that he’s confident he can prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt. His hammering of the Dutch lawyer for lying to investigators continues his consistent message that the special counsel’s office will treat seriously anyone who stands in their way.

But almost as intriguing are the threads that Mueller has left hanging, the questions that go unanswered in otherwise highly specific court documents—like the identity of “Person A” in the charges filed against van der Zwaan Tuesday, a veiled reference to someone else involved in the Gates/Manafort/Ukraine milieu who might now face legal jeopardy in the investigation.

Mueller clearly knows where this investigation is going and is methodically building it brick by brick: His first wave of charges, against Manafort, Gates, and George Papadopoulos, established that the Trump campaign had been lying about its contacts with Russians; his second wave—the guilty plea by Michael Flynn—established that those lies extended to figures inside the White House; his third wave of charges, against the Internet Research Agency, establishes that there was a criminal conspiracy to help Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton. Any Americans who knowingly participating in that conspiracy will also, presumably, be vulnerable to prosecution.

None of the rest of us knows where this investigation is heading, not even the targets of the investigation. Three times now Mueller—in the most watched investigation in history—has charged and gotten guilty pleas from people who weren’t even on our radar: Papadopoulos and Richard Pinedo, a Californian who pleaded guilty last Friday to unwittingly aiding the Russians with identity theft, as well as the Dutch lawyer who pleaded guilty earlier this week.

Last summer, I outlined 15 “known unknowns” in the Trump/Russia investigation, unanswered but knowable threads that Mueller’s team could be expected to pull on. The answers to many of those questions are still not public. Yes, we’ve received significant new information about how Dutch intelligence tipped off the US to Russia’s hacking efforts. But we’ve still not seen charges concerning active cyber intrusions—most notably, the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and the stealing of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s emails—one of at least five related probes Mueller is leading right now.

Now, though, months of investigation—including five guilty pleas and the remaining open indictments of Paul Manafort and the 13 Russians involved in the Internet Research Agency—has provided a whole new set of “known unknowns” (a dozen of them, to be exact). Be on the lookout for some of these to become “known knowns” before long.

1. What can Paul Manafort offer Bob Mueller?
The former Trump campaign chairman is 68 years old, so even the two indictments he currently faces could result in a life sentence if he ends up heading to prison—and that’s before Gates’ testimony and any additional charges Mueller might bring. If he decides to cooperate, what can he offer Mueller, particularly on the Trump Tower meeting with Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Russian nationals, where Manafort evidently took copious notes? And then there’s another question, one of the most intriguing since Manafort took his unpaid role as the Trump campaign chair: Why did he get involved in the campaign in the first place? He appears to have had no shortage of reasons to stay off the radar of US authorities, so why did he put himself in such a high-profile position? Now that Gates has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, who else knew about the conspiracy? Mueller has broad latitude to bring charges against anyone else who knew or abetted that conspiracy.

2. What did George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn trade?
This is perhaps the most significant open question to close watchers of the investigation. Both Papadopoulos and Flynn received plea deals in exchange for their cooperation with Mueller’s investigation; Papadopoulos’ guilty plea even included language typically reserved for a witness who has provided active cooperation, like wearing a wire to record conversations with co-conspirators. Presumably, in both cases Mueller was willing to trade because their information was central to his ongoing investigation, but we have yet to see evidence become public that appears to be linked to the cooperation of either Flynn or Papadopoulos—so when will those shoes drop and who did they help Mueller target?

[BBB76: THIS IS ONE THING THAT BLOWS UP IN THE FACE OF BOTH TRUMP & NUNES LYING-ASS COUNTER-ATTACKS AGASINT THE STEELE MEMO:]

3. How did George Papadopoulos know in May 2016 that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton?
We now understand that the Russia investigation began, in part, because of drunken boasting by Papadopoulos to an Australian official, in a London bar in May 2016, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. The Australian government passed that information to US intelligence after the DNC email hack became public. So how did Papadopoulos know—and who else did he tell inside the Trump campaign if and when he did learn about the dirt?

4. What was in the Trump transition documents that so worried witnesses?
We’ve seen some legal scuffling and pearl-clutching over the fact that Mueller has obtained records, including emails, from the Trump presidential transition team. According to Axios, the White House only learned Mueller had the emails when they were used as the basis for questions to witnesses. How were the records relevant to Mueller’s investigation? There was news Monday, from CNN, that Mueller’s interest in Jared Kushner has expanded to include some of his attempts to garner business funding during the transition. This scoop is of a piece with recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker that has pointed to potential security and counterintelligence challenges Kushner may face. Does Kushner have a China problem, in addition to—or instead of—a Russia problem?

5. What happens to Tony Podesta and Vin Weber?
Amid the hubbub surrounding Manafort’s indictment, one of Washington’s longest-reigning power players, Tony Podesta (John Podesta’s brother), abruptly announced his retirement and, effectively, the dissolution of his firm. Rumors have run rampant since then that Podesta and another DC “superlobbyist,” former congressman Vin Weber, face legal jeopardy themselves related to their role in Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine—though they’ve both publicly denied wrongdoing. This may be largely unrelated to the core of Mueller’s probe, but the uncertainty is a sign of a creeping paralysis that is infecting parts of Washington as Mueller churns onward. In Watergate, 69 people ended up being charged and 48 pleaded guilty or were found guilty at trial. Mueller has already brought charges against 19.

6. Who is the third unnamed “traveler” in the last Friday's Mueller indictment?
According to the indictment of the 13 Russians last week, an unnamed and unindicted employee of the IRA traveled to Atlanta for four days in November 2014. The employee appears to be part of the IRA’s IT department, since he or she reported on the trip afterward and filed expenses with the IT director, Sergey P. Polozov, whose job it was to procure servers and other technical infrastructure inside the US to help mask the origins of the IRA’s activity. Mueller’s team surely knows the individual’s name—why didn’t they include it in the indictment and why wasn’t that person indicted at the same time? There are a lot of internal documents, communications, and specific directives cited in the indictment. Does Mueller have another nonpublic cooperator—and, if so, what else has he or she provided to Mueller?

7. Is it a coincidence that the IRA organized a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York for the same day that Wikileaks dumped the DNC emails?
As more evidence emerges through Mueller’s indictments, there are new timelines to trace. The Russian “specialists” at the IRA appear to have devoted significant effort to promoting a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York that was scheduled—weeks in advance—for the same day that Wikileaks dumped tens of thousands of emails stolen from the DNC. How much did the IRA know about and align with the efforts of other Russian entities, like the hacking teams Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear that targeted the DNC, the DCCC, and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta?

8. Which, if any, Americans cooperated with the Russian efforts?
This question goes to the political heart of Mueller’s inquiry. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made a rare public statement last Friday to announce the charges against the Internet Research Agency; he pointedly noted that no Americans were wittingly involved in the matter “in this indictment,” which President Trump wrongly seized upon as vindication (“Case Closed,” he tweeted), but most observers interpreted the statement as an artful way of saying that there might be cooperation alleged in a future indictment.

[BBB76: CHUMP Celebrated too soon!]

For instance, there were three unnamed Trump campaign staff mentioned in the indictment, officials who were approached by IRA specialists. Notably absent from the indictment’s otherwise high level of detail is whether there were replies to those overtures. The new indictment also talks about the IRA’s decision to promote Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who appeared at the same December 2015 dinner in Moscow with Vladimir Putin that Gen. Michael Flynn attended. Is there any link between her attendance and the IRA’s decision to promote her candidacy? Similarly, there are plenty of unanswered questions about the Trump campaign’s repeated contacts with Russian officials and Russian nationals—and their repeated lies about such contacts when asked about them.

9. What was the ongoing evidence of Carter Page’s cooperation with Russian agents?
The widely derided “nothingburger” of the so-called Nunes Memo did establish one intriguing piece of evidence: The 90-day FISA warrant to surveil one-time campaign adviser Page was renewed three times, by three different deputy attorneys general: Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein. Each time, in order for it to have been renewed, there would have needed to be new evidence that Page was still involved in foreign intelligence matters. What exactly was that evidence—and who was Carter Page talking to, well into 2017?

10. How big is “Project Lakhta”?
Mueller’s indictment of the Internet Research Agency refers obliquely to the IRA as part of a “larger… interference operation” funded by the oligarch Yevgeny V. Prigozhin that was known as Project Lakhta. The indictment says, “Project Lahkta had multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States.” Is this a bread crumb pointing toward future indictments or other investigative avenues? Did Project Lakhta also involve other “active measures” conducted by other entities, like perhaps some of the active cyber intrusions we saw conducted by the Russian government’s hacking teams known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear?

[BBB76: HERE IS A BIG BIG BIG QUESTION THAT IS AT THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER WITH THE FIRING OF COMEY AND TIES IT ALL TOGETHER WITH COLLUSION & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE]

11. Who directed Michael Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kislyak—and why did he lie about them?
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was once one of the most respected intelligence officers of his generation, but he lied to the FBI just days into his 24-day term as the White House’s national security adviser. Why? The lies focused on his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition, specifically in regard to the Obama administration’s announcement of sanctions against Russia for their election interference as well as a UN resolution about Israel. He told Mueller’s team that the conversations were directed by a senior official—KT McFarland saw her nomination to be ambassador to Singapore scuttled over the conversations—but why, if it was an appropriate, authorized conversation, did he choose to lie to the FBI about it?

12. Why did the Russian embassy need $150,000 in cash?
One of the most intriguing threads of the Mueller investigation is a series of money transfers and payments that were flagged as atypical and suspicious by the Russian Embassy’s US bank, Citibank. Buzzfeed has reported that Mueller’s team has the reports of suspicious activity and that Citibank specifically flagged an unusual $120,000 “payroll” deposit to Kislyak 10 days after Trump’s election and blocked an attempted withdrawal of $150,000 in cash just after the inauguration.
Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) is a contributing editor for WIRED and the author of  The Threat Matrix: Inside Robert Mueller's FBI. He can be reached at garrett.graff@gmail.com.

ref: https://www.wired.com/story/what-rick-gates-guilty-plea-means-for-muellers-probe/

 

[syscom3]

Becareful for how long you want the probe to go on for. Every week we find out more about the Democrats and the Obama Dept of Justice being knee deep in foreign influence and corrupt practices.

If Mueller has nothing by July, Trump should end the investigation.

 

[syscom3]

Keep smoking that Trump crack-pipe and living those pipe dreams. We'll see who has the last laugh.

Mueller is doing this the right way, building an indefensible air-tight case which the REPUBs have no choice to ******* and swallow on the slam-dunk smoking gun shoved down their throats of evidence that no-one would be able to refute.

Ask yourself the same questions as has been posed in the great article below.

View attachment 1728708
Today’s guilty plea by Rick Gates might be one of the least surprising developments in the Mueller investigation: It had been clear that the former Trump campaign aide would likely seek a deal almost since the day Gates and his business partner and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort were indicted in October, and we’ve seen reports for weeks that negotiations between Mueller and Gates have been underway.

The move does, though, apply new pressure to Manafort, who will now face in court not just the bank records that originally led to his indictment but also testimony from his former close associate and accomplice in the money-laundering scheme that allegedly involved upward of $60 million. When it comes to Manafort, Gates—who was also a Trump campaign and transition official—knows where the bodies are buried.

That only became more obvious on Thursday, when the special counsel unveiled a new set of charges against Manafort and Gates, a so-called superseding indictment that added more specifics to the money-laundering and bank fraud case brought against them in October. Coupled with the Gates plea, it’s clear that Manafort’s legal problems are likely to get much worse.

Indeed, Mueller's probe is accelerating. Yesterday's new indictment—together with Tuesday’s guilty plea by Alex van der Zwaan, a Dutch lawyer associated with Gates, Manafort, and Ukraine; last Friday's bombshell indictment of 13 Russians and three Russian entities; and now the Gates plea—underscores that Mueller is applying the full strength of the US government’s resources to follow every thread of the investigation. His indictments have astounded Washington with their level of specificity and detail, delivering a litany of facts that he’s confident he can prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt. His hammering of the Dutch lawyer for lying to investigators continues his consistent message that the special counsel’s office will treat seriously anyone who stands in their way.

But almost as intriguing are the threads that Mueller has left hanging, the questions that go unanswered in otherwise highly specific court documents—like the identity of “Person A” in the charges filed against van der Zwaan Tuesday, a veiled reference to someone else involved in the Gates/Manafort/Ukraine milieu who might now face legal jeopardy in the investigation.

Mueller clearly knows where this investigation is going and is methodically building it brick by brick: His first wave of charges, against Manafort, Gates, and George Papadopoulos, established that the Trump campaign had been lying about its contacts with Russians; his second wave—the guilty plea by Michael Flynn—established that those lies extended to figures inside the White House; his third wave of charges, against the Internet Research Agency, establishes that there was a criminal conspiracy to help Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton. Any Americans who knowingly participating in that conspiracy will also, presumably, be vulnerable to prosecution.

None of the rest of us knows where this investigation is heading, not even the targets of the investigation. Three times now Mueller—in the most watched investigation in history—has charged and gotten guilty pleas from people who weren’t even on our radar: Papadopoulos and Richard Pinedo, a Californian who pleaded guilty last Friday to unwittingly aiding the Russians with identity theft, as well as the Dutch lawyer who pleaded guilty earlier this week.

Last summer, I outlined 15 “known unknowns” in the Trump/Russia investigation, unanswered but knowable threads that Mueller’s team could be expected to pull on. The answers to many of those questions are still not public. Yes, we’ve received significant new information about how Dutch intelligence tipped off the US to Russia’s hacking efforts. But we’ve still not seen charges concerning active cyber intrusions—most notably, the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and the stealing of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s emails—one of at least five related probes Mueller is leading right now.

Now, though, months of investigation—including five guilty pleas and the remaining open indictments of Paul Manafort and the 13 Russians involved in the Internet Research Agency—has provided a whole new set of “known unknowns” (a dozen of them, to be exact). Be on the lookout for some of these to become “known knowns” before long.

1. What can Paul Manafort offer Bob Mueller?
The former Trump campaign chairman is 68 years old, so even the two indictments he currently faces could result in a life sentence if he ends up heading to prison—and that’s before Gates’ testimony and any additional charges Mueller might bring. If he decides to cooperate, what can he offer Mueller, particularly on the Trump Tower meeting with Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Russian nationals, where Manafort evidently took copious notes? And then there’s another question, one of the most intriguing since Manafort took his unpaid role as the Trump campaign chair: Why did he get involved in the campaign in the first place? He appears to have had no shortage of reasons to stay off the radar of US authorities, so why did he put himself in such a high-profile position? Now that Gates has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, who else knew about the conspiracy? Mueller has broad latitude to bring charges against anyone else who knew or abetted that conspiracy.

2. What did George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn trade?
This is perhaps the most significant open question to close watchers of the investigation. Both Papadopoulos and Flynn received plea deals in exchange for their cooperation with Mueller’s investigation; Papadopoulos’ guilty plea even included language typically reserved for a witness who has provided active cooperation, like wearing a wire to record conversations with co-conspirators. Presumably, in both cases Mueller was willing to trade because their information was central to his ongoing investigation, but we have yet to see evidence become public that appears to be linked to the cooperation of either Flynn or Papadopoulos—so when will those shoes drop and who did they help Mueller target?

[BBB76: THIS IS ONE THING THAT BLOWS UP IN THE FACE OF BOTH TRUMP & NUNES LYING-ASS COUNTER-ATTACKS AGASINT THE STEELE MEMO:]

3. How did George Papadopoulos know in May 2016 that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton?
We now understand that the Russia investigation began, in part, because of drunken boasting by Papadopoulos to an Australian official, in a London bar in May 2016, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. The Australian government passed that information to US intelligence after the DNC email hack became public. So how did Papadopoulos know—and who else did he tell inside the Trump campaign if and when he did learn about the dirt?

4. What was in the Trump transition documents that so worried witnesses?
We’ve seen some legal scuffling and pearl-clutching over the fact that Mueller has obtained records, including emails, from the Trump presidential transition team. According to Axios, the White House only learned Mueller had the emails when they were used as the basis for questions to witnesses. How were the records relevant to Mueller’s investigation? There was news Monday, from CNN, that Mueller’s interest in Jared Kushner has expanded to include some of his attempts to garner business funding during the transition. This scoop is of a piece with recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker that has pointed to potential security and counterintelligence challenges Kushner may face. Does Kushner have a China problem, in addition to—or instead of—a Russia problem?

5. What happens to Tony Podesta and Vin Weber?
Amid the hubbub surrounding Manafort’s indictment, one of Washington’s longest-reigning power players, Tony Podesta (John Podesta’s brother), abruptly announced his retirement and, effectively, the dissolution of his firm. Rumors have run rampant since then that Podesta and another DC “superlobbyist,” former congressman Vin Weber, face legal jeopardy themselves related to their role in Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine—though they’ve both publicly denied wrongdoing. This may be largely unrelated to the core of Mueller’s probe, but the uncertainty is a sign of a creeping paralysis that is infecting parts of Washington as Mueller churns onward. In Watergate, 69 people ended up being charged and 48 pleaded guilty or were found guilty at trial. Mueller has already brought charges against 19.

6. Who is the third unnamed “traveler” in the last Friday's Mueller indictment?
According to the indictment of the 13 Russians last week, an unnamed and unindicted employee of the IRA traveled to Atlanta for four days in November 2014. The employee appears to be part of the IRA’s IT department, since he or she reported on the trip afterward and filed expenses with the IT director, Sergey P. Polozov, whose job it was to procure servers and other technical infrastructure inside the US to help mask the origins of the IRA’s activity. Mueller’s team surely knows the individual’s name—why didn’t they include it in the indictment and why wasn’t that person indicted at the same time? There are a lot of internal documents, communications, and specific directives cited in the indictment. Does Mueller have another nonpublic cooperator—and, if so, what else has he or she provided to Mueller?

7. Is it a coincidence that the IRA organized a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York for the same day that Wikileaks dumped the DNC emails?
As more evidence emerges through Mueller’s indictments, there are new timelines to trace. The Russian “specialists” at the IRA appear to have devoted significant effort to promoting a “Down with Hillary” rally in New York that was scheduled—weeks in advance—for the same day that Wikileaks dumped tens of thousands of emails stolen from the DNC. How much did the IRA know about and align with the efforts of other Russian entities, like the hacking teams Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear that targeted the DNC, the DCCC, and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta?

8. Which, if any, Americans cooperated with the Russian efforts?
This question goes to the political heart of Mueller’s inquiry. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made a rare public statement last Friday to announce the charges against the Internet Research Agency; he pointedly noted that no Americans were wittingly involved in the matter “in this indictment,” which President Trump wrongly seized upon as vindication (“Case Closed,” he tweeted), but most observers interpreted the statement as an artful way of saying that there might be cooperation alleged in a future indictment.

[BBB76: CHUMP Celebrated too soon!]

For instance, there were three unnamed Trump campaign staff mentioned in the indictment, officials who were approached by IRA specialists. Notably absent from the indictment’s otherwise high level of detail is whether there were replies to those overtures. The new indictment also talks about the IRA’s decision to promote Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who appeared at the same December 2015 dinner in Moscow with Vladimir Poroshenko that Gen. Michael Flynn attended. Is there any link between her attendance and the IRA’s decision to promote her candidacy? Similarly, there are plenty of unanswered questions about the Trump campaign’s repeated contacts with Russian officials and Russian nationals—and their repeated lies about such contacts when asked about them.

9. What was the ongoing evidence of Carter Page’s cooperation with Russian agents?
The widely derided “nothingburger” of the so-called Nunes Memo did establish one intriguing piece of evidence: The 90-day FISA warrant to surveil one-time campaign adviser Page was renewed three times, by three different deputy attorneys general: Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein. Each time, in order for it to have been renewed, there would have needed to be new evidence that Page was still involved in foreign intelligence matters. What exactly was that evidence—and who was Carter Page talking to, well into 2017?

10. How big is “Project Lakhta”?
Mueller’s indictment of the Internet Research Agency refers obliquely to the IRA as part of a “larger… interference operation” funded by the oligarch Yevgeny V. Prigozhin that was known as Project Lakhta. The indictment says, “Project Lahkta had multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States.” Is this a bread crumb pointing toward future indictments or other investigative avenues? Did Project Lakhta also involve other “active measures” conducted by other entities, like perhaps some of the active cyber intrusions we saw conducted by the Russian government’s hacking teams known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear?

[BBB76: HERE IS A BIG BIG BIG QUESTION THAT IS AT THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER WITH THE FIRING OF COMEY AND TIES IT ALL TOGETHER WITH COLLUSION & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE]

11. Who directed Michael Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kislyak—and why did he lie about them?
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was once one of the most respected intelligence officers of his generation, but he lied to the FBI just days into his 24-day term as the White House’s national security adviser. Why? The lies focused on his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition, specifically in regard to the Obama administration’s announcement of sanctions against Russia for their election interference as well as a UN resolution about Israel. He told Mueller’s team that the conversations were directed by a senior official—KT McFarland saw her nomination to be ambassador to Singapore scuttled over the conversations—but why, if it was an appropriate, authorized conversation, did he choose to lie to the FBI about it?

12. Why did the Russian embassy need $150,000 in cash?
One of the most intriguing threads of the Mueller investigation is a series of money transfers and payments that were flagged as atypical and suspicious by the Russian Embassy’s US bank, Citibank. Buzzfeed has reported that Mueller’s team has the reports of suspicious activity and that Citibank specifically flagged an unusual $120,000 “payroll” deposit to Kislyak 10 days after Trump’s election and blocked an attempted withdrawal of $150,000 in cash just after the inauguration.
Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) is a contributing editor for WIRED and the author of  The Threat Matrix: Inside Robert Mueller's FBI. He can be reached at garrett.graff@gmail.com.

ref: https://www.wired.com/story/what-rick-gates-guilty-plea-means-for-muellers-probe/

View attachment 1728747View attachment 1728749View attachment 1728750

View attachment 1728751
View attachment 1728752

You think you could cut that dissertation by 3/4th’s. Im not going to read the same copy and paste bs over and over.

Come up with an origional thought.

 

[blkdlaur]

You think you could cut that dissertation by 3/4th’s. Im not going to read the same copy and paste bs over and over.

Come up with an origional thought.

Methinks clear presentation of Trump Derangement Syndrome - glad you add the voice of reason and sanity - it's sad the venom is so rabid and pervasive - REALLY is!

 

[subhub174014]

far to many to just post one Pic......pick one yourself.....they all fit
https://juicetrump.tumblr.com/archive

 

[MacNfries]

Becareful for how long you want the probe to go on for. Every week we find out more about the Democrats and the Obama Dept of Justice being knee deep in foreign influence and corrupt practices.

.....Don't you believe the party in power should be the one most concerning for investigations? Jesus, 3 members indicted & plead guilty already for working with the Russians. And you expect everyone to believe, as controlling as Trump is, that HE DIDN"T KNOW A THING? Especially after standing up on national TV telling the Russians to find more e-mails on Hillary Clinton? Trump likes to redirect investigations with the finger pointing. The Clintons are done in Washington, syscom ... as is Obama. I didn't hear you harping when Hillary withstood not one, not two, not three, but NINE Republican investigations of Benghazi. And they were talking number 10 not too long ago. Where were YOU then?

If Mueller has nothing by July, Trump should end the investigation.

.....Why? Why July? It takes a long time to build a case the way Mueller is doing it ... from the ground up ... so when they finally reach Trump, he'll have no denying to do. If they did it the way Republicans did Benghazi, you'd be screaming about that ... Mueller doesn't want nine attempts, or even two attempts to convict the Trump administration ... just ONE ... only ONE. What I'm waiting on is to see who takes off to Russia first to escape prosecution. The dominos are going to start falling fairly fast before too long ... any bets on Mediford? His charges are piling up ... more than the other 3 added together ... he's going to jail for a very, very long time.

 

[WhiteOutNow]

.....Don't you believe the party in power should be the one most concerning for investigations? Jesus, 3 members indicted & plead guilty already for working with the Russians. And you expect everyone to believe, as controlling as Trump is, that HE DIDN"T KNOW A THING? Especially after standing up on national TV telling the Russians to find more e-mails on Hillary Clinton? Trump likes to redirect investigations with the finger pointing. The Clintons are done in Washington, syscom ... as is Obama. I didn't hear you harping when Hillary withstood not one, not two, not three, but NINE Republican investigations of Benghazi. And they were talking number 10 not too long ago. Where were YOU then?

.....Why? Why July? It takes a long time to build a case the way Mueller is doing it ... from the ground up ... so when they finally reach Trump, he'll have no denying to do. If they did it the way Republicans did Benghazi, you'd be screaming about that ... Mueller doesn't want nine attempts, or even two attempts to convict the Trump administration ... just ONE ... only ONE. What I'm waiting on is to see who takes off to Russia first to escape prosecution. The dominos are going to start falling fairly fast before too long ... any bets on Mediford? His charges are piling up ... more than the other 3 added together ... he's going to jail for a very, very long time.

Unless there are state charges on Manafort, keep in mind that Trumpenstein can and probably will pardon him, and everyone else involved, including himself.

 

[MacNfries]

Unless there are state charges on Manafort, keep in mind that Trumpenstein can and probably will pardon him, and everyone else involved, including himself.

It won't be quite that simple, however, as several DO face state charges including Trump & Kushner.

 

[blkdlaur]

It won't be quite that simple, however, as several DO face state charges including Trump & Kushner.

Keep hoping and chanting RUSSIA - RUSSIA - RUSSIA !!!

 

[MacNfries]

Keep hoping and chanting RUSSIA - RUSSIA - RUSSIA !!!

Any bets on whether Trump will go before Mueller? He sees what's happening ... he knows unless he gets rid of Mueller, his ass is grass and Mueller's the lawnmower.
He'll never allow himself to go before MUELLER .... Trump's a fake, a liar, and a chicken. When Sessions goes down, you'll know Trump's going to make his play.

 

[WhiteOutNow]

Except the indictment states the Trump campaign officials were exonerated.

Any bets on whether Trump will go before Mueller? He sees what's happening ... he knows unless he gets rid of Mueller, his ass is grass and Mueller's the lawnmower.
He'll never allow himself to go before MUELLER .... Trump's a fake, a liar, and a chicken. When Sessions goes down, you'll know Trump's going to make his play.

Trump said that if he had been in Parkland when the shooting was going on, he would have gone into the school and confronted the shooter, even if he wasn't armed himself. Now, I know that everything that spews out of his mouth is either bullshit, nonsense or both, but I think this has to be the most outrageously self-aggrandizing claim (out of thousands of them) that he's ever vomited up.

You're right, he'll never go before Mueller, but not because he will choose not to; his galactic-sized ego makes him believe he could outwit Mueller (although he couldn't outwit a paramecium), but his legal team simply will not let it happen, they know their moronic client would talk himself right into the clink.