5 ms·

> It's not; the issue is that a US Presidential campaign actively collaborated in an influence operation by a hostile foreign power directed against the US Tha

> It's not; the issue is that a US Presidential campaign actively collaborated in an influence operation by a hostile foreign power directed against the US That's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents and the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe [0]. When you say "active collaboration" what does that actually mean? And could you present some evidence of it? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/rosenstein-said-to-tell-trump-he-s-not-target-in-mueller-probe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/rosenstei...

puzzle 8y ago
Yes, only Russian agents are indicted this time, but someone who might be Roger Stone makes a brief appearance (#44) in the document, too, probably to be targeted in future legal action.
- keketi 8y ago
  The american person in #44 is indeed likely to be Roger Stone. Here's what Mr. Stone wrote on March 10, 2017[1] regarding his contact with Guccifer 2.0: > All contact I had with the entity known as Gufficer 2 came after I had written an article that was published on August 5th 2016 by Breitbart News and vetted by their lead investigative reporter Lee Stranahan. That article came after the DNC and DCCC material had been released and identified the role of a hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2 based on our own sources. > Therefore, any such “collaboration” would’ve also involved a time machine – something that I think Putin has not perfected yet. > On August 14- some ten days- later I noted on my twitter feed that Guccifer 2.0 who had been suspended by Twitter had been reinstated. I did so because I abhor censorship. Then I did in fact have a short and innocuous Direct Message exchange with Guccifer 2.0. It was so perfunctory, brief and banal I had forgotten it. Not exactly 007 stuff even if Guccifer 2.0 was working for the Russkies. These statements seem consistent with the information in the indictment. [1] https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-the-smoking-gun-aims-fires-misses/ https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-the-smoking-gun-aims-...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  In addition to Stone, there's also the Congressional candidate mentioned at Paragraph 43.
michaelmrose 8y ago
There was a meeting with a foreign ambassador offering to collaborate which was met with enthusiasm by trumps people who we are to believe knew nothing about this even though he was in the same building a few floors above. He then went on TV and called for the Russians to hack Hillary.
- actsasbuffoon 8y ago
  According to the indictment, Russia kicked off a set of hacking attempts a few hours after Trump made that request. The timing creates an appearance of cooperation that is not ideal. Republicans have argued that Trump was joking. The fact that Russia appears to have promptly complied with Trump's request complicates the situation.
drewrv 8y ago
Meetings between high level Trump campaign officials and Russia are public knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_campaign%E2%80%93Russian_meetings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_campaign%E2%80%93Russian...
fzeroracer 8y ago
You need to realize that just because he isn't a 'target' at this time, it does not mean he cannot become a target in the future. Right now he is considered a subject of the investigation and his behavior/actions are under scrutiny of the Mueller investigation. If Trump is elevated to target of the investigation, then that means the Mueller investigation has significant evidence that a crime was committed. Considering how many high level people in Trump's close orbit have been indicted or investigated it would be extremely difficult for him to have not known about any of this occurring in his campaign.
- keketi 8y ago
  Let's go through the people close to Trump who have been indicted or who have plead guilty. Paul Manafort: Indicted for a number of financial crimes unrelated to the 2016 election. https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download and https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download Richard Gates: As above. George Papadopoulos: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download Michael Flynn: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download So far there is no indictment or guilty plea among Trump's associates related to the 2016 election.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > George Papadopoulos: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. [...] > So far there is no indictment or guilty plea among Trump's associates related to the 2016 election. Wrong. What Papadopoulos plead guilty lying to the FBI about was specifically collaborating with Russians known to and believed by him to be connected with the Russian government while he was a foreign policy adviser to the campaign, on matters related to the campaign. See the “Statement of Offense” filed with his plea: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download
    - 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> That's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents This is not the only indictment by the special counsel office, and the statement of the offense in one of the guilty pleas in a prior indictment is directly about active collusion efforts. And I'm discussing what is at issue in the scandal, not merely what is covered by indictments that have already been issued. > the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe People read too much into that, because they tend to think that “target” is a broader term than it is, particularly, that it includes what is actually termed a “subject” rather than a “target”. That's notable because the special counsel has also explicitly said Trump is a subject of the investigation. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trump-target-subject/557243/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trump-t...
- jdoliner 8y ago
  You've answered neither of my questions though, just given me reasons that this doesn't disprove your "active collaboration" claim. I don't think any of this does disprove it, but you claim that he "actively collaborated" with Russia in this hack. I'm just wondering what, specifically, he did to "actively collaborate" and what the evidence of this is.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > but you claim that he "actively collaborated" with Russia No, I don't. The campaign is not a “he”, and I said that the collaboration by the campaign (and the potential that, if that is the case, the President is effectively a foreign agent) is the issue, that is, the subject of concern/debate, not that it's a fact (though at least one member of the campaign has already admitted to actively seeking to collaborate with Russia, and implicated other campaign officials, in his guilty plea to charges laid by the special counsel.)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
cmurf 8y ago
The president is a subject of the probe, which is the ambiguous position of possibly being a witness or eventually becoming a target. As for active collaboration? The DAG Rod Rosenstein told Trump these indictments were coming and their nature. And today Trump decides not to push back on Putin/Russia for these actions, but he impugned Robert Mueller with "rigged witch hunt" claims. Again. That is giving aid and comfort to Putin/Russia by papering over, giving them cover for, attacks/crimes on the United States, its people, its institutions, and at least two candidates. He has been doing a variation on this for two years: maybe they did it, maybe they didn't, Putin denies it so we should believe that because Putin is a good guy and we should just get along, and maybe it was China and maybe it was a 400 pound fat man in a bed. And what he is doing is two fold: Demanding Americans believe Trump over Mueller, which is hilarious, insane, and ridiculous. But that's just what this presidency has mostly given us in spades. And then demanding that American believe Putin over Mueller and U.S. intelligence agencies! Trump says he will "ask the question" again to Putin. The false premise is that there is even a question but that too is active collaboration with Russia by accepting that Putin has a more reliable answer to give than Trump's own intelligence service, and his own DOJ, and the special counsel. Active collaboration is happening in broad daylight.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > On what moral grounds does Socialism justify confiscating property and sacrificing lives? We can certainly disagree about what is or is not Capitalism but this is what Socialism does and you know it. In a federal grand jury investigation, a “subject” is very close to what is understood in the common vernacular as a “suspect” (but not a “prime suspect”) in a criminal investigation; someone whose conduct is being examined because of the distance of illegal activity, but against whom prosecutors do not have enough evidence of guilt that charges (or, socially, an attempt to indict) is imminent.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Too late to edit, but “socially” -> “specifically” and the leading quote was supposed to be: > The president is a subject of the probe, which is the ambiguous position of possibly being a witness or eventually becoming a target.

puzzle 8y ago

Yes, only Russian agents are indicted this time, but someone who might be Roger Stone makes a brief appearance (#44) in the document, too, probably to be targeted in future legal action.

keketi 8y ago
The american person in #44 is indeed likely to be Roger Stone. Here's what Mr. Stone wrote on March 10, 2017[1] regarding his contact with Guccifer 2.0: > All contact I had with the entity known as Gufficer 2 came after I had written an article that was published on August 5th 2016 by Breitbart News and vetted by their lead investigative reporter Lee Stranahan. That article came after the DNC and DCCC material had been released and identified the role of a hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2 based on our own sources. > Therefore, any such “collaboration” would’ve also involved a time machine – something that I think Putin has not perfected yet. > On August 14- some ten days- later I noted on my twitter feed that Guccifer 2.0 who had been suspended by Twitter had been reinstated. I did so because I abhor censorship. Then I did in fact have a short and innocuous Direct Message exchange with Guccifer 2.0. It was so perfunctory, brief and banal I had forgotten it. Not exactly 007 stuff even if Guccifer 2.0 was working for the Russkies. These statements seem consistent with the information in the indictment. [1] https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-the-smoking-gun-aims-fires-misses/ https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-the-smoking-gun-aims-...
dragonwriter 8y ago
In addition to Stone, there's also the Congressional candidate mentioned at Paragraph 43.

michaelmrose 8y ago

There was a meeting with a foreign ambassador offering to collaborate which was met with enthusiasm by trumps people who we are to believe knew nothing about this even though he was in the same building a few floors above. He then went on TV and called for the Russians to hack Hillary.

actsasbuffoon 8y ago
According to the indictment, Russia kicked off a set of hacking attempts a few hours after Trump made that request. The timing creates an appearance of cooperation that is not ideal. Republicans have argued that Trump was joking. The fact that Russia appears to have promptly complied with Trump's request complicates the situation.

drewrv 8y ago

Meetings between high level Trump campaign officials and Russia are public knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_campaign%E2%80%93Russian_meetings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_campaign%E2%80%93Russian...

fzeroracer 8y ago

You need to realize that just because he isn't a 'target' at this time, it does not mean he cannot become a target in the future. Right now he is considered a subject of the investigation and his behavior/actions are under scrutiny of the Mueller investigation. If Trump is elevated to target of the investigation, then that means the Mueller investigation has significant evidence that a crime was committed. Considering how many high level people in Trump's close orbit have been indicted or investigated it would be extremely difficult for him to have not known about any of this occurring in his campaign.

keketi 8y ago
Let's go through the people close to Trump who have been indicted or who have plead guilty. Paul Manafort: Indicted for a number of financial crimes unrelated to the 2016 election. https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download and https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download Richard Gates: As above. George Papadopoulos: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download Michael Flynn: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download So far there is no indictment or guilty plea among Trump's associates related to the 2016 election.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > George Papadopoulos: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. [...] > So far there is no indictment or guilty plea among Trump's associates related to the 2016 election. Wrong. What Papadopoulos plead guilty lying to the FBI about was specifically collaborating with Russians known to and believed by him to be connected with the Russian government while he was a foreign policy adviser to the campaign, on matters related to the campaign. See the “Statement of Offense” filed with his plea: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download
  - 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> That's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents This is not the only indictment by the special counsel office, and the statement of the offense in one of the guilty pleas in a prior indictment is directly about active collusion efforts. And I'm discussing what is at issue in the scandal, not merely what is covered by indictments that have already been issued. > the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe People read too much into that, because they tend to think that “target” is a broader term than it is, particularly, that it includes what is actually termed a “subject” rather than a “target”. That's notable because the special counsel has also explicitly said Trump is a subject of the investigation. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trump-target-subject/557243/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trump-t...

jdoliner 8y ago
You've answered neither of my questions though, just given me reasons that this doesn't disprove your "active collaboration" claim. I don't think any of this does disprove it, but you claim that he "actively collaborated" with Russia in this hack. I'm just wondering what, specifically, he did to "actively collaborate" and what the evidence of this is.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > but you claim that he "actively collaborated" with Russia No, I don't. The campaign is not a “he”, and I said that the collaboration by the campaign (and the potential that, if that is the case, the President is effectively a foreign agent) is the issue, that is, the subject of concern/debate, not that it's a fact (though at least one member of the campaign has already admitted to actively seeking to collaborate with Russia, and implicated other campaign officials, in his guilty plea to charges laid by the special counsel.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

cmurf 8y ago

The president is a subject of the probe, which is the ambiguous position of possibly being a witness or eventually becoming a target. As for active collaboration? The DAG Rod Rosenstein told Trump these indictments were coming and their nature. And today Trump decides not to push back on Putin/Russia for these actions, but he impugned Robert Mueller with "rigged witch hunt" claims. Again. That is giving aid and comfort to Putin/Russia by papering over, giving them cover for, attacks/crimes on the United States, its people, its institutions, and at least two candidates. He has been doing a variation on this for two years: maybe they did it, maybe they didn't, Putin denies it so we should believe that because Putin is a good guy and we should just get along, and maybe it was China and maybe it was a 400 pound fat man in a bed. And what he is doing is two fold: Demanding Americans believe Trump over Mueller, which is hilarious, insane, and ridiculous. But that's just what this presidency has mostly given us in spades. And then demanding that American believe Putin over Mueller and U.S. intelligence agencies! Trump says he will "ask the question" again to Putin. The false premise is that there is even a question but that too is active collaboration with Russia by accepting that Putin has a more reliable answer to give than Trump's own intelligence service, and his own DOJ, and the special counsel. Active collaboration is happening in broad daylight.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> On what moral grounds does Socialism justify confiscating property and sacrificing lives? We can certainly disagree about what is or is not Capitalism but this is what Socialism does and you know it. In a federal grand jury investigation, a “subject” is very close to what is understood in the common vernacular as a “suspect” (but not a “prime suspect”) in a criminal investigation; someone whose conduct is being examined because of the distance of illegal activity, but against whom prosecutors do not have enough evidence of guilt that charges (or, socially, an attempt to indict) is imminent.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Too late to edit, but “socially” -> “specifically” and the leading quote was supposed to be: > The president is a subject of the probe, which is the ambiguous position of possibly being a witness or eventually becoming a target.