So one presidential nominee paid for someone to eavesdrop on the communications of the other party’s nominee. Didn’t something like this happen in the 70s?
Didn’t the big problem there come from the attempted coverup?
1 Like
The coverup only exasperated the situation. Illegal activities (and the activity was acknowledged as being illegal) would’ve made Watergate a “big problem”.
1 Like
Modern-day Watergate. Though I’m not sure it will grow exponentially as I’m not sure it will be widely report or discussed by the MSM.
Why and how would she have further challenged the results?
4 Likes
Ad far as I can tell, all we have is a snippet from a court filing.
I’m not going to spend much time thinking about this until more context is added.
Republicans see the danger that a technocratic bureaucracy undermines the legitimate democratic will of the people, through a thousand small protests, and now most especially by engineering a criminal investigation of the president.
The problem is that this looks a lot like honest government workers trying to limit the damage caused by the reckless or illegal actions of trump, somebody who pretty clearly doesn’t really believe in democracy or the rule of law.
This probe certainly can’t do what a lot do republicans want it to. It can’t clear trump of working with the russians, which a bipartisan senate report found he did, even if there is not enough evidence that engaged in a criminal conspiracy in the technical sense to justify charges.
This reminds me of some of the wishful conclusions democrats tried to make based on snippets from the mueller investigation. They also wanted that to be able to do more than it could.
I’m a bit confused. Did the Clinton campaign pay a cyber security guy to steal data? Or what exactly?
And was he looking for actual an crime or trying to sell a fake crime? Was the data real?
And did the campaign use this (real? fake? stolen?) data for anything?
Did Clinton talk to these people herself? Did she know that they are bad guys? Do we know what she said to them?
Reading your article I don’t see anything bad at all, but clearly you read some other article?
Just because charges weren’t filed doesn’t mean they weren’t justified. This would have been a slam dunk case if we had an independent justice department.
This should, but won’t, cause major changes at several major news organizations. NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBS (in a giant way) and others took the Russia connection and ran with it. Constantly accusing Trump of being a Russian patsy (or possibly agent).
Turns out every bit of the “evidence” from anonymous sources was manufactured by the Clinton campaign and shopped around to the media and then to the Justice Department so they could say that JD was investigating Trump.
1 Like
I’m not sure it was only the clinton campaign playing anonymous.
For example, there was that time trump publicly asked russia to hack clinton’s emails and then release them.
(I remember when that was shocking. Ah, simpler times.)
1 Like
I always interpreted that as an overly aggressive as$hole reaction to the Russia accusations. Along the lines of “Oh, I’m a russian spy? Really? You believe that cra$? Well then, watch THIS!!”
Stupid, but in character for that raving narcist.
1 Like
The Russian patsies are and continue to be the public of the United States. I don’t know what Trump does or doesn’t know but all Russia ever did was put out misinformation and clever memes. People have consumed it all with no thought or remorse. I imagine the whole Ivermectin thing is all tied to Russian troll farms. Can’t you imagine Putin just saying hey, I bet we can get these idiots to start eating horse dewormer instead of getting vaccinated. They’ll be crapping their pants for several days thinking they’re accomplishing something.
Trump brought this shit on himself the day he hired Manafort. It was the stupidest decision in the world. He could have hired anybody else, but instead he stepped directly into a pile of shit. And it probably would have blown over, except of course he dug himself deeper, with countless other incredibly stupid decisions.
As usual, it’s hard to tell how much he was a patsy vs a troll vs tyrant vs something else.
All I can say is I’ve been glad he’s been mostly out of the news for a while.
This might help.
https://www.readtangle.com/the-durham-news-explained/
- First, a refresher: John Durham is the special counsel who was appointed by Bill Barr, the attorney general under former President Trump. Durham was appointed to investigate the investigations into Trump, and to determine if there was any foul play. In September, we covered Durham’s indictment alleging that Michael Sussmann, a high-profile cybersecurity lawyer, lied to the FBI by telling them he was not representing a client but coming forward as a citizen. According to the indictment, he was representing the Clinton campaign and a technology executive. During the meeting, Sussmann presented the FBI with evidence that a server belonging to the Russia-based Alfa Bank appeared to be communicating with Trump organization computers.*
I think it’s a little like if trump were to ask that teen girl from stranger things to sleep with him. Is he serious? Maybe not in the sense that he expects the answer to be “yes.” But that doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t take “yes” as an answer. I’m sure he would. And it doesn’t really change the moral context of the statement.
In all seriousness though, i’m not quite ready yet to worry about how the press reported on the russia stuff. I’m not saying i won’t be more concerned as more information comes out, but i think any conclusions right now are extremely premature. But i’m not exactly read up on it.
From the article:
“What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” attorneys Jody Westby and Mark Rasch told the Times. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”
I’m not exactly willing to hang my hat on this article. But another reason i’m suspending judgement until there is more information.
1 Like
If this article turns out to be true, it’ll be fun to hear the “FAKE NEWS” people justify themselves after promoting fake news.
Monitoring of Trump Internet Traffic Sparks New Dispute in Durham Probe
This is very complicated. I think i need to understand it better before deciding how ouraged i am at whom. It… sounds like both sides were behaving illegally at first blush.
2 Likes
“Bad behaivor all around” / “most politicians suck” sounds like a reasonable and plausible interpretation.