Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation

Grinner said:
It's a reasonable assumption.
Click to expand...

Reasonable maybe, but that's not the threshold in a criminal investigation. I don't think that this fact alone would be enough to conclude that he told Trump. It can help paint a certain picture but it's not drawing it altogether.
 
Javi said:
Reasonable maybe, but that's not the threshold in a criminal investigation. I don't think that this fact alone would be enough to conclude that he told Trump. It can help paint a certain picture but it's not drawing it altogether.
Click to expand...

Mueller can listen to the voice intercepts and transcripts. That's about as clear as it will get.
 
Raoul said:
Mueller can listen to the voice intercepts and transcripts. That's about as clear as it will get.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the extent of enforcement measures in US criminal law, but is this meant to say that all calls are intercepted? Or just those of either Jr. or Trump were at the time?
 
Grinner said:
It's a reasonable assumption.
Click to expand...
Yeh I get the assumption. But from a legal standpoint its not exactly evidence that he told him correct?

Raoul said:
The blocked call number likely reveals what happened and Mueller should already have his hands on that information. In a nutshell, Mueller already knows the collusion case.
Click to expand...

If Mueller can hear what was said in that call then fine. But just proving that a call was made doesn't prove that he was told about the meeting correct? Or is it just given that he told him because the call came after the meeting.
 
Javi said:
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the extent of enforcement measures in US criminal law, but is this meant to say that all calls are intercepted? Or just those of either Jr. or Trump were at the time?
Click to expand...

Mueller, as part of this investigative authority, can ask a judge for access to all records both written and audio, if he can show criminal activity took place. I doubt there is audio, but there may be a transcript if the FBI were involved in tracking the Russian spy (Vesalnitskaya) who attended the meeting.
 
ChaddyP said:
Yeh I get the assumption. But from a legal standpoint its not exactly evidence that he told him correct?



If Mueller can hear what was said in that call then fine. But just proving that a call was made doesn't prove that he was told about the meeting correct? Or is it just given that he told him because the call came after the meeting.
Click to expand...

It would show Don Jr. perjurerd himself since he has already denied it in a closed testamony session before Congress. It would also show that Trump himself was aware of the meeting (after having denied it), which makes a strong case for conspiracy.
 
ChaddyP said:
Well if he can actually hear what was said and not just know a call was placed then that's amazing
Click to expand...

It depends whether the FBI were involved with voice intercepts at that point. If not then the mere proof that there was a call involving Trump's knowledge should still be sufficient.
 
Raoul said:
Mueller, as part of this investigative authority, can ask a judge for access to all records both written and audio, if he can show criminal activity took place. I doubt there is audio, but there may be a transcript if the FBI were involved in tracking the Russian spy (Vesalnitskaya) who attended the meeting.
Click to expand...

Don't think that's plausible, personally. Let's just consider what it would mean if the FBI could have intercepted calls from two, to the suspect, unrelated people. How would this rule look like? Something along the lines «activity related to the subjects suspicious activity» would never work since what does 'related' even mean. Such unprecise language wouldn't be acceptable for a criminal investigation that due to the impact on people's privacy is only allowed very strictly determined instruments to do so.

But then again I don't know how the US handles that. Privacy certainely doesn't seem to make a killing in the priority list from what I can gather across the ocean.
 
Raoul said:
It would show Don Jr. perjurerd himself since he has already denied it in a closed testamony session before Congress. It would also show that Trump himself was aware of the meeting (after having denied it), which makes a strong case for conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I just want to make sure we are perfectly aligned in what we are talking about. Are you saying that if it was proven that Don Jr called his father after the meeting, IE trumps number was the blocked number , that is enough evidence to say that Trump senior knew about the meeting, even if we didn't know what was actually said on the phone.
 
ChaddyP said:
I just want to make sure we are perfectly aligned in what we are talking about. Are you saying that if it was proven that Don Jr called his father after the meeting, IE trumps number was the blocked number , that is enough evidence to say that Trump senior knew about the meeting, even if we didn't know what was actually said on the phone.
Click to expand...

It would be enough to build a strong, circumstantial case that could then be aligned with other evidence from other sources. Its not particularly hard for the feds (Mueller) to subpeana phone records and then match it up with other evidence he has by way of other intercepts of the Russians.

Example:

Mueller knows Don Jr. called Trump by way of verifying the phone logs

On a completely seperate intercept, a US intelligence agency picks up a communication between Vesalnitskaya and another Russian where she tells him something to the effect of "We asked Don Jr. about the Magnitsky act support in exchange for providing information on Clinton. He took a break, called his Dad, then came back and said "let's proceed".
--------
Although Mueller may not have the specific words Trump and Trump Jr said to one another, he would have verification that they spoke and that the Russians understood they had a deal with Trump to proceed.
 
Javi said:
Don't think that's plausible, personally. Let's just consider what it would mean if the FBI could have intercepted calls from two, to the suspect, unrelated people. How would this rule look like? Something along the lines «activity related to the subjects suspicious activity» would never work since what does 'related' even mean. Such unprecise language wouldn't be acceptable for a criminal investigation that due to the impact on people's privacy is only allowed very strictly determined instruments to do so.

But then again I don't know how the US handles that. Privacy certainely doesn't seem to make a killing in the priority list from what I can gather across the ocean.
Click to expand...

Swallwell talks about this at 3:05 onwards....

 
Raoul said:
Swallwell talks about this at 3:05 onwards....

Click to expand...


Summarized, that's a.) Jr. phoned a blocked number between talking to the Russians and b.) that Trump was in the builduing.

It's also alleged, that the blocked number was Trump, because he is using a blocked number. I imagine that millions of others do so too, so that's worth close to nothing imo. It's additionally suggested, that the fact that the meeting was setup with friends of Trump, supports this notion because Trump could have been interested in what his friends wanted to set up a meeting for. While that in itself seems plausible to me, I'm not sure that would be enough to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the content of the call was at least marginally about the meeting if it was shown to be in fact his father that Jr. called, let alone when it's just another blocked number.

Without doubt enough to call for that subpoena of his though.

Edit: For b.) to be of any relevance we'd need to know what builduing that was and what number of reasons Trump had to be there.
 
Raoul said:
It would be enough to build a strong, circumstantial case that could then be aligned with other evidence from other sources. Its not particularly hard for the feds (Mueller) to subpeana phone records and then match it up with other evidence he has by way of other intercepts of the Russians.

Example:

Mueller knows Don Jr. called Trump by way of verifying the phone logs

On a completely seperate intercept, a US intelligence agency picks up a communication between Vesalnitskaya and another Russian where she tells him something to the effect of "We asked Don Jr. about the Magnitsky act support in exchange for providing information on Clinton. He took a break, called his Dad, then came back and said "let's proceed".
--------
Although Mueller may not have the specific words Trump and Trump Jr said to one another, he would have verification that they spoke and that the Russians understood they had a deal with Trump to proceed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time for clearing that up. Appreciate it
 
Greenwald supposedly deleted 27,000 tweets of his yesterday weirdly enough.
 
Greenwald has always been a bit of a weirdo. But that's not really the point. I mean, Greenwald an agent of Trump? The fact that anyone who says that goes on MSNBC is an embarrassment to MSNBC, which has become the network for boomer libs to listen to while they fall asleep on the couch.
 
Why does Carlson always look like he's just heard that his wife is having an affair with a squirrel?
 
Eboue said:
Greenwald has always been a bit of a weirdo. But that's not really the point. I mean, Greenwald an agent of Trump? The fact that anyone who says that goes on MSNBC is an embarrassment to MSNBC, which has become the network for boomer libs to listen to while they fall asleep on the couch.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Greenwald is just very contrarian, which naturally leads him to some weird places.
 
Red Dreams said:
so what do the Dems say to voters in swing districts to convince them to vote for them?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have a central voice on the midterms. I'd let each candidate debate their challenger on local issues. Gauge the mood of their constituents and fight the battle on that.


When it comes to a Presidential election that's a different story though.
 
Red Dreams said:
so what do the Dems say to voters in swing districts to convince them to vote for them?
Click to expand...

All politics are local so if a Dem is running in a more conservative district then they will play to their local constituents - see Conor Lamb or Doug Jones's campaigns last year - both in GOP leaning districts/states who rode into office on distinctly centrist messages. Same thing is happening this year with Dem Kirsten Sinema in right leaning Arizona, where she is leading all Republicans with a centrist message.

In less Republican areas, Dems will have plenty of slack to push progressive messages as well and there will be some degree of crossover where one off progressives fare well in traditionally centrist districts (like NE2 for example).
 
Raoul said:
All politics are local so if a Dem is running in a more conservative district then they will play to their local constituents - see Conor Lamb or Doug Jones's campaigns last year - both in GOP leaning districts/states who rode into office on distinctly centrist messages. Same thing is happening this year with Dem Kirsten Sinema in right leaning Arizona, where she is leading all Republicans with a centrist message.

In less Republican areas, Dems will have plenty of slack to push progressive messages as well and there will be some degree of crossover where one off progressives fare well in traditionally centrist districts (like NE2 for example).
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Raoul said:
All politics are local so if a Dem is running in a more conservative district then they will play to their local constituents - see Conor Lamb or Doug Jones's campaigns last year - both in GOP leaning districts/states who rode into office on distinctly centrist messages. Same thing is happening this year with Dem Kirsten Sinema in right leaning Arizona, where she is leading all Republicans with a centrist message.

In less Republican areas, Dems will have plenty of slack to push progressive messages as well and there will be some degree of crossover where one off progressives fare well in traditionally centrist districts (like NE2 for example).
Click to expand...

Fair point.

The main frustration with people who voted GOP is that having the Presidency, Senate and House they have passed no meaningful legislation.

Health Care is a universal need. This needs to be emphasised too. Primed for when 2020 comes along.
 
afrocentricity said:
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Decent chance Greenwald is somehow entangled with the Russians imo. The Russians know how to ensnare themselves with key influencers who they then use to unwittingly push their messages for them. Same things have happened with everyone from Mike Flynn to Rohrbacher to Assange and others.
 
Raoul said:
Decent chance Greenwald is somehow entangled with the Russians imo. The Russians know how to ensnare themselves with key influencers who they then use to unwittingly push their messages for them. Same things have happened with everyone from Mike Flynn to Rohrbacher to Assange and others.
Click to expand...
It's possible. Don't know too much about the guy other than the Snowden stuff...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.