Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by khallow
I notice that there's been a sudden pause in journal entries about the Mueller investigation now when it's wrapped up more or less. So what is the score? How many people have fallen due to Russian collusion?

I have my own dire, well, sarcastic take on the mess, but let's hear yours first.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:17AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:17AM (#825332) Journal

    Actually, Mueller indicted twelve Russian nationals [google.com] on a variety of charges. So, in fact, they did quite a bit. And the indictments have been unsealed, so you can read them for yourself.

    Russia doesn't agree that these charges are crimes. Hence, no extradition and no trial on those indictments much less convictions. In the past, the US didn't bother with such pointless legal maneuvers when Russia played its spy games. Probably because in large part, it'd create a legal precedent that'd blowback on the US. Further, why shouldn't Russia meddle in other countries' elections?

    As to the number of indictments, perhaps we should recall this saying:

    "'The district attorney could get the grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to,' one Rochester defense lawyer said."

    Indicting people in absentia is pretty easy to do. Meanwhile the few convictions that resulted were either for things that were being investigated anyway or for lying to investigators.

    Good. One would hope so. My point is that I, regardless of who is president, believe that even the appearance of dishonesty (let alone provable crimes) should be an important consideration when making appointments and hiring staff. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm distrustful of criminals and don't think they should be given positions of trust.

    The appearance of dishonesty is easy to fabricate.

    As for the indictments of Russian nationals, you're right Russia won't allow those folks to face trial in the US. However, less than a third (11 out of 37) of the indictments were of Russian nationals.

    12. And historically, those things wouldn't have resulted in convictions because it's pretty standard and low grade propaganda efforts.

    Which felonies were those? I'm not familiar with any felonies committed by HRC.

    Gross negligence in the handling of classified information from her private email server and supervising the people who were moving classified information from a secure network to her server. Even when unintentional, it is a felony. There were a few other likely felonies as well such as destruction of evidence and lying to Congress.

    And need I add that I'm "not familiar with any felonies committed by" Trump? Or even his campaign staff during the campaign.

    As for other presidents, I don't like that either, and believe that those in power and positions of trust should be held to a higher standard than "they haven't caught me...yet." And that goes for anyone, regardless of party or ideology. Because there's nothing political about the truth. If you employ untrustworthy people, you show yourself to be untrustworthy.

    Then find real crimes on which to make those judgments. It's remarkable how shifty the evidence supposedly supporting the accusations of Russian collusion were from the initial investigation through now.

    That isn't a legal thing, it's an ethical and desire for good (or at least decent) government and governance thing. Don't you care about that, or as long as your folks are on top, it's all good to you?

    Same back at you. Surely, you've heard of Clinton's private email server by now. Look, if someone actually commits a crime, I'm all for putting them through the wringer. But one-sided judgments based on the "appearance of dishonesty", particularly when that dishonesty is easy to fabricate (by either major party, by the US government, a fair number of large corporations, crime organizations, and by many foreign governments). At some point, you need facts.

    That's why I brought up Clinton. We actually have evidence there was classified information (things like satellite photos and discussion of US spies and other intelligence assets) on her private server with dubious security which she didn't have the authority to declassify because they didn't originate in the Department of State. That's gross negligence in the handling of classified information. The Obama administration choose not to persecute that felony, no doubt for venal political reasons, but it looks pretty solid to me.

    Meanwhile what do we have on Trump? He appointed/hired a few people who eventually were convicted of felonies. Ok. We have all these tenuous grasping at straws: such as the yarn diagrams and the blustering about appearance of dishonesty. My take is this double standard is a large part of the reason things remain as they are. If even their own party would hunt down corrupt politicians, there'd be a lot less corruption. Won't happen soon. Frankly, there's a huge appearance of dishonesty in this investigation because there really wasn't much reason to investigate anything in the first place, and not much found as a result.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 06 2019, @11:00AM (1 child)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday April 06 2019, @11:00AM (#825341) Homepage Journal

    You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it and wait (as I've been doing for two years) until I see the work of a war hero, former FBI Director who has dedicated his life to public service, and is, by all accounts, an honest man and a straight shooter.

    Because I'm interested in the truth. As I mentioned previously, there is nothing political about the truth.

    Well, unless you're afraid that such truth will disadvantage you. But I don't care about that. Facts are facts, whether they are a positive or a negative for me personally.

    In any case, I guess I was right (and that's a shame) that it's all good to you as long as "your" people are on top.

    I believe that all Americans are *my* people. It saddens me that some of my brothers and sisters don't feel the same.

    More's the pity.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:01PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:01PM (#825390) Journal

      You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it and wait (as I've been doing for two years) until I see the work of a war hero, former FBI Director who has dedicated his life to public service, and is, by all accounts, an honest man and a straight shooter.

      Word for what? As to the claim of being a straight-shooter, I'm not impressed by the performance so far. Sure, there have been actual crimes unrelated to the supposed scope of Mueller's investigation, but the FBI could prosecute these on their own.

      Because I'm interested in the truth. As I mentioned previously, there is nothing political about the truth.

      I'm sure the report will get out one way or another. Whether it has truth in it will be another story.

      Well, unless you're afraid that such truth will disadvantage you. But I don't care about that. Facts are facts, whether they are a positive or a negative for me personally.

      Because I disagree on the value of this "truth", I must be a black hat, amirite? Facts != evidence.

      To be blunt, when there is a witch hunt, there will plenty of facts about witches whether or not the witches exist in the first place. Someone who spent two years and a fair bit of money hunting for evidence of a crime will come up with all kinds of facts to justify their effort.

      We already know, since Mueller isn't advising for more prosecutions, that these facts aren't "actionable", that is, legally good enough to convict someone in a court of law. And given his broad mandate and considerable resources, these facts aren't good enough to get more facts which would be actionable.

      In any case, I guess I was right (and that's a shame) that it's all good to you as long as "your" people are on top.

      Again, where's the evidence? Don't babble to me about "facts" and then, never present any. I can present facts about Clinton's email server, as a counterexample and quite a few are WTF moments (from my journal we have 1 [soylentnews.org], 2 [soylentnews.org], , and 4 [soylentnews.org] describing several felonies and other misdeeds as I mentioned earlier).

      I notice in journal 2 (where I reference a story which discussed FBI summary of computer equipment destroyed before they review any potential data contained on the machines, including machines destroyed after subpoenas were sent out - which incidentally is destruction of evidence), you wrote [soylentnews.org]:

      And when she is, you lot will be the first up against the wall, since The Clintons [snopes.com] murder [snopes.com] anyone who speaks against them.

      She is, of course, responsible [snopes.com] for uncounted deaths.

      And of course, she should rot in an 8x8 cell for 180 years, because that's what happens to every single person who is accused of mishandling classified information [usnews.com].

      So to all you Clinton haters, I'd start buying lots of ammo and get off the grid, cuz they're coming for you!

      Funny how now you're pounding the shoe on the table, demanding that we pay attention to nebulous "facts" now when you blew off actual commission of felonies earlier. But then I guess it's ok when your guy does it, amirite? That's what you keep saying.