bulls_with_booz
We're Selfish
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,658
- Likes
- 926
- Points
- 113
All these resources going to arrest Ivan for shitposting about Hillary online. Incredible stuff.
Politics Mueller indicts 13 Russian nationals for US election meddling
- Thread starter SlyPokerDog
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,499
- Likes
- 25,634
- Points
- 113
Well, you are the one privvy to what they talked about, so I guess I should take your word for it.
barfo
MarAzul
LongShip
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 21,370
- Likes
- 7,281
- Points
- 113
I did not say it, was not a crime. I did not say it, should not be investigated. Crimes committed by foreign nationals should not always be treated the same as crimes by citizens. The end results in affect and effect on Foreign relations must be considered as a priority. Perhaps then, treated the same or not. The wrong guy made the call, nor did he consider the best affect , the desired effect. Simply a loose Cannon doing his version of good.
Rastapopoulos
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2008
- Messages
- 42,241
- Likes
- 26,669
- Points
- 113
At last something we can agree on.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,713
- Likes
- 147,303
- Points
- 115
@TEN_GOP was one of the fake twitter accounts that the Russians used and Don Jr loved retweeting them.
Which doesn't prove a crime, just that Junior is stupid.
Which doesn't prove a crime, just that Junior is stupid.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,499
- Likes
- 25,634
- Points
- 113
@TEN_GOP was one of the fake twitter accounts that the Russians used and Don Jr loved retweeting them.
Which doesn't prove a crime, just that Junior is stupid.
He's a dope and a dupe.
barfo
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,713
- Likes
- 147,303
- Points
- 115
Beyond the 13 people indicted, Mueller announced the Feb. 12 guilty plea of a California man for identity theft, Richard Pinedo, who is cooperating with prosecutors. The indictment of Russian individuals and companies also suggests a broader conspiracy than Mueller charged, saying grand jurors heard about others involved in the scheme.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-13-russians-3-companies-for-hacking-election
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-13-russians-3-companies-for-hacking-election
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,713
- Likes
- 147,303
- Points
- 115
But it doesn't prove that Don Jr hacked the DNC.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,713
- Likes
- 147,303
- Points
- 115
@TEN_GOP was one of the fake twitter accounts that the Russians used and Don Jr loved retweeting them.
Which doesn't prove a crime, just that Junior is stupid.
Oops, looks like KelliAnne, Flynn, Ann Coulter, James Woods, Nicki Minaj and Pence all retweeted them.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,499
- Likes
- 25,634
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,499
- Likes
- 25,634
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,713
- Likes
- 147,303
- Points
- 115
Barfo admits Hillary could hack phlegm and the DNC!
Shaboid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 10,306
- Likes
- 13,667
- Points
- 113
Careful how you talk about my girl Nicki Minaj
Fez Hammersticks
スーパーバッド Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 29,178
- Likes
- 9,862
- Points
- 113
But last month Alex Jones was saying that it was a hoax and "officially over" according to his sources!
:-C
:-C
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,499
- Likes
- 25,634
- Points
- 113
Ivan was spending $1 million/month shitposting... and hiring Americans to do things out in the real world. Not an insignificant operation.
barfo
bulls_with_booz
We're Selfish
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,658
- Likes
- 926
- Points
- 113
Hillary spent a billion dollars to lose, Ivan and his goofy 12 million dollar effort barely made a dent unless you're a boomer on Facebook falling for clickbait.
Now, that doesn't mean I have no interest in the specifics and how to prevent them from happening in the future, but it's not something abnormal. I bet they did the same shit for years prior, but it wasn't forced into public conciousness until it was time to #resist.
The only interesting story to me to do with the election and Russia so far that I know of was Carter Page.
Now, that doesn't mean I have no interest in the specifics and how to prevent them from happening in the future, but it's not something abnormal. I bet they did the same shit for years prior, but it wasn't forced into public conciousness until it was time to #resist.
The only interesting story to me to do with the election and Russia so far that I know of was Carter Page.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
Not only did she spend $1B, but she had the full backing of the FBI, CIA, Obama Administration, and the media.
I'm still trying to figure out how posting, even robo-posting or posting lies on social media is a crime. It's free speech. Tough little things those Bill of Rights rights.
MarAzul
LongShip
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 21,370
- Likes
- 7,281
- Points
- 113
Me too.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
Enough, Troll.
Quit spamming multiple threads with this huge pdf document. A link will suffice.
Quit spamming multiple threads with this huge pdf document. A link will suffice.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,713
- Likes
- 147,303
- Points
- 115
I've only posted it in this thread. I posted it today because you didn't read it the other two times I posted it. Also it wasn't a pdf, it's a jpg. I wish we could post pdfs in the forum. It would really make posting the quote book a lot easier.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
I imagine $100K worth of ads being ignored by the puny fraction of voters who might have seen them. And most of those ads were run after the election, when it didn't matter anyway.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
Enough, troll.
I read it the day it came out. It doesn't matter what the prosecutor CLAIMS, it matters what is the law and what the constitution allows.
Not that you care about anything beyond trolling, but when the government gets to choose what speech (and by who) is allowable, we're fucked.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,713
- Likes
- 147,303
- Points
- 115
All the defendants were charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US; the IRA and two defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud; and the IRA and four defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russians-mueller-charged-with-interfering-2016-election-2018-2
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/doe...on-campaign-can-be-indicted-for-chris-steele/
Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?
Don’t expect such an indictment. Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens. Mueller’s unprecedented prosecution raises three novel arguments: first, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; second, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission; and third, that mistakes on visa applications constitute “fraud” on the State Department. All appear to borrow from the now-discredited “honest services” theories Mueller’s team previously used in corporate and bribery cases, cases the Supreme Court overturned for their unconstitutional vagueness. The indictment raises serious issues under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law.
Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?
Don’t expect such an indictment. Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens. Mueller’s unprecedented prosecution raises three novel arguments: first, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; second, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission; and third, that mistakes on visa applications constitute “fraud” on the State Department. All appear to borrow from the now-discredited “honest services” theories Mueller’s team previously used in corporate and bribery cases, cases the Supreme Court overturned for their unconstitutional vagueness. The indictment raises serious issues under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
I'll cite constitutional scholars. You can cite barfo, he's the expert on the law.
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...still-miss-the-mark-on-trump-russia-collusion
Mueller indictments still miss the mark on Trump-Russia collusion
That brings us back to “unwitting.” Not only did the indictment clearly say that no one in the Trump campaign was wittingly or knowingly involved with the Russians, it explains how the Russians used fake names and groups to hide their real identities. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave a press conference and drove home that point, stating that there was no evidence of any knowing involvement by the Trump campaign, as well as no evidence that this effort impacted the election. Indeed, Rosenstein stated that there is “no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge” of the Russian effort.
For over a year, some of us have been questioning the weekly “bombshells” announced on cable programs of criminal Russian collusion. Indeed, for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment if such a related charge is made. With each week, experts have given breathless accounts of the circle of collusion tightening on the Trump campaign.
Now, the special counsel and the deputy attorney general are saying that there is no evidence of knowing interaction of campaign staff with Russians interfering with the election. The paucity of such evidence follows a year of intensive investigation and the much heralded plea bargains with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and the expected plea with former campaign official Rick Gates. There is still no evidence of anyone “wittingly” or knowingly colluding with these Russians. Moreover, the indictment says that the Russian efforts began in 2014, long before the candidacy of Trump.
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...still-miss-the-mark-on-trump-russia-collusion
Mueller indictments still miss the mark on Trump-Russia collusion
That brings us back to “unwitting.” Not only did the indictment clearly say that no one in the Trump campaign was wittingly or knowingly involved with the Russians, it explains how the Russians used fake names and groups to hide their real identities. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave a press conference and drove home that point, stating that there was no evidence of any knowing involvement by the Trump campaign, as well as no evidence that this effort impacted the election. Indeed, Rosenstein stated that there is “no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge” of the Russian effort.
For over a year, some of us have been questioning the weekly “bombshells” announced on cable programs of criminal Russian collusion. Indeed, for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment if such a related charge is made. With each week, experts have given breathless accounts of the circle of collusion tightening on the Trump campaign.
Now, the special counsel and the deputy attorney general are saying that there is no evidence of knowing interaction of campaign staff with Russians interfering with the election. The paucity of such evidence follows a year of intensive investigation and the much heralded plea bargains with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and the expected plea with former campaign official Rick Gates. There is still no evidence of anyone “wittingly” or knowingly colluding with these Russians. Moreover, the indictment says that the Russian efforts began in 2014, long before the candidacy of Trump.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
There's also the obvious. If these Russians can be charged with fraud, so can ... SlyPokerCat.
I don't see any difference. You really do need to consider to what length Mueller and his team have gone to secure an indictment (a conviction isn't likely).
And if trolling is a crime, SlyPokerDog is guilty. Lock him up.
I don't see any difference. You really do need to consider to what length Mueller and his team have gone to secure an indictment (a conviction isn't likely).
And if trolling is a crime, SlyPokerDog is guilty. Lock him up.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,079
- Likes
- 10,918
- Points
- 113
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...-files-joke-indictment-against-russian-trolls
Mueller’s Investigation A Farce: Files Joke Indictment Against Russian Trolls
Laying Mueller’s disregard of the First Amendment aside, the indictment is blatantly hypocritical in light of active social media intervention by pro-Clinton David Brock and his multi-million dollar efforts to ‘Correct The Record.’
...
The Washington Post reported in 2015 that David Brock’s Correct The Record would work directly with the Clinton Campaign, “testing the legal limits” of campaign finance in the process. How did Correct The Record skirt campaign finance law? The Washington Post tells us: “by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation.” And post online, Brock’s PAC did: “disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said.”
Time reported the opinion of a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center who characterized Correct The Record as: “creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.” Meanwhile, The New York Times detailed the “outrage machine” that Brock and fellow Clinton supporter Peter Daou had created:
...
Going further, the New York Times details fervently the $2 million budget of Daou’s Shareblue and admits that the intent of the entire operation is interference in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton: “Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue, which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs. Clinton elected. Mr. Daou’s role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs. Clinton’s opponents.”
The New York Daily News put the matter most bluntly: “Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online.” The LA Times described the active election interference: “It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical.”
Despite the millions of dollars poured into a pro-Clinton ‘outrage machine’ bent on her support, Clinton inexplicably lost the election to Donald Trump, a fact which still seems not to have sunk in for the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
But why bring up this apparently old news, in the face of Mueller’s latest mockery of the American judicial process and the First Amendment? Because it reveals in the words of the legacy press that by definition Mueller’s circus has zero interest in campaign or election integrity and is solely interested in getting scalps for Clinton and for the unelected powers she represented.
Despite obvious hypocrisy given the actions of Shareblue and David Brock’s Correct The Record, corporate media ignored all double standards and attempted to report on “Russian twitter trolling” with a straight face. Business Insider wrote: “Russian Twitter Trolls Tried To Bury Or Spin Negative Trump News Just Before Election,” as if that wasn’t what Correct The Record spent millions on doing for the benefit of Clinton.
The double standards applied to Clinton for her benefit goes beyond hypocrisy. Many have claimed that constantly metamorphosing allegations of Russian interference represents an insidious effort to silence dissent and anti-establishment political discourse: for example, by turning third-party, anti-establishment or conservative voices into “Russians” by proxy of their opposition to Clinton.
By converting legitimate American free speech into insidious “Russian bots,” a pretext is created to silence dissent across the board. Without the Russian interference circus, the efforts to breach the First Amendment would be overtly authoritarian and would be inexcusable even by the most corrupt establishment media standards.
The results of such a clamp-down on free and effective speech have manifested in censorship crackdowns across large social media platforms including Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook, with Twitter admitting to actively censoring roughly 48% of tweets that included the “#DNCEmails” hashtag. It seems anyone with an opinion the establishment doesn’t like is liable to be memory-holed.
Mueller’s Investigation A Farce: Files Joke Indictment Against Russian Trolls
Laying Mueller’s disregard of the First Amendment aside, the indictment is blatantly hypocritical in light of active social media intervention by pro-Clinton David Brock and his multi-million dollar efforts to ‘Correct The Record.’
...
The Washington Post reported in 2015 that David Brock’s Correct The Record would work directly with the Clinton Campaign, “testing the legal limits” of campaign finance in the process. How did Correct The Record skirt campaign finance law? The Washington Post tells us: “by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation.” And post online, Brock’s PAC did: “disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said.”
Time reported the opinion of a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center who characterized Correct The Record as: “creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.” Meanwhile, The New York Times detailed the “outrage machine” that Brock and fellow Clinton supporter Peter Daou had created:
...
Going further, the New York Times details fervently the $2 million budget of Daou’s Shareblue and admits that the intent of the entire operation is interference in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton: “Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue, which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs. Clinton elected. Mr. Daou’s role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs. Clinton’s opponents.”
The New York Daily News put the matter most bluntly: “Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online.” The LA Times described the active election interference: “It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical.”
Despite the millions of dollars poured into a pro-Clinton ‘outrage machine’ bent on her support, Clinton inexplicably lost the election to Donald Trump, a fact which still seems not to have sunk in for the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
But why bring up this apparently old news, in the face of Mueller’s latest mockery of the American judicial process and the First Amendment? Because it reveals in the words of the legacy press that by definition Mueller’s circus has zero interest in campaign or election integrity and is solely interested in getting scalps for Clinton and for the unelected powers she represented.
Despite obvious hypocrisy given the actions of Shareblue and David Brock’s Correct The Record, corporate media ignored all double standards and attempted to report on “Russian twitter trolling” with a straight face. Business Insider wrote: “Russian Twitter Trolls Tried To Bury Or Spin Negative Trump News Just Before Election,” as if that wasn’t what Correct The Record spent millions on doing for the benefit of Clinton.
The double standards applied to Clinton for her benefit goes beyond hypocrisy. Many have claimed that constantly metamorphosing allegations of Russian interference represents an insidious effort to silence dissent and anti-establishment political discourse: for example, by turning third-party, anti-establishment or conservative voices into “Russians” by proxy of their opposition to Clinton.
By converting legitimate American free speech into insidious “Russian bots,” a pretext is created to silence dissent across the board. Without the Russian interference circus, the efforts to breach the First Amendment would be overtly authoritarian and would be inexcusable even by the most corrupt establishment media standards.
The results of such a clamp-down on free and effective speech have manifested in censorship crackdowns across large social media platforms including Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook, with Twitter admitting to actively censoring roughly 48% of tweets that included the “#DNCEmails” hashtag. It seems anyone with an opinion the establishment doesn’t like is liable to be memory-holed.