Mueller might soon bring charges that even Trump die-hards can’t trivialize

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
34,939
USA
Hmm another opinion piece. But interesting to read..

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-mueller-probe-blockbuster-developments-20181120-story.html

Commentators predict the next chapter of the Department of Justice’s Russia investigation at their peril, but there is good reason to expect one or more blockbuster developments in the next few weeks.

There are concrete indications that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is now about the business of laying down the last big pieces of the puzzle of Russian intervention in the 2016 election....
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
34,939
USA
If there was anything real, Adam Schiff would have leaked it by now.
Doubt it.
View attachment 805774
So basically the Democrats get a free ride... But you’re correct, it is an opinion piece.
How can you tell. Do you know what Mueller has found out and all the potential indictments there will be?

And some free ride. Pretty sure Hillary testified for hours. Or did I imagine that? I don't remember her insisting on written answers nor her lawyers worrying about a perjury trap.


Further, there's already been evidence that those who Trump surrounded himself were committing crimes.

Time will tell.
 
Last edited:

MrWillie

macrumors 65816
Apr 29, 2010
1,338
275
Starlite Starbrite Trailer Court
Doubt it. How can you tell. Do you know what Mueller has found out and all the potential indictments there will be?

And some free ride. Pretty sure Hillary testified for hours. Or did I imagine that? I don't remember her insisting on written answers nor her lawyers worrying about a perjury trap.


Further, there's already been evidence that those who Trump surrounded himself were committing crimes.

Time will tell.
I don’t know what’s going on with the investigation, and after reading that one sided opinion piece, I still don’t. But hey, it’s an anti-Trump article, so they’ll make a little money off of it. What we do know as fact is that Hillary lied to the FBI, Congress, and to us. Other than losing the election, her and her cronies get a free ride.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennethS

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
34,939
USA
I don’t know what’s going on with the investigation, and after reading that one sided opinion piece, I still don’t. But hey, it’s an anti-Trump article, so they’ll make a little money off of it. What we do know as fact is that Hillary lied to the FBI, Congress, and to us. Other than losing the election, her and her cronies get a free ride.
Trump, his family and his administration have lied consistently. I'll wait for the results of the investigation.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,037
16,509
The Misty Mountains
View attachment 805774
So basically the Democrats get a free ride... But you’re correct, it is an opinion piece.
Russian agents had 100s if not over a thousand social media accounts that they used to flood the US with millions of propaganda and disinformation posts. While this was going on, Supreme Leader was waving wiki leaks around, talking about the big news, while immediate family members were meeting secretly with Russian agents. Sure, nothing to see there. :rolleyes::oops:
 
Last edited:

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
Russian agents had 100s if not over a thousand social media accounts that they used to flood the US with millions of propaganda and disinformation posts. While this was going on, Supreme Leader was waving wiki leaks around, talking about the big news, while immediate family memembers were meeting secretly with Russian agents. Sure, nothing to see there. :rolleyes::oops:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

"This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content," Stretch writes. "Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA."

Yeah, those ads really outdid the $2B Clinton spent.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,367
UK
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

"This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content," Stretch writes. "Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA."

Yeah, those ads really outdid the $2B Clinton spent.
They don’t have to have moved the needle much 0.5% was enough to change the result.
 

MrWillie

macrumors 65816
Apr 29, 2010
1,338
275
Starlite Starbrite Trailer Court
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

"This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content," Stretch writes. "Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA."

Yeah, those ads really outdid the $2B Clinton spent.
Kind of like the amount of Indian (not necessarily American Indian) blood a little friend of ours has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dmunjal

Admiral

macrumors regular
Mar 14, 2015
216
636
I don’t know what’s going on with the investigation, and after reading that one sided opinion piece, I still don’t. But hey, it’s an anti-Trump article, so they’ll make a little money off of it. What we do know as fact is that Hillary lied to the FBI, Congress, and to us. Other than losing the election, her and her cronies get a free ride.
Why would Hillary Clinton worry about a perjury trap, anyway? She knew and knows that she is under the protection of an FBI and Justice Department which will, even after enumerating in excruciating detail all of the elements of a crime she's committed, take no action and run out the statute of limitations for her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennethS

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,367
UK
Why would Hillary Clinton worry about a perjury trap, anyway? She knew and knows that she is under the protection of an FBI and Justice Department which will, even after enumerating in excruciating detail all of the elements of a crime she's committed, take no action and run out the statute of limitations for her.
These sorts of Clinton conspiracies are odd. Why not critise the Clinton for whitewater and other 1990s scandals that lots of people were charged and convicted over?
 

RichardMZhlubb

Contributor
Nov 26, 2010
209
14,770
Washington, DC
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

"This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content," Stretch writes. "Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA."

Yeah, those ads really outdid the $2B Clinton spent.
Focusing only on the Russian social media disinformation campaign misses the bigger picture. That campaign was significant and illegal, but nowhere near as significant as the Russian theft of Democratic campaign emails and arrangements to have those emails published by Wikileaks.

We know that Russian government operatives stole those emails and sent them to Wikileaks. And we know that Trump campaign advisors knew about it. And we also know that top Trump campaign advisors were meeting with Russian government operatives offering dirt on Hillary. Pretending that Mueller has nothing is foolish. At this point, the only real question is what Trump himself knew and when.

And Hillary’s merits as a candidate are irrelevant. The fact that Nixon would have won easily in 1972 without the Watergate break in doesn’t make his actions in that case any less impeachable.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
34,939
USA
Focusing only on the Russian social media disinformation campaign misses the bigger picture. That campaign was significant and illegal, but nowhere near as significant as the Russian theft of Democratic campaign emails and arrangements to have those emails published by Wikileaks.

We know that Russian government operatives stole those emails and sent them to Wikileaks. And we know that Trump campaign advisors knew about it. And we also know that top Trump campaign advisors were meeting with Russian government operatives offering dirt on Hillary. Pretending that Mueller has nothing is foolish. At this point, the only real question is what Trump himself knew and when.

And Hillary’s merits as a candidate are irrelevant. The fact that Nixon would have won easily in 1972 without the Watergate break in doesn’t make his actions in that case any less impeachable.
++ the notion that this investigation is a witch hunt or because liberals are "sore losers" because Hillary isn't President is a false narrative as well. For all the reasons you mentioned above.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,037
16,509
The Misty Mountains
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

"This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content," Stretch writes. "Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA."

Yeah, those ads really outdid the $2B Clinton spent.
But Clinton has nothing to do with it. Those messages were targeted, not just blindly shotgunned into social media and you seem to comviently overlook we have laws about foreign interference in our elections. You do know that inditements have been issued regarding this? Who are you defending Russians, Trump or both?
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
But Clinton has nothing to do with it. Those messages were targeted, not just blindly shotgunned into social media and you seem to comviently overlook we have laws about foreign interference in our elections. You do know that inditements have been issued regarding this? Who are you defending Russians, Trump or both?
Of course the Russians tried to sway our elections via propaganda. Just like the Chinese do. Just like the US does. The US goes even further in many examples.

But to say it swayed the election when most sat home because they didn't want to vote for Clinton is going too far.

Trump didn't win, Clinton lost because of weak campaigning and her checkered history. Russians didn't prevent her from campaigning in Wisconsin or cause her to delete her emails.

Read the NYTimes article and understand what really happened.

Do you think that she could win if she ran in 2020? She wouldn't make it out of the primary. Not the fault of the Russians.