Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[One Brow]

... something that can't be achieved by a remote hack from Russia or anywhere outside a high-speed LAN.

You will probably be shocked to learn this, but sometimes Russian agents actually leave the country of Russia and visit other places.

 

[TheStormofWar]

You will probably be shocked to learn this, but sometimes Russian agents actually leave the country of Russia and visit other places.

This is more about hackers than organic intelligence assets. In truth, depending on your pipes that are available, those transfer speeds are easy to achieve. Very, very easy. Truth is though most data exfiltrations are done at a slower rate so as to not trigger monitoring devices (IDS/IPS with behavior signatures, etc.) and are typically encrypted so that they are not read easily, if at all. It's part of what makes some breaches so difficult to detect. That said, the assertion by the article "Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet." blew whatever credibility it had with me out of the water.

 

[Hotdog]

These facts are supported by all major news outlets and the Mueller report. Is Fox News too Liberal for you?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-gives-detailed-look-at-russias-alleged-election-hacking

How about Breitbart? Still too liberal?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...of-u-s-officials-targeted-by-russian-hacking/

All of which corroborate with CNN’s timeline.

Any more lame comments for me to shred?

And to answer your question:

Give it up Thriller. Its game over. This thing is done.

No Collusion
No Obstruction.
Total Witchhunt.

 

[TheStormofWar]

Give it up Thriller. Its game over. This thing is done.

No Collusion.
No Obstruction.
Total Witchhunt.

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

 

[One Brow]

She did that and far worse through the Clinton Foundation, if that's what you're asking. The Clintons took direct donations. The question with Trump is whether he's truly compromised by Russia, or just being diplomatic.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation are not "direct donations".

 

[Zombie]

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

There's also the principle that the accused has a right to defend himself which explains why he had to walk such a fine line between explaining Trump's criminal behavior and not making a criminal referral.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Donations to the Clinton Foundation are not "direct donations".

They're not directly campaign contributions, but they're direct donations to the non-profit that the Clintons administer. They're far more direct a monetary contribution than a foreign diplomat choosing to stay at a Trump International Hotel.

 

[TheStormofWar]

There's also the principle that the accused has a right to defend himself which explains why he had to walk such a fine line between explaining Trump's criminal behavior and not making a criminal referral.

That as well, but only in a criminal procedure. Truth is Impeachment doesn't work like that. In a normal, sane world, the House would decide on Impeachment and the Senate would put the matter to trial, in their own way. Recall Clinton's impeachment in 96 (I think that was the year) where the House passed the motions to get it rolling but the Senate found him not guilty. As such, I don't think anything would really come of it.

 

[Hotdog]

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

Just so we are clear and factual when it comes to laws and rights.

It is not the job, duty, within the law, nor the right of Mueller to exonerate the president...

Bear with me here because this is where you Dems fail to understand what the hell is actually going on.

Under the law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not the job the prosecutor to exonerate you. You are either guilty or not guilty. You either find evidence and charge or you dont find evidence and you find them not guilty.

Its absolutel BS to be throwing that nonsense out there and tainting the case with this crap that he was not exonerated.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

Per the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) rules, a sitting president cannot be charged (indicted). Mueller admitted that his team never considered charging Trump. It was never an option.

However, this discussion about Mueller 'not exonerating' the president is just a word game. A prosecutor either has sufficient evidence to bring a case, or not. There is no affirmative exoneration. If there is not sufficient evidence to charge a person, that in itself is considered an exoneration, at least from allegations. What's more, there were no charges brought, so there was never a question or a need for exoneration.

However, in the weird world of politics, Jerrold Nadler can claim, "Mueller did not completely exonerate the President," and claim that this provides grounds to start impeachment proceedings. This is a weak claim, obviously, and that's why Pelosi won't let impeachment move forward.

Keep in mind, Mueller didn't exonerate you either. He didn't exonerate me. He didn't exonerate anyone. Prosecutors charge or they do not charge. If they do not charge, there's no case to be exonerated from.

 

[TheStormofWar]

Just so we are clear and factual when it comes to laws and rights.

It is not the job, duty, within the law, nor the right of Mueller to exonerate the president...

Bear with me here because this is where you Dems fail to understand what the hell is actually going on.

Under the law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not the job the prosecutor to exonerate you. You are either guilty or not guilty. You either find evidence and charge or you dont find evidence and you find them not guilty.

Its absolutel BS to be throwing that nonsense out there and tainting the case with this crap that he was not exonerated.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. And I am neither a Democrat or Republican. This sort of insane backchatter is actually why I left the Republican party many years ago.

Being indicted is no presumption of guilt. It's simply being accused or a crime. The DOJs rules do not allow for a sitting President to be charged. End of story. Save your virtue signaling for someone else. I care little for it.

 

[Zombie]

That as well, but only in a criminal procedure. Truth is Impeachment doesn't work like that. In a normal, sane world, the House would decide on Impeachment and the Senate would put the matter to trial, in their own way. Recall Clinton's impeachment in 96 (I think that was the year) where the House passed the motions to get it rolling but the Senate found him not guilty. As such, I don't think anything would really come of it.

Absolutely, I don't think Mueller's mandate gave him the authority to make a formal referral for impeachment. There seems to be a little more movement in the House to start impeachment proceedings in the last couple of days but I don't expect it to actually happen.