Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

As far as Nunes can tell, none of us have even met with Trump

985 replies

PerkingFaintly · 05/02/2018 22:23

Devin Nunes Gets A Pretty Basic Fact Wrong In Defending His Memo
Nunes suggested that Donald Trump had never met with George Papadopoulos. There's a photo of them sitting at the same table.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/devin-nunes-memo_us_5a788b57e4b01fe513a60603

And we certainly didn't have a national security meeting right here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3150505-The-one-in-which-Trump-orders-his-staff-to-fire-Mueller-and-they-give-him-the-finger?pg=1

OP posts:
Thread gallery
54
OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 20:08

Inevitable I suppose but it’s not too convincing (although I don’t live in fox world so perhaps I’d find it more so if I were)

Jeanine Pirro
@JudgeJeanine
Why is DOJ announcing indictment - to deflect from fact FBI DROPPED THE BALL twice on shooter who killed 17 people?

Gumpendorf · 16/02/2018 20:12

@amySiskind
_
Rosenstein says these indictments do not show knowing collusion between Russia and Trump campaign "at this point" - that Americans working with Russians did so unwittingly; but leaves the door open that could be forthcoming.
https://twitter.com/Amyy
Siskind/status/964573832068681729

Much discussion on Twitter that Rosenstein spoke v carefully and to the indictments. He did not say or imply that the indictments were the totality of what Mueller knows and has evidence of on Russia.

Another Mueller masterstroke as this will make it harder to fire him, and make it harder for people to dismiss bigger indictments when they come.

Your son is gorgeous, natsku. Thanks for sharing the link.

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 20:13

Only half a minute but he makes an interesting point

mobile.twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/964591396098330624/video/1

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 20:18

Can I ask what is probably a stupid question?

Why does news always drop on a Friday? I know governments/large organisations favour Fridays as then everyone is busy with weekends/it’s not a working day so they aren’t expected to respond but why does mueller news nearly always seem to drop on a Friday? He’s not trying to bury it, presumably

cozietoesie · 16/02/2018 20:21

Self-imposed deadlines, I guess. The end of a week is easy to calculate.

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 20:25

Thanks, that makes sense

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!
8:18 pm · 16 Feb 2018

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 20:27

Caroline O.
@RVAwonk
Just so we're clear: There was nothing in the indictment that said the election results were not impacted, or that there was no collusion.

In other news, Trump just admitted that the Russia investigation is not a "witch-hunt" or a "hoax"

And

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Trump no longer calling Russian interference a hoax.

Rather, (in quite a roundabout way) he seems to admit that Russia interfered in the election.

lionheart · 16/02/2018 20:27

Sweet babe. Smile

cozietoesie · 16/02/2018 20:30

He is. Smile

cozietoesie · 16/02/2018 20:32

45 isn't capable of not sounding off, is he?

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 20:37

Calm and measured are not words i think I can ever find an occasion to apply to him. Echoed by sanders’ statement today (loving the caps lock- will definitely make it more convincing)

As far as Nunes can tell, none of us have even met with Trump
cozietoesie · 16/02/2018 20:45

That's actually quite a clever statement.

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 20:47

Robert Costa
@costareports
scoop: Gen. John Kelly, under pressure over Porter, approves overhaul of WH's security-clearance process and asks FBI to hand deliver updates, per 5-page memo obtained by @washingtonpost

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kelly-makes-changes-to-white-house-security-clearance-process-following-abuse-allegations-against-top-aide/2018/02/16/06c5ee46-1352-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 21:04

But one that falls apart at the merest pressure of scrutiny no? I might have missed it but my understanding is that the indictments/rosenstein’s statement doesn’t assert that the outcome was changed. And why is he suddenly happy to be let off the hook because it was in 2014 (when he has attempted to get into politics before and had decided to run in 2013 in Russia I think) but not believe the intelligence communities for the last year, nor implement sanctions?

Roussette · 16/02/2018 21:04

If it's a clever statement cozie that means he had nothing to do with writing it!

Lovely little Baby Natsku!

SanFranBear · 16/02/2018 21:27

I really hope you're right about this being different... but I can't help but feel that of the shooting of 20 six year olds changed nothing - and it really didn't change a thing - then this, alongside Orlando, alongside Vegas, alongside all the other fucking mass shootings that have happened in the last 6 weeks.. this changes nothing.

Prove me wrong America!

SanFranBear · 16/02/2018 21:28

That should say if the shooting of 20 six year olds.. what a sad start to a sentence Sad

kalapattar · 16/02/2018 21:28

The indictment is fascinating.

www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2018/02/16/indictment-russian-nationals.html

Yes - I know it's Fox new.

I wonder if Trump has actually read it. Yes - they started in 2014 - but when you look at what they were doing, it's pretty clear that the overwheming support from Russia is to support Trump.

I also can't find the bit where it states Trump et al weren't involved. It states that some Americans were involved unwittingly. But there is nothing that states anything about Trump and others at all. Maybe there's more to come.

It's fascinating to see the White House spin on this.

cozietoesie · 16/02/2018 21:31

You've slightly misunderstood me, SanFran. I don't think that this shooting will necessarily change things by itself. Not in the way of Hungerford, Dunblane or Port Arthur for example. I do think, though, that there's something building in general terms.

kalapattar · 16/02/2018 21:35

From the indictment, it seems to state that within this particular indictment, that any individual involved was unwittingly involved.

IT DOES NOT STATE THERE WAS NO COLLUSION. (Do you see what I did there). It also does not state there was collusion. Collusion hasn't been mentioned at all.

As far as Nunes can tell, none of us have even met with Trump
kalapattar · 16/02/2018 21:39

Again - from Fox

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe, said at a Friday press conference"

But Trump has spun this to presume that no allegation means that it didn't happen. Just because no allegation has been made in this indictment does not mean it didn't happen.

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 21:40

On spin:

Alexandra Erin
@alexandraerin
So, Mueller just got an indictment against 13 Russian nationals (people) and 3 Russian entities (organizations) on election interference.

What's this going to do to the rightwing narrative that there was no interference, or if it was, it was for/by Clinton?

Little to nothing.

When you start with a conclusion, the conclusion becomes evidence. They started with the conclusion that there is no Rusisan interference, no fraud or cheating by Trump, and so every time new evidence is uncovered, that evidence is dismissed.

"There's never been any evidence of illegal collusion!"

"We have found this evidence."

"That can't be real because there's no evidence of illegal collusion."

"We also have this other evidence."

"If this were real, we'd have seen evidence before."

"And this."

"No evidence!"

Thoughts and prayers won't stop bullets, but the faith-based approach to facts, legal realities, and scandals is as strong as ever. To those who believe there is no evidence of Russian interference or GOP corruption, believing is seeing. Anything contradictory is fake.

The very idea that such a thing as irrefutable proof could exist plays into this. The fact is, people can refute anything they care to refute. "You can lead a horse to water, etc." As long as they keep refuting it, it's treated as an open question, with two sides.

The very idea that such a thing as irrefutable proof could exist plays into this. The fact is, people can refute anything they care to refute. "You can lead a horse to water, etc." As long as they keep refuting it, it's treated as an open question, with two sides.

But the good news is Mueller doesn't have to convince the Top Conservatives On Twitter of anything. His finding of facts was persuasive enough to a grand jury, the actual legal authority, for them to return an indictment.

Now, the next talking point is that "COLLUSION IS NOT A CRIME!" Which is true. In the same sense that being evil is not a crime. But specific actions that may be described as wrong, evil, or collusion are crimes. Renato Mariotti goes into that here.

twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/964568405683703808

The charge is not "interfering in our election" because while it might intuitively seem like that should be a crime, trying to formulate a legal definition that could be readily applied and would not be catastrophically broad or vague is tricky.

Rather, the charges refer to specific illegal acts, acts of fraud, deception, and concealment, many of them intended to specifically circumvent other laws.

It's not illegal to drive a car. It's not illegal to pick up a friend. It's not illegal to drive to or away from a bank.

But if you're the getaway driver for a bank robber, you'll be charged with specific criminal acts that apply to the situation anyway.

(Similarly, it's not harassment to just walk down a sidewalk, send an email, or make a phone call. But if you're following someone around, spamming them, making threats or repeated unwanted conduct...)

And now we come to the next big talking point that's going around. Or rather, it comes to us. "This proves there was no collusion on Trump's side!"

It does not. In fact, it could not prove that.

From the beginning, Donald Trump's legal defense strategy in the court of public opinion has been to pretend that "hasn't been proven yet" means "there's no proof" means "it's been disproven".

And his followers eat that up.

They've been singing the same tune all along. "If Mueller's going after staffers and not Trump, he's got nothing on Trump." "Indicting business partners and not Trump? Too bad, liberals! Trump is innocent!"

Now the net expands to include Russian actors.

They sing the same song.

The line they're clinging to is "Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."

In their mind, this clears Trump.

But it's just describing one operation.

We already know about direct, bilateral contacts between Russia and Trump campaign figures (including his own family members, in his own headquarters!)

It's entirely possible this "unwitting" contact was coordinated at both ends. Plausible deniability. Why would Mueller accept at face value that it's unwitting, if it might not be? Because that's one less thing he has to prove for these charges.

And if you've noticed, nothing gets under Trump's collar faster or gets him to mouth off louder than insinuating that he wasn't in the loop on anything related to his campaign.

Trump's lawyers will be sure to play up the "unwitting" aspect, which is sure to drive a wedge between them and him.

If you think this one set of indictments is Mueller closing the book on Russia, ask yourself why he's still squeezing Manafort and Gates.

If Mueller accomplished nothing else today (and he accomplished a lot), he's got Trump's MAGA heads on Twitter repeating again and again that Trump is #unwitting. Keep it up! You might just goad him into a full confession.

Donald Trump: Witless for the Prosecution.

You want to talk about a positive indicator? I have never before had more Trumpites on my threads about Donald Trump and his legal woes as this one. It's not many, just a couple, but that's before the thread has grown legs and gone viral yet.

They are worried.

Scared.

I'm not one to suggest that every red ball cap on here is a Russian bot or a paid operative of anyone. They really aren't. They don't have to be. The relatively small number of shills call the tune and they get a ton of real people to dance to it.

And oh boy, are the defensive. Are they frightened. They see the net drawing tighter.

This is bad news in Trumpland.

Count the hours before Trump tweets that he's been vindicated by the #unwitting line. The longer it takes, the more worried he and his lawyers actually are.

And we've already got at least one guilty plea entered. That "unwitting" line isn't going to protect anyone in the Trump regime if someone flips and starts naming their contacts.

And all of this is happening as the loser king of dirt and empty spaces flies off to another lazy weekend in his golden palace in Florida.

cozietoesie · 16/02/2018 21:45

Mueller and his team of very experienced individual lawyers continue their work. Smile

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 16/02/2018 21:46

Renato's thread expanded:

Renato Mariotti‏
@renato_mariotti
THREAD: What does today's indictment of 13 Russians and three Russian entities by Mueller tell us?

1/ Today the Justice Department announced that Mueller obtained an indictment against 13 Russians and three Russian entities. You should read it yourself: www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

2/ This is an unprecedented indictment. I'm not aware of another case charging foreign agents with interfering in an election. One of the first things you should notice is that the interference itself is not charged as a crime.

3/ It is illegal for foreign nationals to contribute to a U.S. election, but the indictment charges three other crimes. First, a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining the ability of the federal government to disclose foreign involvement in our elections.

4/ For that conspiracy, the crime is hiding the foreign involvement from the federal government, not the foreign involvement itself. The second crime is fraud--using false names to open accounts to send money in and out of the United States to fund their operation.

5/ The third crime is aggravated identity theft--using the identities of Americans in connection with the fraud involving the accounts with false names. Why charge these crimes? It's less aggressive than charging the Russians with "contributions" in connection with the election.

6/ Fraud and identity theft are commonly charged, and there is no novel legal defense that could be brought against those claims. But the decision to charge these crimes has important implications for whether and how Americans can be charged in connection with these crimes.

7/ The Russians charged in this indictment will likely never be brought to the U.S., but an American could be charged if (1) the American knew of the criminal activity and helped it succeed ("aiding and abetting") or (2) agreed to be part of the criminal activity ("conspiracy").

8/ Because of the particular crimes Mueller chose to charge, an American would have had to know about the efforts by the Russian to hide their activitiesnot just the influence operation itselfto be criminally liable. Did any Americans help the Russians hide their operation?

9/ As I'm writing this thread, Mueller announced another charge--a single identity fraud count by a Florida man who appears to be cooperating. Is this the first American charged with helping the Russians commit a crime? We'll need to look at his plea agreement to be sure.

twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/964568405683703808

10/ Back when the Facebook search warrant was announced in September, I said that for the first time, it was possible for a Russian and an American to be charged in the same indictment:

11/ In the months to come, this aspect of the Mueller investigationthe Russian influence piececould be the most explosive. Did anyone in the Trump Campaign know what the Russians were doing and help the Russians succeed? Today's indictment leaves open that possibility.

12/ In this particular indictment, no American was charged, and the only Americans mentioned had no knowledge of the underlying activity. It remains to be seen whether there is more to come. A superseding indictment could add new charges and/or new defendants.

13/ As it stands, the most important impact of this current indictment could be political. Based on this indictment, the Russians had a clear preference as to candidates and took serious steps to help those candidates. The Russians also tried to suppress votes.

14/ Will this indictment create a nonpartisan consensus for Russian sanctions, or the need to protect our elections from foreign influence? That could be its lasting impact if Americans aren't charged down the line. /end