Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, December 17, 2018

The filing revealed that Mueller's Office is now investigating the hypothesis that Donald Trump, his campaign, his organization and his associates participated in a massive election fraud, through five interlocking conspiracies -- arguably the worst set of crimes against the United States in its history.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Now the Special Counsel has turned to the American dimension of the elections. The Special Counsel now appears to be exploring five interlocking criminal conspiracies, building on the core crime of the Russian Intervention. Thus on December 7, the Special Counsel's Office filed a court document that gave us important new clues as to the main hypotheses being explored."

Forbes does an excellent job of outlining, defining, and graphing in detail:

Conspiring with Russia
The Moscow Trump Tower Project
Currying Favor with Russia
Hiding the conspiracies
Enabling hard kompromat

They answer the question "where's the beef" on the NothingBurger.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 12:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It is noteworthy that Mueller has handed off the prosecutions of the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and Maria Butina's involvement with the NRA to other parts of the Justice Department.

In effect, the Special Counsel's Office gives every sign of focusing sharply on the larger narrative with Russia.

It is investigating the possibility that Donald Trump, his campaign, his organization and his associates, participated in a set of criminal conspiracies with Russia to defraud the United States both of a free and fair election and of a government solely devoted to its interests (18 U.S.C. § 371).

Trump's defenders -- and Donald Trump himself -- contend that the Special Counsel has yet to allege, let alone prove, that Trump committed a crime in the sense that "Trump's fingerprints are on the murder weapon." There's no "smoking gun."

What these contentions overlook is the law of criminal conspiracy."

Detailing the law and the conspiracy follows at the thread link.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 12:08 AM | Reply

Interesting article.
No wonder don Jr and Eric were upset that they couldn't make deals while Muellers investigation was active.

www.independent.co.uk

#3 | Posted by bored at 2018-12-17 01:09 AM | Reply

A Complete Guide to All 17 (Known) Trump and Russia Investigations

www.wired.com

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-17 09:43 AM | Reply

#4 Ah, the irony of Trump's 2016 campaign comments:

Trump Warned of Endless Clinton Investigations. Instead, the Focus Is on Him

November 2 in Orlando, FL
"Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years, probably concluding in a criminal trial."

November 4 in Atkinson, NH
"She'll be under investigation for years. She'll be with trials. Our country, we have to get back to work."

November 4 in Wilmington, OH
"Hillary has engaged in a criminal massive enterprise and cover-ups like probably nobody ever before."

November 5 in Reno, NV
"There's virtually no doubt that FBI Director Comey and the great, great special agents of the FBI will be able to collect more than enough evidence to garner indictments against Hillary Clinton and her inner circle, despite her efforts to disparage them and to discredit them. If she were to win this election, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial."

And there's more along the same lines. Trump has always been the greatest at projection:

www.nbcnews.com

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-17 09:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And watch wilbur ross and the cyprus bank become a key player.

#6 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2018-12-17 10:01 AM | Reply

The Destabilizers

#7 | Posted by LesWit at 2018-12-17 10:02 AM | Reply

"watch wilbur ross and the cyprus bank become a key player."

Which I predicted on day one.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-17 10:03 AM | Reply

Mueller's Office is now investigating the hypothesis...
I wonder how long the investigation of this hypothesis will take.

#9 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-17 10:17 AM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE ................I wonder how long the investigation of this hypothesis will take.

Gotta' feeling Xmas is right around the corner. and remember the part anticipation plays when you really want something.

#10 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2018-12-17 10:21 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"I wonder how long the investigation of this hypothesis will take."

Probably until they get full explanations for all the aspects. And with 23 indictments, it looks like there is ample reason to believe the hypothesis.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-17 10:22 AM | Reply

What's your rush, Comrade Avignore? The investigation will be much shorter than baseless Whitewater (it has already amassed multiple indictments and guilty pleas) and much more substance than "Benghazi").

It has already paid for it's self with tax evasion forfeitures.

And, like Trumpski predicted: "There's virtually no doubt that FBI Director Comey and the great, great special agents of the FBI will be able to collect more than enough evidence to garner indictments..."

What are you worried about? You getting out of "The Navy" soon? Gonna have to get a real job?

#12 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-12-17 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I wonder how long the investigation of this hypothesis will take.

#9 | Posted by Avigdore

Funny how investigations take so long when the subjects are doing everything they can to lie, thwart the investigation, and obstruct justice.

This could have been over long ago if the con man just came clean instead of lying.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-17 11:34 AM | Reply

What's your rush #12 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-12-17 10:53 AM
If there were a criminal in the White House, I'd prefer that it was for a shorter period rather than a longer one. Justice delayed is justice denied; what good indicting Trump after he's finished his 4/8 years as President, really?

What are you worried about? You getting out of "The Navy" soon? Gonna have to get a real job? #12 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-12-17 10:53 AM
Just got back from training fight ops around Key West on the 77, actually. Being aboard the Bush with the passing of her namesake was an honor. She's going into the yards for drydock and some pretty exciting upgrades starting in January (planning for 28 months currently). It'll be quite a lot of real work at a real job. Thanks for asking.

#14 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-17 12:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If there were a criminal in the White House, I'd prefer that it was for a shorter period rather than a longer one.

I assume this means you are on board with a sitting president being indicted?

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-17 12:26 PM | Reply

I found it interesting that a usually conservative news source like Forbes was confident enough in the facts to publish them.

I mean, Nutty Judge Nap is one thing, Forbes is another.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 12:29 PM | Reply

"Hillary would've been worse."

- from my newsfeed
(NYPD/FDNY EMT)

#17 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-12-17 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I assume this means you are on board with a sitting president being indicted? - #15 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-17 12:26 PM
While you are correct, it is largely irrelevant. I believe that sufficient evidence leading to an indictment would also be sufficient evidence to trigger an impeachment.

#18 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-17 12:50 PM | Reply

Forbes was confident enough in the facts to publish them. - #16 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 12:29 PM

You're surprised that Forbes was confident enough of the fact that a hypothesis exists that they were willing to report on the existence of that hypothesis? You are easily surprised.

#19 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-17 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I believe that sufficient evidence leading to an indictment would also be sufficient evidence to trigger an impeachment.

Let's assume the Senate is so overtly partisan rhat they won't convict despite overwhelming evidence. You won't argue against the Special Counsel's authority to indict a sitting president?

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-17 01:16 PM | Reply

I believe that sufficient evidence leading to an indictment would also be sufficient evidence to trigger an impeachment.

#18 | Posted by Avigdore

There will never be sufficient evidence for republicans to impeach trump even if he confessed to obstructing justice on national tv (which he did.)

He can't be indicted in office. So he will go to jail after his first term if he loses the election. If he wins then the statute of limitations will keep him out of jail when he finishes his second term.

The 2020 election is no longer about just trump keeping the white house, its now his only way to stay out of prison. What do you think a man like him would do to keep himself out of jail?

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-17 01:21 PM | Reply

Let's assume the Senate is so overtly partisan rhat they won't convict despite overwhelming evidence.

#20 | POSTED BY JOE

That's a false assumption IMO. If it's proven that Trump was involved in a serious illegality resulting in him becoming politically toxic, Senate Republicans will drop him not out of principle, but out of political necessity.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-17 01:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 6

"Senate Republicans will drop him not out of principle, but out of political necessity"

Epitome of "A Death Spiral of Stupidity"

#23 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-12-17 01:28 PM | Reply

That's a false assumption IMO

I'm posing a hypothetical. It can't be "false," you dolt.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-17 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's a false assumption IMO. If it's proven that Trump was involved in a serious illegality resulting in him becoming politically toxic, Senate Republicans will drop him not out of principle, but out of political necessity.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ

That much is already obvious. Republicans have no principles. They are just hoping (like you) to find the slimmest benefit of the doubt to pretend that trump isn't a criminal. That's all they need to give him their full support, even when it's obvious he's a crook and a traitor.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-17 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think Trump is a useful tool for Yurtle and most Sen GOPhers and a hero to alt right House members. But there is a group that has a bit of foresight who would rather not have him as their candidate in 2020... apparently they are a vast minority.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 01:39 PM | Reply

You won't argue against the Special Counsel's authority to indict a sitting president? - #20 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-12-17 01:16 PM
I wouldn't argue against it, no.

There will never be sufficient evidence for republicans to impeach trump - #21 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-17 01:21 PM
Republicans aren't required to impeach Trump. Convict in the Senate, yes, but not to impeach.
Even with that, I don't make agree with your prejudiced opinion that Republicans in the House or the Senate are a monolithic group who behave in the way you are pretending to 'know' that they will.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-17 02:05 PM | Reply

#27 Which Senate Republicans do you think would vote to convict Trump if evidence establishing he committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt were laid before them, and what do you base that belief upon?

I ask because apart from two departing Senators, i do not recall any public statement from a Republican Senator that gave me confidence that they would do what I described in the forst paragraph of this post.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-17 02:15 PM | Reply

I'm posing a hypothetical. It can't be "false," you dolt.

#24 | POSTED BY JOE

I thought you were making a declarative statement.

I ask because apart from two departing Senators, i do not recall any public statement from a Republican Senator that gave me confidence that they would do what I described in the forst paragraph of this post.

#28 | POSTED BY JOE

You operate from the presumption that Republicans are morally bankrupt, which is reasonable. Trump doesn't generate loyalty. Sycophancy? Sure. Loyalty? Not so much. That's because he is loyal to no one but himself. If he were to become a major political liability I can easily see enough GOP Senators vote for removal to get it done. Again, not out of principle - it would be a matter of political expediency.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-17 02:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let's assume the Senate is so overtly partisan rhat they won't convict despite overwhelming evidence.

#20 | POSTED BY JOE
That's a false assumption IMO. If it's proven that Trump was involved in a serious illegality resulting in him becoming politically toxic, Senate Republicans will drop him not out of principle, but out of political necessity.

#22 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-12-17 01:22 PM | FLAG:

I got a Benjamin that says McConnell takes to the Senate floor and "decries these partisan witch hunts that are tearing apart this nation and that we need the high colonic cleansing of unity and love".

#30 | Posted by 726 at 2018-12-17 02:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You operate from the presumption that Republicans are morally bankrupt, which is reasonable.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

#31 | Posted by 726 at 2018-12-17 02:33 PM | Reply

Even with that, I don't make agree with your prejudiced opinion that Republicans in the House or the Senate are a monolithic group who behave in the way you are pretending to 'know' that they will.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore

Monolithic? Not yet. But they're headed in that direction. It's now the Trump party. Look what happens to any of them who dare to go against trump. Ask jeff flake about it.

If you were going to bet your yearly income on republicans acting to protect trump or pursue justice, what would you put your money on?

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-17 02:35 PM | Reply

Trump will not be impeached

Trump will not be indicted

Trump MAY win reelection

If Trump loses reelection, he MAY declare the election results invalid

Nothing Trump has done to date, his entire life, has indicated anything different

Republicans will support Trump in all of the above.

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-12-17 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Trump doesn't generate loyalty. Sycophancy? Sure. Loyalty? Not so much. That's because he is loyal to no one but himself.
POSTED BY JEFFJ"

The whole GOP is loyal to nobody but themselves.

You guys invented the term RINO for fake Republicans with loyalties elsewhere.

Trump is the ne plus ultra of Republicans.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-17 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's a false assumption IMO. If it's proven that Trump was involved in a serious illegality resulting in him becoming politically toxic, Senate Republicans will drop him not out of principle, but out of political necessity.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-17 01:22 PM | Reply |

There's a much better chance that I'll be 250#'s by this time next year.

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-17 03:42 PM | Reply

Even Forbes wants Trump to resign.

#36 | Posted by Tor at 2018-12-17 03:57 PM | Reply

even if he confessed to obstructing justice on national tv (which he did.)#21 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-17 01:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Are you still refereing to the campaign speech when he said maybe Russia can find her emails? I hope not because if you are you are even more clueless than anyone thought. Please tell us that was not what you were referring to.

#37 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-12-17 04:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jeffyj lives in an alternate universe with fishpaws.

an alternate universe where todays republicans have scruples and OBAMA actually had a "constitutional crisis"

#38 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-12-17 04:12 PM | Reply

There's a much better chance that I'll be 250#'s by this time next year.
#35 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

If you're willing to sacrifice foods you enjoy eating, you can lose weight pretty fast.

Only eat vegetable and lean meats, beans, and nuts. Don't eat anything processed (bacon and lunch meats...), nothing with added sugars, no carbs at all, and no dairy.

Do this for a few months and you'll lose tons of weight.

It works. But. You may prefer to be dead than stop living life the way you want to.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-17 04:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#38 Thanks MsWarren. Obama was the best ever, he left with tremendous foreign leader's relations. Plus he was a huge uniter. He never talked about race.

#40 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-12-17 04:19 PM | Reply

Read Jeff's #29. He isn't pretending the GoP is pure of heart.

#41 | Posted by bored at 2018-12-17 04:23 PM | Reply

#40

Wow.... FishP demolished this Forbes article. So impressed.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 04:23 PM | Reply

Plus he was a huge uniter. He never talked about race.

POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2018-12-17 04:19 PM | REPLY

Not talking about race is a precondition to being a Uniter? Really? Check your privilege, fool.

#43 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-17 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- It works.

Yeah it does. Or as Rod Marinelli says, Run more, eat less.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 04:26 PM | Reply

Obama was the best ever, he left with tremendous foreign leader's relations.

Is Russian your first language?

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-17 04:26 PM | Reply

Are you still refereing to the campaign speech when he said maybe Russia can find her emails? I hope not because if you are you are even more clueless than anyone thought. Please tell us that was not what you were referring to.

#37 | Posted by fishpaw

No im referring to the lester holt interview where he confessed to firing comey to stop the investigation aka obstruction of justice.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-17 05:45 PM | Reply

#39 Clown,

Mr brother in law calls that the caveman diet.

That's how I lost 58 pounds over the course of a year. I've put 12 back on but will be going back into mode after the holidays. The recent weight gain has been slow, but gradual. If I continue what I'm currently doing I'll eventually undo everything I accomplished and there is no way I'm going to let that happen.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-17 07:15 PM | Reply

That's how I lost 58 pounds over the course of a year.

I lost a bit over 45 lbs on that diet. Have put on about 8 pounds since thanks to holiday eating. But. It actually works.

I plan on going back on it in January. I'm pretty close to having a healthy BMI. Just need those final few pounds to go away.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-17 07:33 PM | Reply

Im in the same boat, Clown.

I really liked how my body felt when I was eating like that.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-17 07:54 PM | Reply

#49

So did mAndrea! ;}

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-17 08:04 PM | Reply

That's how I lost 58 pounds over the course of a year. I've put 12 back on but will be going back into mode after the holidays. The recent weight gain has been slow, but gradual. If I continue what I'm currently doing I'll eventually undo everything I accomplished and there is no way I'm going to let that happen.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ

You should take the same approach to your health that you take with climate change.

Since eating better won't make you immortal there's no point in doing it.

You're going to die anyway so what's the point of putting a bunch of money/effort into being healthy?

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-17 08:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

mic drop

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-17 09:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Look what happens to any of them who dare to go against trump. Ask jeff flake about it.
If you were going to bet your yearly income on republicans acting to protect trump or pursue justice, what would you put your money on? - #32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-17 02:35 PM

And what is it you think happened to Jeff Flake? He chose to retire from office instead of fighting for a seat that he foresaw as unwinnable in the current election climate. He wasn't forced out - his GOP membership wasn't revoked.
I'd put my money on pursuing justice, but then I'm not a hyper-partisan fool who adheres to a us-good/them-bad mentality. Your mileage may vary.

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-18 08:37 AM | Reply

And what is it you think happened to Jeff Flake? He chose to retire from office instead of fighting for a seat that he foresaw as unwinnable in the current election climate. He wasn't forced out - his GOP membership wasn't revoked.
I'd put my money on pursuing justice, but then I'm not a hyper-partisan fool who adheres to a us-good/them-bad mentality. Your mileage may vary.

#53 | Posted by Avigdore

Jeff flake refused to submit to trumpism, so he knew he'd be primaried and voted out, so he retired.

He didn't join the cult so he had to leave.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-18 01:23 PM | Reply

Jeff flake refused to submit to trumpism, so he knew he'd be primaried and voted out, so he retired. - #54 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-18 01:23 PM
Shorthand for 'he knew he no longer represented the will of the people who elected him'. He didn't have to leave, but he quickly became aware that the people wanted someone different to represent them. Do you have a problem with that?

#55 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-18 04:09 PM | Reply

Shorthand for 'he knew he no longer represented the will of the people who elected him'. He didn't have to leave, but he quickly became aware that the people wanted someone different to represent them. Do you have a problem with that?

#55 | Posted by Avigdore

No you're making my point for me. The republican party is the trump party now. The party of a reality tv show con man. The party of a criminal. The party of a racist. The party of a traitor. The party of a liar and cheater. The party of a serial adulterer. And anyone who doesn't support him isn't welcome in the party.

Can't wait to see yall all pretend you never liked or supported him in 10 years and you have no idea where the giant hole in the budget came from that was caused by his tax cuts.

#56 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-18 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump's most serious transgression was accepting Russian money in 2008, in the middle of the financial crisis. After that they owned him, which is reflected in hi behaviors. The Forbes timeline starts in 2015 so its missing the BIG PICTURE.

#57 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-18 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The republican party is the trump party now. - #56 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-18 05:31 PM |
The party is, as it always has been, the party of the people who vote for them.

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-12-18 09:23 PM | Reply

The party is, as it always has been, the party of the people who vote for them.

#58 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Correct - and Speaks reads the Brietbart comments sections and assumes (confirmation-bias) that the alt-right subset is a microcosm for 99.7% of all people right of center.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-18 09:31 PM | Reply

Correct - and Speaks reads the Brietbart comments sections and assumes (confirmation-bias) that the alt-right subset is a microcosm for 99.7% of all people right of center.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ

And Jeff says that breitbart isn't a reflection of the republican party, before going and copy-pasting all of their anti environmental propaganda.

#60 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-18 09:47 PM | Reply

speaks- and nulli the classical liberal is touting steve bannon as some economist.

#61 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-12-18 10:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And Jeff says that breitbart isn't a reflection of the republican party, before going and copy-pasting all of their anti environmental propaganda.

#60 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I've never copied-and-pasted anything from Breitbart.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 09:57 AM | Reply

I've never copied-and-pasted anything from Breitbart.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ

You might as well.

More accurate would be to say both you and breitbart get your anti environmental arguments from the same sources - the oil companies propaganda arms.

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 01:09 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort