this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
192 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19087 readers
4378 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
192
We received internal Trump documents from ‘Robert.’ The campaign just confirmed it was hacked. (www.politico.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 63 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

In 2017, the Justice Department launched an investigation into Russian interference in the election and what role Trump associates played in the hacking effort. Special counsel Robert Mueller ultimately concluded he lacked sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against Trump or his campaign for allegedly conspiring with the Russians.

BULLSHIT!!!

Will someone with a fucking Xitter account slap this motherfucker in the goddamned face for printing this MAGA garbage?!

A social media image makes the misleading claim that former special counsel Robert S. Mueller “can’t provide evidence that his probe reached a conclusion.” Mueller reached several conclusions, including that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to damage Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.

TWO SECONDS OF SEARCHING WOULD HAVE FIXED THIS i swear these fucking twitter journalists who pretend to know sweet fuck all and get a masthead over their diarrhetic prose GOD DAMN we do not need this fucking shit

Edit to add:

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” But, the report said, “[b]ecause we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”

Factoring into the decision to not weigh in on prosecution, according to the report (and as we’ve written before), was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel that found that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Concluding that Russia interfered with an election to Trump's benefit isn't the same thing as concluding that Trump conspired with the Russians

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mueller very specifically refused to conclude that there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge Donny.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.

from here

maybe he did but that's the only definitive statement i can find from him on the matter

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mueller was talking about obstruction. It's hard to prove conspiracy if your witnesses are allowed to obstruct.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

mueller released the report in 2 volumes, one talking about russian interference and collusion, and one talking about obstruction

it seems pretty clear from the quote and rest of the source that he's not talking about obstruction there

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

But, the report said, “because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

And

the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign.

And

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

So: there was collusion, it was tied to the predisent, who then exerted “undue influence” to stop the investigation into the collusion. That’s what they found.

Were there charges? They weren’t ever going to bring charges - which I 100% disagree with, but which they nevertheless say was dictated by a DoJ “guideline memo” “not to charge a sitting president”.

the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But, the report said, “because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

i presume you're pulling that from volume 2 of the report, since you didn't link anything

volume 1 deals with election interference

volume 2 deals with obstruction of justice

or in other words, your quote isn't relevant to evidence for conspiracy with russia

 

the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign.

"establishing multiple links" isn't the same thing as concluding they conspired, but even if it was, the second line of my initial comment addresses this:

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

 

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

this is talking about obstruction again, not collusion

 

your linked article doesn't support the statement "mueller found enough evidence to convict trump" at any point, which means the journalist was correct

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Speaking of, where the hell is our fucking Unredacted report??

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

the memory hole

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Not to mention trump fired the AG and replaced him with yes man Bill Barr right before. It's possible Barr pushed the can't prosecute a sitting president on Mueller at the direction of Trump. The Mueller report was super damning, but no one took the time to read it, and Republicans just go sEe? WiTcH HunT! When the reality is the they just chose not to prosecute because Trump was the sitting president.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 3 months ago (3 children)

This is a guy that had boxes full of national secrets

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That he showed off to whoever.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

*whomever

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

s/showed/sold/

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Right by the shitter at mar-a-fucko. And repubs be like “fuck yeah! That’s my orange god!”

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The password was:

1

2

3

4

5

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago

Hey that’s the code to my luggage!

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago

The kind of code an idiot would put on their luggage.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Hey, that's the code to Eric Trump's luggage!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Anyone remember the Darknet Diaries episodes about a bunch of white hats from the Netherlands who managed to guess Trump's Twitter password twice? I think this was after he started campaigning for what would be his presidency, and then again a few years later.

Here's the first of the two episodes: Darknet Diaries: 87: Guild of the Grumpy Old Hackers mp3

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

“These documents were obtained illegally from foreign sources hostile to the United States, intended to interfere with the 2024 election and sow chaos throughout our Democratic process,” Cheung said.

"~~Russia~~ Iran, if you're listening...."

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I wonder if Robert used a worm to get in?

wormVirus

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Out of topic here: Dude looks like a character in a gta game.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

He's definitely like actually supposed to be president in a GTA game. Somehow he's just in the real world fucking confused, spouting shit that'd go over great if he was on a GTA talk radio show.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay where are the links to the documents?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They will have to confirm their authenticity via their own journalistic standards and policies.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My guess is that they're just gonna sit on them and kill the story and say that they're trying to confirm authenticity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Cool. We’ll come back to this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Normally, a good editor would not publish hacked source. But, this story is too big. If they don't publish, another news operation will get it and worse they'll then be known as sitting on it.

You should see the story by morning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Why did the hackers sent it to only one? They should have sent it to all the media.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Karma seems to have a sense of humor. I really want to know who took the bail on that spear phishing email.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Trump is so-o-o-o done.

Asswipe had classified documents that he unclassified in his wet dreams.

Nevermind the stuff he auctioned to best dick-licker.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I don't care who stole it. Just release it. Let the world see how the ~~soylent green~~ sausage is made.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Isn't "Robert" the fake name Trump uses when he pretends to be his own PR person on the phone?

Jesus Christ, conservatives are transparent.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

That was John Barron. He named his kid the same name he used when he was pretending to be someone else. And will still deny it was him to this day.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

This is just gonna be a double standard like always; Trump was so crass to call Clinton unfit for office because of her data breach, but when it happens to him it's election interference and shouldn't be happening?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Nothing "confirmed" with trump. "Claimed" is the word you want. And claimed, in this case, by serial liars

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

RFK determined to win

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago

Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Politico:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/10/trump-campaign-hack-00173503
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support