Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 349059 times)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1600 on: September 01, 2021, 09:04:53 AM »
Sydney Powell gives an interview with ABC (Austrailian Broadcast Co) about the election. She does not even know the facts of her own law suites or basic facts like who owns who. She has painted herself into a corner.

Here is the interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyWDAJzCZk

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1601 on: September 01, 2021, 07:18:34 PM »
"I’m confused right now about why you’re here."

I think Powell is confused about why Powell is there...

Mind you, an amazing amount of interviews seem to go like this.  Controversial people doing controversial things, being interviewed because of said controversy.  "I'm shocked, simply shocked, that I'd be asked a question about that!"  See also, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic "didn't want to interpret his holiday because of the Afghanistan crisis" Raab refusing to answer parliamentary selection committee questions...  about either the Afghanistan crisis, or even about his holiday...

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1602 on: September 02, 2021, 09:02:18 AM »
Ron Johnson's actual comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBdjUoyqPH0

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1603 on: September 08, 2021, 02:14:40 PM »
So where is the AZ audit?  It was due a few weeks ago, right?  I know all of the major people involved got Covid right as the report was due, but that was a few weeks ago. They have to have recovered by now.

Where is the report?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1604 on: September 08, 2021, 02:21:16 PM »
So where is the AZ audit?  It was due a few weeks ago, right?  I know all of the major people involved got Covid right as the report was due, but that was a few weeks ago. They have to have recovered by now.

Where is the report?

Or they weren't vaccinated and they are languishing in an ICU somewhere.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1605 on: September 14, 2021, 12:21:43 PM »
Taking a page from the Trump playbook, Larry Elder is already blamming his loss in the recall election on election fraud in an election that has not happened yet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ahead-californias-recall-election-larry-044205102.html

This is what the Republicans have wrought. Any election they loose they will claim fraud, even before it happens. They can never loose an election, anywhere, just claim it was stolen.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1606 on: September 15, 2021, 07:50:21 AM »
And Newsome stays in place by a wide margin.  I am sure Elder is going to say that a 2/3 victory was all done by stealing the election in a state that  identifies as 2/3 Democratic. Those numbers just don't add up.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1607 on: September 15, 2021, 08:49:40 AM »
Are you sure about that?

“Let’s be gracious in defeat,” Elder said at an Orange County rally for volunteers, even as some of his supporters called on him to not accept the result. “We may have lost the battle but we are going to win the war.”

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1608 on: September 15, 2021, 09:02:44 AM »
Wow, Elder accepted the defeat. How long before Trump calls him weak?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1609 on: September 15, 2021, 09:59:00 AM »
He might be letting proxies undermine the results instead of doing it directly, or maybe a 20-30 point margin is too much for even him to blame on fraudulent mail in ballots.

As for California and Democrat recalls leading to republican governors, it's not exactly unprecedented.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1610 on: September 16, 2021, 10:23:45 AM »
Another week and no report.  3 weeks past due.  And the State SC has upheld a FOIA request for all of the back up of the audit, that the Republicans in the Senate fought against, saying that Cyber Ninjas was a private group and did not fall under that law.  Except all of the courts in the state say they due.

Does this cause any of the Trump supporters on this site to question the audit and it's validity?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1611 on: September 20, 2021, 07:49:55 AM »
So all of the AZ courts have determined that CyberNinja's needs to turn over all of their work product since they are working for the State Senate. To give the Senate leader Fann credit she has told CyberNinja's to do so.  And now they will not.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/renegade-cyber-ninjas-brazenly-defies-025721089.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11


So why are they not turning over the documents? What are they trying to hide? It's not like they have to go that far back. There are months, at most, of documents, not years. Why is an firm that has been hired to do an audit finding it that hard to do a audit on themselves, when they should have known they would be required to turn over these documents?

This sham audit just keeps showing its colors. Not following the rules, ignoring orders by their bosses, ignoring the courts, being 4 months plus late with their report.  How any one can think this is a legitimate audit is beyond me.

Any Trump supporters want to weigh in on this?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1612 on: September 20, 2021, 01:20:50 PM »
Well duh. They don't want the internal emails discussing how to commit their own fraud to be made public.

Can't they at least tell us if the paper was Chinese? I'm dying to know.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1613 on: September 20, 2021, 01:28:10 PM »
Well Soros flew bamboo plants over years ago to grow in American soil, so while they found bamboo fibers, they were thrown off by the fact they were American DNA in the structures. Very suspicious.  That damn Soros is such a mastermind, planning stuff like this years and decades in advance.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1614 on: September 20, 2021, 07:37:05 PM »
Well it sounds like the report is going to be made public on Friday.  Got to love how they always do that.

A lot of pre-agita being expressed given no one really knows what was found.  It's almost like there's a need to precondition the audience to reject the findings.  Why would that be the case?

This is actually a bit of a first, that we're having a review of this level of detail of any election, including all the equipment.  I note too that the routers for the election equipment apparently were only "turned over" a couple of days ago.  I find that surprising for a couple of reasons.  First, I'm pretty sure I've read over and over again how the election equipment is "not connected" to the internet, yet there are routers through which all the machines in the county were connected.  I doubt they used hard lines or some kind of short range broadcast to move that traffic point to point.  But second, I find it incredible that the county has fought turning them over for this long.

I also find all the agita about it being a "partisan" audit to be ridiculous.  We have counties that run and count the votes on a completely partisan basis and that doesn't cause you to bat an eye, but a review by the "other party" of those votes does?  Seriously, the counties in this country most associated with fraud are almost uniformly controlled completely by local Democratic political machines and many of you have no problem with that.  This is an audit.  No matter what it concludes the raw data is still going to be there, what won't necessarily be there is all the local politically connected individuals with a stake in the game that love to tell you how everything was above board and there's nothing to see but never ever ever let anyone, let alone the other side, check for themselves.

Look at your bright side.  If you're correct and there never was any fraud you should be excited because that's what they're going to show.

On the other hand, I highly recommend reading the indictment of Michael Sussman.  Don't read the spin.  Read the indictment itself first (you can find it on CNN in a PDF).  Durham has Sussman dead to rights on lying to the FBI.  He has him dead to rights on colluding with several people (though he didn't charge it at this time) to create the Trump Russia investigation on a misleading and false basis.  You may remember Michael Cohen going to jail and having his records seized, Sussman could be in the same boat and his firm represented the Clinton campaign in creating this dirty trick.  Sussman seems to have been remarkably stupid by the way, literally telling the FBI that he was bringing them the information on his own behalf and not for his client and literally billing the meeting (not to mention all the time preparing the "information") to the Clinton campaign (and doing the same again with a second federal agency later). 

To all of you that argued endlessly that Flynn was properly on trial for "lying" even though there was no proof he knowingly lied, and the claimed lie wasn't material to an investigation, this should be a slam dunk given these lies have proof and were literally fundamental in causing the investigation to occur.  If they don't find a way to kill Durham's investigation this could literally be the start of the biggest take down in our political history.  I don't personally have confidence in Durham, but again, I highly recommend reading the indictment for yourselves.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1615 on: September 21, 2021, 07:44:43 AM »
The issue is that the company doing the "review" is partisan and has no experience doing this type of review. Before the review the company founder said that there had to be thousands of votes for Trump that were not counted. He has already basically said what he wants the results to be.

You say in many areas the voting is controlled by partisan groups. But in most of the states that Trump is asking for the audits, the Republicans control the state and even in some cases the county board of elections.  I mean Maricopa County is run by Republicans.

Why is it easier for you to believe that thousands of people across the country subverted the election rather than Trump just lost because he was the weaker candidate?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1616 on: September 21, 2021, 08:43:19 AM »
Serati

Your last 2 paragraphs have nothing to do with this subject.  I am not a fan of either Clinton and if they and theirs did something wrong I have no problem with them being prosecuted.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1617 on: September 21, 2021, 09:32:05 AM »
Regarding Sussman,

here is lawfare's take on Sussman, it appears the entire claim rests on Baker's recollection - and Baker has a sworn deposition contradicting the claim.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-counsels-weird-prosecution-michael-sussmann

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1618 on: September 21, 2021, 11:04:17 AM »
The issue is that the company doing the "review" is partisan and has no experience doing this type of review.

That's no surprising, to the extent that we ever do "reviews" they're always partisan.  No one who wins ever seems to want to be certain that they won fairly.  And, virtually every review has been done by the media and reporters.  When the media is almost completely partisan, that means will never see a review when their team wins.

But more importantly, you seem to think that a poisoning the well fallacy has validity in even making the argument.  When did you start relying on fallacies as arguments?

Quote
Before the review the company founder said that there had to be thousands of votes for Trump that were not counted. He has already basically said what he wants the results to be.

And?  Everyone has a result they want.  You want there to be no fake votes or miscounted votes.  Does that mean you'd cover up evidence if you found it?

Quote
You say in many areas the voting is controlled by partisan groups.

Which is is a fact.  I also said that the areas most associated with fraud tend to be overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, which is also a fact.  The problem of course is that the best places to run voter fraud are districts with a lot of voters and one party control, that makes it easiest to hide the fraud.

Every citizen should want fair elections and effective controls.

Quote
But in most of the states that Trump is asking for the audits, the Republicans control the state and even in some cases the county board of elections.  I mean Maricopa County is run by Republicans.

Sure, but it's not a secret that many of the establishment republicans hate Trump.  That's kind of why Biden got elected.  A lot of those party loyalists are the exact people that end up on local boards.  It's been stunning to me just how misinformed people are about the level of audit that applies to our elections.  Pretty much our systems are designed to confirm a result and final and never ever ever to consider if it was legit.  As I noted before we don't even have a mechanism to remove someone from office after the fact in many offices if it turns out they were fraudulently elected.  At the state level you do sometimes see judges order new elections, but more often they find a way to deny the review in the first place absent incontrovertible evidence (which its almost impossible to obtain because its in the control of the very people that certified it in the first place).

Quote
Why is it easier for you to believe that thousands of people across the country subverted the election rather than Trump just lost because he was the weaker candidate?

I never said Trump didn't lose - or do you think you can find my quote on that?

However, it's 100% clear that thousands of people, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people, subverted the election.  Or do you believe that the media accurately investigated and fairly reported on the candidates?  That Big Tech had no thumb on the scale?  That ballot harvesting where the Democrats made it legal had no impact?  That removing fraud controls where the Democrats manipulated the legal process around elections had no impact?  How many billionaires donated millions or even hundreds of millions despite laws on the books that cap campaign contributions?

No we definitely subverted the election, the questions are whether it was all done legally and why we make our laws in ways to make it legal and easy to do? 

Regarding Sussman,

here is lawfare's take on Sussman, it appears the entire claim rests on Baker's recollection - and Baker has a sworn deposition contradicting the claim.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-counsels-weird-prosecution-michael-sussmann

So does that mean you failed to read the indictment yourself?   Why do you always seem to want to review the spin rather than the raw data?

Read the indictment.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1619 on: September 21, 2021, 11:26:21 AM »
I read the indictment,

Part 28 of the indictment is the meat of it (the vast majority of it is very 'atypical' of an indictment and isn't really at all relevant) - which is referring to Baker.  Since Baker's congressional testimony contradict this, and Baker was the only person present during the meeting.  It seems impossible for Durham to make a successful case.  Even if Baker's congressional testimony was 100% congruent with it, it would be single party testimony (as opposed to FBI protocol of having two witnesses).  Conflicting accounts without witnesses generally aren't considered strong enough evidence.

Getting a Grand Jury to bring an indictment is fairly trivial - as has been said before there is no opposition thus they almost always indict.  As they saying goes "They'd indict a ham sandwich".  Given Baker's congressional testimony contradicting the indicement, and also Baker's testimony that it wasn't material to his investigation, I don't see how this case could possibly be won since that fails 2 of the 5 parts necessary to be proven.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2021, 11:32:32 AM by LetterRip »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1620 on: September 21, 2021, 11:59:55 AM »
Quote
However, it's 100% clear that thousands of people, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people, subverted the election
I assume that 100% clear means 100% clear to everyone, which it is obviously not as many do not have a "clear' objective view of what is or counts as such a subversion.

You yourself have not provided any "clear" evidence of such subversion, at least not 'clear' enough to convince.
The statement about it being 100% is a exaggeration, meaningless, a manipulation, self deception a lie... or all the above.   
« Last Edit: September 21, 2021, 12:10:29 PM by rightleft22 »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1621 on: September 22, 2021, 01:15:30 AM »
Now Mike Lindell, following in the footsteps of famous past end of the world people, says the case will be in front of the US SC by Thanksgiving.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mypillow-guy-mocked-trump-prediction-025256525.html

Any one want to put odds on this really happening?  How about Lindell backtracking on the date? What is the over/under on that?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1622 on: September 23, 2021, 02:29:55 PM »
So Trump's team knew the election fraud claims were false 2 weeks after the election.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-knew-lawyers-voting-184559787.html

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1623 on: September 23, 2021, 04:28:58 PM »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1624 on: September 23, 2021, 06:06:57 PM »
I read the indictment,

Part 28 of the indictment is the meat of it (the vast majority of it is very 'atypical' of an indictment and isn't really at all relevant) - which is referring to Baker.  Since Baker's congressional testimony contradict this, and Baker was the only person present during the meeting.  It seems impossible for Durham to make a successful case.

By your reference to part 28, you mean the reference to the hand written notes of the meeting which read in relevant part:  "Michael Sussman[n] -Atty: [Law Firm-I] -said not doing this for any client" (emphasis in original).  Or do you mean where it was recorded that Sussmann said he was approached (rather than approaching) the scientists?

That seems open and shut, and you seem to be assuming that they don't have records of the original meeting or relevant testimony as well.  The fact that they included a reference to an on point contemporaneous writing is pretty key.  Your only alternative is to assert that Baker lied to the Assistant Director or that the Assistant Director falsified the record.  Take your pick.  I don't recall Baker testifying that he lied to the FBI, but maybe you can point me at that.

So just to be clear, your position seems to be that Sussmann went in with his story and told Baker that he was bringing it to the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign?  Are you asserting that the allegations in 27 are false as well?  28 is a reference to a record of an internal follow up meeting, but 27 is fascinatingly detailed.  I'd be stunned if Durham can't separately prove the allegations in 27, given that he could easily have used the record in 28 as a source (but elected not to do so).

Quote
Even if Baker's congressional testimony was 100% congruent with it, it would be single party testimony (as opposed to FBI protocol of having two witnesses).  Conflicting accounts without witnesses generally aren't considered strong enough evidence.

Well that's a fascinating assertion.  Your options here are that Sussman lied and said he didn't represent the Clinton campaign, or that the FBI falsified its records to deliberately mask that they knew the Clinton campaign was the source.  There really isn't another possible conclusion based on the written records.

In either event, the white papers will take on more significance when he adds the rest of the charges, given its clear they were knowingly false misrepresentations when produced to the FBI.   The only reason this is a single charge was to fit it inside the statute of limitations for the lying charge, other crimes that are evident were not facing a statute of limitations problem.  My guess, is that they either intend to flip Sussmann, or to pull a Mueller and assert Sussmann wsa participating in the crime and that they can seize his records (including those that would otherwise be subject to attorney-client privilege).

Honestly, LR it's over.  I still don't have faith in Durham pulling this off, but this conspiracy is exposed.  Clinton's agents completely made up the secret Trump server story.  It's now a known lie.

Quote
Getting a Grand Jury to bring an indictment is fairly trivial - as has been said before there is no opposition thus they almost always indict.  As they saying goes "They'd indict a ham sandwich".  Given Baker's congressional testimony contradicting the indicement, and also Baker's testimony that it wasn't material to his investigation, I don't see how this case could possibly be won since that fails 2 of the 5 parts necessary to be proven.

Because one of the two people in the 2nd FBI meeting will have to go to jail if you're correct.  Either Baker is lying to Congress or he lied to the FBI, or the Assistant Director for Counter Terrorism lied to the FBI and falsified information material to an investigation.

Hard to credibly assert that it wasn't material to the investigation since the investigation actually occurred and would not have occurred if it was widely known that the story investigated was paid for by the Clinton campaign.  So why are you asserting that which is not credible?  Repeating Baker's self serving claim is ridiculous.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1625 on: September 23, 2021, 08:52:32 PM »
By your reference to part 28, you mean the reference to the hand written notes of the meeting which read in relevant part:  "Michael Sussman[n] -Atty: [Law Firm-I] -said not doing this for any client" (emphasis in original).  Or do you mean where it was recorded that Sussmann said he was approached (rather than approaching) the scientists?

Actually I meant 27a and 28 together.  27a is the private meeting with Baker.  28 is the Assistant Director's notes on his interpretation of Baker's discussing the meeting with the Assistant Director.   The note is hearsay, the indictement doesn't mention any notes by Baker.

Quote
That seems open and shut, and you seem to be assuming that they don't have records of the original meeting or relevant testimony as well.  The fact that they included a reference to an on point contemporaneous writing is pretty key.  Your only alternative is to assert that Baker lied to the Assistant Director or that the Assistant Director falsified the record.  Take your pick.  I don't recall Baker testifying that he lied to the FBI, but maybe you can point me at that.

Neither, the Assistant Director that Baker talked to after the meeting could easily have misunderstood what Baker was saying.  Hearsay is generally inadmissible, especially likely given that it is already contradicted by Baker's testimony before congress.

Quote
So just to be clear, your position seems to be that Sussmann went in with his story and told Baker that he was bringing it to the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign?

In all likelihood he didn't mention anyone.  Why would he, there is no requirement for him to do so.  As a lawyer he probably used weasel words if he was asked.

Quote
  Are you asserting that the allegations in 27 are false as well?  28 is a reference to a record of an internal follow up meeting, but 27 is fascinatingly detailed.  I'd be stunned if Durham can't separately prove the allegations in 27, given that he could easily have used the record in 28 as a source (but elected not to do so).

27a and 28 are the same meeting with Baker, they aren't separate allegations.  Baker met with Sussman alone, then talked with the AD after the meeting, the AD made a note.  There aren't any notes from Baker asserting what is in the AD's note and Baker has given sworn testimony that essentially states that the AD's note is incorrect.

Quote
Well that's a fascinating assertion.  Your options here are that Sussman lied and said he didn't represent the Clinton campaign, or that the FBI falsified its records to deliberately mask that they knew the Clinton campaign was the source.  There really isn't another possible conclusion based on the written records.

Again, no lie necessary.  Baker's notes did not contain the allegation and his congressional testimony contradicts the allegation.  The AD's note, which is hearsay contains the allegation, it is quite possible that the AD merely misunderstood Baker.  No lies or conspiracy necessary - just common human communication skills.

Quote
In either event, the white papers will take on more significance when he adds the rest of the charges, given its clear they were knowingly false misrepresentations when produced to the FBI.

Haven't read nor seen the white papers so I've not much to comment on.  What is said about them in the indictment doesn't appear to show anything illegal to have been done - they "avoided addressing weaknesses" isn't illegal.  From the limited description provided in the indictment, it appears they did time series analysis of Russian DNS originating traffic interacting with Trump servers, but were aware that DNS traffic can be spoofed.  They didn't mention the possibility of DNS spoofing in their analysis.  They were trying to offer evidence that Trump's public statement of 'no interaction with Russia' was false.  There was traiffic from Russia interacting with Trump servers that they excluded once they realized the server resolved to a 'trump-email.com' CRM system (I get the impression it was excluded, but Durham seems to claim that the whitepaper analysis includes that server - since the person telling the researchers to ignore it is the tech executive funding the research I think Durham may have misinterpreted the white paper, but won't know for sure till it is public).

See this quote,

Quote
Tech Executive-1 therefore concluded that "we can ignore it, together with others that seem to be part of the marketing world.

So it seems clear to me that the white papers are a good faith effort by Tech Executive-1 to prove that Trump was lying about a lack of Russia interaction as shown by the internal emails.  Rather than your characterization.

Quote
The only reason this is a single charge was to fit it inside the statute of limitations for the lying charge, other crimes that are evident were not facing a statute of limitations problem.  My guess, is that they either intend to flip Sussmann, or to pull a Mueller and assert Sussmann wsa participating in the crime and that they can seize his records (including those that would otherwise be subject to attorney-client privilege).

We agree it was timed to beat the statute of limitations since it was filed the day they would run out.  There don't appear to be any other alleged crimes or described crimes though.

Quote
Honestly, LR it's over.  I still don't have faith in Durham pulling this off, but this conspiracy is exposed.  Clinton's agents completely made up the secret Trump server story.  It's now a known lie.

Your batting record on such prognostications are so low, that a betting man would be wise to wager on the opposite of whatever you conclude.

Quote
Because one of the two people in the 2nd FBI meeting will have to go to jail if you're correct.  Either Baker is lying to Congress or he lied to the FBI, or the Assistant Director for Counter Terrorism lied to the FBI and falsified information material to an investigation.

Or nobody lied, and the AD misinterpreted what Baker told him.

Quote
Hard to credibly assert that it wasn't material to the investigation since the investigation actually occurred and would not have occurred if it was widely known that the story investigated was paid for by the Clinton campaign.  So why are you asserting that which is not credible?  Repeating Baker's self serving claim is ridiculous.

First off Christopher Steele became a Confidential Human Source for the FBI in October 2013, and did work for the FBI from 2014-2015, and had worked with the FBI on a 2009 corruption probe into FIFA, long before he was hired for the dossier.  So they absolutely would have opened an investigation based on his research.  He was a well known and respected source.  He wasn't contracted by Fusion GPS till June 2016.

Manafort was already under investigation for money laundering, Page was already under investigation for contact with suspected Russian Intelligence officers.

Steele independently reported the information in July 2016 for his first two reports, telling the FBI he had been hired by Fusion GPS, that Fusion GPS had been retained by a law firm to investigate relationships between Trump and Russia, and Steele gave his opinion that the research was likely politically motivated.

So the FBI was already fully aware that the payment for the research was likely politically motivated but they also knew he was a skilled investigator of high integrity and was forthright about the fact that it was funded for political purposes.

In their FISA application the FBI stated

Quote
[the FBI] speculates that the [person who hired Steele] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [candidate Trump's] campaign.

So your speculation that knowing that the information originated due to Clinton campaign funding would result in the FBI rejecting it is incorrect.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

It was Page's meeting with Russian agents in Moscow on July, 2016 and Manafort's criminal behavior, etc. that were the primary driver's of the investigation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1626 on: September 23, 2021, 09:34:59 PM »
So your speculation that knowing that the information originated due to Clinton campaign funding would result in the FBI rejecting it is incorrect.

Is it me, or does this statement sound like it makes things worse for 'your side' of the case, rather than better?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1627 on: September 23, 2021, 09:48:02 PM »
So your speculation that knowing that the information originated due to Clinton campaign funding would result in the FBI rejecting it is incorrect.

Is it me, or does this statement sound like it makes things worse for 'your side' of the case, rather than better?

It shouldn't be problematic at all.  Steele was a professional intelligence agent and analyst who was requested to find information regarding Trump's interaction with Russia.  He was well known to the FBI as an accurate and reliable source.  There is nothing to indicate that everything he produced wasn't the result of legitimate intelligence sourcing.

Do you expect lawyers or intelligence analysts, or accountants, or other professionals to commit fraud as a matter of course?  Asside from professional criminals that assumption seems extraordinarily insulting to pretty much any profession.  Reputation is everything, an intelligence analyst who had a reputation for falsifying sources would be ruined - there is zero motivation for him to do so.  How much money would it take to convince you to create fraudulent information and then lie to the FBI?  Do you have such a lack of integrity that you could be bought to do so?

If he were a psychopath who lacked integrity, then he would have simply become a double agent and made silly amounts of money.  He was reportedly paid 168,000$ for his research on the dossier, hardly a sum that could buy an experienced espionage agent into committing fraud and lying to the FBI.  He didn't even know who the client was.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2021, 09:52:24 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1628 on: September 24, 2021, 01:44:14 AM »
Do you expect lawyers or intelligence analysts, or accountants, or other professionals to commit fraud as a matter of course?

Sort of depends on your line of work, right? "Lawyer" isn't a good enough description. Lawyers who work for the mob, or 'criminal' lawyers (like Saul Goodman) aren't going to have the same standards as insurance lawyers for normal firms. Intelligence analysts...depends who they're working for and what their mission statement is. If your task is to produce intelligence only to serve a particular narrative, well then you'll do your job as instructed. And in fact we've known very well that this happens. Any professional may well act 'professionally' within their discipline, which is to say, doing the thing they promised to do. What I don't understand is why you think everyone's trade is completely lawful good. Someone can promise to do something very bad, and follow through with it with diligence. That makes them pretty professional, just not pretty virtuous.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1629 on: September 24, 2021, 08:36:26 AM »
Well the distraction worked. Now you are talking about something completely off topic.  :) Mission accomplished Serati.

However, back on topic. 

Will have to process the early results that says that Cyber Ninjas has confirmed Biden won and by a larger margin then originally thought.  Do I trust the numbers they came up with? Not a chance.

Still have to wait and see what other comments they come up with to try and discredit the results they found.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1630 on: September 24, 2021, 09:23:43 AM »
Quote
Do you expect lawyers or intelligence analysts, or accountants, or other professionals to commit fraud as a matter of course?

We see the world as we are....

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1631 on: September 24, 2021, 09:37:10 AM »
Sort of depends on your line of work, right? "Lawyer" isn't a good enough description. Lawyers who work for the mob, or 'criminal' lawyers (like Saul Goodman) aren't going to have the same standards as insurance lawyers for normal firms.

Okay, 99.999% of lawyers then.  Some lawyers are criminals, and will commit crimes in their own interest.

Quote
Intelligence analysts...depends who they're working for and what their mission statement is. If your task is to produce intelligence only to serve a particular narrative, well then you'll do your job as instructed.

My god.  You can't admit the truth.  You know what it is, but try and weasel your way out.  No you don't  task intelligence analysts with supporting a particular narrative.  You can task them with seeing if particular information exists.  They don't manufacture evidence.  Intelligence agencies do have forgers, but they aren't analysists.

We also know what Steeles instructions were, since this has been thoroughly investigated by the FBI.  He was tasked with finding intelligence on whether and to what extent Trump had contact with Russia.  He had no knowledge of the client other than it was a law firm.  He didn't know if the intent was with the hope that such information existed or didn't exist, he only suspected that it might   So you do agree there is zero motivation for him to falsify evidence? Zero motivation for him to commit fraud?

Quote
And in fact we've known very well that this happens. Any professional may well act 'professionally' within their discipline, which is to say, doing the thing they promised to do. What I don't understand is why you think everyone's trade is completely lawful good. Someone can promise to do something very bad, and follow through with it with diligence. That makes them pretty professional, just not pretty virtuous.

Committing fraud is never within the bounds of professional expectations except for criminals (or other narrow circumstances such as sanctioned espionage activity).  It certainly is not for a intelligence analyst with a lawyer as the soliciting client.

Also note that the type of research he did is regularly done by allies to ensure there aren't any surprises.

Just admit the truth - there is zero reason to think he had any motivation to commit fraud, and it would be against professional conduct for him to do so.  Even if he were the type of person to do so, he wasn't tasked with anything that would lead him to think his client wanted to do so, and certainly wasn't paid the type of money that would entice any professional to do so.  If you can't admit the truth here, what does that say about your personal integrity?  Why would you sacrifice your own character in such a matter?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1632 on: September 24, 2021, 09:40:20 AM »
Quote
Do you expect lawyers or intelligence analysts, or accountants, or other professionals to commit fraud as a matter of course?

We see the world as we are....

That is completely uncalled for and unfair - Fenring is highly partisan but I've never seen anything to suggest he lacks integrity.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1633 on: September 24, 2021, 10:32:05 AM »
apologies if I offended.

There is some truth to that saying - We see the world as we are.. and 'that we create what we fear'
This growing trend to distrust our social institutions and each other historically does not end well. Guilty until proven... doesn't matter your guilty. Such a outlook does change who we are. The pendulum of duality swings.

We see the world as we are, applies to me as well and so often ask myself how my fears, hopes, biases... are coloring the world I 'see'
With regards to trust. The vast majority of people I meet have proven to be trustworthy with a desire to be there best selves and do their work with integrity. (I wonder if our view on trust is over influenced by the stories we watch on TV.)

Perhaps I am naïve and view the world through that lens and so do not see it as it is. Probably,  I'm ok with that, its just to exhausting to distrust everything and everyone who does not think or act like me.
Its not like my opinion matters or changes how things Will be.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1634 on: September 24, 2021, 01:11:56 PM »
I wonder how long before Trump starts calling Cyber Ninjas weak and stupid and not trustworthy.

At least Trump did not spend any of the money he raised for audits on this audit. That was smart of him.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1635 on: September 24, 2021, 01:28:40 PM »
No you don't  task intelligence analysts with supporting a particular narrative.  You can task them with seeing if particular information exists.  They don't manufacture evidence.  Intelligence agencies do have forgers, but they aren't analysists.

Are you...talking about the same intelligence agencies I am? If you look at the CIA's activities through the decades, and don't come to the conclusion that they concoct any narrative to suit their agendas, then I don't know what to tell you, man. Maybe you're just saying it's a different type of operative from 'analysts' who does this? I don't know, I don't work in a CIA office  :P

Quote
We also know what Steeles instructions were, since this has been thoroughly investigated by the FBI.  He was tasked with finding intelligence on whether and to what extent Trump had contact with Russia.  He had no knowledge of the client other than it was a law firm.  He didn't know if the intent was with the hope that such information existed or didn't exist, he only suspected that it might   So you do agree there is zero motivation for him to falsify evidence? Zero motivation for him to commit fraud?

I personally know nothing about Steele and am not personally up to making a case either way on this. But I do know that spooks can be double or triple agents, mercenaries essentially, and that they can be tasked with various types of operations some of which may be clean cut and others which may be hatchet jobs. I wouldn't want to make blanket assertions about this type of opportunist in general, or about him specifically since I don't know him.

Quote
Committing fraud is never within the bounds of professional expectations except for criminals (or other narrow circumstances such as sanctioned espionage activity).  It certainly is not for a intelligence analyst with a lawyer as the soliciting client.

"Criminal" tends to mean someone already convicted of illegal behavior. But I'm sure it's evident that there are many people walking free who've never been indicted who do things where the word 'crime' hardly even does justice to it. And I don't think people who don't care about morality are as rare as you think. Putting aside the 2-3% of actual psychopaths out there, plenty of non-psychopaths could have a smattering of other personality disorders (if that helps explain anything), and many more are just lulled into the "hey, it's only business" mindset where they turn a blind eye to their own actions. Do you think the 2008 collapse happened as it happened purely due to poor innocence Wall Street execs doing their darndest, and it just got away from them? Some non-trivial amount of people were outright committing fraud to keep it going. This is normal, they always do this unless prevented. Think of it like particle physics: unless otherwise constrained, particles will freely flow in all directions.

Quote
Just admit the truth - there is zero reason to think he had any motivation to commit fraud, and it would be against professional conduct for him to do so.  Even if he were the type of person to do so, he wasn't tasked with anything that would lead him to think his client wanted to do so, and certainly wasn't paid the type of money that would entice any professional to do so.  If you can't admit the truth here, what does that say about your personal integrity?  Why would you sacrifice your own character in such a matter?

I don't know the truth, so it's hard to admit it. The only part of the grand narrative that seems pretty obvious to me is that Clinton orchestrated the entire hatchet job from the start. Beyond that, I can't say what I think about the individual details and motivations. There is always someone willing to play ball, however. Just read Economic Hit Man and you'll see that it doesn't take some strange form of evil monster to do things that are, uh, unwholesome.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1636 on: September 24, 2021, 01:29:24 PM »
That is completely uncalled for and unfair - Fenring is highly partisan but I've never seen anything to suggest he lacks integrity.

Thanks...I guess. It may amuse you to know that every time someone mentions offhand that I'm clearly partisan I have to think for a moment to figure out which side they're implying I'm partisan for  :D

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1637 on: September 24, 2021, 08:19:39 PM »
By your reference to part 28, you mean the reference to the hand written notes of the meeting which read in relevant part:  "Michael Sussman[n] -Atty: [Law Firm-I] -said not doing this for any client" (emphasis in original).  Or do you mean where it was recorded that Sussmann said he was approached (rather than approaching) the scientists?

Actually I meant 27a and 28 together.  27a is the private meeting with Baker.  28 is the Assistant Director's notes on his interpretation of Baker's discussing the meeting with the Assistant Director.   The note is hearsay, the indictement doesn't mention any notes by Baker.

The note is admissable to impeach testimony of Baker and/or the Assistant Director if they were to deny its contents.  You also ignored item 42, where Sussman is alleged to have repeated the claims to another agency in front of 2 people.  There may be records of that as well.  You're making a giant assumption, one that's almost certainly unfounded that an experienced prosecutor would make those charges in such a tightly held investigation if they couldn't prove them.

Nothing requires, or even suggests it would be appropriate, to provide every piece of evidence in an indictment.  But you have a minimum of 4 government witnesses, and at least one contemporaneous record to support the lying charge. 

I do note, you are partially correct.  Hearsay is generally not admissable, you are not however correct that this note and the information in it are necessarily easily excluded as hearsay.  Not only are there exceptions that could apply, there's a number of ways to have it introduced for "other purposes."

Quote
Quote
That seems open and shut, and you seem to be assuming that they don't have records of the original meeting or relevant testimony as well.  The fact that they included a reference to an on point contemporaneous writing is pretty key.  Your only alternative is to assert that Baker lied to the Assistant Director or that the Assistant Director falsified the record.  Take your pick.  I don't recall Baker testifying that he lied to the FBI, but maybe you can point me at that.

Neither, the Assistant Director that Baker talked to after the meeting could easily have misunderstood what Baker was saying.  Hearsay is generally inadmissible, especially likely given that it is already contradicted by Baker's testimony before congress.

The written record is not hearsay when it's used as evidence of the discussion between Baker and the Assistant Director.  Moreover, it's almost certainly going to be trivially easy to show other records that rely on and support that record.

It sounds like you're going with the Assistant Director created a false record as your argument, and that means you're asserting that Sussmann told Baker that he was there on behalf of the Clinton campaign.  If that's the case (and I'd really laugh if that's what they assert) you're going to see some serious follow up criminal charges as he'd be admitting to participating with his client in a crime (not the one charged in this indictment).  Assuming Durham doesn't get short circuited.

Quote
Quote
So just to be clear, your position seems to be that Sussmann went in with his story and told Baker that he was bringing it to the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign?

In all likelihood he didn't mention anyone.  Why would he, there is no requirement for him to do so.  As a lawyer he probably used weasel words if he was asked.

That's counterfactual.  We know he mentioned his clients (this one should be a no brainer to understand on your part, there's no way he could have not mentioned certain representations without creating additional legal risk).  The assertion was that he expressed he was not acting on their behalf.

Quote
Quote
  Are you asserting that the allegations in 27 are false as well?  28 is a reference to a record of an internal follow up meeting, but 27 is fascinatingly detailed.  I'd be stunned if Durham can't separately prove the allegations in 27, given that he could easily have used the record in 28 as a source (but elected not to do so).

27a and 28 are the same meeting with Baker, they aren't separate allegations.

Actually they are.  27 is stating as fact certain things that occurred in the Baker meeting.  28 is stating that a second meeting confirmed the first.  I'm sorry if you're confused on this, but that's a basic  interpretation issue.

Quote
Baker met with Sussman alone, then talked with the AD after the meeting, the AD made a note.  There aren't any notes from Baker asserting what is in the AD's note and Baker has given sworn testimony that essentially states that the AD's note is incorrect.

There aren't any notes from Baker described in the indictment.  That's not the same thing as saying there is nothing in writing about the meeting.  Sussmann delivered a number of files, Baker would have made calendar entries, there's bound to be email traffic, there may be recordings, there could be texts or other communications.  Heck Baker could have made his own notes (as could Sussmann) that are in the position of Durham.

Any notes Sussmann made at the meeting are not priviledged as Baker is not his client.

Quote
Quote
Well that's a fascinating assertion.  Your options here are that Sussman lied and said he didn't represent the Clinton campaign, or that the FBI falsified its records to deliberately mask that they knew the Clinton campaign was the source.  There really isn't another possible conclusion based on the written records.

Again, no lie necessary.  Baker's notes did not contain the allegation and his congressional testimony contradicts the allegation.  The AD's note, which is hearsay contains the allegation, it is quite possible that the AD merely misunderstood Baker.  No lies or conspiracy necessary - just common human communication skills.

Again you misunderstand how hearsay works in this context, but putting that aside, you seem to what to conclude that some how a specific (and key) item in the Assistant Director's notes, something that clearly would have been discussed and be material to the investigation, was a "misunderstanding"?  No chance sir.  That's not going to fly, not at the level that was being dealt with here.  That's honestly like arguing that the FBI agents in the Nassar case just misunderstood and wrote down that there was no sexual assault.

Quote
Haven't read nor seen the white papers so I've not much to comment on.  What is said about them in the indictment doesn't appear to show anything illegal to have been done - they "avoided addressing weaknesses" isn't illegal.

Yes, interesting you pull that from the very section where they discuss how the evidence wouldn't hold up in front of a DNS expert like themselves, but focus on the question of whether it would appear valid to a non-specialist security expert.  They literally discussed in emails how to fool people without specialized knowledge into thinking it was more than it was.  Saying nothing about the conspiracy of sending the lawyer to leak the story to the press as well as the FBI, then leak to the press that FBI was investigating it, and then leaking to the FBI that they better do something because you heard the press got ahold of it.

Quote
From the limited description provided in the indictment, it appears they did time series analysis of Russian DNS originating traffic interacting with Trump servers, but were aware that DNS traffic can be spoofed.

Except it wasn't a Trump server and they knew it.  They literally knew it was a mass marketing server and expressly discussed that it was a non-issue and not what they were looking for (at least until they didn't find anything else and needed to spruce it up).

You skip of course that all of their "research" was conducted through the misuse of non-public commercial and governmental data, the latter of which is certainly a crime and the former of which is very likely a crime. 

Quote
They didn't mention the possibility of DNS spoofing in their analysis.

Lol, as if that was all they didn't mention.  They didn't mention that they knew as DNS experts that their claim was fictitious.

Quote
They were trying to offer evidence that Trump's public statement of 'no interaction with Russia' was false.

They were trying to create evidence, using illegally obtained non-public data, to do so.  And when they didn't find what they were looking for, they wrapped up a nothing burger and cloaked the problems only someone with the same level of access and expertise could have independently found, and sold it to the FBI and the media.

If you really think this kind of thing is okay, I'm wondering why I even bother.

Quote
There was traiffic from Russia interacting with Trump servers that they excluded once they realized the server resolved to a 'trump-email.com' CRM system (I get the impression it was excluded, but Durham seems to claim that the whitepaper analysis includes that server - since the person telling the researchers to ignore it is the tech executive funding the research I think Durham may have misinterpreted the white paper, but won't know for sure till it is public).

The FBI already conclusively determined that it wasn't a Trump server, you are pursuing a counter-factual there.

Quote
See this quote,

Quote
Tech Executive-1 therefore concluded that "we can ignore it, together with others that seem to be part of the marketing world.

So it seems clear to me that the white papers are a good faith effort by Tech Executive-1 to prove that Trump was lying about a lack of Russia interaction as shown by the internal emails.  Rather than your characterization.

Except that they went with it when they didn't find anything else, even though they knew it was mass marketing material, and not actually a Trump server.  But sure, other than their lies, misrepresentations, and appropriation of governmental and corporate data for their own purposes sure they were operating in "good faith."  No you know what, that's just a bridge too far.  They have quotes that establish they weren't acting  in good faith.

Quote
We agree it was timed to beat the statute of limitations since it was filed the day they would run out.  There don't appear to be any other alleged crimes or described crimes though.

shrug.  It's like watching you walk through a murder scene with blood everywhere and saying you see nothing but that a bike got borrowed.

Quote
Quote
Honestly, LR it's over.  I still don't have faith in Durham pulling this off, but this conspiracy is exposed.  Clinton's agents completely made up the secret Trump server story.  It's now a known lie.

Your batting record on such prognostications are so low, that a betting man would be wise to wager on the opposite of whatever you conclude.

That's a fascinating assertion.  As far as I can tell, I've been right virtually everytime we disagreed on one of these issues.  Maybe you can prove it though, go ahead and try.  Otherwise I think I have to label that as just a lie.

Quote
Or nobody lied, and the AD misinterpreted what Baker told him.

Yep, and Hillary just misinterpretted what it meant to wipe a server when she asked about using a cloth.  Lol.  I don't get how you can possible think you're being credible here.  That's not a line that gets misinterpreted. It's a material point.

Quote
Quote
Hard to credibly assert that it wasn't material to the investigation since the investigation actually occurred and would not have occurred if it was widely known that the story investigated was paid for by the Clinton campaign.  So why are you asserting that which is not credible?  Repeating Baker's self serving claim is ridiculous.

First off Christopher Steele became a Confidential Human Source for the FBI in October 2013, and did work for the FBI from 2014-2015, and had worked with the FBI on a 2009 corruption probe into FIFA, long before he was hired for the dossier.  So they absolutely would have opened an investigation based on his research.  He was a well known and respected source.  He wasn't contracted by Fusion GPS till June 2016.

You do understand the server investigation was its own investigation?  There's no question here.  The records of the investigation are in the possession of the Special Counsel, including the basis for beginning it.  Are you really trying to assert that they don't know how to read them?

Quote
Manafort was already under investigation for money laundering, Page was already under investigation for contact with suspected Russian Intelligence officers.

Lol.  Page's investigation was faked as well, as you well know.  We've already had a conviction on that one.  The investigation of Manafort was completely inactive until he began working for the Trump campaign.

Quote
Steele independently reported the information in July 2016 for his first two reports, telling the FBI he had been hired by Fusion GPS, that Fusion GPS had been retained by a law firm to investigate relationships between Trump and Russia, and Steele gave his opinion that the research was likely politically motivated.

Steele didn't "independently" report this.  That's just a lie.

Quote
So your speculation that knowing that the information originated due to Clinton campaign funding would result in the FBI rejecting it is incorrect.

It would be if I'd said that.  Knowing it was paid for by the Clinton campaign would have changed how it was relied on.  Everything about this conspiracy and the indictment makes clear that the goal was to make it appear that the information invented and/or misleading packaged by Clinton partisans was independent of their influence. 

Quote
It was Page's meeting with Russian agents in Moscow on July, 2016 and Manafort's criminal behavior, etc. that were the primary driver's of the investigation.

What a bunch of lies you're telling yourself.

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1638 on: September 26, 2021, 05:34:42 AM »
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/09/22/john-durham-is-the-jim-jordan-of-ken-starrs/

Seriati (or anyone else), would you mind reading the above article and seeing how it fits with your worldview?  I've found emptywheel to generally very rigorously base herself on primary legal documents, and seems pretty upfront about where she's coming from. 

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1639 on: September 29, 2021, 10:33:37 AM »
Not really election related but Trump just lost again on enforcing his staffers vague NDA's.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-failed-attempt-enforce-omarosas-131821110.html

Now he has to pay her legal fee's and the other staffers can come out of the dark. 

For someone who says he only hires the best he sure seems to say they were all a bunch of loosers after the stop working for him and say how bad he was.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1640 on: September 29, 2021, 01:01:49 PM »
Another example of Trump's belief that the laws do not apply to him.  And him losing.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-loses-attempt-toss-eddy-161042611.html

Trump does not seem to understand why he can not take a black musicians music and use it free of charge or get approval to use it. Can you say white privilege?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 01:04:48 PM by msquared »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1641 on: September 29, 2021, 01:08:48 PM »
Trump does not seem to understand why he can not take a black musicians music and use it free of charge or get approval to use it. Can you say white privilege?

Maybe you can just condense that down to plain "privilege." Feeling entitled to anything you want for free is its own special problem.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1642 on: September 29, 2021, 01:24:48 PM »
You mean brand master Trump does not know anything about copyright?  He knew and did not think he would get caught.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1643 on: September 29, 2021, 01:27:45 PM »
You mean brand master Trump does not know anything about copyright?  He knew and did not think he would get caught.

I mean that, to be frank, most people are already of the opinion in regard to artists that "eh, who cares if I use that song, it's already out there anyhow" or "why should artists get paid for anything in the first place". Add to that the entitlement you often find in over-privileged people, and it's not rocket science.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1644 on: September 29, 2021, 01:31:23 PM »
Except Trump has a history of not paying people for doing things for him. Vendors, lawyers, musicians. Privilege is the best spin on this.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1645 on: September 29, 2021, 01:37:50 PM »
Except Trump has a history of not paying people for doing things for him. Vendors, lawyers, musicians.

Then why spin it as being about not paying a black musician?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1646 on: September 29, 2021, 05:19:29 PM »
I agree, Trump is equal opportunity with regard to the race of people he's tried to cheat.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1647 on: September 29, 2021, 09:10:29 PM »
Except Trump has a history of not paying people for doing things for him. Vendors, lawyers, musicians. Privilege is the best spin on this.

Actually,, Trump does not have a record of stiffing those "who do stuff for him."

Construction subs who are under contract to perform a specific job within an agreed-upon budget often try to get extra money by asking for change orders without any agreement. They do it all the time, and always try to blame the CM or owner when their workers don't get pay for work that should never have been done. I've seen it all the time.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1648 on: September 30, 2021, 07:31:27 AM »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1649 on: September 30, 2021, 07:49:28 AM »
WmLambert

Has Trump paid Rudy for his legal work?  I keep hearing stories about Rudy asking Trump to pay the legal fee's he is due so he can pay for his own defense.