Reports: Sealed Indictment Issued on Donald Trump

[Garnier Fructis]

With how badly Trump misread Comey's firing, his canny in any respect should be called into question. Consider the disturbing possibility that Trump isn't play 4D chess.

[NYC17]

With how badly Trump misread Comey's firing, his canny in any respect should be called into question. Consider the disturbing possibility that Trump isn't play 4D chess.

4D chess? Trump's a little too busy trying to figure out why all Tiddlywinks taste the same for 4D chess.

[Venant]

Given what's gone on the past few weeks with Trump-Russia, no, this is hardly "insane" or a "conspiracy theory" at all.

As for overturning a fair election. Yeah... Hillary lost because she and her moron staff forgot to campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvannia. However this isn't about reversing an election. It's about solving an entirely different issue: Donald Trump is illegitimate.

Legitimacy comes not just from THAT a person wins a contest, but how they won it and what they do after.

Donald Trump legitimatly won the election.
His behavior and statements before the election and that plus specific actions after his election, have all but killed his legitimacy.

This is an abject lesson in obtaining and weilding power with wisdom and prudence, not imbecilic childishness.

You want an itemized list of Trump's more recent legitimacy killing behavior? The Times shall provide.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/o...vior.html?_r=0

All of it is sourced by the way. But yes, Donald Trump is illegitimate and like losing your virginity, there's no undoing that.

Your list does not make his administration, which you admit was legally elected, illegitimate. What you are doing is adopting the marxist strategy of just making up 'rules' that happen to support your irrational position. You may hate the person who was elected, but a reasonable person will not jump into the same boat as the lunatics who want to actually destroy this country and replace it with their imagined socialist paradise.

[Skroe]

I know . Mensch, Taylor and Schindler are tight, but at least the latter two have some proper credits and don't start dancing and twirling, when they have some scoop.

If you can find the time, I would love for you to elaborate. I know you want to, I know it !

There's a few things to understand about the intelligence community, the media and "leaks"/sources.

(1) The western intelligence communities all talk to each other. A lot. Many of the multinational efforts that came together as a result of 9/11 - built on top of a Cold War foundation - have been used to track money and people related to Iran, North Korea, Russia and organized crime. It may be collected discretely, but much of it is shared.

That is to say, if the CIA or NSA knows something, MI6 and GCHQ probably know the same thing, or a good portion of the same thing. If for example, the NSA has intercepts of Trump or Trump associates talking with Russian intelligence in any way, chances are the major European intelligence agencies are sitting on the exact same batch of data.

So why not spill it? Because they've been instructed by their leaders not to. Their mission is to protect their citizens, not Americans. If and when America becomes a threat to their national security (i.e. some Russian-American "Grand Deal / Yalta II"), they'll unleash the kraken, so to speak.

(2) The Media invariably knows far more than they report because the biggest stories take months, or even years, to assemble. And when that happens... when the Time and the Guardian and the Post, often working together to some degree, assemble enough of the picture (more on that below), they'll check with the authorities, who will typically ask them to hold reporting, either to not interfere with an investigation or to hold back certain elements of it in order to not disrupt what is going on.

If you want an excellent example of this, the story a number of years ago of how the US tracks terrorist money in Europe - it got the Times a Pulitzer - was held back for nearly a year by the Times on request of the government, and when it did go live, the Times held back huge amounts of information about the specifics in order to not interefere with ongoing US operations in Europe to track terrorist money.

(3) The "consciencous objector leaker", the Thomas Drake or even the Bradley Manning (broadly speaking, because he's full of shit) is a rarity. Those are "name brand". The more routine, impactful leakers, the one that contribute to the drip-drip-drip of a scandal, are official leaks. Often it is a person in the White House, done on the orders of the Cheif of Staff... or a Senator's chief of staff, ordered by the Senator. Something like that. Leaks offer a form of pressure, so they'll leak to shape events, to press the narative in a politically desirable way.

A very famous example is how it's pretty much understood that General Cartwright leaked Operation Olympic Games (Flame/Stuxnet) the US Cyberwarefare effort against Iran, in advance of the 2012 Election at the behest of President's Obama's Chief of Staff. This covered Obama's rear in terms of accusations that he wasn't doing anything versus Iran. he can now say since Olympic Games was known "Yes I was, and it was groudnbreaking". But it was not up to him to declassfy it before it (would have been politically motivated to do so since it was on going). This leak ended Cartwright's career (which was already basically at it's zenith) and earned him a conviction... but that's fine, because Obama pardoned him the same day he pardoned Bradley Manning, which was probably always in the cards.

So let's put all this together.

(A) Media outlets work on the biggest stories for years and have deep connections into government into these stories, and check these stories with them. And they'll sit on them when asked to not stop an investigation.

(B) Western Intelligence, broadly speaking, knows most everything about everybody else thanks to how intellgience sharing has gone post-9/11.

(C) Official leaking is done to compel action and is far more common than your "Thomas Drake" rogue agent.


So how I think this is going to go down is as follows:
-> The Times/Guardian/Post all know more, or will know more, than they say in the days/weeks/months leading up to "the bombshell". But they will be sitting on it at the request of the FBI or investigators in general.
-> Trump will do something provocative and dangerous.
-> The British Prime Minister, the President of France, or Merkel will "give the go ahead" for their intelligence agencies to "leak" to the Guardian, Le Monde, or Der Spiegel or something. That will be the first shot.
-> It being in the open, the Times/Post will report their investigations, and lay it all out, which will lead to planned/coordinated "leaking" by the NSA/FBI with Senators offices to compel political pressure.

This model here is the broad model of a dozen stories in the last decade and a half give or take (though not necessarily going up to the level of the British Prime Minister or German Chancellor of course).

- - - Updated - - -

Your list does not make his administration, which you admit was legally elected, illegitimate. What you are doing is adopting the marxist strategy of just making up 'rules' that happen to support your irrational position. You may hate the person who was elected, but a reasonable person will not jump into the same boat as the lunatics who want to actually destroy this country and replace it with their imagined socialist paradise.

It does, because it's behavior that would make any elected official, least of all the President, illegitimate. And read this sentence with clarity: Even if Trump ran a model campaign and Trump-Russia wasn't a thing, the items of that list that have occurred JUST since inauguration day, are enough to wipe out his legitimacy.

He is the President. But the's an illegitimate President. And he must go.

So now I'm a marxist-socialist. Good one. Yummy. What other flavors you got? You're losing, and it sucks for you. But you know what? It's supposed to hurt. And we're just getting this fire started!

[lockedout]

No - I'm citing a blog as a start, the blog leads you to the sources.

Please - don't confuse a news report as a source, that's like saying the mouth of a river = the source of a river.

If it was a sealed indictment how would anyone have sources? It's sealed..
Either way it's a blog lol.

[Skroe]

Oh no. You turned into Skroe.

"We're so adamant we have Trump by the balls. Just you wait."

Hey I know you're having a bad week, pal but don't twist my words. I say we must be patient based on historic precedent.

But things have happened... things you and people like you said never would.

Just sayin... it's time to plan your exit strategy.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was a sealed indictment how would anyone have sources? It's sealed.

Um.... perhaps... I don't know.... from the team of lawyers who wrote the sealed indictment. Some kind of indictment goose didn't deposit it into some straw or something.

Not saying the claim is valid or not, but you're basically saying "how can there be a leak about a secret thing". Maybe from the people who are in the know about the secret? Just like every other time it's ever happened? lmao.

[Dextroden]

Hey I know you're having a bad week, pal but don't twist my words. I say we must be patient based on historic precedent.

But things have happened... things you and people like you said never would.

Just sayin... it's time to plan your exit strategy.

- - - Updated - - -



Um.... perhaps... I don't know.... from the team of lawyers who wrote the sealed indictment. Some kind of indictment goose didn't deposit it into some straw or something.

Not saying the claim is valid or not, but you're basically saying "how can there be a leak about a secret thing". Maybe from the people who are in the know about the secret? Just like every other time it's ever happened? lmao.

Why am I having a bad week?

And, once again, you keep likening this to an investigation that ended in acquittal. Why can't I find that funny?

[lockedout]

Hey I know you're having a bad week, pal but don't twist my words. I say we must be patient based on historic precedent.

But things have happened... things you and people like you said never would.

Just sayin... it's time to plan your exit strategy.

- - - Updated - - -



Um.... perhaps... I don't know.... from the team of lawyers who wrote the sealed indictment. Some kind of indictment goose didn't deposit it into some straw or something.

Not saying the claim is valid or not, but you're basically saying "how can there be a leak about a secret thing". Maybe from the people who are in the know about the secret? Just like every other time it's ever happened? lmao.

Are we talking about the same Mensch?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...riginator.html

[Belize]

is all you do is attack people?

It's a habit I've gotten from you lot. I used to be such a nice person, but now I call a spade a spade.

[Darsithis]

I'm not sure why this got left open.

If we don't allow people to post from crazy right-wing sources, there is no reason why we'd let you post it from crazy left-wing ones. Unless a reputable mainstream media source picks this up, there is no reason to leave it open.