RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT

☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,466
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
618,041
Reppin
The Deep State
Bollywood Hulk Hogan said:
wall up this thread with nap alive in it like that edgar allen poe story

lock this thread but make it so nap can still post in it, but only in it
Click to expand...
Why can't you contribute substantive content like a good little boy and stop attacking me?

I don't share your views on sticking Black America's neck out for illegal immigration any more. You can learn to live with that disagreement.

Democrats need to win this shutdown in the long run by distancing themselves from illegal immigration in the next 5 to 10 years.
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,466
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
618,041
Reppin
The Deep State
:jbhmm:





  • 1. Why might prosecutors have issues with Buzzfeed’s piece claiming Mr. Trump encouraged his consigliere Michael Cohen to lie to congress regarding Mr. Trump’s purported Moscow hotel deal? Let me break it down for you. I’m going to start with an unrelated hypothetical.
  • 2. Imagine you want to throw your spouse a surprise birthday party in two weeks. You decide to have it at a local pub next to one of your favorite restaurants. You book the private dining area, send out invitations, and let your spouse know you’d like to take them to dinner.
  • 3. The birthday arrives. You take your spouse for a wonderful dinner. You take a restroom break to check your phone and make sure everyone made it to the room. You finish dinner and ask if your spouse wants to get an after dinner drink at the pub next door. But they don’t want to
  • 4. You say, “Ah come on, just one. It will be like when we first met.” You spouse relents and you go. You enter the bar and ask if there’s somewhere quite you can share a quick birthday drink with your spouse. The bartender, in on it grabs a bottle of Champaign and leads you on.
  • 5. You enter the room. Your spouse is looking at you like you’re a crazy person. Then the lights flick on and: Surprise.
  • 6. Nothing in the planning, the dinner, or the offer for drinks was a lie. But the surprise worked for two reasons. First you set set false expectations.
  • 7. Yet You obfuscated info about a party and while not factually false, your claim to desire to go to get a drink “like old times” was misleading because while true it was only part of the story. All the facts were correct but the false expectation lead to a fun surprise.
  • 8. Now let’s look at a different hypothetical. Imagine you are an investigator who came across evidence that makes it appear the CEO of an organization coerced one of his employees into lying to another set of investigators. Here’s the six pieces of evidence you have:
  • 9: A. An outlook calendar meeting invite sent to hypothetically we’ll call them Trump, Cohen. Manafort, Kushner, Junior, and Gates. B. What looks like meeting minutes with the date of the meeting one week before investigators questioned Cohen with a cryptic entry: hand out script
  • 10. C. You have text messages from hypothetical Kushner to Cohen dates three days before the meeting with that says “script looks good. We’re agreed on what to say. Destroy before using” D. You have an app message from MushroomD: Knew I could count on you” times right after.
  • 11. E. You have another app message from MiniMushroomJr69 that says, “Rememeber, stay on the adoption message. Just like we discussed at the meeting last week” that was sent one hour before the investigators interrogate Cohen. And F: an invoice. 1/h meet re test, .5 text 8/h test
  • 12. You interview Cohen maybe something like this short limited example: You: Dis you meet with anyone to discuss your testimonyC: don’t recallY: I have an outlook calendar where you accepted a meeting invite. Is this yours? C: Yeah sure if you say so. You don’t learn much.
  • 13. You find more evidence. Now you have surveillance video showing all of the meeting people arriving. You have an Instagram picture posted to the account of the daughter of a participant captioned “My husband and associates preparing to fool Crooked Hillary’s dupes” and
  • 14. You have witness interview transcripts from the janitor, the IT department, three friends of the daughter and at least one other participant. You prepare for another interview where you ask Mr. Cohen about all of this.
  • 15. Now Mr. Cohen’s attorney has been with him. She’s keeping track of all of the evidence her client is being asked about. She has copious notes detailing everything and she’s requested copies. She starts working with her client on their own narrative of events.
  • 16. Her client is very high profile. One of the things he’s asked her to do is help him protect his name and reputation so that even if he goes to prison his family won’t suffer and he’ll still be able to earn a living after. She’s a high power attorney. She calls her PR people.
  • 17. After a lot of consultation client, attorney, PR people decide the best way forward given the client is working with investigators is to play to that strength. The client isn’t a rat but a patriot who lost his way. He’s again fighting for truth justice and the America way.
  • 18. Along with that, their client wants to get his narrative, his version of events out there. In consultation with the client, the lawyer, the PR firm and a subcontracted foreign third party the plan a media strategy. They’ll disclose the evidence and their narrative indirectly.
  • 19. The PR firm crafts the messaging. Lawyer gives them copies of the evidence she has. The PR people ask the third party (let’s call them hypothetically Israeli Psy Loop) to provide “law enforcement people” to leak the “evidence” to reporters. At least two and independent.
  • 20. Everything goes to plan. Two “law enforcement personnel” “close to the case” contact reporters they have worked with before to establish trust. They provide an interview and allow the reporters to look at but now keep the documents. Reporter verifies with second source.
  • 21. Meanwhile PR people plan a series of media releases to go out through various influencers from contacts in congress and too oevel influencers on day one through bloggers and twitter influencers on day two. He story drops and is instantly viral.
  • 22. Factually, everything in the story is correct. The investigators donhave all of the information listed. It does look incriminating. But what they don’t have is all versions of the story. They’ve interviewed Cohen but no one else has been forthcoming.
  • 23. There are many problems now for investigators. First, all the other meeting participants know what evidence exists, and from where and whom. They can create a different narrative to explain it. They can destroy evidence. They can intimidate other witnesses.
  • 24. Second, now the high profile client, our hypothetical Mr. Cohen has his semi-exculpatory narrative out in public for any potential juror to be influenced by. And a third problem both for investigators and politically. The story sets false expectations.
  • 24. Like with our original surprise party example, the missing details from an otherwise truthful account matter in very big ways. Now in our hypothetical the public sees client Cohen as a repentant good guy. They also believe and expect prosecutors have “smoking gun” evidence.
  • 25. All of this sets both prosecutor and politicians up for failure if what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is anything different than the now publicly accepted narrative. The credibility of the media is harmed too as prosecutors rightfully decry the story.
  • 26. And politics is harmed because of the distrust in the flow of information. If media is seen as less than trustworthy or worse, as agents acting at the behest of others, political issues such as impeachment become difficult because it’s hard to reach a consensus without facts.
  • 27. Hypotheticals aside, the Buzzfeed story might be correct on facts, but it’s certainly wrong on how those are characterized and the conclusions drawn from those facts are probably premature. This is a cautionary tale or a teachable moment however you chose to characterize it.
  • 28. The SCO doesn’t leak. They don’t leak for this exact reason. When stories drop about what evidence the SCO may or may not have ask: where might it have come from? Who benefits from releasing this? How do they benefit? In short be double skeptical and question everything.
  • 29. Most of the players involved in #Kremlingate are are multi-millionaires or billionaires at least on paper. All the major players stand to lose everything from their money and power to their names and reputations to their future ability to earn or provide for their families.
  • 30. They will spend whatever they have to, use whatever means they have to, and whatever power and connections they have to avoid that. They are losing. Our law enforcement professionals are doing an amazing job. But it’s on us to do our part by being critical info consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top