Mudguard

Members
  • Content count

    1,722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mudguard

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Santa Clara, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,904 profile views
  1. Yeah, glioblastoma is one of the worst cancers to get. The survival rates I listed above is for patients that did both chemo and radiation therapy. Assuming that he elects for both chemo and radiation therapy, he's got a brutal road ahead. Hopefully he beats the odds.
  2. Trump's worst enemy is himself. He just continues to say and do things that make him look guilty. It's clear from the interview that he views the role of the Attorney General as being his personal lawyer that will look after his interests before the interests of the American people. He essentially admitted indirectly that he demands loyalty from the Attorney General. His focus on Session's recusal as being "unfair" to himself is ridiculous.
  3. Apparently he was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a very aggressive form of brain cancer. With standard treatment, median survival is about 14 to 15 months, with only about 30% surviving for at least 2 years. If he's going to pursue aggressive therapy, I think he's going to have to step down soon.
  4. They say that information that you share with the White House may be treated as public information. That includes your email address and any other personal information that you choose to share, such as your name. They say that at their discretion they may limit such disclosures of personal information to protect your privacy, but clearly they declined to exercise this discretion in this case. As I said, federal agencies routinely ask for comments from the public on proposed regulations, and the personal information is often published, such as names and email addresses. In this case, the Vote Fraud Commission asked for comments, and then they published the comments with names and email addresses, which is the same thing other agencies do. Zero chance at winning a lawsuit. For example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regularly asks for comments which are published with identifying information. Lots more if you want to browse through them.
  5. I don't think these people have a case. I don't think there's any expectation of privacy regarding the comments that a person sends to the government. Certainly when the government requests comments from the public on proposed legislation, the comments and much of the personal identifying information that is received is made public. This happens routinely. I don't know whether these comments were solicited by the government or unsolicited, but I don't think it makes a difference. If you are going to send comments to the government, you should expect that these comments are going to be handled like any other comments from the public.
  6. Yeah, seems pretty suspicious under the circumstances. If Sessions and/or anyone from the White House like Kushner was involved in the decision to settle the case, this could turn into a big story. It would be interesting to get Preet Bharara's take on the settlement, since he was originally prosecuting the case before being fired by Trump. If Bharara felt that the case was really strong and that he wouldn't have settled, then I'd be very suspicious about the settlement. If this is the case, then I'd also be very suspicious of their claims that the the Russian lawyer provided nothing of value during the meeting with Trump Jr.
  7. Jarvis Landry is their top receiver, but he seemed to take a bit of a step back last year with the emergence of Jay Ajayi. He disappeared during the middle of the season after Ajayi had his back to back 200 yard rushing games and the Dolphins started running the ball a lot more. He only got a lot of targets when the Dolphins were losing and playing from behind. Ajayi is an interesting young back, but about half his yards came in 3 games. I had Landry and Ajayi on some of my fantasy teams last year. Doubt I'll pick up Landry this year, unless I can get him for cheap, but probably will consider Ajayi. If the Dolphins are projected to be really bad this year, Landry might be OK though.
  8. Generally speaking, for most generic research, I would agree. But for the type of material that Steele was providing, any reasonable person would want to know who and how this person was getting this type of material. I can't imagine anyone just getting this type of information and not asking those questions. In terms of the campaign finance law, it doesn't matter if Trump paid money for the Russian aid or made promises to ease sanctions. There is no distinction in that statute. It does seem way more wrong though to accept foreign aid in exchange for easing sanctions.
  9. "Adoption Policy" is a euphemism for the Magnitsky Act, which froze the US assets and banned from travel in the US a bunch of Russian oligarchs implicated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky for exposing a huge tax fraud in Russia. In response to the Magnitsky Act, Russia banned the adoption of Russia children by US citizens. The Russian lawyer has a long history of working to fight against the Magnitsky Act. I wouldn't be surprised if her goal was to trade information on Clinton obtained by the Russian government for a promise to relax or repeal the Magnitsky Act, which supposedly infuriated Putin. Don't think that Trump can do anything in the current anti-Russia environment though.
  10. To be clear, I agree with your position. I was just making the argument that if you are going to try and get Trump Jr. for violating a campaign finance law for soliciting opposition research from a Russian, you are going to have to do the same to the people who hired Christopher Steele. Even though the law as written seems like it covers this situation, it just doesn't seem right to me.
  11. It doesn't seem that Russia was being very subtle this past election with all of their meddling. Their fingerprints are everywhere. Their actions seemed pretty blatant to me. It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian lawyer was working in some capacity with the Russian government, that she was being used as an intermediary between the Kremlin and Trump. Otherwise, the meeting would be pointless. Why would Trump agree to do anything for her if she brought nothing of value? Just doesn't make any sense. Right now, my feeling is that they were colluding, in the sense that they had discussions with Russian and welcomed any assistance that they could provide, but they just didn't think that there was anything wrong with it. I don't think that this type of collusion, if true, amounts to treason or aiding and abetting the enemy. It just looks really, really bad. They would have had to actively encourage or ask the Russians to do something illegal, such as hack the servers, to get in trouble. Maybe they were that stupid, but I'd need to see some evidence.
  12. To be clear, I was discussing collusion in the context of more serious charges like treason and aiding and abetting the enemy, which I think has no chance of sticking. Wasn't thinking about campaign finance laws. That said, after looking at the campaign finance law linked by dmc515, I can see how one could argue that Trump Jr. violated such a law. The relevant sections appears to be this: Under this law, it's irrelevant whether the Russian lawyer is or isn't an agent for the government. All that matters is that the Russian lawyer is a foreign national and that Trump Jr. knew or should have know that she was a foreign national. The emails show that this prong is satisfied. If what Trump Jr. says about receiving nothing of value is true (and I have some serious doubts about this), then it comes down to whether he solicited the dirt on Clinton from the Russian lawyer. If he sought her out and initiated the contact, I would say yes, there's definitely solicitation. But since she apparently is the one that sought Trump out, I don't think that agreeing to meet with her and find out more specifically what type of information she had would amount to solicitation. Also, under this law (see sections (g) and (h) above), it seems that the people who paid Christopher Steele would be in violation of this law. These people either knew or should have know that he was a foreign national. I think any reasonable person would want to know the background of the person claiming to be getting all this dirt on Trump, otherwise how would you give any credibility to the reports? This means that the Republican donor that hired Fusion GPS violated the law, Fusion GPS itself violated the law, and the Democrats that subsequently hired Fusion GPS violated the law. I don't think that having Fusion GPS as an intermediary would shield the Republicans and Democrats from this law if they knew or should have know that Steele was a foreign national. That said, I really doubt any of these people are going to be prosecuted for violating this campaign finance regulation. I really doubt that the purpose and intent of this law was to prevent foreign nationals from conducting opposition research. Seems like a real stretch to try and apply the law in these situations. I know people are sick of hearing about emails, but I think we need more emails. Trump Sr., Trump Jr. and Kushner's credibility is in the shitter, so I think we need all their emails and all the emails associated with Trump campaign. The irony would be so sweet if Trump got taken down be emails.
  13. At this point, it's pretty clear that Trump's campaign was/is colluding with Russia. After Trump's 2+ hour meeting with Putin, he wanted to form a joint cybersecurity task force to ensure the integrity of future elections. Trump may as well put the Russia flag and a portrait of Putin in the White House now. Their denials of collusion have zero credibility. Meeting after meeting with Russians have been exposed by the media, and only after being exposed do they seem to remember having those meetings. With respect to the Russian lawyer and Trump Jr.'s meeting with her, I don't take her denials of being a Russian government representative at face value, nor do I believe that she provided no useful information. After the constant lying, why should I believe anything these people say? It doesn't make sense for the Russian lawyer to allege having information on Clinton and then showing up with nothing. How is that going to advance her client's interest if she comes into the meeting with nothing of value? That would be just wasting everyone's time. If she had no information, why did the meeting last for 20 to 30 minutes? I wouldn't be surprised if she is an SVR agent or working in some capacity with the SVR. That TPM link provided earlier provides some circumstantial evidence that Russia traded releasing information on Clinton for relaxing the Magnitsky Act. The timing of the meeting and the subsequent dump onto Wikileaks of Clinton campaign related emails, which were obtained by the Russians, lines up perfectly. Just a coincidence? Really doubt it. Does anyone know when Kushner updated his foreign contacts form with the latest meeting? I get the impression that it was updated recently when they got wind that the NYTimes was going to break the story, but I haven't read anything definitive. If that is the case, that this latest update wasn't included in the earlier update that included his meeting with Kislyak, Kushner should at a minimum lose his security clearance. One free pass for forgetting to list a meeting is all he could reasonably get. A second incident can't be passed off as being forgetful, and it has to be assumed that he has been actively concealing his contacts with Russians. I doubt that he'll be prosecuted by this administration though. The charge of collusion with a foreign agent is going to be much more difficult to make stick, and I'm not even sure what the legal basis for the charge is. The Russian lawyer and the Russian government both deny that she is an agent of the government. If you can't prove that she's an agent, then how is the information that she provided any different than the information Christopher Steele provided to various campaigns? It doesn't seem like the meeting with the Russian lawyer is going to do it. You would need to prove collusion with someone like Kislyak, who has conveniently for the Trump campaign left the USA.
  14. The most interesting bit is probably in the liabilities section near the end. He's taken out hundreds of millions in loans, but none of the loans appear to be from Russian banks, which some posters in this forum speculated about. US and European banks appear willing to lend him large sums of money. If the reported incomes are accurate, that's not surprising though since he's making hundreds of millions each year and he has plenty of assets that he could put up as collateral. Trump is never going to release his tax returns, despite his earlier promises to do so. However, Mueller is presumably going to be able to get access to Trump's tax returns and financial data. If there is really a link to Russia through Trump's financial dealings, I'm confident that Mueller can run it down. Unfortunately, I doubt that his investigation ends anytime soon and I'm unsure how much of his report is going to be made public.
  15. Portions of the published leaked document were redacted after consultation with the government. I'm not a classification expert, but the unredacted portions seem pretty benign to me, especially since many of the facts were already known. It's well known that there is a problem with overclassification, but it's impossible form an opinion whether that is the case without knowing what was redacted. Regardless, if I were her defense lawyer, I'd definitely argue that most of the information in the leaked document was previously known so the harm to US interests was nonexistent or minimal. It's also not immediately clear to me why disclosure of Russian hacking methods would harm US interests. You could argue that disclosing this information to the public would help people defend against such attacks in the future. For her sake, I'm hoping that some of these arguments will work and help reduce her sentence down from the 10 year maximum that's she's currently facing.