Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

Mueller is continuing to work to get the Russian puppet out of the WH. Don Jr. and Kushner are the next for no knocks........maybe he will execute one on the Trump Tower or already has? WH might not be off limits either.

 

My post was a reply to another poster, not you, stating Watergate started with the investigation of a crime. Mueller's investigation, and Comey's before that, also started as an investigation of crime. My point was then, and is now, that there is some reason to believe a crime was committed, and there are multiple investigations by the FBI and Congress into what happened. Someone stole those emails and published them to Wikileaks. Stealing is a crime. My point was made. Interestingly enough, you latched onto some conspiracy theory as a foil to the Russian hack and never addressed any of the other crimes that were also mentioned in that post. That's telling.

If you've grown tired of my "dancing," feel free not to respond to my posts, especially ones that were not in response to you. I don't care what your opinion is and I don't tend to continue discussions with people that accuse me of spreading falsehoods. Have a nice day, guavaball.

 

Another stall tactic instead of answering my direct question to you. Typical.

So once again for the second time you cannot support your BS claim that the Russians provided Wikileaks with the DNC documentation they released.

It doesn't matter whom you were addressing. You began by making up facts that do not exist and this is the second time you have proved it. If you want to be taken seriously on this topic of debate do not make up facts that do not exist. The reality is you have no evidence the Russians provided Wikileaks with the documentation they used and your cop out about the DNC's staff victim about their family was especially pathetic.

At least I can admit I have no evidence that proves where wikileaks got their data. Why can't you do the same?

 

Don Diego, you've lost credibility with me. With this post, you claim I wrote something that I didn't write. I didn't claim anything was "verified," and you can't find it in my posts because it isn't there. I also never wrote the words "firm conclusion." You owe me an apology.

I claimed that stealing information and publishing that same information without permission is a crime, among other crimes and cover ups that are being investigated. The investigation into Russian meddling in the election to help Trump is investigating crimes, just as Watergate, started with an investigation into a crime, in reply to a poster claiming there was no crime at the beginning of this investigation. I have no reason to doubt the intelligence agencies' findings. You're welcome to whatever you want to believe.

Comey stated, under oath, that he and the FBI are satisfied that the hack was Russian, and that the copy of the DNC server was an acceptable alternative to physical possession of the server. The FBI did examine the copy of the server information. If the FBI is satisfied, then so am I. If you're not, then be dissatisfied, as is your right. It doesn't make you right or make the FBI wrong.

You now have a Republican Special Counsel, appointed by a Republican Asst. Attorney General, and Republican controlled Congressional committees investigating the matter. If there is a problem with the way the FBI has conducted this investigation, then I'm sure we will hear about it. So far, most seem to be quite satisfied that Mueller can and is conducting the investigation with the utmost professionalism and integrity.

Those that have been briefed on the evidence all believe Russia was responsible and have testified as such. However, you are free to believe whatever you like. Just don't attribute things to me that I didn't write.

 

No, he doesn't. Just becuase you didn't use the term "veriifed" does not mean you made a statement you cannot prove.

No crime? Besides the whole, Russian troll and bot army, hacking the DNC and publishing stolen information on Wikileaks

That is your statement and your statement alone. You did not call it a theory or claimed it was based on a suspicion. You claimed it was a crime and laid out the claim that Russians provided Wikileaks the information when you have proven you cannot back up that claim with facts.

It is amazing you are asking for an apology for a claim you made. Please take some personal responsibility for your own statements.

 

I don't have to support any claims about the Russians. The FBI made the claim. I agree with the FBI. If you don't agree, I don't care.

My point, for the second time, since you've seemed to miss it more than once, is that this investigation started with a crime. Theft is a crime. You're welcome to go down any rabbit hole you wish, but I have no desire to go with you.

I made up no facts. Your accusations are disgusting, rude, and against the rules of the site. I am done conversing with you on this topic.

 

If Trump is accused of lying about a blowjob from Hope what's her name, I would not recommend removal from office. However if he is found to have obstructed justice regarding the collusion with a foreign intel service to subvert our election, then I think there is grounds for removal. See the difference?

Also, it looks as if Mueller and his team may be looking into financial transactions dating back 10-15 years involving Trump and alleged Russian mobsters. What if there is evidence of tax evasion, money laundering and racketeering? Could Trump merely pardon himself and continue as President, and more importantly, would you still support him just because he happens to be a Republican this year?

 

Actually you do. You made the claim.

So you agree with the FBI which I know they have never said they have evidence that the Russians provided it to Wikileaks.

Where is your link to that evidence from them?

No the point is you made a statement about the Russians giving wikileaks the data they published which you cannot prove.

That's the reality here and you cannot admit it for whatever reason.

Yes you did. You have avoided 3 times from producing any evidence to verify your claim that the Russians provided the data wikileaks released. That's the reality.

You can play the victim all you like. You have never produced the evidence that the Russians provided the data Wikileaks released. Period, end of story.

If you consider it "rude" to hold you accountable for your accusations, so be it.

I however am open enough to understand that there is no evidence whatsoever where wikileaks obtained its information. That's something you cannot admit.

 

A blowjob in the POTUS chair is just that..............Trump's problems are simply much larger and significant than that. There is an adversarial foreign power involved with specific interests.

 

Please accept my apologies, I thought you stated it, but perhaps I incorrectly inferred it. I trust your word on the matter.

There is no such parallel. Watergate began with a crime, there is no indication that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians and now basically the attempt is being made to subject him to a general warrant, which is not allowed under the 4th amendment, with this being accomplished by the shell game of shifting between a counter intelligence investigation and a criminal investigation, and that Mueller staffed his investigative unit with Clinton donors, even Clinton Foundation attorneys, my goodness, do you really want to set the precedent that the losing campaign then forms an investigate unit to execute a General Warrant against the winning campaign? But, its clear what is going on here. Mueller/Comey have a long history of using a pretext to launch an investigation and snapping someone up with a process crime, so hopefully everyone involved has top shelf counsel and doesn't stumble into something like this, but clearly FISA and our counter-intelligence procedures need far more electoral accountability and much stronger guardrails. This is ridiculous.

The Special Counsel statute also evades Senate Confirmation process, he seems to think he is accountable to no one, and quite frankly the calls for him to examined under Congressional hearing in terms of his scope, plans, budget and so forth are only likely to build.

We don't make up crimes, we publish them in the CFR. Give me the code number of the statute you think was violated and the name of the person you think violated it. That you cannot do that, tells you all you need to know about this "investigation".

Then review "General Warrant" and why we ratified the 4th Amendment.

Comey is a leaker, probably a liar and his "investigation" of Hillary was clearly a whitewash. Everyone was positioned for a Hillary win, and Trump's win sent them all scrambling. Whereas they were confident that Hillary would be taking over the reins and keep their tracks covered, instead we had a great deal of ad-hock scrambling to explain what was quickly going to become apparent. The entire "Trump Collusion" thing has actually worked fairly well as a cover for what appears to be rather blatant political spying by the Obama Administration on the Trump campaign, certainly I can confidently state that there is likely more evidence of that, than there is of a Criminal Conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

Sure you do. Switch the labels, Hillary won, now a bunch of Trump Foundation donors, attorneys and Trump direct donors are executing a General Warrant against the Hillary campaign, with an unlimited budget, no particular scope and no deadline. Sorry, you may think you would be good with that, I sincerely doubt would actually be the case.

For the outcome of the election? Hogwash. That Russia attempts to hack, interfere and so forth, they have been doing that since at least the 1970's and we do the same. Remember, they also tried to hack the RNC, but we didn't have a Podesta that was dumb enough to click on a phishing link and change his password. And we weren't using IT folks dumb enough to tell him to do so, but then, we also weren't using an Pakistani Crime Family for our IT. You can slice it however you want, you guys are just going to look dumber and dumber and dumber, more underhanded, more bereft of integrity, the longer you chase down this rabbit hole. We all know why Hillary lost, and it wasn't because of the Russians, it was because of her.

But, if you must learn this for yourselves by directly experiencing the consequences of your folly, then we will simply continue what is clearly the Trump approach, of letting this play out while making it very clear to The Electorate, what it you are doing.

 

First, thank you for the apology. Accepted.

Second, there was a crime. The DNC was hacked and the stolen emails were published. Whether Trump was involved or not, the crime needed to be investigated. That it has led to investigating members of Trump's campaign, transition team, and administration is exactly what happened in Watergate. The initial investigation there was a break-in that Nixon didn't participate in doing. Through the investigation, more information was discovered that lead to Nixon's resignation. Through this investigation, more evidence has been uncovered that show that Don Jr, Manafort, and Kushner did, in fact, meet with Russians about gaining information to hurt their political opponent mere days before the emails were published on Wikileaks. Was that coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Also, evidence has been uncovered that Flynn was working in favor of another country, Trump, while acting as the President's National Security Advisor. Then there was the issue with Sessions' testimony during Senate confirmation. I haven't seen any evidence of Trump, himself, being involved directly with Russians yet, but the investigations continue. I have seen direct evidence of Trump attempting to interfere with the investigation and with what appears to be a cover-up of the "adoption" meeting. How that will flesh out further, I don't know.

If evidence is discovered that Clinton or the DNC, or members of her staff were involved with Russians or any other nefarious groups, I am not opposed to further investigation.

If you are upset with the FBI/ Mueller investigation, you have no one to blame for that other than Trump. Had he allowed Comey to continue the investigation without interference, which he admitted to on national television, Mueller would never have been appointed and the scope of the investigation would be much narrower. Trump can't seem to stay out of his own way sometimes. That's on him though, not on Mueller.

This situation isn't about Hillary winning or losing to me. This situation is about another country meddling in our election. I feel very strongly that Americans need to know that those elected to power are there by the will of the people, and not due to outside influence. Our government exists through the consent of the governed and their ability to hold politicians accountable through the vote. If the vote is compromised, the government is compromised. That is not what I want for my country. Whether it has been going on for a long time or not, does not matter. We're all aware of the meddling now, and it has tainted our confidence in the election process… which is exactly what would benefit Putin. We MUST get to the bottom of what happened and make sure that it doesn't happen again, or we will have lost our country.

Lastly, let me clarify something for you. I am not a Democrat, so the "you guys" thing doesn't apply to me. If Trump cooperated with Russia, he needs to resign or be impeached. If he committed financial crimes that compromise his ability to be President, then he needs to resign or be impeached. If he didn't, then I don't understand his actions and rhetoric, because they seem anything but innocent. Since Mueller is at the stage of Grand Juries, it seems he has found evidence of crimes. Whether they directly lead to Trump or not, I don't know. I remember Watergate and I remember lots of people denying that Nixon did anything wrong, right up to the point that he resigned, and some supporters continued to claim his innocence even afterwards. I expect the same with Trump's supporters, if he finds himself in the same situation. I do not relish the idea of an impeachment. I recall how damaging it was to the country with Nixon and Clinton. However, no one is above the law. If those close to Trump cooperated with Russia, they must be prosecuted. Trump has already participated in a cover-up. If that will lead to his resignation or impeachment is something only time will tell.

Our country needs to heal, unite, and work toward a better America and providing the chance at the American dream for our children. To get there, we need resolution on this issue, IMO.

 

Where do you come up with this crap?

 

I have repeatedly asked you for the criminal statute, you can't come up with anything. But you claim you have proof that Trump covered up the crime that you can't even define? For who? You can't answer that either, but you are fine with turning the Trump campaign upside down and shaking them to see if any lose change falls out? Or those connected to the Trump campaign, define that.

Do you know what a General Warrant is?
Do you know why we forbid them in the US?

Are we a nation of laws, or not?

 

Perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court is perjury and obstruction of justice. Impeach and remove from office or is felony perjury and obstruction of justice OK?

 

It depends on what justice is being obstructed and what the nature of the perjury is. For example, obstructing justice or committing perjury in a lightweight marijuana case or in a civil court action would be different from obstructing or perjuring in a murder case. So, it would be up to the US Senate to decide whether or not the crimes were worthy of removing a President from office. Got it?

 

We already know there were lawbreakers lifted to high positions of power in this administration. There is no doubt that Flynn and Manafort broke laws, as neither were registered as agents of foreign countries, as they acted as agents for foreign countries. So, yes, we know of violations of criminal statutes by members of Trump's campaign and administration. I'm sure you know of this too, but it doesn't fit your narrative of this investigation being a witch hunt.

We are a nation of laws. We are also a nation of tradition. It is traditional for every Presidential candidate to release their taxes, so the people are assured that a potential President is "not a crook," in the words of Richard Nixon. Trump is defying tradition, and that makes many ask the question "Why?" You may be OK with that, but the majority of the nation is not. You may trust that Trump is squeaky clean and believe he is the innocent victim of a witch hunt. The majority of the nation does not.

I assume you are aware there are several on-going investigations. What we have seen in the media is only snips of evidence, but make no mistake, there is evidence of crimes. Thus we have Mueller sending that evidence to Grand Juries, in order to assess the probability of prosecution, and a "no knock" warrant, which required "probable cause." Once the Grand Jury hands down their decision, you'll have more statues and crimes named. Be patient. The Watergate investigation took two years. I expect this one to continue for another 12 to 18 months.

Did Trump's spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, say that Trump wrote the misleading statement about the "adoption" meeting or not? Did she say Trump did what any father would do, or not?

If you craft a misleading statement, over the suggestions of your advisors to be truthful so as to avoid problems later on, you are covering up the truth. Deliberately misleading the American people about the nature of the meeting, which is still under investigation as a crime, is a cover up. I'll remind you that Nixon resigned over his cover up of a burglary in which he did not participate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/01/president-trump-is-now-directly-implicated-in-trying-to-cover-up-the-russia-scandal/?utm_term=.c3137879a14b

Now, I'm sure you are aware of Presidential privilege, and that Trump won't be charged with any one particular crime, but this latest foible is part of a chain of events where Trump has insinuated himself into the Russian investigation when he doesn't belong anywhere close to the Russian investigation. You're free to dismiss his actions as innocent, but I don't. It is my experience that those that seek to dismiss any wrongdoing on Trump's part are partisans with a partisan reason to do so. I don't have the same desire. I am seeking the truth of what happened, so our country can find ways to prevent meddling moving forward. Even after we know the truth, it completely depends on how Congress decides to handle the findings as to what happens next. It is quite possible for Trump to have committed a crime and for the House not to start impeachment proceedings. If we have a Congress full of people that are more loyal to party than country, then we will not be nation of laws where no one is above the law.

 

"Second, there was a crime. The DNC was hacked and the stolen emails were published. Whether Trump was involved or not, the crime needed to be investigated. That it has led to investigating members of Trump's campaign, transition team, and administration is exactly what happened in Watergate."

Without directly quoting and longcatting an already long thread, might I ask a question. You say there is a crime committed. Normally when a crime is committed, law enforcement investigates the crime scene.
If my home is broken into, I don't just send video footage and email a report, the police come to my home and look for evidence such as broken locks, finger prints, forensic evidence of an intruder left behind such as tools or genetic materials for DNA comparisons. They also establish time frames as to when the crime occurred. If the police are investigating crimes such as child pornography, they come with no-knock warrants and seize all of the computer data AND the hardware. They don't just sit down and copy the hard drive, they take it with them to look for footprints. The same could be said if a company suspected embezzlement but claimed they were robbed by an outside entity.

If I were to call the police and tell them I'd been robbed, but they can't come in and inspect they would not even bother to show up. In fact, they would be wondering just what I might be hiding, a basement full of weed or a meth lab of sorts. They might also infer that my wife got angry and took my stuff and was hiding it in a storage facility somewhere, and that I might not want them to know that.

The DNC has no one else to blame but themselves for this debacle at this point. They refused to let competent law enforcement inspect the "crime" in it's totality. I've nothing but suspicion for the DNC themselves.

 

The FBI notified the DNC they believed there was an intrusion, at almost the same time the State Department and the White House also experienced attempted intrusion, along with successful intrusions into other campaigns, like Lindsay Graham's. The FBI got a copy of the information on the DNC server, and Comey testified, under oath, that the copy was an acceptable substitute for actual possession of the server. I trust the investigators of the FBI that declared the copy to be sufficient to complete their investigation. Whether you do or not is up to you. Homeland's, not the FBI's, request for physical possession of the server was rejected by the DNC, because when the request was made, Russian intrusions had already been booted from the server, and the DNC didn't need Homeland's assistance. This is a matter of public record, but for some reason, people keep mentioning the FBI being denied. They weren't. Homeland Security was denied access to the server, and for the reason stated.

If the police call you and tell you someone broke into your house, not you calling them, then they already have an idea that the crime happened. Since similar things were happening elsewhere, with similar fingerprints, they already has an idea about who did it. When an independent investigation by Crowdstrike told the FBI the same thing they already suspected, their suspicions were corroborated.

You can infer lots of things from the fantastical, to the absurd, to the real, depending on your reason to infer them. When the FBI Director testifies under oath, that the copy of the server was an acceptable substitute for their investigation, why look for other reasons for it not to be acceptable, unless you're trying to discredit the investigation? Then I would wonder about the reason and need to discredit the investigation. My experience is those wishing to discredit the investigation or the investigators do so for partisan purposes.

 

Precisely. After CrowdStrike had potentially scrubbed any evidence of leakers and/or other internal improprieties. Objective analysis by this firm? No, I don't think so.




According to the Wall Street Journal, Schmidt “sent a Clinton campaign official a lengthy memo with advice on running the campaign. He told campaign officials he was ‘ready to fund, advise recruit talent,’ and ‘clearly wants to be head outside advisor,’ according to a 2014 email from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta to campaign manager Robby Mook.”

And Politico reported in November 2016 that Schmidt “served in a personal capacity as an adviser to the Clinton operation,” and wore a “staff” badge at her election night party.

Schmidt also funded a startup called, “The Groundwork.” An article in Quartz titled, “The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that’s working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House,” details its operations.

CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire

CrowdStrike Is Funded By Clinton-Loving Google $$

“The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election,” the article says.

“And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.”

The post also calls Schmidt “one of the most powerful donors in the Democratic Party.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/24/c...ryone-is-ignoring-about-the-russia-dnc-story/

 

Proof or the criminal case underway please?

 

Who would be pressing charges? The DNC? The firm they hired to clean up their mess?

 

So the entire premise of your "response" was total nonsense to distract.......debate away then .

 

Nope, entirely on topic. There are currently two other threads regarding the "hacking debate", one which has 2,871 views. Haven't see you on one post in there. Why is that?

 

It most certainly does. The scope of the special counsel’s investigation remains unlimited, complete with the deputy attorney general impotently whining "it's not a fishing expedition!"

Rosenstein's conferral is indefensible because Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement of the basis for a criminal investigation. This failure is not cured by whines that there really are limits to Mueller’s jurisdiction . . . just not ones anyone can provide any definition for.

Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials are subject to “the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice.” Yet, those rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in the first place. Don’t take my word for it. The regulation, 28 CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is “determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted,” and that the Justice Department’s handling of “that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter” in the normal course “would present a conflict of interest for the Department”. The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead, appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with a crime.

And you seem to be in support of this!

Moreover Rosenstein does the counterintelligence shuffle, which slides this around the 4th amendment. Do you really want routine prosecutoral practices by which they slip around the 4th amendment as casually as throwing your keys into a drawer and closing it? You seem in support of that as well. Do you understand the repercussions of these actions? Do you understand why we ratified the 4th amendment? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation, however, the need to probe a specific suspected crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...estigation-special-counsel-fishing-expedition

That's the McGuffin. You are in the mad pursuit of overturning the choice of the Electorate. Like Captain Ahab you will likely destroy yourself in the process.

But, debates are fun, so let me suggest a thought experiment for you: Say you are successful and you manage to get every democrat and TWENTY GOP Senators to vote for impeachment, after describing millions of Americans "deplorable", how do you expect the 30 states who chose Trump to perceive this? And how do you expect them to respond to the clear overturning of their vote? President Pence will be president, firmly backed by an enraged electorate that represents 306 ECV, 30+ states? I think you are imagining that the situation returns to what you imagined it was as you were sitting confidently expecting a seemless transition from Obama to Hillary. I would suggest that situation existed only in your imagination and was never real in the first place.

Do you recognize the existence of reality that may be in conflict with your perception of reality, and that when there is a conflict between the two, it is you that is wrong, not the real world?

Do you think that you are effectively mounting an intellectual defense against Trump's actions or you coasting along behind Meuller convinced that he will finally hand you the fabled smoking gun that will sweep you through the 2018 and 2020 season? And if Meuller turns out to have nothing that shakes the resolve of these 30 states, then what?

By firing Comey? Who both sides agreed was a the last person who should be in the job, in fact Democrats were holding HIM responsible for Trump's election, until Trump fired him, when they promptly reversed course and sainted him. And you think Trump is "conflicted" when it comes to Comey, but Mueller isn't? Please allow me to pause, throw my head back and guffaw! BAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. That's the argument that is going to convince the electorates of 30+ states to swing from their own viewpoint to yours? Are you kidding me?

But Meuller belongs in charge of the firing of his buddy Comey? Why does this make sense to you? And remember, your audience is the electorate of 30 states, so you need a very simple answer to this, and clearly the simplest answer is that you are engaged in special pleading.

Rosenstein advised Trump that he had grounds to fire Comey, then appointed Comey's buddy as the Special Prosecutor to investigate the firing, and clearly Rosenstein violated the plain language of the SC counsel statue in the appointment, and the SC is clearly conflicted. Those arguments are going to be much easier to make that whatever nonsense Mueller comes up with. And he resorted to a DC Grand Jury and area where Trump carried 4% of the vote? You don't think that will be used to disqualify their work product? You don't think Meuller knows this?

Nonsense. Had Hillary won, this would not be an issue. 20 States are trying to overturn the decision of 30 states and they are trying to accomplish it by high dungeon, because they can't win fair and square at the ballot box. That clear message will not be missed.

If you cared about laws, you would have looked up General Warrant and you would have seen that the Meuller appointment is not authorized by the Special Counsel statutes. But you breeze right past that, swear you are wearing the White Hat and on the side of the angels! You breathe the rarefied air of the impartial truth seeker, but everyone with a viewpoint in conflict with yours is motivated by crass partisan opportunism! How convenient!

Oh well, enjoyed the discussion, I expect the following outcome. No crimes by Trump though perhaps they manage to trip up a few folks in process crimes. That's how Comey managed to jail Martha Stewart, for denying that she committed a crime she was never charged with. DC Grand Jury writes a bunch of crap that sounds like crimes, but will not be actually chargeable for one reason or another and they recommend his removal from office.

The views of the Electorate of 30+ states towards the findings of a DC Grand Jury will further reinforce their firm belief that DC has become too powerful, too insular, deeply committed to their own agenda rather than representing ours and long overdue to have their power and influence firmly completely and finally checked.

Thank you for the response,
Zorro

 

Key word in your response is…. potentially.
There is no evidence that anything was scrubbed from the DNC server, other than Russian intrusion. The DNC wasn't the only group in the US that suffered a VERY similar intrusion. I've pointed that out in several places. The FBI is satisfied with the copy of the information on the server. Our allies' intelligence agencies and our own intelligence agencies have seen similar attacks in other countries as well. When it waddles, quacks, flies, and swims like a duck, there's a possibility of it being some kind of new species, but it's probably a duck.

The alternative to it being a duck is some kind of conspiracy theory that involves partisan politics inside the US, rather than Russian intrusion. Somehow, I don't think there is an internal US partisan conspiracy that hacked into the Ukrainian elections using the same kinds of techniques used against the DNC server, the White House, the State Department, and Lindsay Graham's campaign. France saw attempts to hack into their election machinery. Germany has also. They all have similar fingerprints and the foreign intelligence agencies don't seem to think the DNC has anything to do with it, but do think Russia does.

Tell, ya what?… If Mueller comes out and says the Russians had nothing to do with it, there was no cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, and our election machinery is free from outside interference, then I might believe Crowdstrike scrubbed the DNC server and that it is all a DNC conspiracy to remove Trump from office because of sour grapes. That doesn't explain the email chain released by Don Jr about the "adoption meeting," but what difference does evidence make when there's a conspiracy to hatch?