More indictments of Russians in the Mueller investigation
The Trump justice department today announced the indictment of 12 more Russians in the special counsel's investigation of the 2016 election, raising to 25 the total number of Russians indicted by the Mueller probe (plus three Russian entities).
This morning, our president again called the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt." From what I understand, "witch hunt" refers to needless, pointless efforts that will turn up nothing (there are no such things as "witches," so when you hunt for them, you will find none). Today's indictments raise to 35 the number of "witches" Mueller's "hunt" has found.
A couple of points about today's developments:
- The Russians indicted today are members of the GRU, the Russian military intelligence group. As most of us have known for a long time, this was a Russian government action. We'll see whether Trumpsters United will continue to advance their specious conspiracy theories that Democrats actually did the hacking.
- Earlier this month, the president received a briefing at the White House about the new indictments. So when today he called Mueller's a "witch hunt," he did so knowing that his justice department would soon formally charge Russian military officials with meddling in our 2016 election.
- Now the president will meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Last month, Mr Trump put an exclamation point behind his Twittered report of Russia's denial of involvement in our election...
Let's hope these new indictments don't sour the boys' bromance when they meet in Helsinki.
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The Trump justice department today announced the indictment of 12 more Russians in the special counsel's investigation of the 2016 election, raising to 25 the total number of Russians indicted by the Mueller probe (plus three Russian entities).This morning, our president again called the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt." From what I understand, "witch hunt" refers to needless, pointless efforts that will turn up nothing (there are no such things as "witches," so when you hunt for them, you will find none). Today's indictments raise to 35 the number of "witches" Mueller's "hunt" has found.
A couple of points about today's developments:
- The Russians indicted today are members of the GRU, the Russian military intelligence group. As most of us have known for a long time, this was a Russian government action. We'll see whether Trumpsters United will continue to advance their specious conspiracy theories that Democrats actually did the hacking.
- Earlier this month, the president received a briefing at the White House about the new indictments. So when today he called Mueller's a "witch hunt," he did so knowing that his justice department would soon formally charge Russian military officials with meddling in our 2016 election.
- Now the president will meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Last month, Mr Trump put an exclamation point behind his Twittered report of Russia's denial of involvement in our election...
Let's hope these new indictments don't sour the boys' bromance when they meet in Helsinki.
I've not seen anyone reputable say Democrats did the hacking. The main purpose of the Mueller investigation is Russian Collusion which is a witch hunt. It's nice that they found these criminals but that was not the focus/purpose of the investigation.
They have their criminals, now it's time to close this thing. Enough tax payer money has been wasted.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The Trump justice department today announced the indictment of 12 more Russians in the special counsel's investigation of the 2016 election, raising to 25 the total number of Russians indicted by the Mueller probe (plus three Russian entities)....
And what should be investigated and the people who should have been arrested long ago and convicted for proven crimes are still going free ... and dubious claims about "Russians" are made. The culprits and traitors, folks, live inside the USA ... not in Russia. -
@reformed said:
I've not seen anyone reputable say Democrats did the hacking. The main purpose of the Mueller investigation is Russian Collusion which is a witch hunt. It's nice that they found these criminals but that was not the focus/purpose of the investigation.Google Seth Rich, Aaron Rich, Fox News, The Washington Times, and Ed Butowsky.
Fox ran a story and the Times ran an op-ed piece that advanced a baseless suggestion of Aaron Rich's involvement in email hacking. Do you consider either of those media outlets to be "reputable"? Yes, Fox retracted their story the next week... without apology to the Rich family. But they ran with a story that had no basis in fact.
They have their criminals, now it's time to close this thing. Enough tax payer money has been wasted.
Now "they have (35 of) their criminals." As Deputy AG Rosenstein said in announcing the indictments, the investigation is on-going. There is every reason to believe that today's indictments are NOT the last ones Mueller's team will produce.
As an American citizen, does it alarm you that we now have formal legal charges against members of foreign government for hacking into our election? Don't you want to know as much as possible about what the Russians did, how they did it, and whether any American citizens knowingly cooperated with their efforts? IF American citizens knowingly participated in the Russian efforts - a possibility, to-date, about which Mueller's team has issued NO conclusions - don't you want to know? Don't you want them held accountable for their actions?
On what basis do you assert that an investigation that has uncovered indictment-ready evidence of a foreign government's meddling in one of our presidential elections - a pillar of our democracy - is a waste of money?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
As an American citizen, does it alarm you that we now have formal legal charges against members of foreign government for hacking into our election?I would ashamed of the incompetence of the USA personnel responsible for the security of political party computers etc ....
In addition, there was no "hacking into the election" at all, as has been confirmed in the past already but just about all reputable sources. The election process as such was as normal as ever ... That propaganda of any and all kinds nowadays is used globally by political powers to influence election outcomes in a particular way is also common practice (including the USA, who are even openly intervening in elections or votes, such as by sending their president to the UK to speak and rally and "threaten" voters if they did not quite "vote right")
Don't you want to know as much as possible about what the Russians did, how they did it, and whether any American citizens knowingly cooperated with their efforts? IF American citizens knowingly participated in the Russian efforts - a possibility, to-date, about which Mueller's team has issued NO conclusions - don't you want to know? Don't you want them held accountable for their actions?
See above ... I would be looking in a different direction ... and not excuse especially the Democratic party folks.
On what basis do you assert that an investigation that has uncovered indictment-ready evidence of a foreign government's meddling in one of our presidential elections - a pillar of our democracy - is a waste of money?
What has been produced thus far is rather poor for the amount of money and manpower invested ... actually, the lack of findings of real evidence over the period of time which it has taken thus far, is more of an indication that there is NOTHING to be found than anything else.
-
@Wolfgang said:
I would ashamed of the incompetence of the USA personnel responsible for the security of political party computers etc ....So when a burglar steals items from a house, do you first blame the homeowner for leaving those items in plain view, or rather the burglar for entering a house he/she didn't own to take items that didn't belong to him/her?
In addition, there was no "hacking into the election" at all, as has been confirmed in the past already but just about all reputable sources. The election process as such was as normal as ever ... That propaganda of any and all kinds nowadays is used globally by political powers to influence election outcomes in a particular way is also common practice (including the USA, who are even openly intervening in elections or votes, such as by sending their president to the UK to speak and rally and "threaten" voters if they did not quite "vote right")
In this case, "hacking" doesn't mean changing the result; it means involvement in our electoral process that is contrary to American law.
- BY LAW, it is illegal for foreign persons and entities to donate to American presidential campaigns.
- BY LAW, it is illegal to commit "computer fraud."
- BY LAW, it is illegal to gain entrance to a computer server to copy/delete contents without permission to do so.
- There are many other "BY LAW" comments I could make.
THAT'S what "hacking" means in this case.
See above ... I would be looking in a different direction ... and not excuse especially the Democratic party folks.
See above. Again you seem to want to blame the homeowner before you blame the burgler.
What has been produced thus far is rather poor for the amount of money and manpower invested ... actually, the lack of findings of real evidence over the period of time which it has taken thus far, is more of an indication that there is NOTHING to be found than anything else.
35 people indicted. Multiple guilty pleas. Multiple cooperating witnesses. And as yet, NO official indication that there aren't more indictments coming. Doesn't sound like a "lack of findings of real evidence" to me.
And how do you know what evidence the Mueller team has found to-date, Wolfgang? To my recollection, NO ONE - other than Mueller's team, the deputy AG, and the President - had ANY advance knowledge of ANY of the indictments issued so far. NO ONE (other than those cited) knew 12 members of the Russian GRU would be indicted today. Did you know? On what factual basis do you assert the indictments to-date indicate "there is NOTHING to be found"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I've not seen anyone reputable say Democrats did the hacking. The main purpose of the Mueller investigation is Russian Collusion which is a witch hunt. It's nice that they found these criminals but that was not the focus/purpose of the investigation.Google Seth Rich, Aaron Rich, Fox News, The Washington Times, and Ed Butowsky.
Fox ran a story and the Times ran an op-ed piece that advanced a baseless suggestion of Aaron Rich's involvement in email hacking. Do you consider either of those media outlets to be "reputable"? Yes, Fox retracted their story the next week... without apology to the Rich family. But they ran with a story that had no basis in fact.
They have their criminals, now it's time to close this thing. Enough tax payer money has been wasted.
Now "they have (35 of) their criminals." As Deputy AG Rosenstein said in announcing the indictments, the investigation is on-going. There is every reason to believe that today's indictments are NOT the last ones Mueller's team will produce.
As an American citizen, does it alarm you that we now have formal legal charges against members of foreign government for hacking into our election? Don't you want to know as much as possible about what the Russians did, how they did it, and whether any American citizens knowingly cooperated with their efforts? IF American citizens knowingly participated in the Russian efforts - a possibility, to-date, about which Mueller's team has issued NO conclusions - don't you want to know? Don't you want them held accountable for their actions?
On what basis do you assert that an investigation that has uncovered indictment-ready evidence of a foreign government's meddling in one of our presidential elections - a pillar of our democracy - is a waste of money?
You wouldn't need a special counsel to uncover that. That's the problem Bill.
Of course I am concerned about foreign agents ATTEMPTING to hack our elections. And as far as the Fox News story, that's a different hacking altogether. Let's talk about the same events shall we?
-
@reformed said:
You wouldn't need a special counsel to uncover that. That's the problem Bill.Obviously, given the number of indictments, the scope of the inquiry, the necessary recusal of the attorney general, and the president's almost daily attempts to demean and diminish the professionals doing their job on the Mueller team (you might be familiar with terms such as "hoax" and "witch hunt" used by the Trumpster union) a special - NOT "independent" - counsel was the right call.
Of course I am concerned about foreign agents ATTEMPTING to hack our elections. And as far as the Fox News story, that's a different hacking altogether. Let's talk about the same events shall we?
I encourage you to revisit the Aaron Rich story and today's indictments. ALL refer, at least in part, to the emails hacked from the DNC's server. The indictments are about how those emails were stolen from the server. The Rich story was about how the stolen emails were funneled to Wikileaks. Sounds to me like different parts of the same basic hacking incident.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You wouldn't need a special counsel to uncover that. That's the problem Bill.Obviously, given the number of indictments, the scope of the inquiry, the necessary recusal of the attorney general, and the president's almost daily attempts to demean and diminish the professionals doing their job on the Mueller team (you might be familiar with terms such as "hoax" and "witch hunt" used by the Trumpster union) a special - NOT "independent" - counsel was the right call.
That's a joke Bill. There was zero reason for a special counsel. The AG did not need to recuse, and all of this could have been found through normal channels.
Of course I am concerned about foreign agents ATTEMPTING to hack our elections. And as far as the Fox News story, that's a different hacking altogether. Let's talk about the same events shall we?
I encourage you to revisit the Aaron Rich story and today's indictments. ALL refer, at least in part, to the emails hacked from the DNC's server. The indictments are about how those emails were stolen from the server. The Rich story was about how the stolen emails were funneled to Wikileaks. Sounds to me like different parts of the same basic hacking incident.
Ok I will concede here. I read a different article at first that talked about state election systems.
Of course the main point here is also that the ELECTION WAS NOT HACKED. I really wish liberals would quit saying that because it is not factual.
-
@reformed said:
That's a joke Bill. There was zero reason for a special counsel. The AG did not need to recuse, and all of this could have been found through normal channels.
No joke.
We disagree about the need for a special counsel.
As for the AG's recusal, here in full is the text of Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2 of the Code of Federal Regulation, titled "Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship," the Justice Department guideline on which AG Sessions based his decision to recuse: (emphasis added)
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.(c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are ''personal'' must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
Here's how that section applied to Sessions:
- On February 28, 2016, Sessions endorsed Donald Trump for president.
- Three days later - on March 3, 2016 - Trump named Sessions as the head of campaign's national security advisory committee.
- While serving in that role, Sessions held multiple meetings with Russian officials
Clearly he had a "political relationship" with the Trump campaign writ large, and with Donald Trump and several other members of the campaign who could be "directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution."
Clearly his contacts with Russians could have been of interest to any investigation of the campaign's connections with Russia.
In my view, recusal was his only choice. Please share your interpretation of that code section that leads you to assert Sessions did not have to recuse.
Ok I will concede here. I read a different article at first that talked about state election systems.
Thanks.
Of course the main point here is also that the ELECTION WAS NOT HACKED. I really wish liberals would quit saying that because it is not factual.
Again, "hacked" here doesn't mean that any vote was changed after it was cast. It means the Russians meddled in our elections (and with some election voter rolls, etc) in efforts to influence the outcome of the election - in this case, to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Today's and many of the previous indictments mean the Justice Department believes they used illegal means to do so. Future indictments will expand the scope of the wrongdoing, I am confident.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That's a joke Bill. There was zero reason for a special counsel. The AG did not need to recuse, and all of this could have been found through normal channels.
No joke.
We disagree about the need for a special counsel.
As for the AG's recusal, here in full is the text of Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2 of the Code of Federal Regulation, titled "Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship," the Justice Department guideline on which AG Sessions based his decision to recuse: (emphasis added)
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.(c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are ''personal'' must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
Here's how that section applied to Sessions:
- On February 28, 2016, Sessions endorsed Donald Trump for president.
- Three days later - on March 3, 2016 - Trump named Sessions as the head of campaign's national security advisory committee.
- While serving in that role, Sessions held multiple meetings with Russian officials
Clearly he had a "political relationship" with the Trump campaign writ large, and with Donald Trump and several other members of the campaign who could be "directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution."
Clearly his contacts with Russians could have been of interest to any investigation of the campaign's connections with Russia.
In my view, recusal was his only choice. Please share your interpretation of that code section that leads you to assert Sessions did not have to recuse.
Ok I will concede here. I read a different article at first that talked about state election systems.
Thanks.
Of course the main point here is also that the ELECTION WAS NOT HACKED. I really wish liberals would quit saying that because it is not factual.
Again, "hacked" here doesn't mean that any vote was changed after it was cast. It means the Russians meddled in our elections (and with some election voter rolls, etc) in efforts to influence the outcome of the election - in this case, to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Today's and many of the previous indictments mean the Justice Department believes they used illegal means to do so. Future indictments will expand the scope of the wrongdoing, I am confident.
Hacking our elections and meddling in our political campaigns are toatally different things Bill.
Of course another thing of note, not a shred of collusion has been unearthed as far as we know.
-
@reformed said:
Hacking our elections and meddling in our political campaigns are toatally different things Bill.You're welcome to define "hacking" as you see fit. I'm reporting to you the meaning of the word in the national conversation we're having about Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Of course another thing of note, not a shred of collusion has been unearthed as far as we know.
Please note the phrase with which you ended your sentence: "... as far as we know." Exactly right. But we don't know everything Mueller and Co know.
Did you know Mueller was going to indict 12 Russian GRU members today? I bet you didn't. I KNOW I didn't. None of us knows what OTHER evidence he and his team have accumulated. They don't leak. They don't respond to the president's demeaning comments, or to the "witch hunts" and "hoaxes" of Trumpster trolls. They speak loudly, clearly, appropriately, and legally in court filings.
I think the odds are 90% to 10% in favor of another round of indictments, the next round likely to include American citizens.
You're welcome to believe there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. I suggest you're on MUCH firmer ground believing there is no such evidence (from Mueller's team) SO FAR and "as far as we know."
What about your claim that the AG didn't have to recuse? I quoted the government rule upon which Sessions based his decision, and asked how you interpret that section in a way that supports your view that recusal was not necessary. I ask the question again.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Hacking our elections and meddling in our political campaigns are toatally different things Bill.You're welcome to define "hacking" as you see fit. I'm reporting to you the meaning of the word in the national conversation we're having about Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.
No, you are defining a liberal talking point.
Of course another thing of note, not a shred of collusion has been unearthed as far as we know.
Please note the phrase with which you ended your sentence: "... as far as we know." Exactly right. But we don't know everything Mueller and Co know.
Did you know Mueller was going to indict 12 Russian GRU members today? I bet you didn't. I KNOW I didn't. None of us knows what OTHER evidence he and his team have accumulated. They don't leak. They don't respond to the president's demeaning comments, or to the "witch hunts" and "hoaxes" of Trumpster trolls. They speak loudly, clearly, appropriately, and legally in court filings.
I think the odds are 90% to 10% in favor of another round of indictments, the next round likely to include American citizens.
You're welcome to believe there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. I suggest you're on MUCH firmer ground believing there is no such evidence (from Mueller's team) SO FAR and "as far as we know."
I know that everything about this investigation points to outsiders, not Trump campaign. That being said, there was not even any evidence to spark this investigation in the first place.
-
@reformed said:
No, you are defining a liberal talking point.You say potato....
I know that everything about this investigation points to outsiders, not Trump campaign. That being said, there was not even any evidence to spark this investigation in the first place.
I think you're right. That Trump Tower meeting in the summer of 2016 WAS set up by Russian outsiders. The fact that Don Jr. attended the meeting thinking the Russian government had Clinton dirt to offer his father's campaign didn't say ANYTHING about the Trump campaign's willingness to welcome Russian help.
AND that fact that shortly before the Trump Tower meeting, Donald Sr promised a major speech with all kinds of dirt on Hillary (for the following Monday, if I remember correctly), but after the Trump Tower meeting - which produced basically no dirt - never gave such a speech.. why, that could have happened to anyone!
AND the fact that, according to today's indictment, the Russians made their first attempt to hack into email servers on THE SAME DAY as Donald Sr's press conference statement of July 27, 2016, in which he asked the Russians to find Clinton's emails is PURE COINCIDENCE.
Yep. Nothing but outsiders.
And for the third time: What about your claim that the AG didn't have to recuse? I quoted the government rule upon which Sessions based his decision, and asked how you interpret that section in a way that supports your view that recusal was not necessary. I ask the question yet again.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
I would ashamed of the incompetence of the USA personnel responsible for the security of political party computers etc ....So when a burglar steals items from a house, do you first blame the homeowner for leaving those items in plain view, or rather the burglar for entering a house he/she didn't own to take items that didn't belong to him/her?
You make a bad comparison ... but I would certainly blame the security company I hired and paid to prohibit burglars to enter my premises if they did not do their job and let the burglars in.
In this case, "hacking" doesn't mean changing the result; it means involvement in our electoral process that is contrary to American law.
- BY LAW, it is illegal for foreign persons and entities to donate to American presidential campaigns.
But this does not apply to Hillary Clinton and foreign donations received rather openly by her (even though these may have been "openly laundered" by a foundation ?
- BY LAW, it is illegal to commit "computer fraud."
Then the investigators should have long ago done something by those "internal sources" which leaked information from computers ?
- BY LAW, it is illegal to gain entrance to a computer server to copy/delete contents without permission to do so.
- There are many other "BY LAW" comments I could make.
Indeed ... and why has there not been any look directed into the internal sources direction when "the sparrows whistle it from the rooftops" and just about anyone knows what happened in Hillary's case and from within her election campaign?
THAT'S what "hacking" means in this case.
See above ... I would be looking in a different direction ... and not excuse especially the Democratic party folks.
See above. Again you seem to want to blame the homeowner before you blame the burgler.
See above ... IF the home owner acted irresponsibly and possibly herself outside the law, then she should be the first one blamed, and if not, the folks who did not do their job should certainly not go free either
And how do you know what evidence the Mueller team has found to-date, Wolfgang? To my recollection, NO ONE - other than Mueller's team, the deputy AG, and the President - had ANY advance knowledge of ANY of the indictments issued so far. NO ONE (other than those cited) knew 12 members of the Russian GRU would be indicted today. Did you know? On what factual basis do you assert the indictments to-date indicate "there is NOTHING to be found"?
The case's big picture is so clear that one can already "know" what will come of it and what will happen in different steps ... the real surprise would be if the one at least nominally in top position would "drain the swamp" ... something not that easy to do, as the swamp has a habit of swallowing
-
@Wolfgang said:
I would ashamed of the incompetence of the USA personnel responsible for the security of political party computers etc ....
So when a burglar steals items from a house, do you first blame the homeowner for leaving those items in plain view, or rather the burglar for entering a house he/she didn't own to take items that didn't belong to him/her?
You make a bad comparison ... but I would certainly blame the security company I hired and paid to prohibit burglars to enter my premises if they did not do their job and let the burglars in.
I disagree with your characterization of my comparison; I think it's spot on. But whether it's good or bad doesn't exempt you from answering directly the question it contained. Fortunately, while here you avoid the question, later in your post you seem to make it clear that you would blame the victim of a burglary (or that victim's security service) before you would blame the burgler.
I find that to be a curious prioritization, Wolfgang. In a case where one person shoots another - and not in self defense - whom would you FIRST blame? Am I correct to infer from your logic that you would FIRST blame the shooting victim? For getting in the way of the bullet, or driving the shooter to his or her act, or not staying ten miles from the shooter?
In the case of our 2016 election, what the Russians did was both wrong and illegal. They are the FIRST party to hold responsible for their crime (along with, I expect we will eventually learn, American citizens who were aligned with or were members of the Trump campaign). Only AFTER the Russians are held to account is it appropriate to make judgments about the culpability of others. [For the record, I think John Podesta and/or his assistant acted foolishly and irresponsibly when they fell for the phishing attack from the Russians. There was no excuse for their not knowing better. But their mistakes do NOT remove FIRST responsibility from the Russians.]
- BY LAW, it is illegal for foreign persons and entities to donate to American presidential campaigns.
But this does not apply to Hillary Clinton and foreign donations received rather openly by her (even though these may have been "openly laundered" by a foundation ?
Here you practice what current American political parlance calls "What Aboutism." Instead of dealing directly with the issue at hand, one who engages in What Aboutism changes the subject, drawing a moral and/or practical parallel between the example actually under consideration and the example he or she raises.
In this case, I raised foreign campaign donations to American presidential campaigns as an example of "hacking" a presidential election, defined as involvement in the electoral process that is contrary to American law. Instead of dealing directly with that example, you changed the subject to the Clinton Foundation, donations under scrutiny to which were made in 2009-2013, well before her presidential run.
If you want to discuss the Clinton Foundation, fine. But as a response to my claim that Russians hacked our 2016 election, such discussion is not relevant.
- BY LAW, it is illegal to commit "computer fraud."
Then the investigators should have long ago done something by those "internal sources" which leaked information from computers ?
More what aboutism.
The issue is the indictments handed down on Friday against Russian GRU members who allegedly made explicit attempts to hack into DNC and DCCC servers. Whatever "internal sources" did - and I know of no substantive evidence of same; please provide links to fact-based sources to support your claim - it's the Russians who are under scrutiny.
- BY LAW, it is illegal to gain entrance to a computer server to copy/delete contents without permission to do so.
- There are many other "BY LAW" comments I could make.
Indeed ... and why has there not been any look directed into the internal sources direction when "the sparrows whistle it from the rooftops" and just about anyone knows what happened in Hillary's case and from within her election campaign?
More what aboutism.
At issue in the indictments is Russian activity. What "sparrows" "whistled from rooftops" is not at issue.
THAT'S what "hacking" means in this case.
See above ... I would be looking in a different direction ... and not excuse especially the Democratic party folks.
From your predictable support for all things Russian, my guess is you'll ALWAYS look in directions other than at Russian activities, Wolfgang. You have every right to your view, of course. But before looking in other directions, I encourage you to read the details contained in the 29 page indictment, among which you will find no sparrow whistling.
See above. Again you seem to want to blame the homeowner before you blame the burgler.
See above ... IF the home owner acted irresponsibly and possibly herself outside the law, then she should be the first one blamed, and if not, the folks who did not do their job should certainly not go free either
This is the response in which you appear willing to blame the victim of a burglary BEFORE the burgler who steals from him or her. I could not disagree with your view more.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
THAT'S what "hacking" means in this case.
See above ... I would be looking in a different direction ... and not excuse especially the Democratic party folks.
From your predictable support for all things Russian, my guess is you'll ALWAYS look in directions other than at Russian activities, Wolfgang.
I try to always look at things in a non-patriotism (as for religious matters, a non-denominationalism) and as much as I can do an objective perspective.
And doing so from the outside (actually in either USA or Russia case) is perhaps an advantage compared to those who live inside either place.But before looking in other directions, I encourage you to read the details contained in the 29 page indictment, among which you will find no sparrow whistling.
I find a lot of expressions speaking about a special kind of "what aboutism" in the supposedly, most likely, highly possible etc direction ... and actually NO plain and clear evidence for any of what is claimed.
See above ... IF the home owner acted irresponsibly and possibly herself outside the law, then she should be the first one blamed, and if not, the folks who did not do their job should certainly not go free either
This is the response in which you appear willing to blame the victim of a burglary BEFORE the burgler who steals from him or her. I could not disagree with your view more.
your comparison is faulty ... for one, it is not even proven that there was a burglary ... there may well have been an inside leak as there was more likely (and proven by evidence) utter misconduct and breech of security clearance by Hillary Clinton in the case of many of her email communication ...
The whole Muller "investigation" is so obviously a "political campaign" ... and the timing of the current "revelation" with this "indictment game" speaks volumes. -
@Wolfgang said:
I try to always look at things in a non-patriotism (as for religious matters, a non-denominationalism) and as much as I can do an objective perspective.
And doing so from the outside (actually in either USA or Russia case) is perhaps an advantage compared to those who live inside either place.My observation is that your "non-patriotism" perspective has predictably led to support for - at least no criticism of - Russian government actions. I can't think of a post in which you issued a critique of Moscow's conduct; perhaps you can point me to one?
I find a lot of expressions speaking about a special kind of "what aboutism" in the supposedly, most likely, highly possible etc direction ... and actually NO plain and clear evidence for any of what is claimed.
Are you talking here about the 29 page indictment? If so, then I'm astonished by your contention that there it contains "NO plain and clear evidence for any of what is claimed." The amount of detail - aka, evidence - in that document is astonishing... and that's only the charging document, NOT the mountain of evidence that lies behind it.
your comparison is faulty ... for one, it is not even proven that there was a burglary ... there may well have been an inside leak as there was more likely (and proven by evidence) utter misconduct and breech of security clearance by Hillary Clinton in the case of many of her email communication ...
In my previous post, I asked you for links to fact-based information that supports your speculation of an "inside leak," what in your previous post you called "internal sources." I find it telling that you provide no such links.... If you decide to do so, am I correct to assume the proof you offer will meet the standard of proof to which you hold the 29 page indictment?
The whole Muller "investigation" is so obviously a "political campaign" ... and the timing of the current "revelation" with this "indictment game" speaks volumes.
The indictment's timing is one of its most powerful elements. When it was released, our president was two days from a summit with the man who VERY LIKELY knew and approved of the attack against our country the indictment alleges. Our president had the right AND THE NEED to know about the alleged Russian activity BEFORE he met with Putin. I doubt seriously that Trump will do anything substantive with the charges - Putin's fanboy that he is - but he needed to know.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The whole Muller "investigation" is so obviously a "political campaign" ... and the timing of the current "revelation" with this "indictment game" speaks volumes.
The indictment's timing is one of its most powerful elements. When it was released, our president was two days from a summit with the man who VERY LIKELY knew and approved of the attack against our country the indictment alleges. Our president had the right AND THE NEED to know about the alleged Russian activity BEFORE he met with Putin. I doubt seriously that Trump will do anything substantive with the charges - Putin's fanboy that he is - but he needed to know.
Are you really that "innocent"? Are USA intelligence services really so stupid as to not know and needing Muller "investigation" to learn to then inform the president??
Do you think that Trump is actually in control of USA course of action against the Deep State swamp (whose candidate for USA president was Hillary Clinton)? I am not sure what really his strategy is and what he really is pursuing ... doesn't seem to be "draining the swamp" as he announced in his inaugural address. Instead, he seems to be serving those "swamp masters" and their aims of world hegemony at least to some degree ...
His current visit to Western Europe was the visit of a tribune who openly showed that none of the EU countries is actually really a sovereign country, but all are USA vassals and he demanded tribute ... albeit, a little bit disguised in his sort of "bullying manner". There no longer is any North Atlantic "friends" reality, and it now shows that most likely there never was as now the concealment has been taken away and the real face is showing.
But then, on the other hand, his talk could point in the direction of dismantling all NATO, EU, etc. ... for some yet unrevealed reason. Not everything coming out makes much sense at this time, and perhaps some time will tell.
See, he attacked Germany heavily with his stupid comments and false figures about purchases of natural gas from Russia ... eh, why do we purchase natural gas from Russia? For starters, because the USA can't provide the amount, and the little it might have to sell would be horrendously expensive (which is the reason, it can't even be marketed properly inside the USA) ... Next, the USA is claiming all their military spending as if it were NATO related spending, which MOST of it is not and has nothing to do with a defense according to NATO terms. etc etc etc
You know, after 1990 the "enemy" (Warsaw Pact" dissolved and thus the supposed reason for NATO was gone ... but did NATO dissolve after having lost its purpose? No, the USA insisted on making it an instrument of expansion and aggression, rather than defense. In Germany, Russia called their troops back and they all left Germany, but the NATO powers insisted on continuing to station their troops as continuing occupation force in Germany. With lies upon lies, NATO has been expanded right up to the Russia border ... now, who, pray tell, is behaving as an aggressor?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Are you really that "innocent"? Are USA intelligence services really so stupid as to not know and needing Muller "investigation" to learn to then inform the president??Do you think that Trump is actually in control of USA course of action against the Deep State swamp (whose candidate for USA president was Hillary Clinton)? I am not sure what really his strategy is and what he really is pursuing ... doesn't seem to be "draining the swamp" as he announced in his inaugural address. Instead, he seems to be serving those "swamp masters" and their aims of world hegemony at least to some degree ...
His current visit to Western Europe was the visit of a tribune who openly showed that none of the EU countries is actually really a sovereign country, but all are USA vassals and he demanded tribute ... albeit, a little bit disguised in his sort of "bullying manner". There no longer is any North Atlantic "friends" reality, and it now shows that most likely there never was as now the concealment has been taken away and the real face is showing.
But then, on the other hand, his talk could point in the direction of dismantling all NATO, EU, etc. ... for some yet unrevealed reason. Not everything coming out makes much sense at this time, and perhaps some time will tell.
See, he attacked Germany heavily with his stupid comments and false figures about purchases of natural gas from Russia ... eh, why do we purchase natural gas from Russia? For starters, because the USA can't provide the amount, and the little it might have to sell would be horrendously expensive (which is the reason, it can't even be marketed properly inside the USA) ... Next, the USA is claiming all their military spending as if it were NATO related spending, which MOST of it is not and has nothing to do with a defense according to NATO terms. etc etc etc
You know, after 1990 the "enemy" (Warsaw Pact" dissolved and thus the supposed reason for NATO was gone ... but did NATO dissolve after having lost its purpose? No, the USA insisted on making it an instrument of expansion and aggression, rather than defense. In Germany, Russia called their troops back and they all left Germany, but the NATO powers insisted on continuing to station their troops as continuing occupation force in Germany. With lies upon lies, NATO has been expanded right up to the Russia border ... now, who, pray tell, is behaving as an aggressor?
I agree with some of your observations - e.g. Trump's blatant falsehoods about Germany's energy supply and the U.S.' contribution to NATO - but in substance, your post does nothing to advance the cause of subject of our exchange, Wolfgang.
- Twice I've asked you for links to fact-based information that supports your contention about "internal sources" that might have been responsible for DNC et al email hacking. Twice you've chosen not to mention my request, let alone fulfill it.
- In my last post, I asked about the standard of proof that leads you to conclude Friday's 29 page indictment contained "NO plain and clear evidence for any of what is claimed." In your reply, you chose not to mention, let alone provide insight into that standard of proof.
- And also in my last post, I asked for links to posts of yours that offered a critique of Russian government actions... yet another request you chose not to mention, let alone fulfill.
What's surprising to me about this, Wolfgang, is that on many occasions over the years I've read your objections to others' failures to answer your questions or otherwise respond to the substance of your posts. For example, in a recent post you said this to another poster:
"I am waiting for your answers to the questions you were asked ... instead of adding more ideas and an evasive statements which only leaves more questions."
And in another thread, this was your response to a fellow poster who did not respond to the questions you asked:
"I asked you those very simple questions and even repeated them above ... so, please, answer them or tell us that you refuse to answer, or that you have no answer, or whatever is actually the case."
And finally, from yet a different thread comes this response of yours to questions raised but not answered:
"However, the problem here is that you and others have not provided ANSWERS but rather mostly unrelated "sermon preaching" often in total disregard of the questions you were asked. Sort of like when someone asks you "Would you please tell me how much a basket of strawberries cost?" and you answer "Strawberries grow on fields and in gardens!"
Isn't it true that by evading my questions, you commit the very same offense to which you strongly object when you believe others commit it?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Isn't it true that by evading my questions, you commit the very same offense to which you strongly object when you believe others commit it?My problem with some of these things is that my sources are oftentimes in German and as such of no value to most posters here, and I admit, I should have clarified this.
In addition, asking for links for things which I have declared to be my own observations, calculations, considerations, etc is not helpful ... since there are obviously no links nor did I claim that there were ...
When I have asked about others answering directly etc., it has been from a different perspective and in different contexts ... I don't ask them to verify their ideas with links to theologians etc., I actually ask that they please do NOT come with links to others etc but to engage the topic and matter with their own logic and reason and the scripture source itself.
Hope this helps ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
My problem with some of these things is that my sources are oftentimes in German and as such of no value to most posters here, and I admit, I should have clarified this.The German language should not be a problem, Wolfgang, since modern browsers do an excellent job of translating languages from one to another. So please send me any links that you believe provide fact-based support for your claim about those "internal sources." I'm sure the browser translation will give me a helpful sense of the arguments and evidence the articles employ.
In addition, asking for links for things which I have declared to be my own observations, calculations, considerations, etc is not helpful ... since there are obviously no links nor did I claim that there were ...
I hope I can make this clear: My claim is that you have predictably supported the Russian government in your posts - so much so that I can't recall a post in which you criticized Putin and company. You have every right to that viewpoint!!!! But because that's my observation, I asked for links to YOUR posts in which YOU offered a critique of Russian government actions. In other words, it is precisely YOUR "observations, calculations, considerations, etc" that I seek.
When I have asked about others answering directly etc., it has been from a different perspective and in different contexts ... I don't ask them to verify their ideas with links to theologians etc., I actually ask that they please do NOT come with links to others etc but to engage the topic and matter with their own logic and reason and the scripture source itself.
I'm asking you to "verify" your claim about the role of what you called "internal sources" in the hacking of DNC, DCC, and Clinton emails. Such verification requires links to the evidence that backs up your claim.
I'm also asking for evidence that you have ever criticized the Putin government. That request, too, requires links to posts in which you issued such criticism.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The German language should not be a problem, Wolfgang, since modern browsers do an excellent job of translating languages from one to another. So please send me any links that you believe provide fact-based support for your claim about those "internal sources." I'm sure the browser translation will give me a helpful sense of the arguments and evidence the articles employ.Where are the facts of evidence in the Muller indictments? There are claims, but no facts. Just about the only fact in the matter is that these indictments were announced ...
Oh, PCR wrote something about the matter too ... here's a link (even to a USA based source) in English language ... you may not like it, but that is of course your privilege
Trump Should Fire Rosenstein Immediately
The article mentions the following:
If you read the indictment, you will see that it consists of nothing but improbable accusations. There is no way on earth that the US Justice (sic) Department would be able to acquire the information in this fictional story that Rosenstein has presented. Moreover, there is no sign whatsoever of any evidence in the indictment. Rosenstein knows that he needs no evidence, because the accused will never be brought to trial. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/rosenstein-says-12-russian-intel-officers-indicted-in-special-counsels-probe.htmlMaybe there is more ... have a look at https://www.thenation.com/article/summitgate-campaign-vs-peace/
I hope I can make this clear: My claim is that you have predictably supported the Russian government in your posts - so much so that I can't recall a post in which you criticized Putin and company.
Maybe I am a Putin paid troll ?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Where are the facts of evidence in the Muller indictments? There are claims, but no facts. Just about the only fact in the matter is that these indictments were announced ...Oh, PCR wrote something about the matter too ... here's a link (even to a USA based source) in English language ... you may not like it, but that is of course your privilege
In my last several posts I've asked you for links to fact-based support for your contentions about what you called the "internal sources" which were responsible for the campaign 2016 email thefts.
- Your first response was not to mention, let alone respond to, my requests.
- After sufficient prompting, you then asserted that your "sources are oftentimes in German and as such of no value to most posters here."
- To your concern I expressed my expectation that the language translation functionality of modern web browsers would give me a reasonable sense of the content of the articles to which you linked.
- After all of that, comes your latest post which 1) contains NO evidence related to your claim of "internal sources" - the thing I've requested in my last four posts; 2) is not in German, as I expected it to be, given that one of your previous posts clearly suggested that evidence for your claim came from German language sources; and 3) comes from PCR, a man whose credibility as a reliable observer and commentator is tarnished even more by his logic-, common sense-, and legal awareness-defying take on Mueller's latest indictment.
Roberts for some reason claims the indictment contains "nothing but improbable accusations" for which it offers "no sign whatsoever of any evidence." But any informed American justice system observer knows that prosecutors don't make statements in indictments unless they believe they can prove them with evidence. The indictment can't provide the forensic computer records needed to prove all of its claims, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO! That's what trials are for. As it is, the indictment reads like a narrative behind each line of which lies what Mueller and his team believe is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [Modern technology makes possible quite accurate determinations of the what, when, where, and how of people's online time - even when they assume aliases, as allegedly did the GRU members in this case.]
Maybe there is more ... have a look at https://www.thenation.com/article/summitgate-campaign-vs-peace/
Another article that offers no proof of your claims about the role of "internal sources" in the 2016 campaign's email hacking.
Maybe I am a Putin paid troll ?
A paid one? I don't think so.
-
Bill,
here's a German article, written by a retired German government official (in ministry of defense and thus quite knowledgeable in matters being addressed) and long time parliament member regarding the summit meeting of Trump and Putin scheduled for today in Helsinki, Finland (article was written yesterday, July 15):Perhaps your Google translation service will provide a somewhat readable translation without screwing up many of the figures of speech (translating such linguistic fine points is often something too much for a machine to properly accomplish)
-
This seems to be important. Can we trust you to translate it "without screwing up many of the figures of speech (translating such linguistic fine points is often something too much for a machine to properly accomplish)? I remain. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
This seems to be important. Can we trust you to translate it "without screwing up many of the figures of speech (translating such linguistic fine points is often something too much for a machine to properly accomplish)? I remain. CMI think there are also alternative sources to the main stream propaganda media in English language which point out items of importance about these matters .... but then, the ones I have pointed out in the past have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories"
I'll leave it up to each one to find and evaluate different sources and come to their own conclusions by observing not only the words but also the deeds of recent decades etc -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That's a joke Bill. There was zero reason for a special counsel. The AG did not need to recuse, and all of this could have been found through normal channels.
No joke.
We disagree about the need for a special counsel.
As for the AG's recusal, here in full is the text of Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2 of the Code of Federal Regulation, titled "Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship," the Justice Department guideline on which AG Sessions based his decision to recuse: (emphasis added)
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.(c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are ''personal'' must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
Here's how that section applied to Sessions:
- On February 28, 2016, Sessions endorsed Donald Trump for president.
- Three days later - on March 3, 2016 - Trump named Sessions as the head of campaign's national security advisory committee.
- While serving in that role, Sessions held multiple meetings with Russian officials
Clearly he had a "political relationship" with the Trump campaign writ large, and with Donald Trump and several other members of the campaign who could be "directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution."
Clearly his contacts with Russians could have been of interest to any investigation of the campaign's connections with Russia.
In my view, recusal was his only choice. Please share your interpretation of that code section that leads you to assert Sessions did not have to recuse.
Ok I will concede here. I read a different article at first that talked about state election systems.
Thanks.
Of course the main point here is also that the ELECTION WAS NOT HACKED. I really wish liberals would quit saying that because it is not factual.
Again, "hacked" here doesn't mean that any vote was changed after it was cast. It means the Russians meddled in our elections (and with some election voter rolls, etc) in efforts to influence the outcome of the election - in this case, to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Today's and many of the previous indictments mean the Justice Department believes they used illegal means to do so. Future indictments will expand the scope of the wrongdoing, I am confident.
Well if you read it by the absolute letter of the policy (not law, policy) then half of the people involved in the investigation would need to recuse themselves but they haven't. The AG spoke to a Russian in his capacity as a Senator, not campaign related matters.
-
@reformed said:
Well if you read it by the absolute letter of the policy (not law, policy) then half of the people involved in the investigation would need to recuse themselves but they haven't. The AG spoke to a Russian in his capacity as a Senator, not campaign related matters.Thanks for responding to my question, reformed. Can't say that I'm impressed that I had to ask it five times to get your response, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
The Sessions recusal comes down to the most-common of sense: No one should oversee an investigation into an organization - in this case, a political campaign - of which he or she was a member. Jeff Sessions was formally a member of the Trump campaign, a role that immediately required him to recuse from the Justice Department's probe of that campaign's relationship with Russia due to an obvious and unavoidable conflict of interest.
Bob Mueller removed Peter Strzok from the Russian investigation because of the political bias of many of Strzok's text messages, even though, as the IG's report noted, Strzok's professional work gave no evidence of that partisan bias. Why did Mueller remove Strzok? Because his blatant partisanship created, at the very least, an appearance of conflict of interest. It was the right thing to do.
Had Jeff Sessions overseen the investigation into the campaign of which HE was a member, only the most ardent of Trumpsters would have excused the obvious appearance of conflict of interest problem.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Well if you read it by the absolute letter of the policy (not law, policy) then half of the people involved in the investigation would need to recuse themselves but they haven't. The AG spoke to a Russian in his capacity as a Senator, not campaign related matters.Thanks for responding to my question, reformed. Can't say that I'm impressed that I had to ask it five times to get your response, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
The Sessions recusal comes down to the most-common of sense: No one should oversee an investigation into an organization - in this case, a political campaign - of which he or she was a member. Jeff Sessions was formally a member of the Trump campaign, a role that immediately required him to recuse from the Justice Department's probe of that campaign's relationship with Russia due to an obvious and unavoidable conflict of interest.
Bob Mueller removed Peter Strzok from the Russian investigation because of the political bias of many of Strzok's text messages, even though, as the IG's report noted, Strzok's professional work gave no evidence of that partisan bias. Why did Mueller remove Strzok? Because his blatant partisanship created, at the very least, an appearance of conflict of interest. It was the right thing to do.
Had Jeff Sessions overseen the investigation into the campaign of which HE was a member, only the most ardent of Trumpsters would have excused the obvious appearance of conflict of interest problem.
Most sane, rational people think the investigation was unnecessary to begin with. So far, that has proven to be true. The things that HAVE come out did not need a special investigation and could have been done through normal channels.
-
@reformed said:
Most sane, rational people think the investigation was unnecessary to begin with. So far, that has proven to be true. The things that HAVE come out did not need a special investigation and could have been done through normal channels.What "sane, rational people think" about the investigation's necessity is, of course, irrelevant to the question of whether Jeff Sessions should have recused from that probe, the question at issue in our current exchange.
It's too rich for me not to note that I had to ask you the recusal question five times before you addressed it, and then in your first post subsequent to that single reply, you turned attention away from Sessions' recusal about as quickly as you could. Good choice.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
