View Full Version : poll says americans want to investigate actions of Obama’s DOJ


Jim in CT
05-04-2019, 06:39 PM
not sure if this is accurate, but if it is, and this was a CNN poll? Not good for the democrats.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/cnn-poll-overwhelming-majority-want-investigation-into-obama-doj-spying-of-trump/?fbclid=IwAR1GVscsmZZSN7hIxJzJbHa5iBzBHhkMoCOuhQZP 29h8zArASy4wKk-e_5c

i think there’s a chance that some DOJ officials acted like hired hands for the Hilary campaign. IF that happened ( still
a big if), that means they put their thumbs on the scales for her. I can see Comey and Strzok doing the math, figuring there’s no way she could lose, so if they did her dirty work and she won, they’d get nice promotions within her administration.

Can you imagine the stress they felt, when they found out Trump won? Kind of like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, but missing the aircraft carriers.

Then the collusion hoax, where Trumps family was constantly called targets and likely to be charged, and then that also failed.

Now it’s Trumps turn. They tried to kill his campaign, they tried to go after his family, and they failed.

Imagine you are Michael Corleone in Godfather I, and during the baptism scene, all the assassins
you sent to kill Moe Greene and the heads of the 5 families, imagine every one of them texts you and says “I tried but i missed. He got away, and he knows it was you.”

When you’re going after a potus who is also a vindictive maniac and a billionaire, you better put him down.

Now it’s his turn. He’ll
probably tell Barr to time this investigation so that the findings are released just before the 2020 election.

IF they acted this way, I would
not want to be in their shoes.

wdmso
05-04-2019, 08:35 PM
Got another email I see

Jim in CT
05-04-2019, 09:24 PM
Got another email I see

Just my observations. I've asked you MANY times, let's see between the two of us, who is the blind lemming, who can think for himself. I disagree with conservatives on gay marriage, the death penalty, and to a certain extent, healthcare (I see it as a right) and gun control.

Kindly tell us, on what major policies, you disagree with liberals?

I'm all ears.

My comments on this topic are based on my own observations, and common sense. I think I'm probably right, and the terror that the democrats feel, explains their attacks on Barr.

Not one syllable about why my post is wrong, or makes no sense. Just a vague, unsubstantiated insult. Good for you.

wdmso
05-05-2019, 06:40 AM
Just my observations. I've asked you MANY times, let's see between the two of us, who is the blind lemming, who can think for himself. I disagree with conservatives on gay marriage, the death penalty, and to a certain extent, healthcare (I see it as a right) and gun control.

Kindly tell us, on what major policies, you disagree with liberals?

I'm all ears.

My comments on this topic are based on my own observations, and common sense. I think I'm probably right, and the terror that the democrats feel, explains their attacks on Barr.

Not one syllable about why my post is wrong, or makes no sense. Just a vague, unsubstantiated insult. Good for you.

Funny when I googled it I got all the usual suspects daily caller Breitbart on other right wing sites were running the same observation ..

Hence my observation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
05-05-2019, 07:59 AM
Funny when I googled it I got all the usual suspects daily caller Breitbart on other right wing sites were running the same observation ..

Hence my observation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so when i post something that agrees with right wing sites, i’m a lemming. when you post things that are right
out of the Daily Worker, that’s brilliant.

It’s possible that liberals resorted to really dirty tricks to defeat Trump, and then to try to take him down. They failed. It’s his turn.

Let’s see how they like being in the receiving end of a vendetta.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
05-05-2019, 09:53 AM
so when i post something that agrees with right wing sites, i’m a lemming. when you post things that are right
out of the Daily Worker, that’s brilliant.

It’s possible that liberals resorted to really dirty tricks to defeat Trump, and then to try to take him down. They failed. It’s his turn.

Let’s see how they like being in the receiving end of a vendetta.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso negates, disregards, pooh-poohs "right wing" sites and depends on "left wing" ones. Even though the "right wing" ones have been correct on lots of things (including Russian/Trump conspiracy). He, like other left leaning, Fox bashing, guys on this site are stuck in the left wing media outlet narratives and so have a distorted, often wrong, perspective on political reality.

wdmso and others think they prove something wrong merely by pointing out the source. Remaining solely in the left wing bubble very often makes them ignorant.

Pete F.
05-05-2019, 10:35 AM
not sure if this is accurate, but if it is, and this was a CNN poll? Not good for the democrats.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/cnn-poll-overwhelming-majority-want-investigation-into-obama-doj-spying-of-trump/?fbclid=IwAR1GVscsmZZSN7hIxJzJbHa5iBzBHhkMoCOuhQZP 29h8zArASy4wKk-e_5c

i think there’s a chance that some DOJ officials acted like hired hands for the Hilary campaign. IF that happened ( still
a big if), that means they put their thumbs on the scales for her. I can see Comey and Strzok doing the math, figuring there’s no way she could lose, so if they did her dirty work and she won, they’d get nice promotions within her administration.

Can you imagine the stress they felt, when they found out Trump won? Kind of like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, but missing the aircraft carriers.

They did an amazingly good job of making sure Hillary won, didn't they?

Then the collusion hoax, where Trumps family was constantly called targets and likely to be charged, and then that also failed.

The Mueller report reads that they looked for, asked for, and received, aid from the Russians in the election. Trump obstructed the investigation enough that they could not complete all parts of it. Because of OLC rulings tthey could not indict the sitting president for the crimes they would normally have, but instead gathered the evidence to insure that at such time he is no longer President he can be indicted.
Now, if you have not read it and only get your news from state aligned media and very good people...........

Now it’s Trumps turn. They tried to kill his campaign, they tried to go after his family, and they failed.

Imagine you are Michael Corleone in Godfather I, and during the baptism scene, all the assassins
you sent to kill Moe Greene and the heads of the 5 families, imagine every one of them texts you and says “I tried but i missed. He got away, and he knows it was you.”

When you’re going after a potus who is also a vindictive maniac and a billionaire, you better put him down.

So you clearly think Trump's actions are like those of a Mafia Don.
Is that good?

Now it’s his turn. He’ll
probably tell Barr to time this investigation so that the findings are released just before the 2020 election.

It would be acceptable to you to have the DOJ act politically?

IF they acted this way, I would
not want to be in their shoes.

He sounds like a man you would want as President apparently.
Hillary and Obama living rent free in his head.
After all the goal of Trumplicans is simple, to own the libs.

spence
05-05-2019, 10:35 AM
Isn’t this a good thing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles
05-05-2019, 10:44 AM
Is it a good thing to keep making up fables to investigate? Kavanaugh, collusion... throw it all against the wall and see what sticks. Rally cry for stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
05-05-2019, 10:58 AM
Is it a good thing to keep making up fables to investigate? Kavanaugh, collusion... throw it all against the wall and see what sticks. Rally cry for stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a rallying cry for being physically unable to accept the results of an election.

trump may have gotten help from the russians ( interesting since he has been very rough with them
at times). Hilary may have gotten help from Obama’s
Justice Department.

Let’s inveatigate both. Pete, Spence, WDMSO, do any of you support an investigation into whether or not the DOJ was working for Hilary’s campaign, and whether or
not they trampled
on Carter Page and the Pippadopolous guy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence
05-05-2019, 11:15 AM
Is it a good thing to keep making up fables to investigate? Kavanaugh, collusion... throw it all against the wall and see what sticks. Rally cry for stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I see, so when a member of a presidential campaign brags they know a foreign adversary has politically compromising material on their opponent the FBI should just ignore it. Right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
05-05-2019, 11:24 AM
I see, so when a member of a presidential campaign brags they know a foreign adversary has politically compromising material on their opponent the FBI should just ignore it. Right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i was glad they investigated, said so many times. especially since it was a disaster for the democrats.

and the issue to you isnt that hilary’s campaign did inappropriate things that were documented in emails, you only care that the emails were hacked.

in terms of how
much this will hurt the dems, this may be the tip of the iceberg.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
05-05-2019, 11:50 AM
He sounds like a man you would want as President apparently.
Hillary and Obama living rent free in his head.
After all the goal of Trumplicans is simple, to own the libs.

Is the purpose of a prosecutorial investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence to convict, or to exonerate? That's a rhetorical question. If there is not sufficient evidence to convict, then innocence is presumed. "Presumed" is the operative word, not proved.

So, given that evidence must be sufficient to prosecute, would, as you said "Because of OLC rulings they could not indict the sitting president for the crimes they would normally have," would then by that reasoning Mueller also not have charged Trump with consipiracy even if the evidence was sufficient to prove he was guilty?

If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with conspiracy, why could he not also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction?

Pete F.
05-05-2019, 02:41 PM
a rallying cry for being physically unable to accept the results of an election.

trump may have gotten help from the russians ( interesting since he has been very rough with them
at times). Hilary may have gotten help from Obama’s
Justice Department.

Let’s inveatigate both. Pete, Spence, WDMSO, do any of you support an investigation into whether or not the DOJ was working for Hilary’s campaign, and whether or
not they trampled
on Carter Page and the Pippadopolous guy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
As I said before go ahead and investigate, it’s likely that trump has already screwed up any chance of a conviction with his lock them up speech as president
I showed you that carter page had been the subject of fisa warrants prior to his involvement with the trump campaign.
Trump’s political incompetence got him all the “great” people he has, quite a cast of characters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.
05-05-2019, 02:50 PM
Is the purpose of a prosecutorial investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence to convict, or to exonerate? That's a rhetorical question. If there is not sufficient evidence to convict, then innocence is presumed. "Presumed" is the operative word, not proved.

So, given that evidence must be sufficient to prosecute, would, as you said "Because of OLC rulings they could not indict the sitting president for the crimes they would normally have," would then by that reasoning Mueller also not have charged Trump with consipiracy even if the evidence was sufficient to prove he was guilty?

If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with conspiracy, why could he not also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction?

He gathered the evidence for Congress to make a decision if they chose to do so or failing that so a prosecutor could indict trump when he is out of office.
He lays it out clearly in his report.
I expect he will explain it clearly to Congress and the American people if trump and his attorney cannot find a way to prevent him from testifying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
05-05-2019, 04:46 PM
As I said before go ahead and investigate, it’s likely that trump has already screwed up any chance of a conviction with his lock them up speech as president
I showed you that carter page had been the subject of fisa warrants prior to his involvement with the trump campaign.
Trump’s political incompetence got him all the “great” people he has, quite a cast of characters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I showed you that carter page had been the subject of fisa warrants prior to his involvement with the trump campaign."

Well the FBI probably knows almost as much as you do, and they listed the Steele first among supporting documents for the latest FISA warrants.

"Trump’s political incompetence got him all the “great” people he has, quite a cast of characters."

He's got some weirdos. He also beat the most inevitable candidate, and the economy is soaring. Is that incompetent?

detbuch
05-05-2019, 06:06 PM
He gathered the evidence for Congress to make a decision if they chose to do so or failing that so a prosecutor could indict trump when he is out of office.
He lays it out clearly in his report.


You didn't answer my question. The Special Counsel can bring criminal charges. He can conclude if the evidence supports an indictment for criminal activity. If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence showed that Trump conspired with Russia, why could he not conclude that Trump obstructed justice? Would the OLC have prevented him from bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy? If not, then it would not in the case of obstruction. Whether he can indict or not, he can conclude, whether the evidence supports an indictment. He made a conclusion re conspiracy. He could, and should, have done so re obstruction.

A conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient for indictment does not mean the defendant is without a doubt innocent. It means that the defendant, for purposes of trial and conviction, is presumed innocent, and no charges will be brought.

The Special Counsel gathers evidence fur the justice department, not for Congress. It is not for the Special Counsel to make a case for Congress. Congress is politicized, so targeting evidence toward Congress would be politicizing it.

He should have concluded whether or not the evidence was sufficient for indictment. That was his job and the reason for his appointment. If the evidence is not sufficient or it is, he should have expressly said so. In the event that he didn't make that conclusion, it was then left to the AG to do so. And he did. As a matter of law, then, Trump is presumed innocent. What Congress does is another matter. Using Mueller's report as evidence would be a political exercise. How that turns out will be seen. If Congress impeaches, but the Senate does not convict, then we will have a poitical decision on the matter.

Sea Dangles
05-05-2019, 06:48 PM
I see, so when a member of a presidential campaign brags they know a foreign adversary has politically compromising material on their opponent the FBI should just ignore it. Right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So Jeff, you are opposed to such dirty tricks and you believe that such an offense should be prosecuted?

I will humor you while you cherrry pick through the fables.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.
05-05-2019, 10:36 PM
You didn't answer my question. The Special Counsel can bring criminal charges. He can conclude if the evidence supports an indictment for criminal activity. If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence showed that Trump conspired with Russia, why could he not conclude that Trump obstructed justice? Would the OLC have prevented him from bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy? If not, then it would not in the case of obstruction. Whether he can indict or not, he can conclude, whether the evidence supports an indictment. He made a conclusion re conspiracy. He could, and should, have done so re obstruction.

A conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient for indictment does not mean the defendant is without a doubt innocent. It means that the defendant, for purposes of trial and conviction, is presumed innocent, and no charges will be brought.

The Special Counsel gathers evidence fur the justice department, not for Congress. It is not for the Special Counsel to make a case for Congress. Congress is politicized, so targeting evidence toward Congress would be politicizing it.

He should have concluded whether or not the evidence was sufficient for indictment. That was his job and the reason for his appointment. If the evidence is not sufficient or it is, he should have expressly said so. In the event that he didn't make that conclusion, it was then left to the AG to do so. And he did. As a matter of law, then, Trump is presumed innocent. What Congress does is another matter. Using Mueller's report as evidence would be a political exercise. How that turns out will be seen. If Congress impeaches, but the Senate does not convict, then we will have a poitical decision on the matter.
The premise for your question is faulty
Mueller clearly states his reasons in the report
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
05-05-2019, 10:58 PM
The premise for your question is faulty
Mueller clearly states his reasons in the report
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You keep repeating the talking point but avoid answering my questions.

You said that the premise for Mueller not concluding whether to bring charges of obstruction or not was because of the OLC. By that reasoning, he could also not have recommended bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy. If that were the case, what was the point of his investigation? Are you saying that he would only be allowed by the OLC to conclude that their was not sufficient evidence to make a charge, but would not be allowed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to do so? And that his purpose was not to make a prosecutorial investigation, but to gather evidence for Congress?

Pete F.
05-06-2019, 08:05 AM
You keep repeating the talking point but avoid answering my questions.

You said that the premise for Mueller not concluding whether to bring charges of obstruction or not was because of the OLC. By that reasoning, he could also not have recommended bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy. If that were the case, what was the point of his investigation? Are you saying that he would only be allowed by the OLC to conclude that their was not sufficient evidence to make a charge, but would not be allowed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to do so? And that his purpose was not to make a prosecutorial investigation, but to gather evidence for Congress?
That is all in the report and the order appointing the special counsel, feel free to read them. You apparently have not since you do not know the point of the investigation that resulted in the report, it's clearly called out.
I think perhaps you object to the obstruction section that results from Trump’s unfathomably stupid, impulsive, self-defeating efforts to wield executive power to control the Russia investigation. Those are certainly presidential qualities.

detbuch
05-06-2019, 09:12 AM
That is all in the report and the order appointing the special counsel, feel free to read them. You apparently have not since you do not know the point of the investigation that resulted in the report, it's clearly called out.
I think perhaps you object to the obstruction section that results from Trump’s unfathomably stupid, impulsive, self-defeating efforts to wield executive power to control the Russia investigation. Those are certainly presidential qualities.

Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller as Special Council tasked him, among other things, to "find any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump." So, if the investigation found coordination between Trump and the Russian government, would he have been prevented by OLC policy to conclude that there was coordination?

Pete F.
05-06-2019, 10:17 AM
Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller as Special Council tasked him, among other things, to "find any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump." So, if the investigation found coordination between Trump and the Russian government, would he have been prevented by OLC policy to conclude that there was coordination?

I don't know the answer, but perhaps the answer to your question is part of why Trump is trying so hard to prevent McGhan and Mueller from testifying. If he had nothing to worry about he'd be pushing for it.

Jennifer Rubin asked Lawrence Tribe if either could be prevented from testifying and he said: "Of course there is no way Trump can stop Bob Mueller from testifying, There is no executive privilege between them, and obviously no attorney-client privilege, and Mueller doesn't even work for Trump. Until he leaves [the Justice Department], he works for Barr. And Barr has no conceivable basis to stop Mueller from testifying. Mueller is free to leave [Justice] at any time and will then be simply a private citizen."
"Only a dictator can tell a private citizen not to testify in a duly constituted legislative or parliamentary inquiry into the head of state's conduct," Tribe concludes. "And though Trump might fancy himself a dictator, that's not the reality. Not yet, anyway."

spence
05-06-2019, 10:36 AM
Well the FBI probably knows almost as much as you do, and they listed the Steele first among supporting documents for the latest FISA warrants.
Page was targeted because of his known Russian contacts and that Russia had tried to recruit him in the past. The Dossier just added fuel to the fire as Steele was a trusted source known by the FBI.

We know that Devin Nunes blatantly lied when he tried to claim the FISA application hide the fact that the Dossier could be political, in fact an entire page of the application made it crystal clear. We also know know with the Mueller report that much of the Dossier was either correct or close to correct.

Jim in CT
05-06-2019, 10:47 AM
Page was targeted because of his known Russian contacts and that Russia had tried to recruit him in the past. The Dossier just added fuel to the fire as Steele was a trusted source known by the FBI.

We know that Devin Nunes blatantly lied when he tried to claim the FISA application hide the fact that the Dossier could be political, in fact an entire page of the application made it crystal clear. We also know know with the Mueller report that much of the Dossier was either correct or close to correct.

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from. Then they leaked his name to the media who were happy to call him a Russian agent. And he's never been charged with anything.

It's going to be investigated by people Trump assigns to the investigation. Hope you enjoy that as much as I will. I cannot wait. How about you?

spence
05-06-2019, 11:05 AM
The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from.

Jim, this isn't true.

scottw
05-06-2019, 11:11 AM
Page was targeted because



and he's yet to get even a traffic ticket...weird

scottw
05-06-2019, 11:13 AM
We also know know with the Mueller report

.

just can't admit that you were wrong huh?

Pete F.
05-06-2019, 11:38 AM
The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from. Then they leaked his name to the media who were happy to call him a Russian agent. And he's never been charged with anything.

It's going to be investigated by people Trump assigns to the investigation. Hope you enjoy that as much as I will. I cannot wait. How about you?

Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications

PaulS
05-06-2019, 11:53 AM
Jim, this isn't true.

Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications


Haven't you 2 answered the same question a few times already? Why don't you just put them in an external doc. that you can just cut and paste instead of typing them each time?

Jim in CT
05-06-2019, 11:57 AM
Haven't you 2 answered the same question a few times already? Why don't you just put them in an external doc. that you can just cut and paste instead of typing them each time?

Then Barr's investigation can't turn up anything, so you have nothing to worry about.

Jim in CT
05-06-2019, 12:03 PM
Jim, this isn't true.

To you, there is one truth,

democrat=good, republican=bad. No exceptions, not ever.

Let's do an honest and thorough investigation. If the smoke is all fabricated by Sean Hannity, that will come out.

Jim in CT
05-06-2019, 12:26 PM
Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications

I read the footnotes on p. 15 and p.16. Even though I'm not a lawyer, I didn't see anywhere in there, that the FBI revealed that the dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Could you point that part out to me, please?

spence
05-06-2019, 12:43 PM
To you, there is one truth,

democrat=good, republican=bad. No exceptions, not ever.
No, there's the actual FISA application a judge ruled on. It's online, go read it and report back what it says.

Jim in CT
05-06-2019, 12:50 PM
No, there's the actual FISA application a judge ruled on. It's online, go read it and report back what it says.

i’m not reading 400 pages. if you can refer me to the section which says “the accusations against Mr Page are based on a dossier paid for by the Hilary Clinton campaign”, i’d appreciate it. similarly, if you can point me to the section which says “the justice department officials
seeking this warrant, have a deep, deep animosity for the candidate Mr Page is working for”, I’d appreciate that too.

I suppose Alan Dershowitz is part of the vast right wing conspiracy now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman
05-06-2019, 01:01 PM
i’m not reading 400 pages.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you skip the redacted sections, it's only about 6

PaulS
05-06-2019, 01:09 PM
Then Barr's investigation can't turn up anything, so you have nothing to worry about.

I'm not worried but I think you are are missing something as you keep bringing up the steele dosier w/o reading how the FISA application was filed and what the app. said about the dosier.

Pete F.
05-06-2019, 01:11 PM
I read the footnotes on p. 15 and p.16. Even though I'm not a lawyer, I didn't see anywhere in there, that the FBI revealed that the dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Could you point that part out to me, please?

Why do you think that is important, the sentence reads that the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign. Do you think it would have been somehow different if it was Ted Cruz or his wife?

You seem to think it is good when Candidate #1 calls out for help in public from Russia, accepts and appreciates that help, but exhibit concern when others look at his relationship with Russia.
Just what did he really talk about in his last telecon with Putin? Didn't have time in an hour and a half to tell him not to interfere in US elections? Or didn't have the balls?

As usual
Trump=good, but I don't really like him that much
Anyone who questions Trump=bad

spence
05-06-2019, 01:45 PM
I read the footnotes on p. 15 and p.16. Even though I'm not a lawyer, I didn't see anywhere in there, that the FBI revealed that the dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Could you point that part out to me, please?
They clearly lay out that the material could be political in nature and intended to hurt Candidate #1's campaign. They're not going to name the Clinton campaign by name, it's not how the application process works.

This is after dozens of redacted pages that outline secret information to justify the warrant.

spence
05-06-2019, 01:46 PM
Just what did he really talk about in his last telecon with Putin? Didn't have time in an hour and a half to tell him not to interfere in US elections? Or didn't have the balls?
If you read (and believe) the Russian notes from the call it sounds like Putin was giving Trump his marching orders for the next 12 months.

And why would Trump warn Putin off. Trump encourages Russian interference.

The Dad Fisherman
05-06-2019, 02:01 PM
They clearly lay out that the material could be political in nature and intended to hurt Candidate #1's campaign. They're not going to name the Clinton campaign by name, it's not how the application process works.

This is after dozens of redacted pages that outline secret information to justify the warrant.

Candidate #1 is Trump.

I thought about just letting you go on and on and let you spin why Candidate 1 was the victim....would have been interesting to say the least :hihi:

spence
05-06-2019, 02:15 PM
Candidate #1 is Trump.

I thought about just letting you go on and on and let you spin why Candidate 1 was the victim....would have been interesting to say the least :hihi:
I didn’t say candidate #1 was clinton. Two separate statements.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.
05-06-2019, 02:19 PM
i’m not reading 400 pages, i'm too busy trying to own libs on the internet.

I suppose Alan Dershowitz is part of the vast right wing conspiracy now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Fixed the first part for you, you could try the executive summaries. I put a link and the page numbers in an earlier thread.

As far as Dershowitz goes he's certainly a Trumplican.
If you can find a lawyer other than Rudy who agrees with his theory on Flynn not lying because the FBI already knew the answer and therefore it was not material under section 1001, he probably went to a worse law school than Michael Cohen. Dershowitz doesn't have that excuse.

Here is a little case law for you to explain it, feel free to look up the cases if you need further enlightenment, they are all in casetext.com

United States v. Mercedes, 401 F. App’x 619, 620 (2d Cir. 2010)
(rejecting argument that false statement about citizenship could not have been material because interviewing agent had already “ruled out the possibility of relying on the statement”)

United States v. Moore, 708 F.3d 639, 649 (5th Cir. 2013)
(“A statement can be material even if the agency already knew the answers given by the defendant and even if the receiving agent knows they are false.”)

United States v. LeMaster, 54 F.3d 1224, 1230–31 (6th Cir. 1995)
“It is irrelevant what the agent who heard the statement knew at the time the statement was made. A false statement can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.” (“The fact that the FBI already knew that LeMaster received $6,000 in cash from Spurrier did not affect the materiality of his false statement to the FBI. A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)

United States v. Whitaker, 848 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1988)
(“A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)

United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 820 (9th Cir. 1976)
(“Darrell Goldfine contends, however, that since the Compliance Investigators knew the answer and were not misled by the falsity, the statement was not materially false. . . . [T]he statement here was clearly material.”)

United States v. Henderson, 893 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018)
(“Indeed, a false statement can be material even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.”)

The Dad Fisherman
05-06-2019, 02:20 PM
I didn’t say candidate #1 was clinton. Two separate statements.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying that the material was intended to hurt Trump's campaign?

spence
05-06-2019, 02:22 PM
So you're saying that the material was intended to hurt Trump's campaign?
Opposition research usually is. What’s the problem?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT
05-06-2019, 03:02 PM
Opposition research usually is. What’s the problem?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about releasing Page's name to the media? Is that problematic, to tell the media that a US citizen is a Russian agent, when he still hasn't been charged with anything? What if that was done, specifically to hurt Trump or his campaign? Would that be a problem?

I agree, political opposition research isn't necessarily fabricated. But it should be taken with a grain of salt, not used to suspend the constitutional rights of a US citizen.

scottw
05-06-2019, 03:36 PM
good article by Andy McCarthy today Jim

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/fbi-trump-russia-investigation-george-papadopoulos/

spence
05-06-2019, 03:40 PM
How about releasing Page's name to the media? Is that problematic, to tell the media that a US citizen is a Russian agent, when he still hasn't been charged with anything?
I don't know if they ever determined how his name came out, but the initial media reports wasn't that he was a Russian agent but rather that he mad met with suspected Russian agents which I believe is true.

scottw
05-06-2019, 04:24 PM
I don't know if they ever determined how his name came out, but the initial media reports wasn't that he was a Russian agent but rather that he mad met with suspected Russian agents which I believe is true.

On April 10, 2017, Strzok texted Page: "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go."

Just two days later, Strzok lauded Page's efforts and gave her a heads up that "two articles are coming out, one which is 'worse' than the other about Lisa's 'namesake,' " a reference to Carter Page.

Just one day after Strzok's text to Page, the Washington Post, on April 11, 2017, ran a piece titled "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump advisor Carter Page."


weird...

spence
05-06-2019, 04:36 PM
On April 10, 2017, Strzok texted Page: "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go."

Just two days later, Strzok lauded Page's efforts and gave her a heads up that "two articles are coming out, one which is 'worse' than the other about Lisa's 'namesake,' " a reference to Carter Page.

Just one day after Strzok's text to Page, the Washington Post, on April 11, 2017, ran a piece titled "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump advisor Carter Page."


weird...
It's pretty common for news outlets to notify the government about pending articles. They were talking about how the FBI would respond. The IG and I believe even the WSJ looked at this closely and found...

nothing...

scottw
05-06-2019, 06:24 PM
this is pretty exciting :kewl:

Joseph diGenova, former U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and a former legal counsel to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"It has been evident from day one that there was a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton illegally, and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump. This [Steele] dossier was a knowing part of that. It was created by Hillary Clinton. It was created knowingly by [former CIA Director] John Brennan as part of a scheme to do everything they could to harm Donald Trump.

The problem for Brennan and [former Director of National Intelligence]Clapper and [former FBI Director] Comey and [former FBI General Counsel] Baker and all of them now is, is that the FISA Court has already communicated with the Justice Department about its findings. And their findings are that from more than four years before the election of Donald Trump, there was an illegal spying operation going on by FBI [private] contractors — four of them — to steal personal information, electronic information about Americans and to use it against the Republican Party.

There are going to be indictments. There’s going to be grand juries. John Brennan isn’t going to need one lawyer. He’s going to need five!

There’s another report that everybody has forgotten about that involves James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is going to be a bombshell. It’s going to open the investigation on a very high note.

The FISA Court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power. The Chief Judge of that court [Rosemary M. Collyer] has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the [Obama] Justice Department — [former Deputy Attorney General] Sally Yates, John Carlin, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, all knew about it and lied to the court, the FISA Court, about it.

There is a hero in this entire story, and it’s not a lawyer. All the bad people in this story are lawyers. There’s a hero. His name is Admiral Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency. He discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA Court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA Court has already told the Justice department who lied to that court and that has been given to [Attorney General] Bill Barr already."




this explains why the dems are in full Barr assault mode

Jim in CT
05-06-2019, 06:57 PM
this is pretty exciting :kewl:

Joseph diGenova, former U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and a former legal counsel to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"It has been evident from day one that there was a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton illegally, and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump. This [Steele] dossier was a knowing part of that. It was created by Hillary Clinton. It was created knowingly by [former CIA Director] John Brennan as part of a scheme to do everything they could to harm Donald Trump.

The problem for Brennan and [former Director of National Intelligence]Clapper and [former FBI Director] Comey and [former FBI General Counsel] Baker and all of them now is, is that the FISA Court has already communicated with the Justice Department about its findings. And their findings are that from more than four years before the election of Donald Trump, there was an illegal spying operation going on by FBI [private] contractors — four of them — to steal personal information, electronic information about Americans and to use it against the Republican Party.

There are going to be indictments. There’s going to be grand juries. John Brennan isn’t going to need one lawyer. He’s going to need five!

There’s another report that everybody has forgotten about that involves James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is going to be a bombshell. It’s going to open the investigation on a very high note.

The FISA Court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power. The Chief Judge of that court [Rosemary M. Collyer] has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the [Obama] Justice Department — [former Deputy Attorney General] Sally Yates, John Carlin, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, all knew about it and lied to the court, the FISA Court, about it.

There is a hero in this entire story, and it’s not a lawyer. All the bad people in this story are lawyers. There’s a hero. His name is Admiral Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency. He discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA Court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA Court has already told the Justice department who lied to that court and that has been given to [Attorney General] Bill Barr already."




this explains why the dems are in full Barr assault mode

you bet it explains their assaults on Barr. They fired at Trump
and missed. Missing can have brutal consequences, that's the gamble they took. I can’t imagine how happy and excited Trump is right
now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence
05-06-2019, 07:44 PM
Joseph diGenova? Please make serious posts. You’re going to confuse Jim even more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw
05-06-2019, 07:52 PM
Joseph diGenova? Please make serious posts. You’re going to confuse Jim even more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he has FAR more credibility than you :wave: