poll says americans want to investigate actions of Obama’s DOJ

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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/doc...pplication.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mak...a-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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not reading 400 pages.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

I didn’t say candidate #1 was clinton. Two separate statements.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

good article by Andy McCarthy today Jim

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...-papadopoulos/

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

Originally Posted by scottw

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]

this is pretty exciting

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]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is pretty exciting

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]

Joseph diGenova? Please make serious posts. You’re going to confuse Jim even more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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