US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1208

On March 14 2019 06:26 CorsairHero wrote:

isn't the trump tower meeting evidence of collusion?

On March 14 2019 06:21 Plansix wrote:
We don’t even need details to see he is a fraud? So I don’t need details to know you are full of shit?

On March 14 2019 05:14 xDaunt wrote:

Like I said previously, Nunes has been proven correct by the information that has been released. Schiff, on the other hand, is looking like a fraud at best.

On March 14 2019 06:36 On_Slaught wrote:


Lol, what? The Nunes memo has been shown to be full of falsehoods and irrelevant crap, largely by Schiff himself.

Did you forget that Nunes wrote the thing never having read the warrant the memo is about? Maybe if he did he would know that the warrant acknowledged the Steele dossier was a political creation and that at best all it did was corroborate other independent evidence they already had against Page. In no way shape or form does that memo prove that there was corruption surrounding the 2016 warrant. It's so weak that even Republicans as a whole, for who love their conspiracy theories, have long since stopped talking about it.

Sheesh. This is first page Google stuff. Only in Kellyanne's alternate fact world could Nunes be considered a purveyor of facts.

The fourth paragraph:

1) The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia.

That is accurate. When the Nunes memo was released, there was controversy over its assertion that the dossier formed an "essential" part of the Page FISA application. But Senate Judiciary Committee staff, who reviewed the FISA application separately from the House, concluded that the dossier allegations made up the "bulk" of the application. Even a Washington Post article Sunday purporting to debunk the Nunes memo in light of the FISA application conceded that the dossier played "a prominent role" in the FISA application. Finally, the Nunes memo's assertion, noted below, that former FBI number-two Andrew McCabe agreed that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information," was not challenged by Democrats when the Nunes memo was made public.

The fifth paragraph:

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

That is accurate. Readers will search the FISA application in vain for any specific mention of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign funding of the dossier. For the most part, names were not used in the application, but Donald Trump was referred to as "Candidate #1," Hillary Clinton was referred to as "Candidate #2," and the Republican Party was referred to as "Political Party #1." Thus, the FISA application could easily have explained that the dossier research was paid for by "Candidate #2" and "Political Party #2," meaning the Democrats. And yet the FBI chose to describe the situation this way, in a footnote: "Source #1...was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia...The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

Democrats argue that the FISA Court judges should have been able to figure out, from that obscure description, that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. That seems a pretty weak argument, but in any case, the Nunes memo's statement that the FISA application did not disclose or reference the role of the DNC and the Clinton campaign is undeniably true.

The sixth paragraph:

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of -- and paid by -- the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

That is accurate.

On March 14 2019 06:35 xDaunt wrote:

You're making a lot of conclusory statements that are not only unsupported by any facts, but unsupported by anything resembling argumentative reasoning. If you have something to contribute, feel free to do so. This kind of post above does not count.

On March 14 2019 06:34 Nouar wrote:


Yes, but not *by Trump* ! You know, the one who wrote the message denying it.
Only his son, Mr. "If it is what you say, I love it". And his campaign manager, and his son in law. And they lied about it. I mean, there's nothing to it right ? It's all a conspiracy by two lovers from the FBI because look, they didn't support Trump privately from work cellphones and we've got some SMS.

@xDaunt, please stop using the fact that there were no indictments yet at the highest level about collusion, since if any, they would come last, to have Trump stay "calm" a little bit more. Because if they come, all hell breaks loose.
They might not come, we can't know, but you KNOW they would come last, so please stop using that as the main defense...
There is absolutely 0 chance that Don Jr is not going to get indicted for conspirating with a foreign power to defraud since it was right there written in the mails he received that the russian attorney was representing the russian government and had dirt on hillary...

On March 14 2019 06:57 xDaunt wrote:


We can certainly wait and see what happens with Trump, Jr. and the Trump Tower meeting. I just think that it's time that y'all start reconsidering what you think that you "know" about that meeting and the circumstances surrounding it. Saying that there is "absolutely 0 chance" that Trump, Jr. gets indicted is very much misplaced. Again, just consider: two years ago everyone around here was absolutely certain that Trump was going to get indicted or impeached over this Russia collusion stuff. Such a sentiment looks utterly ridiculous now. Yet many people still believe it based upon how they have been conditioned to think by two years of anti-Trump media reporting. If this investigation goes sideways (like I think it will) and people start getting charged for promoting the Russia/collusion narrative, the mental whiplash that a large number of people are going to suffer is going to be interesting to see. Hell, just look at how badly many people have reacted to Pelosi's and the Democratic leadership's recent pronouncements that impeachment is off of the table.

On March 14 2019 06:41 xDaunt wrote:


Nope. But hey, feel free to post something supporting this.



Let me direct you to what Byron York says in that article I just linked (and you ignored):

On March 14 2019 06:41 xDaunt wrote:


Nope. But hey, feel free to post something supporting this.



Let me direct you to what Byron York says in that article I just linked (and you ignored):

On March 14 2019 07:15 On_Slaught wrote:


This is all misleading or, more importantly, completely irrelevant. None of this proves there was corruption behind the warrants, which is his entire point.

Sigh, now I feel obligated to respond to the article paragraph by paragraph. Regrettably, responding point by point is too large a task to do on my phone, and I wont have access to my computer until Friday night (TL blocked on work comp). I'll save this post and respond to it in detail later this week since we dont want people around here actually thinking Nunes cares about or is seeking the truth.

On March 14 2019 07:43 On_Slaught wrote:
The SOLE purpose of the memo is to show the FISA warrant was improperly granted, thus 'tainting' the entire investigation. If it was a college essay, that would be his thesis. That the paper itself doesnt prove it's own thesis makes it a failure.

More importantly, it fails because it does not explain why, even if everything he said was true, it would matter. That the court knew each of the 4+ times they saw the warrant come up that the dossier was likely politically motivated, coupled with it being Republican judge who made the call each time, completely undercuts the point of the memo.

On March 14 2019 08:14 On_Slaught wrote:
And once again, none of it matters because it all comes down to whether or not the Judges could justify their decisions. They knew what the Steele dossier was (this is the most important point... they knew it was a hit piece) and yet 4 times they said it was good enough in conjunction with all the other evidence.

Seems to me like your gripes should be with the FISA system as a whole (which is a legitimate discussion), not these properly acquired warrants. The FBI met their burden according to 4 different Judges, unless ofc you're implying the Republican Judges were compromised/corrupt?

On March 14 2019 08:35 On_Slaught wrote:
What piece of information was omitted? Please dont tell me you're talking about the lack of mention of DNC or Hillary in the memo.

Also, let's not act like Steele was some bum off the street. Guy was an expert regularly relied upon by US intelligence departments. He provided data to the FBI, some of which corroborated dirt they already had on Page since as early as 2013. Given his credentials I cant imagine any court not taking his dossier seriously, of that's your issue. It's not like they had to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

On March 14 2019 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
I never said that the Nunes memo proves corruption with regards to the FISA application by itself. All that the memo purports to do is point out some important omissions from the FISA application. You have to look at other evidence to get to corruption and defrauding the FISA court, such as 1) testimony from McCabe and Baker that they probably would not have gotten the FISA warrant without the Steele dossier, 2) testimony from Bruce Ohr warning the FBI/DOJ that they needed to verify the Steele dossier, 3) testimony from Comey and others that the Steele dossier was never verified, 4) Steele's sworn interrogatory responses (same as testimony) in a UK case stating that he would not stand behind and verify the materials in the dossier (lol), and 5) the utter lack of any charges against anyone corroborating anything of importance in the Steele dossier. Even setting all of this aside, the FBI/DOJ were required to keep a Woods file documenting what they did to verify the dossier before using it. I'm sure that this file is going to come out eventually. Like I previously noted, Lindsey Graham requested its production last week. The paper trail will be conclusive.