|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 27 2019 20:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 19:40 Plansix wrote:
Russia was putting a lot of people out there offering things, it’s just that none of them stuck with the Trump administration. Unlike the NRA, for instance. But there were a lot of signs that it might have. That is why investigations happen. Trump made it worse when he fired Comey and tried to get Comey to back off Fynn. And lying about Trump tower in Moscow. You are missing the point. Investigations aren’t supposed to happen without sufficient basis to conduct them. FISA warrants and other intrusive government actions require probable cause. The Fourth Amendment is still a thing and doesn’t go away just because someone runs for office.
Probably cause is “more likely than not” which is not a particularly hard bar to get over given how dumb people like Manafort and Carter Page are. And with folks like Roger Stone. Plus all the lying.
|
On March 27 2019 20:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 19:40 Plansix wrote:
Russia was putting a lot of people out there offering things, it’s just that none of them stuck with the Trump administration. Unlike the NRA, for instance. But there were a lot of signs that it might have. That is why investigations happen. Trump made it worse when he fired Comey and tried to get Comey to back off Fynn. And lying about Trump tower in Moscow. You are missing the point. Investigations aren’t supposed to happen without sufficient basis to conduct them. FISA warrants and other intrusive government actions require probable cause. The Fourth Amendment is still a thing and doesn’t go away just because someone runs for office. Probably cause a plenty here for an investigation. I get back to my initial point that it would require a grand conspiracy of hundreds of people and multiple foreign intelligence agencies to 'fake' the need for an investigation.
|
On March 27 2019 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 20:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 19:40 Plansix wrote:
Russia was putting a lot of people out there offering things, it’s just that none of them stuck with the Trump administration. Unlike the NRA, for instance. But there were a lot of signs that it might have. That is why investigations happen. Trump made it worse when he fired Comey and tried to get Comey to back off Fynn. And lying about Trump tower in Moscow. You are missing the point. Investigations aren’t supposed to happen without sufficient basis to conduct them. FISA warrants and other intrusive government actions require probable cause. The Fourth Amendment is still a thing and doesn’t go away just because someone runs for office. Probably cause a plenty here for an investigation. I get back to my initial point that it would require a grand conspiracy of hundreds of people and multiple foreign intelligence agencies to 'fake' the need for an investigation.
Yeah, and per my post, evidence of such a conspiracy exists. Is it proven? No. But there’s more than enough to take a hard look and consider it seriously.
And everyone should credit Doodsmack for showing some intellectual curiosity and taking a fresh look at this stuff in light of the new information that is surfacing. More anti-Trump people should be asking the same questions that he is.
|
On March 27 2019 20:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 19:40 Plansix wrote:
Russia was putting a lot of people out there offering things, it’s just that none of them stuck with the Trump administration. Unlike the NRA, for instance. But there were a lot of signs that it might have. That is why investigations happen. Trump made it worse when he fired Comey and tried to get Comey to back off Fynn. And lying about Trump tower in Moscow. You are missing the point. Investigations aren’t supposed to happen without sufficient basis to conduct them. FISA warrants and other intrusive government actions require probable cause. The Fourth Amendment is still a thing and doesn’t go away just because someone runs for office.
What exactly do you constitute as probable cause? If you already have evidence for the crime, an investigation is no longer needed. The investigation happens because there is an indication that something has happened, and evidence is needed to prove or disprove.
|
“Everyone should credit this guy who agreed with me on this subject.” Classic dauntless.
|
On March 27 2019 20:18 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 20:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 19:40 Plansix wrote:
Russia was putting a lot of people out there offering things, it’s just that none of them stuck with the Trump administration. Unlike the NRA, for instance. But there were a lot of signs that it might have. That is why investigations happen. Trump made it worse when he fired Comey and tried to get Comey to back off Fynn. And lying about Trump tower in Moscow. You are missing the point. Investigations aren’t supposed to happen without sufficient basis to conduct them. FISA warrants and other intrusive government actions require probable cause. The Fourth Amendment is still a thing and doesn’t go away just because someone runs for office. What exactly do you constitute as probable cause? If you already have evidence for the crime, an investigation is no longer needed. The investigation happens because there is an indication that something has happened, and evidence is needed to prove or disprove.
Probable cause is definitely not established by defrauding a FISA court with false information that is passed off as being verified.
|
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities.
|
On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities. Don't expect the report to go away until the public has seen it, as opposed to someone Trump specifically appointed to state that he cannot be indicted.
|
On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities.
Here is why this stuff may roll back onto Hillary and Obama (regardless of whether it is just pure political damage or something more). Hillary is at the root of the possible FISA abuse. The Steele dossier was paid for by her campaign. And perhaps more importantly, it was her people who flooded the FBI, law enforcement, and media with the dossier and its allegations in 2016. As for Obama, his exposure comes from both the actions of his senior officials in the DOJ and intelligence agencies who were directly involved in the investigation and intelligence activities, and from the fact that he almost certainly knew what was going on at the time this stuff was happening. How do we know this? It shows up in the Page/Strzok texts talking about “POTUS wanting to stay informed” and from Nunes holding that press conference after looking at stuff at the White House. What he likely was reviewing were the presidential daily briefings. Additionally, remember that Trump tweet from March/April 2017 where he said that Obama bugged Trump Tower? Remember how Trump was roundly laughed at for that tweet at the time? That tweet certainly looks a little different today knowing what we know now.
|
On March 27 2019 20:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities. Here is why this stuff may roll back onto Hillary and Obama (regardless of whether it is just pure political damage or something more). Hillary is at the root of the possible FISA abuse. The Steele dossier was paid for by her campaign. And perhaps more importantly, it was her people who flooded the FBI, law enforcement, and media with the dossier and its allegations in 2016. As for Obama, his exposure comes from both the actions of his senior officials in the DOJ and intelligence agencies who were directly involved in the investigation and intelligence activities, and from the fact that he almost certainly knew what was going on at the time this stuff was happening. How do we know this? It shows up in the Page/Strzok texts talking about “POTUS wanting to stay informed” and from Nunes holding that press conference after looking at stuff at the White House. What he likely was reviewing were the presidential daily briefings. Additionally, remember that Trump tweet from March/April 2017 where he said that Obama bugged Trump Tower? Remember how Trump was roundly laughed at for that tweet at the time? That tweet certainly looks a little different today knowing what we know now.
hmm...
Both seem like there's more than enough distance between them and the specifics of the investigation that trying to 'get' Obama and Hilary for this would be no more useful than trying to 'get' Trump for Russia collusion.
Its a stretch, just as the Trump/Russia stuff was always a stretch. Its a stretch that some people are willing to believe because it conforms to what they would like to be true.
|
Didn't it come out that obama in fact did not bug his tower?
|
On March 27 2019 20:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities. Here is why this stuff may roll back onto Hillary and Obama (regardless of whether it is just pure political damage or something more). Hillary is at the root of the possible FISA abuse. The Steele dossier was paid for by her campaign. And perhaps more importantly, it was her people who flooded the FBI, law enforcement, and media with the dossier and its allegations in 2016. As for Obama, his exposure comes from both the actions of his senior officials in the DOJ and intelligence agencies who were directly involved in the investigation and intelligence activities, and from the fact that he almost certainly knew what was going on at the time this stuff was happening. How do we know this? It shows up in the Page/Strzok texts talking about “POTUS wanting to stay informed” and from Nunes holding that press conference after looking at stuff at the White House. What he likely was reviewing were the presidential daily briefings. Additionally, remember that Trump tweet from March/April 2017 where he said that Obama bugged Trump Tower? Remember how Trump was roundly laughed at for that tweet at the time? That tweet certainly looks a little different today knowing what we know now.
Other than your wishful thinking, in the most perfect occurrence, how does Hilary end up in actual trouble here? Even if she paid for the dossier, even if she spread it about, the FBI were the ones who acted on it. And even THEN there's debate on the timeline, and the FBI have said Steele is a source they've dealt with in the past and trust, AND multiple things from the dossier have been confirmed to be true, if not all of it.
This is just another iteration of your revenge fantasies overriding your critical thinking skills. I'd have thought you'd have learned by now.
|
Ah yes, the Steele dossier. The one that McCain handed to the FBI, not Hillary, and who did that AFTER the elections, not before.
When the investigation into Trump was started months before after an Australian diplomat in Britain heard Papadopoulos, who worked for Trump, brag about knowing that Russia had Hillary's emails.
Repeat a lie often enough and hope that no one remembers the truth.
Remember, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
|
On March 27 2019 20:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Didn't it come out that obama in fact did not bug his tower?
Correct. "No President can order a wiretap." Completely independent and separate from Obama, "the FBI had sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant to investigate claims that a server registered to the Trump Organization was communicating with two servers registered to a Russian private commercial bank. Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October [2016], giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia." https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-of-tapping-phones/
|
On March 27 2019 20:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 20:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities. Here is why this stuff may roll back onto Hillary and Obama (regardless of whether it is just pure political damage or something more). Hillary is at the root of the possible FISA abuse. The Steele dossier was paid for by her campaign. And perhaps more importantly, it was her people who flooded the FBI, law enforcement, and media with the dossier and its allegations in 2016. As for Obama, his exposure comes from both the actions of his senior officials in the DOJ and intelligence agencies who were directly involved in the investigation and intelligence activities, and from the fact that he almost certainly knew what was going on at the time this stuff was happening. How do we know this? It shows up in the Page/Strzok texts talking about “POTUS wanting to stay informed” and from Nunes holding that press conference after looking at stuff at the White House. What he likely was reviewing were the presidential daily briefings. Additionally, remember that Trump tweet from March/April 2017 where he said that Obama bugged Trump Tower? Remember how Trump was roundly laughed at for that tweet at the time? That tweet certainly looks a little different today knowing what we know now. Other than your wishful thinking, in the most perfect occurrence, how does Hilary end up in actual trouble here? Even if she paid for the dossier, even if she spread it about, the FBI were the ones who acted on it. And even THEN there's debate on the timeline, and the FBI have said Steele is a source they've dealt with in the past and trust, AND multiple things from the dossier have been confirmed to be true, if not all of it. This is just another iteration of your revenge fantasies overriding your critical thinking skills. I'd have thought you'd have learned by now.
If the underlying criminal charge is conspiracy to defraud the FISA court, her criminal liability depends upon the level of agreement between her and the law enforcement officials who secured the FISA warrants. This part isn’t known yet. All we know is where the dossier came from and then what her people did with it in terms of passing it around.
There could be other avenues of criminal liability, but I’m not aware of those or know enough to know what they could be. I tend to think that a criminal conspiracy charge combined with someone else’s wrongdoing is the most likely source of liability.
|
On March 27 2019 20:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On March 27 2019 20:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities. Here is why this stuff may roll back onto Hillary and Obama (regardless of whether it is just pure political damage or something more). Hillary is at the root of the possible FISA abuse. The Steele dossier was paid for by her campaign. And perhaps more importantly, it was her people who flooded the FBI, law enforcement, and media with the dossier and its allegations in 2016. As for Obama, his exposure comes from both the actions of his senior officials in the DOJ and intelligence agencies who were directly involved in the investigation and intelligence activities, and from the fact that he almost certainly knew what was going on at the time this stuff was happening. How do we know this? It shows up in the Page/Strzok texts talking about “POTUS wanting to stay informed” and from Nunes holding that press conference after looking at stuff at the White House. What he likely was reviewing were the presidential daily briefings. Additionally, remember that Trump tweet from March/April 2017 where he said that Obama bugged Trump Tower? Remember how Trump was roundly laughed at for that tweet at the time? That tweet certainly looks a little different today knowing what we know now. Other than your wishful thinking, in the most perfect occurrence, how does Hilary end up in actual trouble here? Even if she paid for the dossier, even if she spread it about, the FBI were the ones who acted on it. And even THEN there's debate on the timeline, and the FBI have said Steele is a source they've dealt with in the past and trust, AND multiple things from the dossier have been confirmed to be true, if not all of it. This is just another iteration of your revenge fantasies overriding your critical thinking skills. I'd have thought you'd have learned by now. If the underlying criminal charge is conspiracy to defraud the FISA court, her criminal liability depends upon the level of agreement between her and the law enforcement officials who secured the FISA warrants. This part isn’t known yet. All we know is where the dossier came from and then what her people did with it in terms of passing it around. There could be other avenues of criminal liability, but I’m not aware of those or know enough to know what they could be. So we should posthumously prosecute McCain? Since he gave the Steele dossier to the FBI, and not Hillary
|
On March 27 2019 21:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 20:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On March 27 2019 20:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities. Here is why this stuff may roll back onto Hillary and Obama (regardless of whether it is just pure political damage or something more). Hillary is at the root of the possible FISA abuse. The Steele dossier was paid for by her campaign. And perhaps more importantly, it was her people who flooded the FBI, law enforcement, and media with the dossier and its allegations in 2016. As for Obama, his exposure comes from both the actions of his senior officials in the DOJ and intelligence agencies who were directly involved in the investigation and intelligence activities, and from the fact that he almost certainly knew what was going on at the time this stuff was happening. How do we know this? It shows up in the Page/Strzok texts talking about “POTUS wanting to stay informed” and from Nunes holding that press conference after looking at stuff at the White House. What he likely was reviewing were the presidential daily briefings. Additionally, remember that Trump tweet from March/April 2017 where he said that Obama bugged Trump Tower? Remember how Trump was roundly laughed at for that tweet at the time? That tweet certainly looks a little different today knowing what we know now. Other than your wishful thinking, in the most perfect occurrence, how does Hilary end up in actual trouble here? Even if she paid for the dossier, even if she spread it about, the FBI were the ones who acted on it. And even THEN there's debate on the timeline, and the FBI have said Steele is a source they've dealt with in the past and trust, AND multiple things from the dossier have been confirmed to be true, if not all of it. This is just another iteration of your revenge fantasies overriding your critical thinking skills. I'd have thought you'd have learned by now. If the underlying criminal charge is conspiracy to defraud the FISA court, her criminal liability depends upon the level of agreement between her and the law enforcement officials who secured the FISA warrants. This part isn’t known yet. All we know is where the dossier came from and then what her people did with it in terms of passing it around. There could be other avenues of criminal liability, but I’m not aware of those or know enough to know what they could be. So we should posthumously prosecute McCain? Since he gave the Steele dossier to the FBI, and not Hillary
You are aware that McCain wasn’t the first person to get the dossier, right? In fact, he was one of the last. And he got it after it was used to secure a FISA warrant.
You need to actually learn some of the facts.
|
On March 27 2019 21:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 21:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 27 2019 20:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On March 27 2019 20:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 20:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its my opinion that high level investigations of politicians should be transparent after the fact and if they themselves requrie an investigation to make that happen then it should be done.
Corruption of one kind does not mean that we look past corruption of another kind.
Having said that there's alot of reading to do that I haven't yet done on this. I don't really wanna look at mad right wing conspiracy blogs or anything like that while I'm at work so I'm taking xDaunt and doodsmack at their word that something dodgy occurred that needs looking into.
I don't see why partisanship should cause a situation where one group doesn't want the FBI or high level investigators to be transparent. Investigations into law enforcement should be par for the course.
I'm a little confused as to why this would lead back to both Obama and Hilary though, other than stupid tit for tat childishness (you go after my guy we go after your guys).
On the other hand, I'm glad this report is over with and I hope the Democrats can get back to investigating Trump for other stuff like the security pass issues and various other immoral/illegal activities. Here is why this stuff may roll back onto Hillary and Obama (regardless of whether it is just pure political damage or something more). Hillary is at the root of the possible FISA abuse. The Steele dossier was paid for by her campaign. And perhaps more importantly, it was her people who flooded the FBI, law enforcement, and media with the dossier and its allegations in 2016. As for Obama, his exposure comes from both the actions of his senior officials in the DOJ and intelligence agencies who were directly involved in the investigation and intelligence activities, and from the fact that he almost certainly knew what was going on at the time this stuff was happening. How do we know this? It shows up in the Page/Strzok texts talking about “POTUS wanting to stay informed” and from Nunes holding that press conference after looking at stuff at the White House. What he likely was reviewing were the presidential daily briefings. Additionally, remember that Trump tweet from March/April 2017 where he said that Obama bugged Trump Tower? Remember how Trump was roundly laughed at for that tweet at the time? That tweet certainly looks a little different today knowing what we know now. Other than your wishful thinking, in the most perfect occurrence, how does Hilary end up in actual trouble here? Even if she paid for the dossier, even if she spread it about, the FBI were the ones who acted on it. And even THEN there's debate on the timeline, and the FBI have said Steele is a source they've dealt with in the past and trust, AND multiple things from the dossier have been confirmed to be true, if not all of it. This is just another iteration of your revenge fantasies overriding your critical thinking skills. I'd have thought you'd have learned by now. If the underlying criminal charge is conspiracy to defraud the FISA court, her criminal liability depends upon the level of agreement between her and the law enforcement officials who secured the FISA warrants. This part isn’t known yet. All we know is where the dossier came from and then what her people did with it in terms of passing it around. There could be other avenues of criminal liability, but I’m not aware of those or know enough to know what they could be. So we should posthumously prosecute McCain? Since he gave the Steele dossier to the FBI, and not Hillary You are aware that McCain wasn’t the first person to get the dossier, right? In fact, he was one of the last. And he got it after it was used to secure a FISA warrant. You need to actually learn some of the facts. Your right, Steele went directly to the FBI with the information aswell. Which still doesn't involve Hillary in the picture at all.
Nor does it support the Grand Conspiracy because then the FBI could have just made shit up for the FISA warrant instead of involving yet another outsider, who is also a foreign national and ex-intelligence agent, in the Grand Conspiracy
|
At what point did Hillary order all the foreign intelligence agencies to notice that Trump people were talking to russians they were surveilling though? Did Hillary order them to warn the US intelligence about this or was that Obama? /s
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.
Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors. source
|
I still want to know which FISA warrant we are talking about. The whole discussion is about vague wrongdoing surrounding a FISA warrant for "BLANK" cause by the great Clinton conspiracy.
Edit: Meanwhile Russia just deploy troops to support Maduro in Venezuela, which is exciting. Good thing we have all these smart people working in the goverment to address that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
