|
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 April 11 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 02:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 11 2019 01:44 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime. If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action or given an explanation as to why some kind of action was not appropriate. We don't know if he gave an explanation. We don't know why he left the question open. How can you state things like this with full certainty when we don't know anything? I can say it because the idea that Mueller had evidence amounting to probable cause of a crime is wholly inconsistent with Barr's summary letter. As Barr notes, Mueller did not reach any legal or factual conclusions pertaining to obstruction of justice. A finding of probable cause would be that type of conclusion that Barr says isn't there. Likewise, Barr makes no mention of any explanation provided by Mueller for why charges should not be pursued or referred notwithstanding a finding of probable cause. This would be a gigantic omission if something like that was in there. The closest Barr comes to this is stating that Mueller's report lays out "difficult issues of fact and law" on both sides of the issue when declining to find that Trump committed a crime.
You're the lawyer so I could be wrong but isn't this not quite rhetorically accurate?
That declining a prosecution isn't the finding that a crime wasn't committed, but that conviction at trial is unlikely. Which isn't the finding that a crime wasn't committed either, but that the legal system means that the person pursuing it would be jeopardizing their credibility and/or reputation should they fail to get a conviction.
This is more or less your position regarding Hillary, no?
On April 11 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
The part I find the most problematic in all this focus on Mueller's report is the idea that Mueller is some paragon of virtue and by extension the FBI is a reputable organization and that anything that comes out (redacted or not) is representative of much more than how a corrupt system feels about itself.
I like that the right suddenly distrusts the FBI and other apparatuses of the state but not enough to make the sudden faith in them from left-leaning Democrats or progressives worth it imo. The lack of faith comes from the results. Meaning that if the FBI starts agreeing with them their faith will be restored.
It's this becoming a bipartisan (even among the left wing of Democrats) phenomena which concerns me.
|
On April 11 2019 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
The part I find the most problematic in all this focus on Mueller's report is the idea that Mueller is some paragon of virtue and by extension the FBI is a reputable organization and that anything that comes out (redacted or not) is representative of much more than how a corrupt system feels about itself.
I like that the right suddenly distrusts the FBI and other apparatuses of the state but not enough to make the sudden faith in them from left-leaning Democrats or progressives worth it imo.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Like I posted a couple days ago, people on the right are mad as hell about what has happened and are daring to say things about "the system" that you would not have heard a few years ago. With regards to me personally, I certainly am looking at all aspects of the government with a far more jaundiced eye. For example, I look at stories about illicit CIA activity in other countries very differently now than how I used to. People like Nunes and other "good guys" in government understand this. They badly want to keep their toys (NSA database, FISA surveillance, etc) for the wholly legitimate purpose of protecting America, but they also know that this investigation gravely threatens popular support for them. It's going to be interesting to see how they thread the needle of exposing what needs to be exposed while protecting the underlying capabilities that were misused. The scale of this scandal is staggering, and its impact is going to reverberate for decades.
|
|
|
On April 11 2019 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 02:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 11 2019 01:44 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime. If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action or given an explanation as to why some kind of action was not appropriate. We don't know if he gave an explanation. We don't know why he left the question open. How can you state things like this with full certainty when we don't know anything? I can say it because the idea that Mueller had evidence amounting to probable cause of a crime is wholly inconsistent with Barr's summary letter. As Barr notes, Mueller did not reach any legal or factual conclusions pertaining to obstruction of justice. A finding of probable cause would be that type of conclusion that Barr says isn't there. Likewise, Barr makes no mention of any explanation provided by Mueller for why charges should not be pursued or referred notwithstanding a finding of probable cause. This would be a gigantic omission if something like that was in there. The closest Barr comes to this is stating that Mueller's report lays out "difficult issues of fact and law" on both sides of the issue when declining to find that Trump committed a crime. You're the lawyer so I could be wrong but isn't this not quite rhetorically accurate?
I was quoting Barr's letter directly. That's his language, not mine. And I would be shocked if it doesn't mirror Mueller's language.
That declining a prosecution isn't the finding that a crime wasn't committed, but that conviction at trial is unlikely. Which isn't the finding that a crime wasn't committed either, but that the legal system means that the person pursuing it would be jeopardizing their credibility and/or reputation should they fail to get a conviction.
This is more or less your position regarding Hillary, no?
Per the above, Barr states that Mueller did not determine that a crime had been committed. This is a different result than finding a crime and declining to prosecute. My fundamental problem with Comey's decision not to prosecute Hillary (other than the fact that it shouldn't have been his call) is the manner in which he contorted the language within a statute to avoid prosecuting her. Like I said last week, what Comey did would be equivalent of Barr finding that Trump "impeded justice" but nonetheless concluding that Trump did not "obstruct justice."
EDIT: To be clear, I also have substantial problems with how the Midyear Investigation was conducted. It is far more likely that there was extensive obstruction of justice in that investigation than in the Trump investigation. The actions taken by the Obama DOJ and Hillary's people were unequivocally worse than anything Trump did.
|
On April 11 2019 04:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 02:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 11 2019 01:44 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime. If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action or given an explanation as to why some kind of action was not appropriate. We don't know if he gave an explanation. We don't know why he left the question open. How can you state things like this with full certainty when we don't know anything? I can say it because the idea that Mueller had evidence amounting to probable cause of a crime is wholly inconsistent with Barr's summary letter. As Barr notes, Mueller did not reach any legal or factual conclusions pertaining to obstruction of justice. A finding of probable cause would be that type of conclusion that Barr says isn't there. Likewise, Barr makes no mention of any explanation provided by Mueller for why charges should not be pursued or referred notwithstanding a finding of probable cause. This would be a gigantic omission if something like that was in there. The closest Barr comes to this is stating that Mueller's report lays out "difficult issues of fact and law" on both sides of the issue when declining to find that Trump committed a crime. You're the lawyer so I could be wrong but isn't this not quite rhetorically accurate? I was quoting Barr's letter directly. That's his language, not mine. And I would be shocked if it doesn't mirror Mueller's language. Show nested quote +That declining a prosecution isn't the finding that a crime wasn't committed, but that conviction at trial is unlikely. Which isn't the finding that a crime wasn't committed either, but that the legal system means that the person pursuing it would be jeopardizing their credibility and/or reputation should they fail to get a conviction.
This is more or less your position regarding Hillary, no? Per the above, Barr states that Mueller did not determine that a crime had been committed. This is a different result than finding a crime and declining to prosecute. My fundamental problem with Comey's decision not to prosecute Hillary (other than the fact that it shouldn't have been his call) is the manner in which he contorted the language within a statute to avoid prosecuting her. Like I said last week, what Comey did would be equivalent of Barr finding that Trump "impeded justice" but nonetheless concluding that Trump did not "obstruct justice." EDIT: To be clear, I also have substantial problems with how the Midyear Investigation was conducted. It is far more likely that there was extensive obstruction of justice in that investigation than in the Trump investigation. The actions taken by the Obama DOJ and Hillary's people were unequivocally worse than anything Trump did.
Gotcha.
If that's the case with Mueller I suspect you'll find we'll shift to an endless loop around the investigation vs conclusions where only those most interested in the jargon and nuance of law or those who don't care about it all will have the penchant to engage and it will fizzle into the background.
|
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted
|
On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted
Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't ends at this point imo
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler +
Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly.
|
On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly.
Hannity also said Seth Rich was killed by the DNC.... So excuse me if I don't give a shit what Hannity says
But if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Let's say 100 bucks on nobody with a name going down by 2020?
Nobody with a name in regards to this new investigation by Bar that is. Can't collect if they get kushner or something like that 
|
On April 11 2019 04:54 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly. Hannity also said Seth Rich was killed by the DNC.... So excuse me if I don't give a shit what Hannity says But if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Let's say 100 bucks on nobody with a name going down by 2020? Nobody with a name in regards to this new investigation by Bar that is. Can't collect if they get kushner or something like that
I'll do a sig bet. Prosecution/indictment would have to be by Barr, a special counsel, or a US attorney of current/former officials in either the FBI, DOJ, or CIA in relation to their role in investigating/spying on Trump or his campaign's associates, or their role in the Midyear investigation. Charges could include derivative claims such as perjury or obstruction of justice.
|
On April 11 2019 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:54 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly. Hannity also said Seth Rich was killed by the DNC.... So excuse me if I don't give a shit what Hannity says But if you want to put your money where your mouth is. Let's say 100 bucks on nobody with a name going down by 2020? Nobody with a name in regards to this new investigation by Bar that is. Can't collect if they get kushner or something like that I'll do a sig bet. Prosecution/indictment would have to be by Barr, a special counsel, or a US attorney of current/former officials in either the FBI, DOJ, or CIA in relation to their role in investigating/spying on Trump or his campaign's associates, or their role in the Midyear investigation. Charges could include derivative claims such as perjury or obstruction of justice.
Ill respond after this work meeting. Give me about 30 minutes
|
On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly.
You're citing Hannity unironically (I vaguely remember even you thinking he was a clown but I could be wrong) and arguing powerful people will be held accountable.
On the off chance your right, it will be perceived by about half the country as essentially a coup and the precipitation of responses will likely lead to civil war imo.
EDIT: Alternatively it'll be some lackeys who were "just following orders" taking the fall.
|
On April 11 2019 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly. You're citing Hannity unironically (I vaguely remember even you thinking he was a clown but I could be wrong) and arguing powerful people will be held accountable. On the off chance your right, it will be perceived by about half the country as essentially a coup and the precipitation of responses will likely lead to civil war imo.
Hannity is a dunce, but he is an honest dunce. But more to the point, I have been paying attention to his reporting on this Russia stuff for a very long time. I'll just tell you that Hannity knows what's up. Someone in the Trump administration is feeding him information just as someone in the know has been feeding certain reporters such as John Solomon. But you are right that the reaction to those charges will be interesting to watch.
|
On April 11 2019 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly. You're citing Hannity unironically (I vaguely remember even you thinking he was a clown but I could be wrong) and arguing powerful people will be held accountable. On the off chance your right, it will be perceived by about half the country as essentially a coup and the precipitation of responses will likely lead to civil war imo. Hannity is a dunce, but he is an honest dunce. But more to the point, I have been paying attention to his reporting on this Russia stuff for a very long time. I'll just tell you that Hannity knows what's up. Someone in the Trump administration is feeding him information just as someone in the know has been feeding certain reporters such as John Solomon. But you are right that the reaction to those charges will be interesting to watch. Hannity.
Honest?
You can probably find a 6000 page long summery of all the dishonest shit he has said in just the last decade.
No.
|
It remains to be seen whether the FBI/DOJ had reasonable suspicion (which is not all that high of a standard) in the beginning. Though the FISA thing with Page might be a discrete issue that requires probable cause. But the initial predicate issue is far from certain, despite what Hannity may think.
|
On April 11 2019 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly. You're citing Hannity unironically (I vaguely remember even you thinking he was a clown but I could be wrong) and arguing powerful people will be held accountable. On the off chance your right, it will be perceived by about half the country as essentially a coup and the precipitation of responses will likely lead to civil war imo. Hannity is a dunce, but he is an honest dunce. But more to the point, I have been paying attention to his reporting on this Russia stuff for a very long time. I'll just tell you that Hannity knows what's up. Someone in the Trump administration is feeding him information just as someone in the know has been feeding certain reporters such as John Solomon. But you are right that the reaction to those charges will be interesting to watch. Hannity. Honest? You can probably find a 6000 page long summery of all the dishonest shit he has said in just the last decade. No.
I just feel like his main goal in this discussion is to gaslight the fuck out of everyone in it.
|
On April 11 2019 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2019 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly. You're citing Hannity unironically (I vaguely remember even you thinking he was a clown but I could be wrong) and arguing powerful people will be held accountable. On the off chance your right, it will be perceived by about half the country as essentially a coup and the precipitation of responses will likely lead to civil war imo. Hannity is a dunce, but he is an honest dunce. But more to the point, I have been paying attention to his reporting on this Russia stuff for a very long time. I'll just tell you that Hannity knows what's up. Someone in the Trump administration is feeding him information just as someone in the know has been feeding certain reporters such as John Solomon. But you are right that the reaction to those charges will be interesting to watch. Hannity. Honest? You can probably find a 6000 page long summery of all the dishonest shit he has said in just the last decade. No. I just feel like his main goal in this discussion is to gaslight the fuck out of everyone in it.
No, not quite. The point (whether he's aware or not) is to lead us toward chaotic conflict where no one (but those you agree with) can be trusted imo.
|
On April 11 2019 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:
It remains to be seen whether the FBI/DOJ had reasonable suspicion (which is not all that high of a standard) in the beginning. Though the FISA thing with Page might be a discrete issue that requires probable cause. But the initial predicate issue is far from certain, despite what Hannity may think.
This is mostly correct. The one thing that I would clarify is the issue of the initiation of the investigation. The testimony so far has been that Crossfire Hurricane began on July 30, 2016. But this testimony is inconsistent with the known activity of spies who were trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign long before then. In short, we still don't know who started the real investigation and why. I suspect that Brennan is going to be a focus of this inquiry.
|
On April 11 2019 05:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:
It remains to be seen whether the FBI/DOJ had reasonable suspicion (which is not all that high of a standard) in the beginning. Though the FISA thing with Page might be a discrete issue that requires probable cause. But the initial predicate issue is far from certain, despite what Hannity may think. This is mostly correct. The one thing that I would clarify is the issue of the initiation of the investigation. The testimony so far has been that Crossfire Hurricane began on July 30, 2016. But this testimony is inconsistent with the known activity of spies who were trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign long before then. In short, we still don't know who started the real investigation and why. I suspect that Brennan is going to be a focus of this inquiry.
Yes I would agree that the investigation started much earlier than summer 2016. I was a bit surprised when Barr actually referred to summer 2016 being the time period he is examining.
|
On April 11 2019 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 05:28 NewSunshine wrote:On April 11 2019 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2019 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:
Something tells me when this new Bar investigation finds nothing wrong, xDaunt is going to have serious problems with how it was conducted Yup and the loop begins anew. It's the song that never doesn't end s at this point imo + Show Spoiler + Nah, the smart money is on the bad guys who were at the FBI/DOJ/CIA getting prosecuted. Hannity, who has been way ahead of most everyone on this and is obviously getting information directly from the White House, has been assuring it publicly. You're citing Hannity unironically (I vaguely remember even you thinking he was a clown but I could be wrong) and arguing powerful people will be held accountable. On the off chance your right, it will be perceived by about half the country as essentially a coup and the precipitation of responses will likely lead to civil war imo. Hannity is a dunce, but he is an honest dunce. But more to the point, I have been paying attention to his reporting on this Russia stuff for a very long time. I'll just tell you that Hannity knows what's up. Someone in the Trump administration is feeding him information just as someone in the know has been feeding certain reporters such as John Solomon. But you are right that the reaction to those charges will be interesting to watch. Hannity. Honest? You can probably find a 6000 page long summery of all the dishonest shit he has said in just the last decade. No. I just feel like his main goal in this discussion is to gaslight the fuck out of everyone in it. No, not quite. The point (whether he's aware or not) is to lead us toward chaotic conflict where no one (but those you agree with) can be trusted imo.
It's not my doing that we have arrived at this point. The problem is the media. Let's revisit a post that I made in your blog back in September:
Here's the big question in my mind: to what extent is the press going to survive as it exists today given what might be coming? The American public -- particularly conservatives -- is already very distrustful of the media. The rest of the public is largely primed for disillusionment given all of the talk about "fake news" over the past couple of years.
Now, looking at the current press landscape as it pertains to the Mueller investigation and the investigation of Trump, the press is very clearly way out on the polarized limb of "Mueller and the FBI/DOJ are righteous, Trump needs to be investigated." Very little credence has been given by the mainstream press to the possibility that there is a big problem in the FBI/DOJ (and potentially elsewhere). What happens when Trump releases the full FISA applications thereby fully exposing those problems?
And here's the real kicker: we already know from documents released that the press is implicated in this mess. Not only are there the text messages between Strzok and Page openly discussing the media leak strategy, but we also know from the information about the FISA applications already released that the FBI, when applying for the FISA warrants, cited to press articles containing the information that was almost certainly leaked by Strzok and Page. In other words, the FBI relied upon the press articles to buttress the credibility of the faulty evidence that the FBI had (namely the Steele dossier), nevermind that the press wasn't providing any new evidence. Stated another way, the press was an accessory to whatever bad acts occurred with the FISA applications. Being involved in this, even if its indirectly and unintentionally, isn't going to help the media regain its credibility.
Of course, all of this is contingent upon the declassification of the FISA application showing that there was no other basis for the warrant other than the Steele dossier.
Looks fairly prescient now, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
