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.
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.
He's looking at everything. And in fact, he made it very clear today that he wanted to look at what the intelligence services (ie Brennan and the CIA) were up to. Here's the relevant line of questioning:
Senator Shaheen: News just broke, today, that you have a special team looking into why the FBI opened an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. I wonder if you can share with this committee: who is on that team; why you felt the need to form that kind of a team; and what you intend to be the scope of their investigation?
AG William Barr: Yeah, I, uh, as I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016. And, uh, alot of this has already been investigated, and a substantial portion of this has been investigated, and is being investigated, by the office of the inspector general at the department. But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.
Shaheen: Can you share with us why you feel the need to do that?
Barr: Well, for the same reason we are worried about foreign influence in elections we want to make sure that, uh, during an election, I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal.
The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam war period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government; and there were a lot of rules put in place to ensure there was an adequate basis for, before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. I’m not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that; and I’m not just talking about the FBI necessarily, but the intelligence agencies more broadly.
Shaheen: So you're not, you're not suggesting though that spying occurred?
Barr: I don’t, well, I guess you could, I think there’s that spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.
Shaheen: Wow, let me, uh…
Barr: But the question is: whether it was predicated. Adequately predicated. And I’m not suggested that it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.
I think it’s my obligation, congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and I want to make sure that happened; we have a lot of rules about that.
And, I want to say that I’ve said I’m reviewing this, I am going to, I haven’t set up a team yet but I do have, I have in mind having some colleagues help me pulling this information all together, and let me know if there’s some areas that should be looked at.
And I also want to make clear this is not launching an investigation of the FBI. Frankly, to the extent that there were issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon; and so I don’t like to hear attacks about the FBI, because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization, and I think that Chris Wray is a great partner for me and I’m very pleased that he’s there as the director.
And if it becomes necessary to look over some former official activities, I expect that I’ll be relying heavily on Chris, and work closely with him in looking at that information. But, that’s what I’m doing, I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused; I think that’s one of the principle roles of the attorney general.
The amusing part of this video is that you can pinpoint the exact moment when Senator Shaheen shits a brick. She was not expecting that answer from Barr at all.
This is the part people need to focus on. Calling it 'trump team spied on' instead of ' trump team investigated ' Is weird. I don't get why bar is saying 'he was spied on' instead of going , we need to see if the investigation broke rules and might have been spying is weird as fuck
It was both a bizarre thing for him to say, and the perfect thing for him to say to make people who were skeptical of him even more skeptical. Within a half hour, Breitbart, Fox News, and the Daily Caller all had headlines along the lines of "Trump team spied on", which was of course taken out of context, but that's how they do their headlines. From my understanding, the only person being properly investigated at all before mid-2016 was Carter Page, who had been in contact with Russian intelligence people and had shown up in phone calls the government had recorded from Russians. That's the only thing I can think of that would remotely sound like "spying", but that's because they were actually spying on Russians and just happened to pick Page up in the spying because he was talking to the Russians.
Also, were there not already some form of investigations into this type of stuff? The Carter Page stuff was definitely investigated, and I remember the Republicans making a big deal about it until it came out that he was because of the previously mentioned recorded Russian intelligence communications, after which suddenly the Republicans were not making a big deal out of it.
I'm fairly sure the reasoning for why the initial FBI investigation into the Trump Campaign has already been investigated also since there were claims it was due to the Steele Dossier, and after an independent investigation it was found that the FBI had other documented reasons for the investigation.
I don't honestly know what Barr is going for here. Even all the lawyers on Twitter can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.
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.
He's looking at everything. And in fact, he made it very clear today that he wanted to look at what the intelligence services (ie Brennan and the CIA) were up to. Here's the relevant line of questioning:
Senator Shaheen: News just broke, today, that you have a special team looking into why the FBI opened an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. I wonder if you can share with this committee: who is on that team; why you felt the need to form that kind of a team; and what you intend to be the scope of their investigation?
AG William Barr: Yeah, I, uh, as I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016. And, uh, alot of this has already been investigated, and a substantial portion of this has been investigated, and is being investigated, by the office of the inspector general at the department. But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.
Shaheen: Can you share with us why you feel the need to do that?
Barr: Well, for the same reason we are worried about foreign influence in elections we want to make sure that, uh, during an election, I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal.
The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam war period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government; and there were a lot of rules put in place to ensure there was an adequate basis for, before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. I’m not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that; and I’m not just talking about the FBI necessarily, but the intelligence agencies more broadly.
Shaheen: So you're not, you're not suggesting though that spying occurred?
Barr: I don’t, well, I guess you could, I think there’s that spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.
Shaheen: Wow, let me, uh…
Barr: But the question is: whether it was predicated. Adequately predicated. And I’m not suggested that it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.
I think it’s my obligation, congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and I want to make sure that happened; we have a lot of rules about that.
And, I want to say that I’ve said I’m reviewing this, I am going to, I haven’t set up a team yet but I do have, I have in mind having some colleagues help me pulling this information all together, and let me know if there’s some areas that should be looked at.
And I also want to make clear this is not launching an investigation of the FBI. Frankly, to the extent that there were issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon; and so I don’t like to hear attacks about the FBI, because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization, and I think that Chris Wray is a great partner for me and I’m very pleased that he’s there as the director.
And if it becomes necessary to look over some former official activities, I expect that I’ll be relying heavily on Chris, and work closely with him in looking at that information. But, that’s what I’m doing, I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused; I think that’s one of the principle roles of the attorney general.
The amusing part of this video is that you can pinpoint the exact moment when Senator Shaheen shits a brick. She was not expecting that answer from Barr at all.
This is the part people need to focus on. Calling it 'trump team spied on' instead of ' trump team investigated ' Is weird. I don't get why bar is saying 'he was spied on' instead of going , we need to see if the investigation broke rules and might have been spying is weird as fuck
It was both a bizarre thing for him to say, and the perfect thing for him to say to make people who were skeptical of him even more skeptical. Within a half hour, Breitbart, Fox News, and the Daily Caller all had headlines along the lines of "Trump team spied on", which was of course taken out of context, but that's how they do their headlines. From my understanding, the only person being properly investigated at all before mid-2016 was Carter Page, who had been in contact with Russian intelligence people and had shown up in phone calls the government had recorded from Russians. That's the only thing I can think of that would remotely sound like "spying", but that's because they were actually spying on Russians and just happened to pick Page up in the spying because he was talking to the Russians.
That Trump's campaign was spied on isn't news. Everyone who has been paying attention has known that it was spied on for most of two years now. And it wasn't just Carter Page. It was also Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Manafort. The only FISA warrant that we currently know about is the one on Page, but I'm expecting that it will eventually be confirmed that other warrants were issued as well. To the extent that people take issue with Barr's use of the term "spy," I don't see another way to characterize it. Intelligence assets were used against Trump's people, including FISA, NSA database inquiries, and confidential informants (spies). All of that constitutes "spying." But like Barr said, the real issue is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying. Given the complete absence of any charges related to the initial theory of collusion/conspiracy between Trump team members and the Russians, I think the answer to that question is no, there was no valid predicate. The real lynch pin is going to be Papadoupolos and Mifsud. Once it comes out that Mifsud is CIA/western intelligence and not a Russian asset, the shit is going to hit the fan.
On that point, I do have a small correction to make to my prior posting. That Mifsud is CIA/western intelligence has not been "confirmed" yet. But it is looking increasingly likely. The biggest tell is that Mueller interviewed Mifsud in Spring of 2017 and did not arrest or charge him. If Mifsud was truly a Russian agent as has been alleged for some time now, then there is no way that Mueller would have simply let him go. And of course, the lack of any charge against Papadopoulos arising from his interactions with Mifsud is another huge tell.
Also, were there not already some form of investigations into this type of stuff? The Carter Page stuff was definitely investigated, and I remember the Republicans making a big deal about it until it came out that he was because of the previously mentioned recorded Russian intelligence communications, after which suddenly the Republicans were not making a big deal out of it.
No, it hasn't really been investigated yet. Horowitz is looking into FISA abuse, but that's not the same as an AG with prosecutorial power looking at it.
I'm fairly sure the reasoning for why the initial FBI investigation into the Trump Campaign has already been investigated also since there were claims it was due to the Steele Dossier, and after an independent investigation it was found that the FBI had other documented reasons for the investigation.
This is incorrect. Crossfire Hurricane was opened July 31, 2016. Depending upon which former official you ask, the Steele dossier wasn't received by the FBI until after that. At the very earliest, the FBI would have had it in July 2016 when Gaeta and Ohr supposedly passed it on. The problem with this is that CI actions were already being taken against Trump people well before this in late 2015 and early 2016. So the Steele dossier could not have been the predicate for those actions. As far as I know, no one has publicly disclosed what the predicate for those actions is, and the former FBI/DOJ officials have gone out of their way to avoid talking about them.
I don't honestly know what Barr is going for here. Even all the lawyers on Twitter can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.
They don't know what he's talking about because they have been following regular news reporting like everyone else. The same regular news reporting that said that Trump lied when he previously claimed that he was spied on. The same regular news reporting that played up the validity of the investigation into Trump's campaign. The same regular news reporting that was complicit in pushing a patently false narrative by publishing stories with leaks from anonymous sources. People were mocking my citation to Hannity earlier. Well who has been more right on this story: Hannity or the NYT? Or CNN? Or WashPo? There is a huge segment of the population that is not properly conditioned to accept what the Mueller report is going to reveal and what Barr is going to do afterwards.
If your tax returns are squeaky clean, release them, otherwise? If your ‘exoneration’ is so, release it?
It is basically that simple, why discuss it beyond that?
We can argue over Barr and his conduct, why he’s appointed, what he’s doing or we can just Occam’s Razor it.
If someone accused me of wrongdoing, and I was cleared (legitimately), I’m putting that out in the public domain as fast as my internet connection allows.
What else is worth bothering with? Trump fans will deny everything anyway, basically everyone undecided will Occam’s Razor it. Those of a left persuasion are necerTruno anyway
On April 11 2019 08:29 Wombat_NI wrote: Why are things so complicated?
If your tax returns are squeaky clean, release them, otherwise? If your ‘exoneration’ is so, release it?
It is basically that simple, why discuss it beyond that?
We can argue over Barr and his conduct, why he’s appointed, what he’s doing or we can just Occam’s Razor it.
If someone accused me of wrongdoing, and I was cleared (legitimately), I’m putting that out in the public domain as fast as my internet connection allows.
What else is worth bothering with? Trump fans will deny everything anyway, basically everyone undecided will Occam’s Razor it. Those of a left persuasion are necerTruno anyway
Because most people can't take their political views out of the equation.
On April 11 2019 08:29 Wombat_NI wrote: Why are things so complicated?
If your tax returns are squeaky clean, release them, otherwise? If your ‘exoneration’ is so, release it?
It is basically that simple, why discuss it beyond that?
We can argue over Barr and his conduct, why he’s appointed, what he’s doing or we can just Occam’s Razor it.
If someone accused me of wrongdoing, and I was cleared (legitimately), I’m putting that out in the public domain as fast as my internet connection allows.
What else is worth bothering with? Trump fans will deny everything anyway, basically everyone undecided will Occam’s Razor it. Those of a left persuasion are necerTruno anyway
Because most people can't take their political views out of the equation.
And there is also disagreement as to what it means to be a leader and how the people being led should protect their leader. People in rural communities develop cult-like admiration for leaders. When you let yourself identify with your leader, you unduly empower them. People see attacks on their leaders as attacks on themselves. It is among the most disgusting of qualities.
On April 11 2019 08:29 Wombat_NI wrote: Why are things so complicated?
If your tax returns are squeaky clean, release them, otherwise? If your ‘exoneration’ is so, release it?
It is basically that simple, why discuss it beyond that?
We can argue over Barr and his conduct, why he’s appointed, what he’s doing or we can just Occam’s Razor it.
If someone accused me of wrongdoing, and I was cleared (legitimately), I’m putting that out in the public domain as fast as my internet connection allows.
What else is worth bothering with? Trump fans will deny everything anyway, basically everyone undecided will Occam’s Razor it. Those of a left persuasion are necerTruno anyway
Because most people can't take their political views out of the equation.
I'm not so sure about that. Most that I know on the left side of things are all about transparency and exposure on both sides. If anyone on the Clinton campaign did something illegal, including the candidate herself, they support prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. What some people call "partisan", others call fairness and equity in politics. For my part, I can't understand the obsession with "spying" on the Trump campaign and the investigations. I want my President to be a clean as possible. Releasing reports and taxes should be ezpz for someone who has done nothing blatantly illegal. But it's Trump, so we know he has. I stand by my comments however.
On April 11 2019 08:29 Wombat_NI wrote: Why are things so complicated?
If your tax returns are squeaky clean, release them, otherwise? If your ‘exoneration’ is so, release it?
It is basically that simple, why discuss it beyond that?
We can argue over Barr and his conduct, why he’s appointed, what he’s doing or we can just Occam’s Razor it.
If someone accused me of wrongdoing, and I was cleared (legitimately), I’m putting that out in the public domain as fast as my internet connection allows.
What else is worth bothering with? Trump fans will deny everything anyway, basically everyone undecided will Occam’s Razor it. Those of a left persuasion are necerTruno anyway
Because most people can't take their political views out of the equation.
I'm not so sure about that. Most that I know on the left side of things are all about transparency and exposure on both sides. If anyone on the Clinton campaign did something illegal, including the candidate herself, they support prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. What some people call "partisan", others call fairness and equity in politics. For my part, I can't understand the obsession with "spying" on the Trump campaign and the investigations. I want my President to be a clean as possible. Releasing reports and taxes should be ezpz for someone who has done nothing blatantly illegal. But it's Trump, so we know he has. I stand by my comments however.
I’m not American so I don’t count of course . There’s a fair chunk of people both centre left and especially ‘real’ left who advocate for such things regardless of party.
The left pushed for limiting campaign contributions when Cirizens United came around
Even as far back as the Patriot Act it was the left aligned who voted against it, granted that was literally only Russ Feingold iirc
Bipartisanship isn’t just working across the aisle, it’s working within a system in accordance to your own principles as well.
In this regard the Dems are generally bad, Republicans are even worse.
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump.
On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote: If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump.
On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote: If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump.
So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive.
On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote: If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump.
Define ‘improper’
Although I can’t lie they absolutely would. Even those who aren’t partisan against Trump specifically, yeah absolutely.
Not just because it would nail Trump, but because of a widespread belief you can’t nail anyone of sufficient wealth and power through purely legalistic means.
On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote: If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump.
So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive.
I disagree with this on several levels and posit this isn't a position for the left but centrist/Democrats.
I also find that most of the convictions being for lying about a what would be an improper investigation in this scenario or crimes unrelated to Trump and Russia working together problematic.
What it's done is create this strange power hole where you can get away with your criminality up or until you try to a fellow criminal elected to president (when the party isn't ready for it). And a accountability hole for all the politicos that have known for decades that these people were criminals and waited until now to do anything about it.
EDIT: This is part of how police were able to jettison the 4th amendment and justify it with sometimes finding random criminal things. Juries full of "well if they got a bad person off the street so what?"
These comments about being okay with spying on Trump's campaign or any political campaign are misplaced. If you want to force more disclosure from candidates, then the proper way to accomplish that is to enact legislation that creates and fosters a transparent disclosure process. In contrast, the last thing that we want to do is give government investigators unlimited and unchecked authority and discretion to investigate political candidates. Where's the due process? How do we ensure that each candidate in a race is equally investigated? The alleged abuses of the FBI/DOJ officials as it pertains to Crossfire Hurricane and the Midyear investigations are particularly illustrative of the problems here. The current record shows not only a gross disparity in how the leaders of these investigations viewed each political candidate (ie they favored Hillary), but that these leaders acted on their political biases. Even presuming that Hillary didn't do anything wrong, no one can reasonably argue that the FBI/DOJ didn't give Hillary far more favorable treatment in the Midyear investigation than they did with Trump in Crossfire Hurricane. FFS, just look at the names of the respective investigations!
What Xdaunt is saying is once you run for President, your campaign is immune to any criminal investigation, regardless of evidence or probable cause. Even though congress members, the gang of 8, the DOJ and a series of Judges knew about and approved of these investigations taking place, the were still wrong because it investigated Trump.
Seriously, you need to stop mischaracterizing these investigations as the acts of rogue government agencies answerable to no one. They told people, including the leadership of your party in congress what was happening.
More good news for Buttigieg and even worse news for Harris.. Pretty bad for Biden and better for Bernie
Another new poll out of California shows Harris and Biden losing ground and Buttigieg making a significant jump up from their previous poll. Sanders and O'Rourke enjoy a modest bump. The story here imo is everyone polling under Warren is 100% not going to win the nomination, but Sanders remains the heavy favorite, especially without Biden as he was able to maintain a 1 point lead over Harris in her home state without Biden in the poll.
Sanders (22%) shows a one-point lead over Biden (21%), and a three-point lead over Harris (19%) among likely Democratic primary voters. Beto O’Rourke finishes a distant fourth with 10%, followed by Pete Buttigieg (9%), Elizabeth Warren (8%), and Cory Booker (3%). All other candidates poll at 2% or less:
On April 11 2019 12:15 Plansix wrote: What Xdaunt is saying is once you run for President, your campaign is immune to any criminal investigation, regardless of evidence or probable cause. Even though congress members, the gang of 8, the DOJ and a series of Judges knew about and approved of these investigations taking place, the were still wrong because it investigated Trump.
You know, you've had some remarkably thoughtless takes of my posts over the years, but this one takes the cake.
Seriously, you need to stop mischaracterizing these investigations as the acts of rogue government agencies answerable to no one. They told people, including the leadership of your party in congress what was happening.
I haven't mischaracterized anything. I've laid out tons of facts, all of which you willfully ignore just as you willfully misconstrue my posts such as you did above. It doesn't take a genius to see that an investigation predicated upon Russian collusion/conspiracy is bogus when none of the primary targets of the investigation is charged with anything related to Russian collusion/conspiracy. Particularly when investigative agents go on the record and swear to a court that they already have probable cause of such Russian collusion/conspiracy. This is about as simple of a deduction as 2+2=4, and it only touches upon a small slice of the known improprieties surrounding the investigation.
On April 11 2019 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote: More good news for Buttigieg and even worse news for Harris.. Pretty bad for Biden and better for Bernie
Another new poll out of California shows Harris and Biden losing ground and Buttigieg making a significant jump up from their previous poll. Sanders and O'Rourke enjoy a modest bump. The story here imo is everyone polling under Warren is 100% not going to win the nomination, but Sanders remains the heavy favorite, especially without Biden as he was able to maintain a 1 point lead over Harris in her home state without Biden in the poll.
Sanders (22%) shows a one-point lead over Biden (21%), and a three-point lead over Harris (19%) among likely Democratic primary voters. Beto O’Rourke finishes a distant fourth with 10%, followed by Pete Buttigieg (9%), Elizabeth Warren (8%), and Cory Booker (3%). All other candidates poll at 2% or less:
Of the candidates polling below Warren, Hickenlooper is the one who might rise into contention. He's definitely one of the best candidates on the merits. Unfortunately, I think identity politics is going to doom him given that he doesn't have the socialist bonafides that Bernie has.
EPT
