Russia probes kick into high gear

[Gromdor]

46 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Do you think that Trump hired prostitutes to wet the bed?

Nah.  If I would have to guess how it happened I would say that he accepted the offer after his bodyguard went to bed.  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-bodyguard-testifies-russian-offered-trump-women-was-turned-down-n819386

[Space Commander Travis]

Coming back to sense rather than tabloid nonsense, this is a worthwhile article about the whole nonsense, which obviously those who know the truth will brush aside with a wave of their hand, but I'll just put it out for those who still have a teeny bit of doubt that the US President deserves to be hung for treason.

Quote

 

But the main casualty is the FBI’s 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President Donald Trump by using the Obama administration’s Russia-gate intelligence “assessment,” electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that could never pass the smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton and her closest advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets.

Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers’ correspondence provides factual evidence exposing much of the made-up “Resistance” narrative – the contrived storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream media deemed fit to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious Russians that not only lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor – but doesn’t make sense on its face.

The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw years ago what no American political analyst considered even possible, the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the fortune-telling Putin then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all odds – have been led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/11/the-fbi-hand-behind-russia-gate/

[Tiggs]

20 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

 Do you really not see how vague all these things that they allegedly try to do are?

What I see is a pattern of Russian state-backed hackers trying to acquire information to damage candidates, to raise the chances that their preferred candidate will win.
 

20 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Doesn't it all rather smack of desperation to prove that what the Democrats keep insisting is in fact true?

Russia was engaged in hacking Western political targets and national infrastructure before the 2016 US Election.

Like APT 28's 2014 hack of German Parliament.

It's really not a new thing.
 

20 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

And even if they did, it's a very long way from trying to see this as some kind of proof that the President of the USA actively conspired with them.

As I've said on several occasions -- I still haven't seen any definitive proof that he has.

[bee]

14 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

 

Russia was engaged in hacking Western political targets and national infrastructure before the 2016 US Election.

Like APT 28's 2014 hack of German Parliament.

It's really not a new thing.
 

shocker

no it's not a new thing - they're all at it apparently - kind of the 'norm' by the looks of it..?

US spies on Merkel and German Ministers

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 12/01/2018 at 8:15 PM, .ZZ. said:

Do you think that Trump hired prostitutes to wet the bed?

Mate, I honest to God don’t care what turns other people on and what they pay for in order to be aroused. 

[Paranormal Panther]

On 12/01/2018 at 10:12 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Mate, I honest to God don’t care what turns other people on and what they pay for in order to be aroused. 

Trump *allegedly* likes it. Let's not forget that key word.

[preacherman76]

So it turns out the corrupt FBI agent was the one who took the BS Hillary paid for dossier to begin the investigation. 

Who would have thought this investigation was gonna be a good thing for Trump. Lol

[Lilly]

9 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

 

Who would have thought this investigation was gonna be a good thing for Trump. Lol

It could still turn out to be not so good for Trump, it all depends on the actual verifiable corroborative evidence. However, so far it's looking like the Russian collusion hypothesis doesn't have very much solid evidence supporting it. The other teams opposition research (that was concocted by the Russians themselves) appears unlikely to succeed in fulfilling that.

[preacherman76]

4 hours ago, Lilly said:

It could still turn out to be not so good for Trump, it all depends on the actual verifiable corroborative evidence. However, so far it's looking like the Russian collusion hypothesis doesn't have very much solid evidence supporting it. The other teams opposition research (that was concocted by the Russians themselves) appears unlikely to succeed in fulfilling that.

Yea I guess this could still go south. I see they just brought down the first indictment for Uranium one, so it’s possible it won’t be long till this investigations leader ends up behind bars himself. His hands are all over that mess.

 Hopefully it won’t end there either 

[Gromdor]

8 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Yea I guess this could still go south. I see they just brought down the first indictment for Uranium one, so it’s possible it won’t be long till this investigations leader ends up behind bars himself. His hands are all over that mess.

 Hopefully it won’t end there either 

Eh, they indicted an American for bribing the Russians to let his company continue to haul the uranium that the Russians now own because of the Uranium One deal.  It didn't really have anything to do with the original deal.

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, they indicted an American for bribing the Russians to let his company continue to haul the uranium that the Russians now own because of the Uranium One deal.  It didn't really have anything to do with the original deal.

Yep, that’s how these things usually start off. They will start pinching a few little people to gather all the info they can about the big fish. He wasn’t the only one involved in bribes. Hillary litteraly made millions. Mueller made a little cash on the side himself. 

[Merc14]

The you know what is really going rto start hitting the fan so here is a nice 6 minute video that hits siome of the high points

 

[Lilly]

If it can be shown that the Steele dossier was the 'evidence' used to obtain the FISA warrant (for surveillance of the Trump team) then all Hades is going to break loose for sure.

[Merc14]

20 minutes ago, Lilly said:

If it can be shown that the Steele dossier was the 'evidence' used to obtain the FISA warrant (for surveillance of the Trump team) then all Hades is going to break loose for sure.

I think that this is all but proven, Lilly, but that will all be coming out officially over the next few weeks I believe as many in congress  wanting the answer to that question as well.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Merc14

[Tiggs]

Average FISA warrant application is as thick as your wrist. A double-sided memo from Steele really isn't going to cut it on it's own.

Nor would it be illegal if it was used as part of the application, as it would have to corroborated to have any weight as evidence.

 

[+and-then]

On 1/12/2018 at 11:27 AM, Gromdor said:

The dossier was false?  We've had a year to look at it.  Newsweek even did an article about it: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116

 

The few elements in it that have been verified have done nothing to prove the central thesis.  Now there may be some big old honkin' explosion of details that sway a large % of his supporters that he did, indeed, steal an election but more than a year later we've heard none of it.  I highly suspect that by the autumn this year, the narrative will have dramatically shifted to some tortured attempt to prove something else entirely.  If the D's lose more seats in the Senate we're apt to see some REAL hysterics.  

[preacherman76]

8 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Average FISA warrant application is as thick as your wrist. A double-sided memo from Steele really isn't going to cut it on it's own.

Nor would it be illegal if it was used as part of the application, as it would have to corroborated to have any weight as evidence.

 

Really? This should be the new standard? Either side could pay for a completely BS dossier on their political enemy. 

No the only reason it held water to the FBI was cause some memebers were supporting Hillary. Had connections with the company that provided it, as a openly admitted insurance policy no less.

This is horrifically illegal. 

[Uncle Sam]

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Really? This should be the new standard? Either side could pay for a completely BS dossier on their political enemy. 

No the only reason it held water to the FBI was cause some memebers were supporting Hillary. Had connections with the company that provided it, as a openly admitted insurance policy no less.

This is horrifically illegal. 

Check this out!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/crosstalk-russia-collusion-narrative-dying/

 

Quote

As people like Donna Brazile slowly come out and tell the truth about the Democratic Party and the 2016 election, the leftist-spun Russia narrative is collapsing. We now know that if anyone was “colluding” with Russia, whatever that is, it was Hillary and Bill and all their minions. Even the meeting with the Russian lawyer and Trump Jr. has been shown to be a setup by Fusion GPS, most likely paid for by Democratic operatives.

Yes, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has his first indictments. However, they really don’t have anything to do with

President Trump and are more a pathetic attempt to tie him to some past possible corruption. I am sure the special counsel will try to find some business deal 10 years ago that may be.

This is talking about the article from CNN...
 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Uncle Sam

[Lilly]

11 hours ago, Tiggs said:

 

Nor would it be illegal if it was used as part of the application, as it would have to corroborated to have any weight as evidence.

 

Actually, if the unverified dossier was used as being actual evidence it would indeed be Illegal. The FISA warrant has to be based on actual evidence, not supposed, might be, 'we think it's real' kind of evidence.

This is all explained pretty well here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/did_the_obama_doj_use_the_steele_dossier_to_get_the_fisa_warrant.html

Quote

The dossier has been challenged as unverified and unreliable.  It is not clear to what extent the dossier was used.

This raises the important issue of whether the Obama DOJ application for the warrant met the standards of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.  In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), the Court stated that the standard to apply when the facts necessary for probable cause are based on an informant and not the direct knowledge of the officer swearing the affidavit for probable cause is as follows:

Although an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was creditable or his information reliable.

So basically, was the dossier promoted as being credible evidence for the purpose of obtaining the FISA warrant? Or, was it made clear that the dossier was only opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and coming from a dubious source (the Russians who want to cause mayhem in our election process). This is a very important distinction, and if everything in relation to obtaining the FISA warrant wasn't totally above board then get ready for all Hades to break out. If the FBI did know all about the dossier but then still promoted it as being factual evidence in order to obtain the FISA warrant...things get really bad.

Quote

Further, it appears that Steele relied on information from Russian informants, who may have been paid by Fusion or Steele.

This raises a double-hearsay issue.  The Obama DOJ relied on Steele, who relied on Russian informants.  The Obama DOJ should have informed the FISA court why the Russian informants are reliable in addition to why Steele and Fusion are reliable.

If the application does not meet the standards of probable cause, then all evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant, and evidence that can be connected to the warrant, cannot be used in a criminal prosecution.  This is called "fruit of the poisonous tree," which means that if the warrant is bad, then all the evidence obtained is tainted and cannot be used.  There are exceptions, such as if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity or if its discovery was inevitable (Silverthorne v. USA, 251 U.S. 385 [1920]).

So yeah, the use of the Steele dossier could very well have been illegal.

 

*Bolding is my response because quoting is messed up*

 

[Tiggs]

4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Really? This should be the new standard? Either side could pay for a completely BS dossier on their political enemy. 

No the only reason it held water to the FBI was cause some memebers were supporting Hillary. Had connections with the company that provided it, as a openly admitted insurance policy no less.

This is horrifically illegal. 

If it's uncorroborated, it won't stand up as compelling evidence in court.

Not rocket science.

Also -- if Steele didn't know Hillary was funding his work -- why would the FBI?

[Tiggs]

24 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Actually, if the unverified dossier was used as being actual evidence it would indeed be Illegal

If they presented it as established fact, as opposed to HUMINT gathered by an ex-MI6 operative.

If it's the latter -- which I highly suspect it was -- then it's entirely legal.

[Lilly]

Well, I'm not all that content to just 'suspect' anything. The petition for the FISA warrant needs to be surrendered to Congress for review. If the Mueller team wants to use the evidence obtained by the FISA warrant Mueller has to provide proof that the warrant was obtained and used legally. Really there's no getting around this one. Just wait and see what happens, it will come out one way or the other...because it has to.

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

Well, I'm not all that content to just 'suspect' anything. The petition for the FISA warrant needs to be surrendered to Congress for review.

I believe it already has been made available to them for review.

[Lilly]

38 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

I believe it already has been made available to them for review.

Really? Could you post a link to this because I haven't heard this.

I've actually read stuff indicating that Congress is still trying to get access to the application for the FISA warrant.

[Tiggs]

Just now, Lilly said:

Really? Could you post a link to this because I haven't heard this.

I've actually read stuff indicating that Congress is still trying to get access to the application for the FISA warrant.

From Fox.