Russia probes kick into high gear

[Lilly]

Wow, for everyone who's figured it all out...has all the necessary evidence and facts...has arrived at "the truth" in all of this controversy. I really suggest you contact The FBI and let them know.  Someone really needs to tell Robert Mueller how this is all been sorted out and that "the truth" is now known.

Here's a handy link to the FBI's contact site: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us

 

[Tiggs]

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

Oh boy! Then this is all over, Trump is hands down proven to be a Criminal Russian Colluder! The Democrats have proven all this just with their memo...NOT. 

Not sure why you'd think the FISA warrant application for Carter Page would show that.
 

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

Carter Page has not been proven to be a Russian agent.

If the Democrat's memo is correct, and the parts of the Steele Dossier concerning him have been corroborated -- then he's been a very naughty boy.
 

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

The FISA warrant application has not been made public.

Trump's unwilling to redact the black squares in the Democrat Memo, let alone release the entire FISA warrant.
 

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

The DNC and Clinton campaign did commission and pay for the Steele dossier.

There's no evidence they commissioned it. Even if they did -- it would still be entirely legal.
 

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

Exactly what the FISA judges were told has not been made public. 

Democrats published the relevant footnote in the memo. Looks entirely above board to me.

[Lilly]

Page could be a Russian agent or just another sketchy businessman looking to make a buck. Never said the FISA warrant contained the answer regarding Page's guilt or innocence. To my knowledge Mr Page has not been arrested or indicted. 

The FISA warrant application has not been released to the public.

There is direct evidence the DNC was directly involved in obtaining the Steele dossier (even the NY Times reported this information)

Opposition research is totally legal...but it's not exactly the same thing as other forms of intelligence.

We still don't know how much the FISA judges were told about the dossier information used to obtain the warrant (a footnote just isn't sufficient info).

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I guess the replies in this thread prove your point here.

Kinda worrying how the US right-wing establishment has effectively brainwashed its consumers into being unable to trust anyone or anything. Into believing anything that doesn't conform with their political narrative is part of some conspiracy or other.

I wonder if it'll end, or if they'll just continue to regress.

Oh no. They will continue to slavishly copy the tactics and methods of their colleagues on the Left since they work so well. There's nothing nastier than being force-fed a dose of one's own medicine. What the Right had learned from the Left is that anything, repeated often enough, becomes truth, whether it is or not. Why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?

[Tiggs]

3 hours ago, Lilly said:

Page could be a Russian agent or just another sketchy businesman looking to make a buck. 

Either way, it would appear that he hasn't been telling the whole truth to Congress.
 

3 hours ago, Lilly said:

The FISA warrant application has not been released to the public. 

There is direct evidence the DNC was directly involved in obtaining the Steele dossier (even the NY Times reported this information)

Opposition research is totally legal...but it's not exactly same thing as other forms of intelligence.

We still don't know how much the FISA judges were told about the dossier information used to obtain the warrant. 

The Democrat's memo published the footnote from the FISA warrant relating to the information from Steele:

"was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1 's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long­standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

You'll note that all references to US persons have been masked, which seems to be common practice in a FISA application.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Either way, it would appear that he hasn't been telling the whole truth to Congress.
 

The Democrat's memo published the footnote from the FISA warrant relating to the information from Steele:

"was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1 's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long­standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

You'll note that all references to US persons have been masked, which seems to be common practice in a FISA application.

Also, Nunes himself admitted that it was in the footnotes, live on Fox News. He went on to claim that because it was in the footnotes that it doesn't count.

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

I'm not sure why so many people are finding it so hard to accept this fact. I've posted it numerous times.

Edited February 25, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[Farmer77]

 

10 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

While trying to argue otherwise, the Democratic rebuttal actually confirms the key contention in the Republican memo that the FBI and DOJ failed to inform the FISA court that Steele’s dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via the Perkins Coie law firm.

Jesus the desperation from Trump supporters is becoming palpable.  

The "key contention" in the Nunes memo was that the court wasn't told of the political nature of the dossier's benefactors. The democrat memo specifically says the court was advised of the political nature of the dossier's benefactors. 

It doesn't need to mention Hillary's name. This argument is akin to  "depends on the meaning of is" 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Farmer77

[Space Commander Travis]

So has it now devolved to "our memo is better than your memo! Your memo is lies, ours is the Truth!" ? 

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

So has it now devolved to "our memo is better than your memo! Your memo is lies, ours is the Truth!" ? 

Not really. In no other arena of life would the accused just saying the investigation was biased carry any weight with 99% of our society, least of all the with members of the "law and order" party.

The devolution clearly happened long before either memo was released. 

[Space Commander Travis]

 Are you saying that your memo is the truth and the Republican's memo is lies? Is that basically what it comes down to, to save a lot of time bothering to look through the last few poges of this thread?

[Farmer77]

11 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

So has it now devolved to "our memo is better than your memo! Your memo is lies, ours is the Truth!" ? 

Hell as evidenced by Preacherman's post the argument isn't even over the memos itself anymore. They're now arguing nuances like telling the court the dossier's financer was politically motivated wasn't enough, as if mentioning she who shall not be named is somehow a magic bullet that would have stopped the courts from issuing the FISA. 

Its really becoming quite comical at this point. 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

 Are you saying that your memo is the truth and the Republican's memo is lies? Is that basically what it comes down to, to save a lot of time bothering to look through the last few poges of this thread?

I'm saying its even simpler than that.

The republican memo isn't lies its simply a beautifully crafted document which uses partial facts to create innuendo. 

The remaining facts which were shown in the democrat memo dispel the innuendo. 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

Oh right yes, obviously, the "Democrat" memo contains Facts, which dispel lies, as nearly everything the "Democratic" Party does does. And since you're not biased at all towards the Democrats, as you so rightly keep pointing out   , we can trust and rely on it utterly.

[ExpandMyMind]

49 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

 to save a lot of time bothering to look through the last few poges of this thread?

Why start staying up to date on the subject now? You obviously have no interest in the finer points.

In fact, basically all you've been doing for the past year is trolling. 

[ExpandMyMind]

10 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Oh right yes, obviously, the "Democrat" memo contains Facts, which dispel lies, as nearly everything the "Democratic" Party does does. And since you're not biased at all towards the Democrats, as you so rightly keep pointing out   , we can trust and rely on it utterly.

I'm guessing you have read both memos then? No? Didn't think so. 

[Farmer77]

12 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Oh right yes, obviously, the "Democrat" memo contains Facts, which dispel lies, as nearly everything the "Democratic" Party does does. And since you're not biased at all towards the Democrats, as you so rightly keep pointing out   , we can trust and rely on it utterly.

Man you're just phoning it in at this point. I specifically said the republican memo didn't contain any lies. 

Read the memos for yourself and then let me know what you think. 

[Lilly]

I don't care all that much about either of the memos, it's the source information that's important. In the final analysis, it's all going to come down to what one can prove in a court of law. Did Donald Trump criminally collude with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election, or not. Evidence will have to be presented, actual verifiable, definitive, solid evidence not opposition research, rumor, innuendo, speculation, subjective feelings. 

 

 

[Tiggs]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I don't care all that much about either of the memos, it's the source information that's important. In the final analysis, it's all going to come down to what one can prove in a court of law.

Certainly will.
 

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Did Donald Trump criminally collude with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election, or not.

That's still the big unanswered question.
 

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

 Evidence will have to be presented, actual verifiable, definitive, solid evidence not opposition research, rumor, innuendo, speculation, subjective feelings. 

Pretty sure Mueller will only recommend prosecution if he believes he has compelling evidence to do so.

[Lilly]

In the United States one has to have actual evidence in order to successfully prosecute. Unless Mueller is sitting on something we're not currently aware of I'm inclined to say this won't happen. I could be wrong and there could be a veritable 'boat load' of evidence...but I would suggest everyone consider the remarks of Agent Strzok: "There's no big there, there". 

[preacherman76]

11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Jesus the desperation from Trump supporters is becoming palpable.  

The "key contention" in the Nunes memo was that the court wasn't told of the political nature of the dossier's benefactors. The democrat memo specifically says the court was advised of the political nature of the dossier's benefactors. 

It doesn't need to mention Hillary's name. This argument is akin to  "depends on the meaning of is" 

Or her campaign, or the DNC lol. 

BTW no one on Trumps side of this is feeling desperate in the least bit. It’s more then obvious they have nothing on him at this point. Heck it doesn’t even look like they are gonna even be able to hold on to Flynn’s guilty plea. 

The only question now is will the public see justice for the weaponization of the intelligence community. 

[RoofGardener]

17 minutes ago, Lilly said:

In the United States one has to have actual evidence in order to successfully prosecute.....

Yeah... MOST inconvenient that !

[Merc14]

21 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Or her campaign, or the DNC lol. 

BTW no one on Trumps side of this is feeling desperate in the least bit. It’s more then obvious they have nothing on him at this point. Heck it doesn’t even look like they are gonna even be able to hold on to Flynn’s guilty plea. 

The only question now is will the public see justice for the weaponization of the intelligence community. 

LOL.  Very telling that he doesn't recognize just how desperate one has to be to still hold onto the dream of Trump collusion. 

[Space Commander Travis]

8 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

In fact, basically all you've been doing for the past year is trolling. 

All you've been doing for the last year is clinging desperately to a discredited conspiracy in order to see an elected President overthrown.  

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Certainly will.
 

That's still the big unanswered question.
 

Pretty sure Mueller will only recommend prosecution if he believes he has compelling evidence to do so.

Rather suggests a handy get-out clause doesn't it. He'll talk about strong grounds for suspicion no doubt, and say vague things about shadowy Russians ,  but say something about "But in the end we do not have sufficient compelling evidence to implicate President Trump". Thereby justifying all the time and expense, and allowing his followers to nod knowingly and say "See, we knew there was grounds for suspicion."  

[Tiggs]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

In the United States one has to have actual evidence in order to successfully prosecute.

No kidding.
 

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Unless Mueller is sitting on something we're not currently aware of I'm inclined to say this won't happen.

On the basis that Mueller keeps rolling out indictments that no-one has a clue about prior, I suspect what's in the public domain currently is just the tip of the iceberg.
 

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I could be wrong and there could be a veritable 'boat load' of evidence...but I would suggest everyone consider the remarks of Agent Strzok: "There's no big there, there". 

So Strzok doesn't have a super-secret insurance policy, guaranteed to bring down the Trump administration? Shocker.

May also want to note that Strzok said that before seeing what evidence Mueller actually has.