Russia probes kick into high gear

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I don't know about that. Steve Bannon's new book is the latest "smoking gun". He said that Trump's son is "treasonous" and "unpatriotic". It's the latest hook on which the Never-Trumpers will hang their impeach hat.

Speaking to the author, Mr Wolff, Mr Bannon said of the investigation into whether there was any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign: "They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV."  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42560520

Trump's response is pretty harsh too: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/president-donald-trump-steve-bannon/index.html

He pretty much said that Bannon was the source of the leaks in his tweet.

[Paranormal Panther]

5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Speaking to the author, Mr Wolff, Mr Bannon said of the investigation into whether there was any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign: "They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV."  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42560520

Trump's response is pretty harsh too: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/president-donald-trump-steve-bannon/index.html

He pretty much said that Bannon was the source of the leaks in his tweet.

This is just the latest "smoking gun" that likely will shoot blanks. It will be something else after this. It would be funny if the Never-Trumpers saw Steve Bannon as their Great White Hope to impeach and remove Trump. The irony is delicious.

[Gromdor]

6 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

This is just the latest "smoking gun" that likely will shoot blanks. It will be something else after this. It would be funny if the Never-Trumpers saw Steve Bannon as their Great White Hope to impeach and remove Trump. The irony is delicious.

  Nah, it's no smoking gun.  It is an insider from team Trump's opinion though.  That has more weight for me than opinions on a forum to be truthful.  You and I can think what we want, but at the end of the day all of our facts come from second hand sources.  Bannon was there and on the same team.

[Paranormal Panther]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

  Nah, it's no smoking gun.  It is an insider from team Trump's opinion though.  That has more weight for me than opinions on a forum to be truthful.  You and I can think what we want, but at the end of the day all of our facts come from second hand sources.  Bannon was there and on the same team.

You don't see it as a smoking gun. Other people likely will. Accusations and allegations will remain par for the course, and the mainstream news outlets will highlight them enough to make them sound like holy writ. Their mission won't end.

[Tiggs]

35 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

Yes. The simile was indeed obvious. The context was explained by who, exactly? Was it "sources familiar with the matter"? Wait, just checked, according to your WSJ link "people familiar with his account". Wow. Color me convinced. Just as convinced as I am when Trump says "Collusion? No collusion. Democrats colluded. I did no big beautiful collusion."

So the explanation is a paraphrase, of hearsay, from an anonymous source, who is quote, enquote "familiar" with Strzok's account. Not even Strzok, personally, possibly. Just his account.

Strzok's in the middle of an IG investigation. Chances of getting anyone to make a non-anonymous statement about it is probably zero.

If that's not his explanation, then I'm fairly sure the House Intel Committee will be screaming it from the rooftops in the next couple of weeks.
 

35 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

Why would they deny it? I'm sure Papa-longGreekname did indeed take part in an incident much like the one described. The difference comes from the NYT (who some months ago were writing a quite different explanation of what triggered the investigation) declaring this the major determining factor in the investigation being opened. Which is the point. I think we can rest easy about the salient fact - Papa-Ishouldlearnhowtospellit got drunk and talked - but the degree to which that was the determining factor - the NYT was pushing a much different story before then, after all

The NYT had previously reported that Page's Moscow speech was a catalyst. Catalyst's aren't triggers. They just speed things along.
 

35 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

Which comes to the salient point - is the alternative narrative true? Would the investigation have happened? Was the questionable dossier used? Was it just vetted information from the dossier? Why did Comey describe it as "unverified" if that was the case? So on and so forth.

There's a legal term of art that comes to mind as regards this issue which I'm sure you're aware of - fruit of the poisonous tree.

We have testimony under oath that the investigation into Russia's attempts to tamper with the election certainly didn't rely on it.

I have no reason to believe that intel regarding Page's Moscow speech -- being public, and all -- wasn't available to them by any other source. Nor that they were incapable of reading the various media reports regarding Manafort that led to his dismissal from the campaign.

Given that both Page and Manafort had been previously been subjects of FISA requests -- not exactly a stretch to think that this would be the avenue the FBI would take to monitor them again. 
 

35 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

So someone is deciding to drip feed information in order to manipulate the public consciousness? Who? Seems as if we all engage in a little conspiratorial thinking occasionally.

My tinfoil fedora is pretty much a permanent fixture.

As to who -- absolutely no idea.

[Tiggs]

36 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I don't know about that. Steve Bannon's new book is the latest "smoking gun". He said that Trump's son is "treasonous" and "unpatriotic". It's the latest hook on which the Never-Trumpers will hang their impeach hat.

Bannon's opinion isn't a smoking gun. Embarrassing, perhaps, but certainly nothing that'll stand up in a court of law.

I haven't heard about anything new, evidence-wise, re: Russia in the book.

[Paranormal Panther]

Just now, Tiggs said:

Bannon's opinion isn't a smoking gun. Embarrassing, perhaps, but certainly nothing that'll stand up in a court of law.

I haven't heard about anything new, evidence-wise, re: Russia in the book.

He said that Trump's son was "treasonous" and "unpatriotic". That's not evidence, but it gives hope to some Trump-haters. It won't stand up in a court of law. It will stand up in the court of Joy Behar.

[Tiggs]

 

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray met with Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday about the House Russia investigation, a GOP aide confirmed.

Rosenstein, escorted by his security detail, walked by a number of reporters who were staking out budget negotiations between top White House officials and top congressional leaders.

Source: TheHill.com

 

 

[Lilly]

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Then maybe you can name the statute that says that the FBI can't use information paid for by a political party in their investigations.

There's nothing in the article you've linked that seems to be applicable.

There are strict restrictions on exactly what can be used to obtain a FISA warrant. And, that article goes into all of it quite well.

This for example (from the article I linked to):

Quote

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” Now that sounds broad, but is in fact very limited under the law. The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

The uncorroborated "dirty dossier" is unlikely to have fulfilled those requirements.

 

[Tiggs]

23 minutes ago, Lilly said:

There are strict restrictions on exactly what can be used to obtain a FISA warrant. And, that article goes into all of it quite well.

This for example (from the article I linked to):

The uncorroborated "dirty dossier" is unlikely to have fulfilled those requirements.

Those are the rules for what a FISA warrant can be used for, not how they're obtained.

[Lilly]

The point is that the rules for obtaining a FISA warrant may very well have been violated. Also, using uncorrobated material as a reason for seeking a FISA warrant may be illegal as well. If this is what actually did happen I suspect it will eventually come into the courts. 

[+and-then]

On 1/2/2018 at 2:29 PM, bee said:

it could have come direct from rogue agents
in the CIA, NSA or FBI -- I don't suppose the likes of that guy Peter Strzok would have had any qualms about leaking
info from the meeting that was listened to and recorded ---

THIS is the most troubling aspect of what's being done to this president.  The idea that intel services could work against a sitting president and do so in an unmistakable manner is a very startling development.  I've never heard of any such thing before, certainly not in such a manner as these have done.  It's destroying the confidence of voters with an IQ above room temperature.

[Lilly]

If you flip the script would the Democrats have been pleased if the Bush Administration had done something like this to in coming President Obama? How about getting a FISA warrant on Obama due to that utter nonsense about his birth certificate? Yeah, it would be wrong...and it’s wrong no matter who is doing it. 

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Tiggs said:

multiple intelligence agencies are necessarily complicit in a conspiracy, if their narrative is correct.

Not necessarily.  It could be (and probably is) the case that some of the members of some of those agencies used classified access to work against this president by cherry-picking transcripts and recordings to create an essentially false narrative.  There is no doubt at all that classified material was leaked to reporters and that material could ONLY have been leaked by highly placed insiders with "secret" or higher clearances.  

[Gromdor]

56 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The point is that the rules for obtaining a FISA warrant may very well have been violated. Also, using uncorrobated material as a reason for seeking a FISA warrant may be illegal as well. If this is what actually did happen I suspect it will eventually come into the courts. 

You are basing that on the assumption that the dossier was the only reason why they got FISA warrant. 

[Lilly]

10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You are basing that on the assumption that the dossier was the only reason why they got FISA warrant. 

Uh...did you miss where I said,  "If this is what actually did happen ". I don't know if this happened or not.

Congress has been calling for documents about the dossier to be declassified for some time now. See here: http://orlando-politics.com/2017/11/07/34457/

[Tiggs]

4 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The point is that the rules for obtaining a FISA warrant may very well have been violated. 

As far as I know -- only way they could be violated is if they knowingly lied to obtain one.
 

5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Also, using uncorrobated material as a reason for seeking a FISA warrant may be illegal as well.

I doubt it's illegal. I also doubt that a court would accept uncorroborated evidence.

 

[.ZZ.]

What difference a few months make.

FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation

Quote

Washington (CNN)The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

Source CNN

[Tiggs]

2 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

What difference a few months make.

FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation

Source CNN

CNN? Anonymous officials? Fake news, surely

From the link:

Officials familiar with the process say even if the application to monitor Page included information from the dossier, it would only be after the FBI had corroborated the information through its own investigation. The officials would not say what or how much was corroborated.

[.ZZ.]

15 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

CNN? Anonymous officials? Fake news, surely

From the link:

Officials familiar with the process say even if the application to monitor Page included information from the dossier, it would only be after the FBI had corroborated the information through its own investigation. The officials would not say what or how much was corroborated.

The thing is Anderson Cooper denied that CNN even said that.

[Lilly]

I just saw on TV that documents (not sure if it is all though) will be released to Congress tomorrow.

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Conspiracy.  And yes, whatever "% of our nation" it is that refuses to see the (criminal) sham that the Mueller investigation is, and the peril that Team Hillary has put itself in, will need plenty of translating (and therapy) as the truth continues to come out.  Just like when their "universe" got so badly rocked by the election results.

What exactly about the investigation is a "criminal sham"? 

Is it that they found evidence an investigator may be biased and removed him from the election?  Or do you honestly believe that only republicans should investigate republicans?  Is there something I'm missing? 

I just cant wrap my brain around where folks have gotten such certainty that the investigation is biased. Well I can , I mean the WH media has been baselessly screaming it for weeks now but when I look at the things they're railing about there just isn't any there there. 

 

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, and then said:

THIS is the most troubling aspect of what's being done to this president.  The idea that intel services could work against a sitting president and do so in an unmistakable manner is a very startling development.  I've never heard of any such thing before, certainly not in such a manner as these have done.  It's destroying the confidence of voters with an IQ above room temperature.

Why not just apply Occam's razor here?

Whats more likely?  

After multiple decades and thousands of men and women risking their lives in the intelligence services to protect and uphold this nation hundreds of individuals from not only the US intelligence services but also those from other nations such as France and Australia decided to conspire and crap on the constitution and the will of the American people. 

-or-

A famous conman who just settled a lawsuit for intentionally targeting the elderly and financially vulnerable in a scam surrounded himself with people who had interactions with a foreign nation that might not have been above board? 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Farmer77

[Tiggs]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I just saw on TV that documents (not sure if it is all though) will be released to Congress tomorrow.

"Over the coming days", according to Nunes.

Source: The Hill.

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

"Over the coming days", according to Nunes.

Source: The Hill.

Do you have any insight as to why the delay in providing the requested info? Is it just the result of a genitalia measuring contest or is something more there?