Russia probes kick into high gear

[+DieChecker]

7 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I'd find it extremely odd NOT to ask around before deciding whether this man should continue in his job.   Trump NOT firing Comey one minute after being sworn in was a huge mistake as he was Comey was obviously corrupt and out of control.  

Here is what I remember, which now is stated as Trump's "confession" of the real reason he fired Comey...

Quote

Comey had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Trump advisers and Russian officials when he was dismissed by the president. Defending that decision in an interview on NBC News on Thursday, Trump said: “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”

Sounds to me like he had decided to do it, and then was rationalizing to himself that it wouldn't affect the Russia thing, because he believed it was a made up attack. Why would he have to worry about obstructing something that was entirely made up? 

At least that is how I read that quote. Comey would then have been a tool of the Democrats in multiple ways, and thus needed to be gotten rid of. 

To use the FBI "Clinton" standard... I'd suggest Trump was simply being politically naive and not "willfully", or "intentionally", firing Comey due to the Russian investigation.

[ian hacktorp]

As Mueller circles his prey, drawing ever closer to the Trump inner circle...hey wait...what?

Senators Refer "Trump Dossier" Author To DOJ For Criminal Investigation

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-05/senators-refer-trump-dossier-author-doj-criminal-investigation

Quote

Now, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC)  say they've uncovered what they believe is sufficient evidence to refer the author of the dossier, ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele, to the Justice Department for an investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for false statements about the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.

 

[Tiggs]

40 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

As Mueller circles his prey, drawing ever closer to the Trump inner circle...hey wait...what?

Senators Refer "Trump Dossier" Author To DOJ For Criminal Investigation

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-05/senators-refer-trump-dossier-author-doj-criminal-investigation

You can refer a ham sandwich to the DOJ for criminal investigation. Doesn't mean they will.

[Tiggs]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Personally I don't see a problem with an Employer asking around if anyone else has a problem with a "problem' employee before firing them. Seems logical actually. Find everyone that has a reason for them to be fired, so that the firing is that much stronger, and harder to challenge.

That they were maybe fishing for reasons could be telling, but I believe they were already going to fire him anyway at that point.

The part where they wanted to then leak that information to the press daily doesn't bother you?

[Tiggs]

4 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

In a strictly scientific description, sure. But in more general usage, not as much. To illustrate that, I'll provide a quote from the former NYT piece:

Interestingly, in this piece, guess who is never mentioned? George Papadop. Clearly they didn't know about him yet. Which begs the question, why should I trust what the NYT says about the genesis of the investigation? First it's Carter Page, then it's George, I'm sure there's been other "catalysts" (common usage, not scientific usage) that they've mentioned in between then.

Well, the NYT only knows what they're told. If the FBI were keeping Papadopoulos quiet -- then it's probably because he was wearing a wire for them at the time.
 

4 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

Do we? I trust that it's out there if you say so. You are reliably more informed on this whole thing than I am.

From Clapper's testimony to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee: 

GRAHAM: OK, that makes perfect sense to me. Follow up on that, are you familiar with a dossier about Mr. Trump compiled with some guy in England?

CLAPPER: I am.

GRAHAM: Did you find that to be a credible report?

CLAPPER: Well, we didn't make a judgment on that. And that's — that's one reason why we did not include it in the body of our intelligence community assessment.

GRAHAM: You didn't find it credible enough to be included?

CLAPPER: We couldn't corroborate the sourcing, particularly the second -- third-order sources.

 

4 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

Good point. Was Page previously a subject though? I thought he blundered into some other investigation and got recorded. As well as got called an idiot by the Russians.

Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to during President Trump's campaign, has been the subject of a foreign surveillance warrant since 2014.

Source: Washington Examiner (Also: CNN)
 

4 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

You've never struck me as the fedora type.

Only when it comes to tinfoil.
 

[Tiggs]

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whom President Trump has blamed for influencing the decision not to criminally charge Hillary Clinton for her use of private email server, did not oversee that inquiry while his wife was running for state office in Virginia as a Democrat, according to bureau records released Friday.

Source: USA Today

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, Why not said:

They and others still consider the Dossier reliable.

They consider those investigating the dossier reliable : US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

 

4 hours ago, Why not said:

My guess is that by this time next week, the book will not be all they would LOVE it to be, and the MSM will return with a frenzy to the Trump belongs in a straight jacket narrative.  That seems to be their next hammering point, and you can bet they are going to hammer $ hit out of it.

Oh that's still happening now, heck a yale psychologist just briefed several lawmakers on the concerns. Noone is talking about a straightjacket though. Dementia? Yeah that is a very real concern the dude has some very serious indicators which point towards cognitive decline. 

[ian hacktorp]

51 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

You can refer a ham sandwich to the DOJ for criminal investigation. Doesn't mean they will.

In this case, we're talking about a twisted 9-foot hoagie with rancid meat, fetid cheese, and plenty of spoiled, boiled cabbage.

They're gonna want to investigate and prosecute THAT...take it to the bank.

[Doc Socks Junior]

19 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Well, the NYT only knows what they're told. If the FBI were keeping Papadopoulos quiet -- then it's probably because he was wearing a wire for them at the time.
 

As far as the first sentence goes, correct. That's the point. Didn't stop the NYT from pronouncing that Page was the (non-chemical) catalyst for the investigation. Now the NYT is pronouncing that George Papadop was the (non-chemical) way the investigation began. Next thing we know, they'll confidently pronounce that it was actually Igor McRussianstein, a previously unmentioned Trump advisor, who really kicked off (non-chemically) the investigation.

Point being: why should I take the latest NYT pronouncement any more seriously than the first one? Sure, they're ostensibly working from more information, but they're not exactly batting 1.000.

19 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

From Clapper's testimony to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee: 

GRAHAM: OK, that makes perfect sense to me. Follow up on that, are you familiar with a dossier about Mr. Trump compiled with some guy in England?

CLAPPER: I am.

GRAHAM: Did you find that to be a credible report?

CLAPPER: Well, we didn't make a judgment on that. And that's — that's one reason why we did not include it in the body of our intelligence community assessment.

GRAHAM: You didn't find it credible enough to be included?

CLAPPER: We couldn't corroborate the sourcing, particularly the second -- third-order sources.

This being the ICA that Clapper is referring to.  There is some testimony from Clapper prior to this that is more germane to the issue at hand - the FBI investigation.

Quote

CLAPPER: During my tenure as DNI, it was my practice to defer to the FBI director, both Director Mueller and then subsequently Director Comey, on whether, when and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations. This stems from the unique position of the FBI, which straddles both intelligence and law enforcement. And as a consequence, I was not aware of the counterintelligence investigation Director Comey first referred to during his testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence on the 20th of March, and that comports with my public statements.

Additionally:

Quote

GRAHAM: Without objection. General Clapper, on March 5, 2017, you said the following to a question. Here's the question.

Does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials? You said we did not include any evidence in our report.

And I say our, that's the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.

Chuck Todd (ph) then asked, I understand that, but does it exist? You say no, not to my knowledge. Is that still accurate?

CLAPPER: It is.

Very interesting transcript in general. Thanks.

19 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to during President Trump's campaign, has been the subject of a foreign surveillance warrant since 2014.

Source: Washington Examiner (Also: CNN)

Only when it comes to tinfoil.
 

So he was! Curiouser and curiouser.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Btw, not to worry...weed and LBGT aren't going anywhere.

You're correct the regressives wont win but I do believe they will do everything they can to incite class/race warfare and entrench their base as the investigation draws closer. 

4 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Also, this business of Mueller drawing "ever closer" to Trump is really just pablum for Hillbots starving for any morsel of good news they can scrounge.  He isn't. 

Do you have any facts to back up this assertion? See I can say based on historical knowledge that it sure appears that Mueller is approaching this like a RICO case and working his way from the bottom up. 

Why are you so certain this isn't true? Please share any data which supports your position, data, not emotion. 

 

 

 

[Tiggs]

5 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

In this case, we're talking about a twisted 9-foot hoagie with rancid meat, fetid cheese, and plenty of spoiled, boiled cabbage.

They're gonna want to investigate and prosecute THAT...take it to the bank.

From the letter:

The referral is for further investigation only, and is not intended to be an allegation of a crime.

Fact is that Steele hasn't given evidence to any congressional committee. They're literally referring the DOJ to look at evidence the FBI already has.

If they were in any way serious about it, then they wouldn't be publicising it and tipping off Steele in advance.

That they made the decision to do it without consulting the Democrats on the committee, or even managing to get any other Republicans to sign on to the letter shows that it's political theatre.

[ian hacktorp]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Do you have any facts to back up this assertion? See I can say based on historical knowledge that it sure appears that Mueller is approaching this like a RICO case and working his way from the bottom up.

I have access to the same facts you do...I interpret their meaning differently than you is all.

RICO is certainly at play here, we seem to agree on that.  But ask yourself this: are legitimate RICO charges more likely for Trump, who has been a politician for all of about 18 months, or are they more likely for the Clinton cabal who have operated under the wicked stench of corruption for the better part of 40 years?  40 years of evading justice does NOT equal innocence...as many would like to believe.

[ian hacktorp]

6 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

If they were in any way serious about it, then they wouldn't be publicising it and tipping off Steele in advance.

I don't think Steele can do much at this point whether he's tipped off or not.  His goose is in the oven, regardless.

When they ask him who commissioned and paid for the dossier, Steele will either tell the truth, or bite his cyanide capsule.

Edited January 5, 2018 by hacktorp

[Farmer77]

Just now, hacktorp said:

But ask yourself this: are legitimate RICO charges more likely for Trump, who has been a politician for all of about 18 months, or are they more likely for the Clinton cabal who have operated under the wicked stench of corruption for the better part of 40 years?  40 years of evading justice does NOT equal innocence...as many would like to believe.

Why on earth would I ask myself that? What Clinton has done has no effect on what Trump has done. They're quite clearly both corrupt individuals. Both of their actions should be investigated.  This tribal mindset that says right and wrong are wholly relative to the party performing the act is going to destroy our country. 

As for Trump not being a politician, RICO was developed for busting organized crime not politicians. 

[Tiggs]

16 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

As far as the first sentence goes, correct. That's the point. Didn't stop the NYT from pronouncing that Page was the (non-chemical) catalyst for the investigation. Now the NYT is pronouncing that George Papadop was the (non-chemical) way the investigation began. Next thing we know, they'll confidently pronounce that it was actually Igor McRussianstein, a previously unmentioned Trump advisor, who really kicked off (non-chemically) the investigation.

Point being: why should I take the latest NYT pronouncement any more seriously than the first one? Sure, they're ostensibly working from more information, but they're not exactly batting 1.000.

No-one ever is, when dealing with IC sources.

While Igor McRussianstein may turn up at some point, Steele dossier is in the public domain. If it was the trigger, there's no reason we wouldn't know that by now.

[Tiggs]

13 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I don't think Steele can do much at this point whether he's tipped off or not.

Best of luck with questioning and extraditing an ex-MI6 Officer that doesn't want to be questioned or extradited.
 

13 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

His goose is in the oven, regardless.

On what basis? We have no idea what the alleged contradiction was, in what timeframe it was made, or even whether Steele was under oath when he said whatever they're claiming he said.
 

13 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

When they ask him who commissioned and paid for the dossier, Steele will either tell the truth, or bite his cyanide capsule.

Highly unlikely, given that's not under dispute, or even close to what the issue is. 

Apparently, Grassley and Graham have gone full nuclear "Lock him up" over which newspaper sources Steele said he spoke to.

[ian hacktorp]

14 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Why on earth would I ask myself that?

Because either Trump or the Clinton crew are going down...it's one or the other, not both.  You should be able to at least see THAT much.

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Here is what I remember, which now is stated as Trump's "confession" of the real reason he fired Comey...

Sounds to me like he had decided to do it, and then was rationalizing to himself that it wouldn't affect the Russia thing, because he believed it was a made up attack. Why would he have to worry about obstructing something that was entirely made up? 

At least that is how I read that quote. Comey would then have been a tool of the Democrats in multiple ways, and thus needed to be gotten rid of. 

To use the FBI "Clinton" standard... I'd suggest Trump was simply being politically naive and not "willfully", or "intentionally", firing Comey due to the Russian investigation.

The collusion thing is a made up story, no matter how much people on the left want t to be true.  Mueller isn't even investigating it any longer because it is a dead end, which explains why he is going down all these completely unrelated paths and prosecuting people for completely unrelated crimes.  .  If you want collusion then look no further than the democrats who are neck deep in it.

Comey should have been fired for his behavior in the Clinton email case and his hiding of evidence.  He should have been fired for deciding whether to prosecute her or not, it wasn't his job. He should have been fired for all the ridiculous plea deals he made and for accepting that trash dossier as evidence.   When he was finally fired it was too late and know we have this never ending investigation.  

[Paranormal Panther]

19 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

That was one of the great mysteries of the 2016 election. Any other year and pictures of presidential candidates spending time with a known pedophile AND records of them going to his private island would have ended their campaigns. 

Neither side of the media wanted to hit the other guy with it because they knew their guy was guilty of the same. Disgusting

You hit the nail on the head. Both the Bloods and the Crips had their boys in the mix, so they couldn't even snitch on members of the other gang. There were exceptions to the rule, but the whole thing was avoided by most MSM. Epstein got less heat that a college boy who got busted with a high school girl who was six months under "legal".

[F3SS]

Comey should’ve given Trump the honor of exoneration before investigation. He did it for Clinton.

Quote

“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation.  The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy,” the senators wrote in a letter today to the FBI. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/transcripts-comey-drafted-conclusion-clinton-probe-prior-interviewing-key

 

[Tiggs]

7 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Comey should’ve given Trump the honor of exoneration before investigation. He did it for Clinton.

Vast majority of the emails had already been analysed by that point, and they contained no cause for charges that any reasonable prosecutor would bring.

Once it's clear that there's no hard evidence to warrant a criminal charge -- everything after that point is just making sure they haven't missed anything.

I'm sure if Mueller reaches that point in the Trump investigation -- he'd start drafting the Trump exoneration letter, too -- even if there were some loose ends left to tie up, such as interviews with the President and his family.

[Merc14]

9 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Vast majority of the emails had already been analysed by that point, and they contained no cause for charges that any reasonable prosecutor would bring.

It was quite clear that she violated the law in several ways, he simply chose to ignore her obvious felony and move on.

Quote

Once it's clear that there's no hard evidence to warrant a criminal charge -- everything after that point is just making sure they haven't missed anything.

She had classified emails stored on several  on several unsecured devices.  That is a crime and no,intent is not nnecessary

Quote

I'm sure if Mueller reaches that point in the Trump investigation -- he'd start drafting the Trump exoneration letter, too -- even if there were some loose ends left to tie up, such as interviews with the President and his family.

No, he'll never issue any such letter, he'd simply not prosecute Trump because no crime was committed.   It will not end until after the election anyways IMHO

Edited January 6, 2018 by Merc14

[+and-then]

On 1/4/2018 at 1:53 AM, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Meanwhile ..

A portion of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s New York estate went up in flames Wednesday begging the question: What exactly got destroyed?

CHAPPAQUA, NY (INTELLIHUB) — A portion of the Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Westchester County estate caught fire Wednesday afternoon, according to intercepted Chappaqua Fire Department communications and one local report. 

https://www.intellihub.com/bill-and-hillary-clintons-chappaqua-estate-burns-in-flames/

Nothing of note here... just some old files and discarded papers... move along 

[Farmer77]

2 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Because either Trump or the Clinton crew are going down...it's one or the other, not both.  You should be able to at least see THAT much.

I sure hope that's not the case. If that's the case, if this is truly just political vengeance, I don't want either to be investigated or prosecuted. That would truly be the death knell for our nation.  

But why do you say that's the case? Do you have no hope that our justice system can do anything right? Do you believe our "nation of laws" has expired? Do you believe that the laws are irrelevant? 

 

[Tiggs]

26 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

It was quite clear that she violated the law in several ways, he simply chose to ignore her obvious felony and move on.

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case to trial, because they'd fail to win a conviction, based on the available evidence.
 

26 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

She had classified emails stored on several  on several unsecured devices.  That is a crime and no,intent is not nnecessary

Deliberate storage is.

If someone sent you a classified email -- would you be committing a crime the moment it arrived in your inbox?

The crime is sending classified information over an insecure channel. Not receiving them. Especially if there are no classified markers in the header, to denote them as such.
 

26 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

No, he'll never issue any such letter, he'd simply not prosecute Trump because no crime was committed.   It will not end until after the election anyways IMHO

Trump seems to think otherwise. Mueller also has to produce a report at the end of his investigation.