Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Feb 2018, 6:47 am

rickyp wrote:The FISA warrant on Page that Nunes wrote his Memo about was the 4th warrant that they applied for to surveillance Page.
Four different judges had to hear what they submitted and all granted warrants.
Since a FISA warrant is only good for 90 days, the agency had to apply and show progress made in the 90 days previous, which they also had to do the the instance that Nunes is complaining about...
Thee were plenty of other sources other than Steele anyway. Which is admitted in Nunes memo.

Nunes is an idiot. Anyone who takes this seriously, isn't reading ...
So probabiy what 2/3 of America?


Calling the majority of Americans idiots while concurrently mangling the English language has been noted.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Feb 2018, 6:50 am

Fate:
Either Trump is innocent or he's not. I win either way.

FISA is the issue.


I think they are both issues. The FBI was pulling in one direction and the President is very possibly guilty of obstruction of justice. How small is my group of Americans that is worried about both of these things?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Feb 2018, 9:03 am

Ray Jay wrote:Fate:
Either Trump is innocent or he's not. I win either way.

FISA is the issue.


I think they are both issues. The FBI was pulling in one direction and the President is very possibly guilty of obstruction of justice. How small is my group of Americans that is worried about both of these things?

I think they are both valid concerns. And whether DF "wins" or not, the real question is what happens if Trump is not innocent but his supporters and enablers let him get away with it, and to tarnish law enforcement at the same time?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Feb 2018, 10:51 am

danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Fate:
Either Trump is innocent or he's not. I win either way.

FISA is the issue.


I think they are both issues. The FBI was pulling in one direction and the President is very possibly guilty of obstruction of justice. How small is my group of Americans that is worried about both of these things?

I think they are both valid concerns. And whether DF "wins" or not, the real question is what happens if Trump is not innocent but his supporters and enablers let him get away with it, and to tarnish law enforcement at the same time?


Perhaps Trump is tarnishing law enforcement, but some of it seems self inflicted to me.

We also have to ask of what he is guilty. Tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, collusion, and the degree of each. These are all different things and need to be weighed separately. We get back to the question of whether Nixon should have been impeached (yes, IMO) and whether Clinton should have been impeached (no, IMO).
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Feb 2018, 11:12 am

I just wonder (with regard to the FBI situation) whether any human institution can withstand a searching scrutiny. Maybe ignorance is bliss when it comes to democratic institutions; they are always going to be significantly flawed. We have a president that is dedicated at magnifying the flaws in our institutions in order to further his interests and save his own skin. And that we have not seen before.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Feb 2018, 12:54 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Perhaps Trump is tarnishing law enforcement, but some of it seems self inflicted to me.


I know you are merely responding, but this charge is filling liberal media. It's trash. I know more cops than everyone else here put together and then squared. They don't all love Trump, but they all love that he loves law enforcement.

He's not attacking "all" FBI agents any more than an attack on Trump is an attack on all Republicans.

I think it is highly likely this group who had an animus toward Trump self-selected. Task forces, or similar groups, tend to be stacked with people who know and like each other. Sorry, that's reality. And, this group seems to have had some pronounced political proclivities, which appear to have influenced their actions.

We also have to ask of what he is guilty. Tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, collusion, and the degree of each. These are all different things and need to be weighed separately. We get back to the question of whether Nixon should have been impeached (yes, IMO) and whether Clinton should have been impeached (no, IMO).


I have no love for Trump. Never have, never will.

However, what has been lacking, in terms of prosecution, is actual evidence. Maybe Mueller has it in spades. If so, his is the best group in terms of being leak-proof that we've seen in recent memory.

Democrats and the liberal media have gone insane. The WaPo, celebrated for its "leaking" over the past 5 decades, didn't want the Nunes memo to come out. Why not? The more info, the better, right? What happened to "Democracy dies in darkness?"

Let's have some sunlight!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Feb 2018, 12:56 pm

freeman3 wrote:I just wonder (with regard to the FBI situation) whether any human institution can withstand a searching scrutiny. Maybe ignorance is bliss when it comes to democratic institutions; they are always going to be significantly flawed. We have a president that is dedicated at magnifying the flaws in our institutions in order to further his interests and save his own skin. And that we have not seen before.


He's an idiot.

However, I don't think he's after the FBI, the military, or our "institutions."

He said Obama wiretapped him. On balance, there is more evidence of that than there is of his collusion with Russia.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Feb 2018, 8:59 am

Fate
What were Carter Page's crimes?

He didn't have to be guilty. They were looking for a warrant because they were suspicious of him. You get a warrant to try and determine, with evidence provided by searches and surveillance allowed by the warrant, if the suspicions were warranted.
For Page this suspicious activity started, at least as far back as 2013...

Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page bragged that he was an adviser to the Kremlin in a letter obtained by TIME that raises new questions about the extent of Page’s contacts with the Russian government over the years.
The letter, dated Aug. 25, 2013, was sent by Page to an academic press during a dispute over edits to an unpublished manuscript he had submitted for publication, according to an editor who worked with Page.
“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda,” the letter reads.


Fate
Let's have some sunlight!

Is that what the Nunes memo is?
Or is Wray correct when he says the memo is distorted?
Do you think the Dems memo should be released?

The notion that the Steele dossier was essential to the granting of the warrant is unsupported by anything Nunes presented. He never referenced the Australian intelligence reports, the interceptions of Russian communications regarding page as early as 2013, nor anything else the FBI is supposed to have...
Nunes is doing Trumps bidding, in order to undermine Mueller before he does what what Trump knows is coming ... (You can't hide money laundering forever.)
If Nunes really cared about the Fisa process he would have done something very different a couple of weeks ago in Congress.
President Barack Obama signed off on an extension of the program in 2012 and, only a few weeks ago, the Congress and President Donald Trump -- with the backing of Nunes and the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee -- did the same. It will come up for reauthorization again in six years.
Section 702 is controversial for a number of reasons, but the most prevalent complaint is that it doesn't provide enough safeguards for American citizens whose communications might be incidentally swept by investigators targeting foreigners.
That's why, on January 11, about a week before Section 702 was set to expire, an unusual alliance of Republicans like Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee, liberal Democrats and groups including the ACLU joined together to push a bipartisan amendment, introduced months earlier, to partially reform the program.
At the core of the newly proposed safeguards was a requirement that law enforcement officials be required to obtain a court warrant before digging into anything that might involve Americans' communications. Their effort faced immediate pushback from, among others, Nunes and his colleagues on the intelligence committee, who even published a listicle spelling out the "dangers" of the amendment, which was called The USA RIGHTS Act.
Ultimately, the new restrictions were rejected and Section 702 was passed again, with minor tweaks. (The Senate and Trump would follow suit soon thereafter.) Nunes applauded his chamber's vote, saying in a statement, "The House of Representatives has taken a big step to ensure the continuation of one of the Intelligence Community's most vital tools for tracking foreign terrorists."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics ... index.html

The abuse of power, is this situation, is all Nunes.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Feb 2018, 9:01 am

rayjay
We also have to ask of what he is guilty. Tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, collusion, and the degree of each. These are all different things and need to be weighed separately.

Which offences are, in your judgement, impeachable offences?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Feb 2018, 9:16 am

Fate
Btw, still waiting on "collusion" evidence.

Do you not count Page, Papadoupolous and Flynns repeated contacts with Russians? Especially Flynns willingness to discuss ending Russian sanctions?
Do you not count Trump Juniors willingness to meet with Russian operatives who he was told had dirt on Hillary?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/ ... ll-emails/
Do you not count the change in the republican platform at the GOP convention that affected Russian policy?
Not this? The Trump administration has indicated it will not seek new sanctions against Russia for its meddling in the 2016 US election, a State Department spokesperson said Monday?
Not this?
"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” ?
Not the fact that a large percentage of his campaign team were being paid by Russia, or Putin associates? (Gates, Manafort, Page, Flynn .)
By the way, its evident that Gates has recently made a deal with Mueller. Expect a guilty plea from him shortly.
I agree with you Fate that collusion may not ever be proved conclusively. But the motivation to collude and comply with Putin may be clearer once the money laundering charges are laid on Kushner and the Trump family. I would to bet that Wilbur Ross is netted too.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Feb 2018, 10:32 am

rickyp wrote:rayjay
We also have to ask of what he is guilty. Tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, collusion, and the degree of each. These are all different things and need to be weighed separately.

Which offences are, in your judgement, impeachable offences?

Collusion -- Yes
Money Laundering -- probably
Tax evasion / obstruction of justice -- depends on extent.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Feb 2018, 11:10 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
What were Carter Page's crimes?

He didn't have to be guilty. They were looking for a warrant because they were suspicious of him. You get a warrant to try and determine, with evidence provided by searches and surveillance allowed by the warrant, if the suspicions were warranted.
For Page this suspicious activity started, at least as far back as 2013...


We all know this. Or, maybe we don't:

Our former FBI agent reader writes to take issue with Byron York’s assertion that the FBI wiretapped Carter Page in 2013. He says it’s much worse than that and that this is almost certainly what happened:

Back in 2013 the FBI was listening to its standard, ongoing, FISA coverage of all things Russian. They were NOT investigating or wiretapping Page. The FBI was investigating and wiretapping Russians. It had no idea who Page was. By listening to Russians, however, the FBI discovered that Page was in touch with Russians.

What they would have done next is standard operation procedure in the counterintelligence world: they did some background on Page, contacted him, and got him to cooperate against those Russians. Anyone who read the court filing in the resulting case–including the Russians–would have had no trouble figuring out that Page had been cooperating with the FBI.

The likelihood that the Russians almost certainly knew all this–and we know they characterized Page as an “idiot”–makes the notion that all of a sudden in 2016 they were using Page as some sort of master spy even more absurd than it already was on its face.

Bear in mind, the FBI can’t get a FISA warrant on a US Person just for talking to Russians. They have to show probable cause that the US Person is engaged in “clandestine intelligence activity” (i.e., real “spy stuff”) on behalf of the Russians. That’s not something that can ordinarily be established by a phone conversation or two since, by the very nature of the thing, “clandestine intelligence activity” is kept … clandestine.

Color me skeptical in the extreme that anything of the sort was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. So I’d say there’s probable cause to believe that we haven’t heard the last of this, and it’s not going to get better. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... r-page.php


If Page is a Russian spy, why hasn't he been charged with espionage? If he's a criminal, why hasn't he been charged with a crime? Surely the investigation can't gain much steam with his name in the public like this? So, where's the evidence that Page is anything but "an idiot?"

Fate
Let's have some sunlight!

Is that what the Nunes memo is?
Or is Wray correct when he says the memo is distorted?
Do you think the Dems memo should be released?


Yes, it is sunlight.

Put Wray under oath and let's have at it.

Release the Democratic memo!

I'm not "afraid" of the truth. I suspect we're going to see abuse of the FISA system.

The notion that the Steele dossier was essential to the granting of the warrant is unsupported by anything Nunes presented. He never referenced the Australian intelligence reports, the interceptions of Russian communications regarding page as early as 2013, nor anything else the FBI is supposed to have...


If the dossier was used at all that is problematic unless the funding of it was given to the court IN FULL, not just "it may have political connections," but "The DNC and Clinton campaign paid to have this put together."

Nunes is doing Trumps bidding, in order to undermine Mueller before he does what what Trump knows is coming ... (You can't hide money laundering forever.)


1. You have no evidence for saying this about Nunes. In fact, Gowdy and others have made it clear they want the Mueller investigation to be completed. So, this is a bogus assertion.

2. Yawn. Evidence wins. Your persistent blathering doesn't. And, no, I don't want to prove Trump innocent of something you cannot prove he's guilty of. Your claims are empty of proof.

If Nunes really cared about the Fisa process he would have done something very different a couple of weeks ago in Congress.


What if, and I know this is difficult for your liberal mind to handle. there is only one thing wrong with the FISA process, namely some people with a bias against Trump and for Clinton abused the process?

Can I prove that? Well, no. I can prove that some involved in the investigation did.

And, I want more information released.

Oddly, it's the LEFT--liberal media and liberal pols, who all supported Hillary--who want less sunlight.

The same people who have consistently cheered on leaking from the Vietnam War forward are all of the sudden worried about releasing information to the American people.

:confused:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Feb 2018, 11:44 am

Fine release everything. It's just a smokescreen but whatever. I'm fine with having an independent commission review FISA court filings and the FBI and the handling of the investigation of Hillary and Ttump at some point to see if there were any abuses.

But we have a president who is clearly willing to help Russia out for personal gain. The meeting with the Russian attorney to get information to help win an election is already attempted collision and we really don't know what happened at the meeting. The account of what happened at the meeting could be bs. There is a vacuum as to what further contacts were made after the meeting (does anyone brlieve that was it?) And the absurd attempts to try and assure the Russians about sanctions before Trump took office are evidence of a quid pro quo. Ricky has a pretty good list of the improper linkages between Trump and Russia. Trump has already obstructed justice in various ways, including the firing of Comey and attempted firing of Mueller.

There is enough to impeach Trump right now. If the Republicans won't do it...then hopefully the 2018 elections will take care of that problem.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Feb 2018, 1:42 pm

freeman3 wrote:Fine release everything. It's just a smokescreen but whatever. I'm fine with having an independent commission review FISA court filings and the FBI and the handling of the investigation of Hillary and Ttump at some point to see if there were any abuses.


It's funny. Pentagon Papers. Watergate. Iran-Contra. WMD. Russia. "Investigate, release!"

But, when it comes to Monicagate, the Bimbo Eruption detail, sending weapons to Mexico, or anything that might reflect poorly on Democrats or Democrat-leaners, well, that's a whole other thing. In fact, it's "a smokescreen."

Erm, okay.

But we have a president who is clearly willing to help Russia out for personal gain.


Sorry, but that is sheer editorial on your part.

The meeting with the Russian attorney to get information to help win an election is already attempted collision and we really don't know what happened at the meeting.


Who wanted a "collision?"

lol

So, taking a meeting that resulted in nothing is bad, but hiring a foreign agent to engage with the Russians for dirt . . . that's honorable?

You have a confusing and sliding scale to be sure.

The account of what happened at the meeting could be bs. There is a vacuum as to what further contacts were made after the meeting (does anyone brlieve that was it?) And the absurd attempts to try and assure the Russians about sanctions before Trump took office are evidence of a quid pro quo. Ricky has a pretty good list of the improper linkages between Trump and Russia. Trump has already obstructed justice in various ways, including the firing of Comey and attempted firing of Mueller.


Sorry, you're getting wiggy here.

For example, "attempted firing of Mueller." We have rumors of rumors there. Nothing concrete. Further, if he really wanted to fire Mueller, he could. There would be massive fallout, but he could. So, "attempted firing" is folly. He didn't do it. Asking about it isn't doing it.

There is enough to impeach Trump right now. If the Republicans won't do it...then hopefully the 2018 elections will take care of that problem.


Ridiculous. Sorry, that is just hyper-partisan, caffeine-fueled nonsense.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Feb 2018, 2:25 pm

Rumors that Trump ordered Mueller fired? Now you're getting ridiculous. The New York Times, the Washington Post and New York independently report it...and it's just rumors to you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.co ... don-mcgahn

Sure...the Trump campaign meets with the Russians in order to collude, they have a guy connected to Russian oligarchs (Manafort) start running their campaign and replace Lewandowski for no apparent reason (after all they had just run the Republican primary), several Trump campaign people meet with Russians and lie about it, Flynn calls the Russian ambassador five times on the day Obama enacted sanctions against Russia in an effort to mollify Russia (and then lies about it to the FBI) Kushner meets with a Russian state bank that is under sanctions (and also tries to set up secret communications outside of US surveillance with the Russians) ...and then Trump fires Comey and then tries to fire Mueller (and oh repeatedly urged Senate Republicans to end the Russian investigation)...and to top it off Trump's contemptuously refuses to comply with additional sanctions against Russia which Congress had approved by 98-2 in the Senate and 417-5 in House (and he had signed into law) by merely repeating a list of Russian oligarchs from Forbes.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... 2016%3famp

But that's just nothing to you. I might be overcaffeinated....what are you smoking?