TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
61,254
Likes
34,710
Forget Trump for a minute.......

You really don't have a problem with how the Gov. acted in order to get a warrant? You don't have any 4th amendment concerns?
If you are going to invoke the Constitution relative to this, its not a Fourth Amendment issue, its more akin to a 14th amendment due process issue, which is not even remotely implicated here. If you insisted on a Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, it amounts to a malicious prosecution claim under the Fourth. In that event, the test is: if you removed the information claimed to be inaccurate, would there still have been probable cause to issue the warrant? Everyone involved says absolutely, even if you removed the Steele dossier from the warrant application, there was plenty left that justified it.

This is not an issue of the Constitutional rights of Trump or Carter Page, or whoever else you might invoke.

And if you read the sensible articles on this, what you find is that the recommendations to come out afterwards had to to with additional review, to make sure that MORE information was included that hurt the credibility of a witness. The complaint was not what was included, but what was excluded about those witnesses and sources. And again, if you take out the Steele info, there was still plenty of evidence of Russian tinkering and collusion that justified the warrants.

It is not inconsequential, by the way, that the warrants then in fact yielded evidence of criminal activity by several of the subjects.
 

Orange_Crush

I'm thankful.
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
25,031
Likes
19,419
If you are going to invoke the Constitution relative to this, its not a Fourth Amendment issue, its more akin to a 14th amendment due process issue, which is not even remotely implicated here. If you insisted on a Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, it amounts to a malicious prosecution claim under the Fourth. In that event, the test is: if you removed the information claimed to be inaccurate, would there still have been probable cause to issue the warrant? Everyone involved says absolutely, even if you removed the Steele dossier from the warrant application, there was plenty left that justified it.

This is not an issue of the Constitutional rights of Trump or Carter Page, or whoever else you might invoke.

And if you read the sensible articles on this, what you find is that the recommendations to come out afterwards had to to with additional review, to make sure that MORE information was included that hurt the credibility of a witness. The complaint was not what was included, but what was excluded about those witnesses and sources. And again, if you take out the Steele info, there was still plenty of evidence of Russian tinkering and collusion that justified the warrants.

It is not inconsequential, by the way, that the warrants then in fact yielded evidence of criminal activity by several of the subjects.
They withheld information that undermined their theory. They lied about having verified evidence that turned out to be false. They altered documents. They laundered intelligence to make it appear to have come from multiple sources, when it was all from the same source.

"Minimize and deflect" much, counselor?
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
56,761
Likes
25,181
If you are going to invoke the Constitution relative to this, its not a Fourth Amendment issue, its more akin to a 14th amendment due process issue, which is not even remotely implicated here. If you insisted on a Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, it amounts to a malicious prosecution claim under the Fourth. In that event, the test is: if you removed the information claimed to be inaccurate, would there still have been probable cause to issue the warrant? Everyone involved says absolutely, even if you removed the Steele dossier from the warrant application, there was plenty left that justified it.

This is not an issue of the Constitutional rights of Trump or Carter Page, or whoever else you might invoke.

And if you read the sensible articles on this, what you find is that the recommendations to come out afterwards had to to with additional review, to make sure that MORE information was included that hurt the credibility of a witness. The complaint was not what was included, but what was excluded about those witnesses and sources. And again, if you take out the Steele info, there was still plenty of evidence of Russian tinkering and collusion that justified the warrants.

It is not inconsequential, by the way, that the warrants then in fact yielded evidence of criminal activity by several of the subjects.
Ho-lee-crap!

No way you are justifying the demonstrable wrong doing of the government by saying said wrongdoing allowed them to capture a couple people in process crimes that had nothing to do with the original inquiry. Oh wait, I guess you are.
 

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
61,254
Likes
34,710
They withheld information that undermined their theory. They lied about having verified evidence that turned out to be false. They altered documents. They laundered intelligence to make it appear to have come from multiple sources, when it was all from the same source.

"Minimize and deflect" much, counselor?
What is your specific basis for saying: "They lied about having verified evidence that turned out to be false" ?

The "altered document" was an email that came long after the initial warrants were granted. So again, even if you omitted it, it was irrelevant to the issuance of the warrants.

If one takes out the "laundered intelligence" -- which were the things leading to questions about Steele as a source -- again, you have plenty of justifications for the warrants.

As has been the case since the beginning here, you and the Trump slurpers, including I might add Bar, have focused on the 2-3 items you could point to that were dubious, out of a sea of thousands of items, to try to ignore the thousands of other things.

The only people who buy into the notion that the process, on the whole, failed because of those 2 or 3 things are your fellow Trump slurpers.

Ho-lee-crap!

No way you are justifying the demonstrable wrong doing of the government by saying said wrongdoing allowed them to capture a couple people in process crimes that had nothing to do with the original inquiry. Oh wait, I guess you are.

That's because it is a fact.

Take out the Steele dossier if you want.

Still plenty of justification for the initial warrant,s and the subsequent renewals as well.
 

Orange_Crush

I'm thankful.
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
25,031
Likes
19,419
What is your specific basis for saying: "They lied about having verified evidence that turned out to be false" ?

The "altered document" was an email that came long after the initial warrants were granted. So again, even if you omitted it, it was irrelevant to the issuance of the warrants.

If one takes out the "laundered intelligence" -- which were the things leading to questions about Steele as a source -- again, you have plenty of justifications for the warrants.

As has been the case since the beginning here, you and the Trump slurpers, including I might add Bar, have focused on the 2-3 items you could point to that were dubious, out of a sea of thousands of items, to try to ignore the thousands of other things.

The only people who buy into the notion that the process, on the whole, failed because of those 2 or 3 things are your fellow Trump slurpers.




That's because it is a fact.

Take out the Steele dossier if you want.

Still plenty of justification for the initial warrant,s and the subsequent renewals as well.
I'm not a Trump slurper. I'm on record repeatedly as not caring for him, and refusing to vote for him in both elections, so that fallacious low hanging fruit won't work.

My basis for saying they lied about verifying the dossier is the fact that they lied about having verified the dossier. "Take out the Steele dossier if you want..." You're literally minimizing the fact that the FBI lied to a federal court to get warrants under false pretenses to spy on a presidential campaign.

And you come in here and hand-wave like the ones making a big deal of it are just sensationalizing things.

You then hand-wave the fact that the FBI altered evidence to get process indictments after having held up the process indictments as validation of the politicized FBI's fraudulantly spying on a presidential campaign.

You really are a special kind of clown, aren't you?

ETA:

Here's how you react to mere belief about Trump's DOJ, clown.

Having watched the interview I'd say its conclusive proof the whole thing was a set up and is fake. He brags about not being bullied because he won't do what Trump says. But that's exactly what he did. And has done since moment one.

Barr is an evil, evil, stooge.
 
Last edited:

vols40

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
6,012
Likes
5,719
Developments today warrant a clean break and the third installment. I've labeled it the beginning of the end because I believe that we are seeing now the collision of the facts and the personalities which will culminate in charges against Donald Trump and others. Money laundering, bribery, obstruction, conspiracy. Or some combination thereof.

So, today ...

It has emerged that as Bannon testified to the House committee, his lawyer would go outside and call the WH and tell them what was asked. He then went back in to tell Bannon not to answer.

A couple of days ago, Lewandowski said that he would answer all questions. When he got there, however, he would not answer anything post-campaign.

When asked if he had spoken to Trump in the prior 24 hours? He refused to answer.

As I say, this is the beginning of the end of this saga. its almost over.
Good call
 

luthervol

rational (x) and reasonable (y)
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
25,615
Likes
12,780
Read the thread. So lazy

Samochornov, an American citizen, has worked as a translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who led the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. on June 9, 2016. Samochornov translated for Veselnitskaya while she represented a Russian defendant in a money-laundering case in federal court last year and accompanied her to Belgium to promote a film critical of a U.S. anti-money laundering law.

He worked for the Russian lawyer.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
20,941
Likes
22,556
Samochornov, an American citizen, has worked as a translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who led the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. on June 9, 2016. Samochornov translated for Veselnitskaya while she represented a Russian defendant in a money-laundering case in federal court last year and accompanied her to Belgium to promote a film critical of a U.S. anti-money laundering law.

He worked for the Russian lawyer.
And? What are you implying?
 

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top