TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

[Carl Pickens]

I fully predict rallies for the mid terms which will feature sustained chants of "Lock him up!" to which the right will express bewildered outrage even though Trump won by promoting the same chant and with the help of Russia. So much so that the law and order crowd now finds itself having to attack the premier law enforcement organization in the country, run by Republicans!

The whole charade/debacle of the Trump presidency is quite remarkable.

And I'll add that the moment -- and I mean the split second -- that the s hits the fan, you will see thousands of his supporters at the top abandon ship and run for cover.

Trump's support in the GOP past his 30 pct base is paper thin. They loathe him in Congress.

You're a piece of work LG.... dedicated and persistent... I'll give you that

 

[Carl Pickens]

This will be Loother and LG after the mid terms

.

 

[BigOrangeD]

......

 

[evillawyer]

https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI ICA ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf

Initial findings of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence just released. Trump is, uh, not vindicated. Womp womp.

On the use of the Steele Dossier:

The FBI had a collection of reports a former foreign intelligence officer was hired to compile as opposition research for the U.S. election, referred to as the "dossier," when the ICA was drafted. However, those reports remained separate from the conclusions of the ICA. All individuals the Committee interviewed verified that the dossier did not in any way inform the analysis in the ICA - including the key findings - because it was unverified information and had not been disseminated as serialized intelligence reporting.

Also agrees with ICA that Putin was involved and Russia intended to aid Trump.

 

[Mick]

https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI ICA ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf

Initial findings of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence just released. Trump is, uh, not vindicated. Womp womp.

On the use of the Steele Dossier:

The FBI had a collection of reports a former foreign intelligence officer was hired to compile as opposition research for the U.S. election, referred to as the "dossier," when the ICA was drafted. However, those reports remained separate from the conclusions of the ICA. All individuals the Committee interviewed verified that the dossier did not in any way inform the analysis in the ICA - including the key findings - because it was unverified information and had not been disseminated as serialized intelligence reporting.

Also agrees with ICA that Putin was involved and Russia intended to aid Trump.

Russia ran an "influence" campaign designed to undermine our election. Someone should tell Putin that he wasted his money because the idiots on this board were not swayed one bit by their propaganda and even went as far as to share them as truths.

 

[NorthDallas40]

https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI ICA ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf

Initial findings of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence just released. Trump is, uh, not vindicated. Womp womp.

On the use of the Steele Dossier:

The FBI had a collection of reports a former foreign intelligence officer was hired to compile as opposition research for the U.S. election, referred to as the "dossier," when the ICA was drafted. However, those reports remained separate from the conclusions of the ICA. All individuals the Committee interviewed verified that the dossier did not in any way inform the analysis in the ICA - including the key findings - because it was unverified information and had not been disseminated as serialized intelligence reporting.

Also agrees with ICA that Putin was involved and Russia intended to aid Trump.

Lol. What a convenient representation of the report.

The ICA made no mention of reciprocity or collusion from Trumps campaign. It was completely silent on that point. Thus it doesn’t implicate or clear the Trump campaign.

It does however make clear the Steele dossier was unverified. And as such if proven that it was used as a basis in the FISA warrants all who propagated those warrants need to fry.

Womp womp indeed...

 

[NorthDallas40]

Russia ran an "influence" campaign designed to undermine our election. Someone should tell Putin that he wasted his money because the idiots on this board were not swayed one bit by their propaganda and even went as far as to share them as truths.

It isn’t Russia’s responsibility to protect our elections it’s our responsibility.

 

[evillawyer]

Lol. What a convenient representation of the report.

The ICA made no mention of reciprocity or collusion from Trumps campaign. It was completely silent on that point. Thus it doesn’t implicate or clear the Trump campaign. Also didn't mention the weather forecast in Kansas. Neither were part of the ICA, which is all this is looking at.

It does however make clear the Steele dossier was unverified. And as such if proven that it was used as a basis in the FISA warrants all who propagated those warrants need to fry. Where are you getting this "verification" requirement from?

Womp womp indeed...

Comments in bold above

 

[NorthDallas40]

Comments in bold above

First comment: yawn

Second comment; You used the passage in your own quote! Womp womp.

The FBI had a collection of reports a former foreign intelligence officer was hired to compile as opposition research for the U.S. election, referred to as the "dossier," when the ICA was drafted. However, those reports remained separate from the conclusions of the ICA. All individuals the Committee interviewed verified that the dossier did not in any way inform the analysis in the ICA - including the key findings - because it was unverified information and had not been disseminated as serialized intelligence reporting.

 

[evillawyer]

First comment: yawn

Second comment; You used the passage in your own quote! Womp womp.

And the ICA has nothing to do with FISA warrants, and as far as I know "verification" is not a requirement for evidence used to get a FISA warrant. So what's your point? Womp womp.

 

[NorthDallas40]

And the ICA has nothing to do with FISA warrants, and as far as I know "verification" is not a requirement for evidence used to get a FISA warrant. So what's your point? Womp womp.

Really?! I didn’t know that...

Should I have said “in addition...” to help you understand the point?

And the hell it isn’t a requirement! That has been beat to death both on here and elsewhere on the web. Seriously are you just being disingenuous here or clueless on the process? If the FBI/DOJ puts forth information supporting a FISA warrant the Judge has to assume the veracity of the information. Wow...

“You’re honor we read this on a bathroom wall in Grand Central Station but we believe it proves our basis to request monitoring. “

Edit: and this is classic! I just have to quote this by itself for emphasis!😂😂😂😂😂

and as far as I know "verification" is not a requirement for evidence

 

[evillawyer]

Really?! I didn’t know that...

Should I have said “in addition...” to help you understand the point?

And the hell it isn’t a requiremebt! That has been beat to death both on here and elsewhere on the web. Seriously are you just being disingenuous here or clueless on the process? If the FBI/DOJ puts forth information supporting a FISA warrant the Judge has to assume the veracity of the information. Wow...

Here's a story on this report.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-to-dispute-ic-assessment-of-russian-election

And still waiting for you to show me what requirements evidence must meet to go into a FISA application. You seem quite confident that evidence must be "verified," which, under common usage, means proven or demonstrated to be true or accurate. Getting a warrant is not establishing guilt at trial.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Here's a story on this report.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-to-dispute-ic-assessment-of-russian-election

And still waiting for you to show me what requirements evidence must meet to go into a FISA application. You seem quite confident that evidence must be "verified," which, under common usage, means proven or demonstrated to be true or accurate. Getting a warrant is not establishing guilt at trial.

Lol. No I’m good thanks. It’s all you wanting to talk about the veracity of evidence supporting a FISA warrant request not needing to be verified. 😂😂😂😂😂

And the article offered no proof of collusion either of reciprocal engagement between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Womp womp.

 

[evillawyer]

Lol. No I’m good thanks. It’s all you wanting to talk about the veracity of evidence supporting a FISA warrant request not needing to be verified. 😂😂😂😂😂

And the article offered no proof of collusion either of reciprocal engagement between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Womp womp.

You're just not getting it. The report only evaluated the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the election on behalf of Trump and whether this assessment was substantiated. Nothing to do with collusion, nothing to do with FISA applications. Are you really this dense or just putting on a show for some of the dullards posting here?

 

[NorthDallas40]

You're just not getting it. The report only evaluated the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the election on behalf of Trump and whether this assessment was substantiated. Nothing to do with collusion, nothing to do with FISA applications. Are you really this dense or just putting on a show for some of the dullards posting here?

Oh I got everything in that. Including your over statement. The message you are selling is this report conflicts with the House. In addition you stated in your original post “Trump is, uh, not vindicated” It had nothing to do with Trump!

A tldr summary is the Russians screwed with our election. Shocking truly. But again it’s our responsibility to prevent that not theirs.

Basically all you are doing is whispering a message to call into question the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency. That’s it.

This statement is just as true right now as it was before this report came out. No evidence has been put forth that shows collusion/conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

And finally why the name calling in this case? I’ll go look but I’m pretty sure I kept this exchange even keeled evil.

 

[AM64]

Of course it isn't for you. Muh Trump Crime Syndicate.

Before you get too carried away check out the real crime syndicate. It's in DC, in the capitol building - probably considering the regularity with which they take bribes and hand out favors, capital building would be more appropriate. In any case just about anyone in any kind of business would be hard pressed to reach the level of graft and corruption common in politicians. Congress probably wanted organized crime out of the way because they resented the competition, and it was too easy to compare the two - one group pretends legitimacy by getting fraudulently elected and isn't normally as frisky with weapons that make noise.

 

[AM64]

I fully predict rallies for the mid terms which will feature sustained chants of "Lock him up!" to which the right will express bewildered outrage even though Trump won by promoting the same chant and with the help of Russia. So much so that the law and order crowd now finds itself having to attack the premier law enforcement organization in the country, run by Republicans!

The whole charade/debacle of the Trump presidency is quite remarkable.

And I'll add that the moment -- and I mean the split second -- that the s hits the fan, you will see thousands of his supporters at the top abandon ship and run for cover.

Trump's support in the GOP past his 30 pct base is paper thin. They loathe him in Congress.

To be loathed by congress is quite a complement.

 

[AM64]

Russia ran an "influence" campaign designed to undermine our election. Someone should tell Putin that he wasted his money because the idiots on this board were not swayed one bit by their propaganda and even went as far as to share them as truths.

How many "influence campaigns" has the US run to fix elections? Some were less like influence and more like puppet installations (think Iran and some LA banana republics for starters - remember Voice of America and the mission???); however, Dims will pass on those ... for now. If you don't want anyone tampering with the electoral process, then make it tamper proof, but then that might limit some Dim approved abuses, too.

 

[ajvol01]

And the ICA has nothing to do with FISA warrants, and as far as I know "verification" is not a requirement for evidence used to get a FISA warrant. So what's your point? Womp womp.

You get my vote for "lawyer" most ignorant of the law

 

[evillawyer]

You get my vote for "lawyer" most ignorant of the law

I can't imagine that if source A came to the FBI and said "I saw X meet with Y" then, before that could be used as part of a FISA application, the FBI would have to go out and conclusively establish that X did in fact meet with Y. How are they going to verify that? Not everything is videotaped. They don't want to go and ask Y and risk blowing their cover, especially since Y is likely a foreign national. Since they're seeking the right to wiretap the target, they presumably don't have audio of the meeting. I could see them having to establish that the source did in fact say he saw X meet with Y, but if the source is generally reliable, that seems like something that could be used to get a FISA warrant. Am I missing something?

 

[ajvol01]

I can't imagine that if source A came to the FBI and said "I saw X meet with Y" then, before that could be used as part of a FISA application, the FBI would have to go out and conclusively establish that X did in fact meet with Y. How are they going to verify that? Not everything is videotaped. They don't want to go and ask Y and risk blowing their cover, especially since Y is likely a foreign national. Since they're seeking the right to wiretap the target, they presumably don't have audio of the meeting. I could see them having to establish that the source did in fact say he saw X meet with Y, but if the source is generally reliable, that seems like something that could be used to get a FISA warrant. Am I missing something?

The Steele dossier consists of second and third hand information (hearsay) that Steele could not directly confirm.

If Steele is the trusted source providing information used to obtain the warrant, should the FISA court also trust information Steele obtained from other unknown sources?

Or is it ok to pretend all of the information came from Steele even though it didn't?

What the heck it's just abusing warrants designed to investigate terrorists being used to target American citizens that also happened to be political enemies of the president.

 

[Grand Vol]

You get my vote for "lawyer" most ignorant of the law

LG sez "hold my beer..."

 

[evillawyer]

Have not read yet, but looks interesting from first few paragraphs.

Mueller Russia investigation: Trump inauguration money is a major focus - Vox

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly tapping “additional Justice Department resources” for help with new legal battles, which will increase the costs of the more than $17 MILLION investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign.


Bloomberg News reported Thursday that Mueller is tapping more FBI agents, in addition to career prosecutors, to work on the probe.

The total cost for the probe in its first ten months has been $16.7 million, or an average of $1.67 million per month. According to that monthly average, the cost to date could now be more than $20 million.

U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill, paying for the salaries and benefits of the lawyers, their travel and transportation while working on the probe, any contracted services such as IT support, equipment, and other expenditures.

Mueller requested the help of four more prosecutors in May and June, in addition to his 17-lawyer team.

Those lawyers are Uzo Asonye from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Jonathan Kravis, Deborah Curtis, and Kathryn Rakoczky, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

This is beginning to add up to some real money.

 

[evillawyer]

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly tapping “additional Justice Department resources” for help with new legal battles, which will increase the costs of the more than $17 MILLION investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign.


Bloomberg News reported Thursday that Mueller is tapping more FBI agents, in addition to career prosecutors, to work on the probe.

The total cost for the probe in its first ten months has been $16.7 million, or an average of $1.67 million per month. According to that monthly average, the cost to date could now be more than $20 million.

U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill, paying for the salaries and benefits of the lawyers, their travel and transportation while working on the probe, any contracted services such as IT support, equipment, and other expenditures.

Mueller requested the help of four more prosecutors in May and June, in addition to his 17-lawyer team.

Those lawyers are Uzo Asonye from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Jonathan Kravis, Deborah Curtis, and Kathryn Rakoczky, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

This is beginning to add up to some real money.

Really? Why don't you look at how much our duffer-in-chief has spent on weekend golfing trips.