Author Topic: Russia Investigation.  (Read 115454 times)

Read the Footnotes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #820 on: June 18, 2019, 07:53:13 AM »
PBS News Hour has put out "All of the Mueller report's major findings in less than 30 minutes". It's also available on YouTube and you can read the transcript to save time.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/all-of-the-mueller-reports-major-findings-in-less-than-30-minutes


Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #821 on: June 18, 2019, 09:14:11 AM »
Thank you for the civil response. It's encouraging to see perhaps we can debate instead of degenerate as we disagree.

Regarding "sources" - we'll just disagree. I've watched CNN & MSNBC for years. Something has changed. CNN is the network that brought
us Michael Avanetti for President, and showcased the loser 200 times last year as a savior to Republic. MSNBC isn't far behind, with Rachel
Maddow, their highest rated show featuring Russia, Russia, Russia for 2 years running. Rachel is smart, but looks really really bad.

I consider Judicial Watch - conservative for sure, but not unfair. Reasonable people can disagree and that's fine.

Some counterpoints:

1-  Christopher Steele was trustworthy - until he leaked FBI information to the Press and then lied to the FBI multiple times about his leaking.

2a - That Clinton Campaign chose to use Steele afterwards as a source is not ILLEGAL and that was their choice. Fine. No problem. What was illegal
       was Steele supplying the revised Dossier to the Clinton campaign and then the DOJ/Fusion GPS giving that info to the FBI to, once again,
       use Steele as a "source".  This information was never verified by the FBI and used for the basis for FISA warrants. The FISA court has a very
        high standard for granting surviellance of US Citizens (spying) - and the FBI must swear the information was verified. And to NOT disclose
       to the court that and OPPOSITION political party PAID FOR this information is CERTAINLY a large problem.

2a - Trump's most recent actions are THOUGHT crimes, not ACTIONS. If you consider this a crime, certainly the Clinton/DOJ/FBI action is a real crime.

2b - You can not have an "impartial investigation" when you staff it with 19 lawyers that are Democratic and many hate Trump. Surely you understand
       the issue of impartiality and why it is so important?  Can it be perfect? Of course not.   But don't tell me you can not find 19 very impartial
       attorneys/investigators to participate in your investigation. How is it possible that you don't vet them for bias? AND AT LEAST the very
       obvious signs of bias - like campaign contributions, individuals that worked on Clinton's staff or foundation. SURELY that is a problem.
       This investigation was HIGHLY partisan and Mueller looks very very bad.

3a - The FISA warrant was unverified - that was discovered after repeated FOIA requests from Judicial Watch and months of stonewalling.
       This was highly embarrassing for the investigators. Andrew McCabe testified that without the Steele Dossier the FISA warrants could NOT
       have been obtained by the FBI. Christopher Steele testified in UK courts that his Dossier was "unverfiable" and could NEVER be used in
       a court of law.


      The job of the FBI is to VERIFY the information given to them by a source (trustworthy or NOT). As an investigator, you don't just
      take a 3rd party's word as gospel for PROBABLE CAUSE to start an investigation. The Dossier was NOT verified to the FISA court
      and NEVER disclosed a political campaign paid for it as opposition research. The FBI could never verified Steele's sources and sub-sources
      and all the salacious accusations that were made.  The FBI graded the credibility of the Dossier as very low, but still used it.

Cameron - you don't come off as harsh and I appreciate your openness. What has been perpetuated by the Media and clowns like Clapper, Brennan,
Schiff, etc - is a campaign of misinformation.

I do NOT expect you to believe me - just keep an open mind when the Michael Horowitz investigation and others present THEIR version
of what really happened.

1. Steele didn't lie. Please cite some source for this. The FBI/Steele relationship ended solely due to the FBI learning that Steele shared his info with media members.

2a. The Clinton Campaign didn't hire Steele. The Clinton Campaign hired a law firm that hired Fusion GPS. You can feasibly argue that the Clinton Campaign knew that it's proxy (in this case, it's law firm) hired Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS hired Steele (after it ended it's relationship with GOP members). The Clinton Campaign hired Fusion GPS as a continuation of work started by various GOP members.

It's not illegal for a campaign service provider to hire foreign workers. This is obvious since Trump would have violated this by having campaign functions at Mar-A-Lago. What's illegal is getting campaign contributions from foreign nationals and certainly any help from a foreign government or any of its representatives (which is what the lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting was purported to be and was later determined to be).

It's not illegal to use Steele as a source for a FISA application. The entire premise that Steele's work used in Carter's FISA app is from Comey's testimony. You should keep an open mind on the topic and read this explainer. I get that you agree with Judicial Watch. I follow them and read their stuff, too. I also read other sources and try to figure out what makes sense. In this case, since Republicans didn't investigate or refer Comey for 2 years when it would have been popular to do so, I think we can guess Comey didn't do anything wrong.

https://www.justsecurity.org/61861/note-fisa-verification/

2b. What evidence do you have that the lawyers were biased? There's no standard when you throw around the terms biased, highly partisan, and makes Mueller look bad. You are just repeating what others have said. Simply donating a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to a campaign without any other context is not even evidence of bias much less proven bias. Should Barr have recused since he's donated to a Republican before? Why do we allow lawyers in the DOJ to donate if it renders their work void for having done so?

Not important to the grand scheme of things but for your own reflection, have you consistently applied this standard?

I'm giving you something to think about. Please keep an open mind.

3a. Again, we actually don't have any proof that Carter's FISA app used unverified info, as defined here:
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/woods.pdf

No FISA app has ever been unclassified, so it's not surprising that there was push back against release. Trump's DOJ refused to release it.

This is also another example of adding phrases like "stonewalling" when referring to a FOIA request. By this standard, almost every FOIA request ever has been "stonewalled". Then you say "it's embarrassing". That's, like, your opinion, man. That doesn't add anything and doesn't show an open mind.

Then you say McCabe said "it could NOT have been obtained". Again, you should find the evidence because you're wrong. A Fox News article summarizing the testimony very clearly shows that McCabe said it was "50/50 or 51/49" without Steele information.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/investigators-had-50-50-chance-of-securing-fisa-warrant-for-trump-aide-without-dossier-testimony

You say "taking someone's word as probable cause". That's misleading and I know that's a big talking point from the opinion talkingheads/pundits.
* Steele wasn't just someone
* The investigation started on a tip by a diplomat
* Carter Page was suspected as a foreign agent for 3 years prior to the campaign/FISA app issuance
* A FISA warrant isn't a criminal warrant. A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation
* Again, the standard of "verified" in a FISA application is not what you think verified means. This is collusion/conspiracy all over again.

A lot of the miscommunication and tension in this thread has been a misunderstanding of the facts.

cameronfen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 633
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #822 on: June 18, 2019, 10:20:58 AM »
^ sure I could provide counterarguments but again like you said you won't believe me either. 

I think the real enemy is not that we disagree, but we have no conception of how the other side came to their likely reasonable conclusion because as a country both the liberals and the conservatives hide out in their echochambers.  How about this? I'll do a better job of reading things like judicial watch and the Hill as well as spend more effort on the national review and listen to Fox, but in return you also take some time reading CNN, Wapo and maybe even something on the liberal blogosphere like huffpo or dailykos. 

Obviously I dont expect to be pursuaded, and I dont expect you to be persuaded, but I noticed that you couldn't believe how misinformed I was and I had the same reaction to your ideas.  At the very least it's nice to understand how people came to the conclusions they did. 

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3446
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #823 on: June 21, 2019, 04:48:02 PM »
PBS News Hour has put out "All of the Mueller report's major findings in less than 30 minutes". It's also available on YouTube and you can read the transcript to save time.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/all-of-the-mueller-reports-major-findings-in-less-than-30-minutes

Seems like a pretty good summary of the report. I fully admit and I didn’t  read the whole report (I went through about 1/3 of it) and it seems like many times officials went deep into a grey (or worse ) area that would get you fired if you operated like this as an employee for any company for sure. I have the impression they the president probably does not even know where the boundaries of the law are and has used his lawyers to take care of issues that arise from that. You can see the same pattern now when he openly debates of we he can fire Powell or not (which is very damaging to publicly discuss by itself).

Others may come to different conclusions. Anyways, thanks for posting.

Thanks for posting.
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #824 on: June 23, 2019, 05:18:58 PM »
^ sure I could provide counterarguments but again like you said you won't believe me either. 

I think the real enemy is not that we disagree, but we have no conception of how the other side came to their likely reasonable conclusion because as a country both the liberals and the conservatives hide out in their echochambers.  How about this? I'll do a better job of reading things like judicial watch and the Hill as well as spend more effort on the national review and listen to Fox, but in return you also take some time reading CNN, Wapo and maybe even something on the liberal blogosphere like huffpo or dailykos. 

Obviously I dont expect to be pursuaded, and I dont expect you to be persuaded, but I noticed that you couldn't believe how misinformed I was and I had the same reaction to your ideas.  At the very least it's nice to understand how people came to the conclusions they did.

This is great, and I agree with you. It's my feeling that much of the news media is not interested in real news or the truth.
I watched CNN/MSNBC for years. I used to think FOX was ridiculous - so this did not happen overnight.  I will try harder to keep an open mind
with these other sources.  Thanks for your civility.

DTEJD1997

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #825 on: June 23, 2019, 07:01:34 PM »
Hey all:

One thing that is touched upon in this thread, is that the news is profiting (or so they think) from constantly stirring up the pot, creating discord.

Nobody ever sold newspapers, or ad slots on the interwebs by saying "everything is generally OK, and probably will stay that way!"

I also think that there are forces (Russian, China, others?) outside the USA who are deliberately trying to stir up trouble by stoking fears/resentment in the left wing and right wing.

The USA was so powerful, nobody could take them out.  The only way for the USA to collapse is through internal bickering/dissent?

There are certainly real problems, and big differences in the USA,  I think there is more to be made and better benefits by sticking together, rather than fragmenting and breaking up the country.

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #826 on: July 02, 2019, 06:39:57 PM »
Definitely worth reading this 10 page memo on Christopher Steele violating his agreement with the FBI - where he lied to FBI and disclosed
information to the press multiple times. Steele then testified, under oath, in UK court that his Dossier contained information that was
unverified. Memo indicates FISA court relied solely on Steele Dossier being true in order to grant warrants to spy on American Citizens.
Payments by Clinton Campaign were hidden by PerkinCoies law firm and Fusion GPS.

Should be fun when investigations are completed.


https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-06%20CEG%20LG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Unclassified%20Steele%20Referral).pdf


cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #827 on: August 14, 2019, 06:08:18 AM »
Nice article that frames out the strategy behind the "Russia Hoax" and the role of the Deep State - and what went wrong:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ball-of-collusion-book-excerpt-hillary-clinton-ruins-the-plan/

After 3 years of a lap-dog partisan media, a few serious investigative journalists and pundits kept searching for the truth - and perhaps we are closer
to getting the real story. Amazing to me how many people bought the mainstream media propaganda Hook, Line & Sinker.

Thank goodness for a Free Press.

John Hjorth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2831
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #828 on: August 14, 2019, 07:55:06 AM »
Thank you for sharing, Mike,

Personally, I haven't paid any real attention to US politics in depth till the discussions started here on CoBF up to the Presidential election in 2016. I have had problems relating to what you have been posting here in the Politics forum from time to time. After reading your last post here in this topic I understand your stance much better.

Please keep them coming, Mike.
”In the race of excellence … there is no finish line.”
-HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai

cwericb

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #829 on: August 14, 2019, 09:36:44 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ball-of-collusion-book-excerpt-hillary-clinton-ruins-the-plan/

After 3 years of a lap-dog partisan media, a few serious investigative journalists and pundits kept searching for the truth - and perhaps we are closer
to getting the real story. Amazing to me how many people bought the mainstream media propaganda Hook, Line & Sinker.

Thank goodness for a Free Press.”


Let's be fair here, the National Review is a, if not the, voice of American Conservatism. To suggest that it is not partisan media and not pro Right would be disingenuous and misleading.
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. - Mark Twain