Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
The alt-right also violate the ninja ingredients of being stealthy and being cool.
Viewed without context it sure does come across as ridiculous conspiracy nonsense, but Maddow has been doing investigative work into Trump and his cronies' extensive ties with Russia for a while now. Along With every thing else we know about Russia's involvement, I'd shocked at this point if he wasn't a puppet to some extent.
She does come across as a bit too sure of herself though, for people who haven't been paying attention, yeh.
I literally came in here to write exactly that
Come on, is it April 1st already? Fml this is priceless.
For the first part, there is something in black and white in the memo:
This isn't an interpretation, this seems in black and white to me. No dossier = no FISA. Deliberately hiding crucial information about the the source of the dossier is crucial and is a deal breaker here, especially when you read the details about the source.
In fact, the democrats are now attacking the memo for the exact same two reasons the memo is discrediting the FISA warrant. First, the democrats say the memo is not credible because it's based on info provided by a biased person, well so was the case with the FISA warrant. And second, the democrats say the memo is not credible and void because it doesn't include the full picture and selectively present the info, well, so was the case with the FISA warrant.
For the first part, there is something in black and white in the memo:
This isn't an interpretation, this seems in black and white to me. No dossier = no FISA. Deliberately hiding crucial information about the the source of the dossier is crucial and is a deal breaker here, especially when you read the details about the source.
In fact, the democrats are now attacking the memo for the exact same two reasons the memo is discrediting the FISA warrant. First, the democrats say the memo is not credible because it's based on info provided by a biased person, well so was the case with the FISA warrant. And second, the democrats say the memo is not credible and void because it doesn't include the full picture and selectively present the info, well, so was the case with the FISA warrant.
The FISA was in place before the dossier. As for using the dossier to continue the FISA - 4 separate judges approved the FISA extensions within a one year period on the back of the original pre-dossier FISA approvals.
For the first part, there is something in black and white in the memo:
This isn't an interpretation, this seems in black and white to me. No dossier = no FISA. Deliberately hiding crucial information about the the source of the dossier is crucial and is a deal breaker here, especially when you read the details about the source.
In fact, the democrats are now attacking the memo for the exact same two reasons the memo is discrediting the FISA warrant. First, the democrats say the memo is not credible because it's based on info provided by a biased person, well so was the case with the FISA warrant. And second, the democrats say the memo is not credible and void because it doesn't include the full picture and selectively present the info, well, so was the case with the FISA warrant.
Firstly, I’m shocked that you are on Trump’s side, I really am.
Secondly, you’re accepting that the memo isn’t a reflection of the complete picture but you’re still trying to argue that there wasn’t enough evidence to warrant a FISA based on what you know from it.
Exactly. If this memo had anything slightly controversial In it as was described by Trump himself then we wouldn't be hearing the end of it. As it happens Twitter is literally just awash with Democrats, journalists and political commentators just ripping the shit out of the memo and Nunes, Page, Trump and the Republicans.
Trump and his fellow Reuplicans and all his supporters have gone as quiet as church mice because they know this has backfired spectacularly.
They would be gloating like never before if there was anything in this memo. I think that was obvious hours before its release though when Paul Ryan came out and said there was nothing in it and also he was happy for the Dems to release their counter memo after it had been checked over for security purposes first.
Feck it just keeps on coming today. Trump must be raging!
As much as I think the Russia investigation is valid, I'm a bit concerned about the rhetoric from neo-cons with regards to Russia in general and their relationship with the U.S., which I would categorize as "complicated" more than "adversarial". Then again the Cold War ended before I became cognizant about anything, so maybe mentions of Russia bring flashbacks of hiding under desks during nuclear drills.
For the first part, there is something in black and white in the memo:
This isn't an interpretation, this seems in black and white to me. No dossier = no FISA. Deliberately hiding crucial information about the the source of the dossier is crucial and is a deal breaker here, especially when you read the details about the source.
In fact, the democrats are now attacking the memo for the exact same two reasons the memo is discrediting the FISA warrant. First, the democrats say the memo is not credible because it's based on info provided by a biased person, well so was the case with the FISA warrant. And second, the democrats say the memo is not credible and void because it doesn't include the full picture and selectively present the info, well, so was the case with the FISA warrant.
Even that paraphrase of McCabe is being questioned by other members of the Committee.
EDIT: And as the Papadopolous incident shows (plus the joint electronic surveillance of the whole world), senior foreign service and intelligence personnel of allied nations have very high credibility with their US counterparts. I would wager there's been FISA warrants approved before that began with something provided by an allied nation or private contractors of good reputation.
He is too stupid to still understand what is going on. Someone tweet him the ramifications of all this.
It’s telling that various republican politicians and talking heads have come out and criticised both its release and its complete lack of anything incriminating. Republicans will usually take any opportunity to stick it to the Dems and parrot the party narrative so for them to reject this just tells you just how irrelevant it is.
This is blowing up in Nunes face big time. That slimy snide little turd has zero credibility left.
Maybe she suddenly saw a black horse and a cherry tree on the other side of the world and decided not to?
Yep - except of course on talk radio and Breitbart. Even Fox are oddly balanced about it.
How did Nunes of all people get involved in this debauchery in the first place?
Speaking of talk radio, I was in an Uber the other day driven by an older gentleman... and he was tuned into some talk radio that was still going deep undercover on the whole birth certificate issue.
Yeah the Patriot channel on Xrius is the worst channel.
He's an idiot who has high ambitions but doesn't see that his involvement in this and his other White House dash have left him looking like the idiot he is.
First of all, I'm not on Trump's side. If you really need to know I actually preferred Sanders of all the candidates, but I don't live in the US. However, I will definitely be criticizing the democrats far more than Trump on this forum, for the simple reason that there is no point in criticizing Trump here, everybody here does that, I'm not gonna add anything. If I join the discussion then it will be mostly to offer a different view, which, on this forum will always be an anti-Democrats view.
Second, yes, clearly it's not the full picture, however, that statement I quoted seemed definitive about 'no dossier = no FISA', or at least this is how I read it. You can add other info, but for this statement to lose its weight, you will have to say that it's not true, that testimony didn't happen, or he was lying, so basically not add info, but simply say this is flat out wrong. Is this the case?
What's your source for this? This seems to contradict 'no dossier = no FISA'.
What did they say?
It's a bit ironic that they are using a biased and unverified memo to accuse the other side of using a biased and unverified source..
He owns farms in California and eventually found himself in Congress so naturally he was the obvious pick to chair the House Intelligence Committee. That’s why he’s been such a success in the role, how he’s been so cunning and machevalian.
Oh god, here we go.
Exactly.
And Rep Eric Swalwell is quoted in the Washnigton Post "annotated" memo:
“seriously mischaracterizes the testimony of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FISA application.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y&utm_term=.88e6d2936741#annotations:13728606
Page was recruited by the Russians as early as 2013 which is well before the Steele dossier existed, so the pre-Steele dossier FISA obviously would have had to have been used. Also, one of the Dem Senators on CNN said the investigation was started independent of the Dossier (yesterday in TV).
The point is though we all know now that the source of the memo is biased and that the memo is unverified (incomplete), and that's weighing heavily on our decision to judge its content, however they hid this crucial info from the Justice department when they applied for the FISA warrant, so the Justice department didn't have the luxury we have now when they made their decision. That's the difference, and the point actually.
I'm not sure you go into an investigation and show all your evidence before a trial let alone the gaining of a warrant so I'm not quite up to date on why the need to.
Bias is not the most significant aspect in evaluating intelligence. Credibility of source, corroboration and history/patterns are. Steele was credible, we don't know what else the FBI might have discovered and presented in its application, and Carter Page was an easier target than you and I to convince the judge to approve of surveillance given his past activity.