Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation

Redplane said:
Not saying you don't have a point that there could clearly be (and probably are) other parties behind this than just "The Russians" but you may wish to give pages like this a look which actively monitors some of the known actors: dashboard.securingdemocracy.org
Click to expand...
EDIT: You know what, let's concentrate now on the memo. We can talk about the bots another time.
 
Last edited:
Javi said:
even if it happens to have started with Republican money.
Click to expand...
By the way, is there any evidence that the Steele dossier, or Steele himself was initially funded by the Republicans? Because Nunez seems to be disputing this point.
 
Donald Trump said:
"I think it's terrible if you want to know the truth? I think it's a disgrace what's going on in this country. I think it's a disgrace. The memo was sent to Congress, it was declassified. Congress will do whatever they're going to do, but I think it's a disgrace what's happening in our country. And when you look at that, and you see that and so many other things going on, what's going on, a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves and much worse than that. So I sent it over to Congress, they will do what they're going to do whatever they do is fine, it was declassified, and lets see what happens, but, a lot of people should be ashamed."
Click to expand...
Once again: the overplayed, obvious pretend-horror & outrage; once again: his want of actual, specific knowledge.
 
Washington Post said:
The memo really is worse than the abuses that led to the American Revolution
By Alexandra Petri

Sebastian Gorka was right when he told Fox News that the Nunes memo would be 100 times bigger than the offenses that kicked off the American Revolution.

When I saw that the memo from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’s (R-Calif.) office had been released, I could not believe my eyes. I sat bolt upright in my long nightshirt and grabbed my flintlock musket. I ran to the window and threw up the sash (no, hang on, that is a different poem), hopped on my steed, and went galloping off to alert my brethren.

King George had done certain things, of course, that were not to be borne, but next to this memo, I was sure, they paled.

“AWAKE, AWAKE!” I cried, clanging into Medford Square, “UP AND TO ARMS!”

“Why?” demanded the honest townsfolk.

“Remember how upset we were when King George plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns and destroyed the lives of our people?” I demanded to know. “Well, I have the Nunes memo, and compared with its contents, I can assure you, that was child’s play!”

“What does the memo say?” a townsman inquired.

“SOMETHING ABOUT CARTER PAGE!” I shouted, spurring my horse. “SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT WISH TO BE SEEN! On, on to Lexington!” I reined in my steed beneath the gilded weathercock.
Click to expand...
 
Zlaatan said:
They don’t need to provide all the info they have to get an extension. This is one part (of many) of the GOP memo that is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...

I suppose they don't, no. But it's not actually about the information as such, but the source of information and there it seems poor to exclude background since it's important for the actual info too imo. Imagine you have an Info X and the source could either be a.) russian or b.) the NSA. Don't you think it makes a difference for the evaluation of Info X?
 
Danny1982 said:
By the way, is there any evidence that the Steele dossier, or Steele himself was initially funded by the Republicans? Because Nunez seems to be disputing this point.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, we'd have to ask @Pexbo since he was the one who brought it up IIRC.
 
But why would Trump care about sparking a constitutional crisis?
 
My republican colleagues, whose classrooms surround mine on our hallway, have gone strangely silent about this memo since yesterday afternoon.

It was all they wanted to talk about earlier in the week...:smirk:
 
Oscie said:
But why would Trump care about sparking a constitutional crisis?
Click to expand...

Ordinarily, and as a matter of principle, he probably wouldn't; although in this particular case it would do a few things.

1. The stock market would likely give back a good amount of its gains from over the past year as markets would interpret the Trump agenda as dead, because Trump's own future would be in question. Trump has championed the market's performance on a daily basis for the past year and he wouldn't be able to do it any more; not to mention the fat that has wealthy friends would complain to him.

2. As mentioned, the Trump agenda would be dead in only his 2nd year, so things like infrastructure (one of his big plans), the wall, and various other proposals would be dead and he would likely be considered a lame duck until the next election. The Dems would have incredible leverage in terms of public support try a variety of things including shutting the government down as a cudgel to deal with Trump.

3. Interfering with the Mueller investigation would almost certainly eliminate most doubts that he has no culpability with Russia, and / or obstruction or financial crimes related to it.

4. It would be even more disastrous for the Republicans in the mid term elections in that beyond regaining the House, the Dems may even (despite daunting odds) regain the Senate, which would result in them being able to reclaim both Intel Committees and possibly even enough to reinstitute the indpedendent council stature to where they would just restart the investigation, this time in a situation where Trump would be defenseless to stop it.

So all things said, it would be best if Trump just allowed Mueller to finish the investigation without interruption. The problem of course is that if Trump knows he is guilty of something that Mueller is pursuing - that he will eventually be forced into one of two losing propositions. Fire Mueller and face the above 4 point backlash - or allow Mueller to show Trump is guilty for (probably) obstruction.
 
Javi said:
I suppose they don't, no. But it's not actually about the information as such, but the source of information and there it seems poor to exclude background since it's important for the actual info too imo. Imagine you have an Info X and the source could either be a.) russian or b.) the NSA. Don't you think it makes a difference for the evaluation of Info X?
Click to expand...

No of course it makes a difference, but this particular case is in a 'he said - she said' situation right now. You have to remember tha the memo is more like an opinion piece than an actual official document. Nunes&co claims that the FBI didn't reveal anything about the source to the court, and we have articles popping up with people saying that they did actually provide more than enough info about the source. We simply don't know the truth at this point.

Based on the background of how the memo came to be, who's behind it, what they did to get it out to the public and the lack of actual context I'm struggling to see how it could be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I could be wrong, but there's just too many red flags at this point to not be very sceptical about it.
 
Zlaatan said:
No of course it makes a difference, but this particular case is in a 'he said - she said' situation right now. You have to remember tha the memo is more like an opinion piece than an actual official document. Nunes&co claims that the FBI didn't reveal anything about the source to the court, and we have articles popping up with people saying that they did actually provide more than enough info about the source. We simply don't know the truth at this point.

Based on the background of how the memo came to be, who's behind it, what they did to get it out to the public and the lack of actual context I'm struggling to see how it could be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I could be wrong, but there's just too many red flags at this point to not be very sceptical about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with your last sentence there and if I've come across like I'm claiming to know the truth then I apologise. My position is based on the information that is out there which hasn't changed since last night: the Nunes memo itself and the NY Times article containing some point of the Dem memo.

The point I was about to make is that this failure to submit all info isn't being disputed by the dem memo, as I have quoted in my post above. They dispute the dimension of how much info was left out saying it was less than the Nunes memo claims, but they do not dispute that the FBI hold information back (edit: and that Rosenstein signed it off).

The Washington Post article @Raoul posted above is playing down the relevence of the missing info but isn't denying it either:

The Justice Department made “ample disclosure of relevant, material facts” to the court that revealed “the research was being paid for by a political entity,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

“No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion but that” the work was being undertaken “at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump,” the official said.

“We didn’t put in every fact, but we put in enough facts to allow the court to judge bias and motive and credibility of the sourcing,” said Matthew G. Olsen, former deputy assistant attorney general for national security who oversaw the Justice Department’s FISA program from 2006 to 2009.
Click to expand...
 
So, for somebody out of the loop, this Nunes guy had a memo that supposedly showed they were gunning for Trump in some way by circumventing certain procedures, when in reality they didn't. Sounds like it's just another Uranium One.
 
Fener1907 said:
So, for somebody out of the loop, this Nunes guy had a memo that supposedly showed they were gunning for Trump in some way by circumventing certain procedures, when in reality they didn't. Sounds like it's just another Uranium One.
Click to expand...

It is definitely that. Another attempt to change the subject from the Mueller investigation.
 
Fener1907 said:
So, for somebody out of the loop, this Nunes guy had a memo that supposedly showed they were gunning for Trump in some way by circumventing certain procedures, when in reality they didn't. Sounds like it's just another Uranium One.
Click to expand...

Supposedly gunning for Trump in a very, very far fetched sort of way. They went after Page who they had already been after for 4 years prior to the timeline of the memo. This is a storm in an empty tea cup with a guy called Nunes running around shaking the cup about while shouting "look at this horrendous storm, look at it!!!"..
 
2cents said:
Right, I didn't realize Rosenstein was involved back in 2016 at all.



Yeah I get that, was just wondering why him and the likes of Coulter believe this memo reflects badly on Rosenstein.
Click to expand...
Rosentein approved renewal of the FISA in 2017 not 2016. Would probably have been Boente or McCabe who approved the original then Yates the second, Comey the third and McCabe/Rosenstein the last two.
 
The "Trump" I imagine he's referring to is the transition team/administration as a whole.
 
Everyone dissecting the memo is ignoring the Team Trump strategy, they don't care about lying or getting caught in it, they just want to get their stuff out and be loud about it.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Everyone dissecting the memo is ignoring the Team Trump strategy, they don't care about lying or getting caught in it, they just want to get their stuff out and be loud about it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Still can't hurt to check whether the claims are actually legit or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.