[W:914,1223] Robert Mueller's report is out

[PLizzy]

But conversations of Americans were tapped. For example, we know without a shadow of a doubt that the US government tapped the phone conversations of Carter Page. Other Americans had their phone conversations collected upon and then had their identities unmasked and the contents of those conversations leaked to the press.

To say this occurred isn't a conspiracy. Nor is it nutty. It is fact.

We don't know all the details of why Page was under surveillance at that moment. All we know is that beforehand he was the unwitting dupe of Russian espionage, which is the reason the first FISA warrant was issued, long before Page was ever in the campaign.

Why it is Page went back under surveillance nobody fully understands, but there must have been some reason beyond the Steele memo, or Trump's handpicked deputy AG would not have re-authorized the FISA warrants.

Notice that even in the Nunes memo, there isn't a full accounting of the entirety of why Page was under surveillance? That tells you something.

 

[Somerville]

WHEN was the request made to the FISA court?

The latest FISA request was in the fall of 2016.

Whoops... My mistake. There was a FISA request in October 2016. However, I erred in saying the latest FISA request was in 2016. The FISA court renewed requests to monitor Page's communications in January, April and June 2017.

The FISA request in October 2016 was after Page had left the Trump campaign. The first FISA warrant on Carter Page was issued in 2013, owing to his interactions with known Russian intelligence agents.

 

[StillServing]

We don't know all the details of why Page was under surveillance at that moment. All we know is that beforehand he was the unwitting dupe of Russian espionage, which is the reason the first FISA warrant was issued, long before Page was ever in the campaign.

Why it is Page went back under surveillance nobody fully understands, but there must have been some reason beyond the Steele memo, or Trump's handpicked deputy AG would not have re-authorized the FISA warrants.

Notice that even in the Nunes memo, there isn't a full accounting of the entirety of why Page was under surveillance? That tells you something.

Actually, we do. The October 2016 FISA request was made due to the previous suspicion that Page had contacts with the Russians (being a graduation speaker is usually how most spies work, don't you know?) but was reopened with the Steele dossier which has been fully debunked.

Moreover, despite over five years of investigations of Carter Page, it is interesting to note the number of indictments that have brought forward. The sum total of ZERO.

 

[StillServing]

The FISA request in October 2016 was after Page had left the Trump campaign. The first FISA warrant on Carter Page was issued in 2013, owing to his interactions with known Russian intelligence agents.

What's your point?

 

[upsideguy]

Hmmm... Let's start with because the FBI requested through the FISA court the authority to tap his conversations?

...which is why we have courts, so that the FBI would have to show cause as to why such was necessary... and a judge could make a decision balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of the state.

 

[StillServing]

...which is why we have courts, so that the FBI could show cause as to why such was necessary...

Except the FBI agents that made the request used a dossier which was fully fabricated and financed by a political opponent.

 

[upsideguy]

Except the FBI agents that made the request used a dossier which was fully fabricated and financed by a political opponent.

Yawn.... first, the dossier was not "fully fabricated", most of it has turned out to be true; second, it was complied by one of the world's foremost experts on Russia.... but, more importantly, Carter Page was under watch by the NSA for years. Any contact between a US citizen and the Russian government is going to draw the attention of the NSA... its just how our security works.

But, in the end a judge that made the decision. If you have a problem with this decision, then you have problem with this judge.

Moreover, this notion that somehow this Dossier advantaged Clinton is laughable. Its very existence was not known until AFTER the election.

This is such a ridiculous non-issue. Isn't there something that truly matters that is a better use of your time. Maybe you could find Obama's Kenyan birth certificate?

 

[PLizzy]

Actually, we do. The October 2016 FISA request was made due to the previous suspicion that Page had contacts with the Russians (being a graduation speaker is usually how most spies work, don't you know?) but was reopened with the Steele dossier which has been fully debunked.

Moreover, despite over five years of investigations of Carter Page, it is interesting to note the number of indictments that have brought forward. The sum total of ZERO.

Page had a history of being buddies with Russian spies who were indicted, so it's not true nothing was there. Further, the DOJ corroborated some of Steele's allegations, and we've seen publicly that Page did take secret meetings to Moscow to meet with Rosneft executives, something he previously lied about having done publicly.

I find Steele's reporting to be lacking to say the least, but this idea that four Republican judges, a Republican FBI director, and Trump's own handpicked deputy AG, were all just going on Steele's word is dubious at best.

I'd like to see the FISA warrant unsealed, so this can be put to rest.

 

[StillServing]

Yawn.... first, the dossier was not "fully fabricated", most of it has turned out to be true; second, it was complied by one of the world's foremost experts on Russia.... but, more importantly, Carter Page was under watch by the NSA for years. Any contact between a US citizen and the Russian government is going to draw the attention of the NSA... its just how our security works.

I actually worked at NSA as an Army intelligence officer. No...not how NSA works normally.

Moreover...exactly what about the Steele dossier has been proven to be true?

Recently Woodward remarked when asked whether the Steele dossier should be investigated:

WOODWARD: And it should be. What I out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it and Mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box. I think it was the CIA pushing this, real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out. But in this process, the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as Mueller also found out is highly questionable. Needs to be investigated.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Ultimately there's just too much questionable conduct in the investigation for anything conclusive to come out of it. There's no need to enumerate all the dubious claims, quite plausible innocent explanations and evidently wrongful intentions by specific actors. The investigation of Trump was malicious and not enough of the "evidence" withstands scrutiny to be admissible in any sort of fair adjudicatory proceeding. I realize this is frustrating to those opposed to Trump, but it is time they cut their losses and moved on, we need legislators more focused on policy than on this quixotic effort to oust Trump.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Its a fairly simple analysis that doesn't take into any account this 'dirt'. Sure, Putin would prefer to deal with an antagonist who was a dolt than a more knowledgeable adversary, but how does that work if he seeks to coerce and blackmail? Is it easier to get a dolt or a more knowledgeable person to cooperate?

You do NOT "get the dolt to cooperate". What you do is to set up situations where the "useful idiot" - all on their own and without direct prompting/direction - "completely independently decides" to do what you want them to do.

The skill in manipulation, as in state magic, is in making sure that the audience does not see what you are actually doing.

Consider the circumstances we know about in this case; Mueller told us the GRU hacked Hillary and the DNC's computers, they got the stuff which has been published by Wikileaks (so we know how serious this material is).

Haven't you forgotten that the latest version of the currently operative, officially approved, "Team Trump" sanctioned, "truth-of-the-day" is that the Russians did NOT "hack" those computers?

Now imagine that instead of sending the hacked Hillary and DNC material to Wikileaks, the GRU properly kept it secret and told Putin what they found (this seems much more plausible a scenario). I certainly can't imagine anyone at the GRU making the decision to send the Hillary dirt to Wikileaks without checking with Putin first.

I'd agree with you on that point.

So now you've got Putin considering all this rather compromising material that could clearly blow away Hillary's chances in the election if disclosed, or surely compel her submission if kept secret -what would one sensibly expect Putin to do?

I'd expect Mr. Putin to make an assessment as to whether it was more in Russia's interests to have an incompetent inconsistent, inexperienced and unknowledgeable dolt who was hated by roughly half of the active American electorate and who could be manipulated without any direct links being at risk of exposure occupying the White House or whether it was more in Russia's interests to have a competent, consistent, experienced and knowledgeable person who was hated by roughly half of the active American electorate who could NOT be manipulated without any direct links being at risk of exposure occupying the White House.

You claim Putin, that former high ranking KGB officer who knows how to use intelligence, is more savvy than simple me, and I admit it, I just don't see how being rid of Hillary (and having a "dolt" in the presidency instead) is better for Putin than having a totally captive Hillary.

I agree, having a "totally captive" __[fill in the blank]__ as the President of the United States of America WOULD be preferable to having a "useful idiot" as the President of the United States of America. However, when the choice is between:

• someone who MIGHT be "totally captive", but who could blow the whole gaff and create very negative results for Russia; or
• someone who IS (and IS PROVABLY) a "useful idiot" to the extent that they are the next best thing to being "totally captive";

and you want to make the pick that has the most felicitous combination of "probably favourable results" and "probably negative results", the wise bettor will go with "Option B" 99 times out of 100.

The "plunger" bets the wad on the long shot to "Win" while the person who makes a living at the track bets the favourite to "Place".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Don't be so mellow dramatic.
I know Clinton claims to have had nothing to do with her department's signing off on the Uranium One sale. I just don't believe her. And the FBI held documents about this don't help.

I have never questioned what you believe. All I question is whether what you believe is actually supported by actual evidence. So far you haven't shown me that it is.

In the eyes of the law...YES

The actual question posed was

Since Ms. Clinton has never been sentenced for committing a crime, let alone convicted of a committing a crime, let alone tried for committing a crime, let alone indicted for committing a crime, do you take the position that Ms. Clinton is NOT GUILTY of committing a crime?

NOTE:- The above question can be answered either "Yes.", "No.", "I don't know.", or "If you think that I'm going to actually and publicly admit that I subscribe to the proposition "If one of ''Their Guys' is even rumoured to have potentially had what might possibly be thought to resemble something that could theoretically be confused with being a crime - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **G*U*I*L*T**, but if one of 'Our Guys' is indicted, is tried, is convicted, is sentenced, and loses everyone of their appeals - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y**." - you are out of your mind."

Please pick only ONE of those four options.
​

Unfortunately you didn't actually answer the question asked (unless I interpret your answer as "If you think that I'm going to actually and publicly admit that I subscribe to the proposition "If one of ''Their Guys' is even rumoured to have potentially had what might possibly be thought to resemble something that could theoretically be confused with being a crime - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **G*U*I*L*T**, but if one of 'Our Guys' is indicted, is tried, is convicted, is sentenced, and loses everyone of their appeals - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y**." - you are out of your mind." - should I do that?

No. Not guilty in the eyes of the law is certainly not "innocent".
And before you get started...I do not think Donny-Boy is completely "innocent".
However I also do not believe he broke any laws. I also believe this witch-hunt of so damaging to the very fiber of US culture and society...so toxic...that the Dems need to impeach now, or drop it. Its been 2 and half year childish exhibition.

I will agree that what has been happening is damaging to the very fibre of the American political system - because it has weakened the belief of the American people in the "legitimacy of government". I do NOT agree that it is damaging to American culture and society - because it is a direct result of "American culture and society".

Mind you, if you think that exactly the same type of scenario would NOT have been played out if Ms. Clinton had been elected in 2016 then it's time to take your head out of the sand.

What has happened since the 2016 election (campaign started) is EXACTLY what the "American culture and society" has been headed towards ever since the 1950s and 60s.

Is that situation going to improve?

Not until BOTH the Republicans (read as "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") and the Democrats (read as "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") start actually running candidates who are acknowledged by a majority of the people as competent, qualified, suitable, and willing to work with the other party to find solutions acceptable to both parties and which are for the benefit of the American people as a whole rather than just special interest groups".

Is that likely to happen?

Is a pig going to fly from Tehran to Jerusalem and be named Chief Rabbi?

 

[trouble13]

It's the end? Then what are the 14 referrals cupcake?
You want to go over why Mueller didnt charge him...I'll hold your hand if you want little guy

What are the 14 referrals charging and who, do tell. I am sure that i am not the only one who would like you to share your secret insider information if you have any

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Buzz62]

I have never questioned what you believe. All I question is whether what you believe is actually supported by actual evidence. So far you haven't shown me that it is.



The actual question posed was

Since Ms. Clinton has never been sentenced for committing a crime, let alone convicted of a committing a crime, let alone tried for committing a crime, let alone indicted for committing a crime, do you take the position that Ms. Clinton is NOT GUILTY of committing a crime?

NOTE:- The above question can be answered either "Yes.", "No.", "I don't know.", or "If you think that I'm going to actually and publicly admit that I subscribe to the proposition "If one of ''Their Guys' is even rumoured to have potentially had what might possibly be thought to resemble something that could theoretically be confused with being a crime - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **G*U*I*L*T**, but if one of 'Our Guys' is indicted, is tried, is convicted, is sentenced, and loses everyone of their appeals - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y**." - you are out of your mind."

Please pick only ONE of those four options.
​

Unfortunately you didn't actually answer the question asked (unless I interpret your answer as "If you think that I'm going to actually and publicly admit that I subscribe to the proposition "If one of ''Their Guys' is even rumoured to have potentially had what might possibly be thought to resemble something that could theoretically be confused with being a crime - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **G*U*I*L*T**, but if one of 'Our Guys' is indicted, is tried, is convicted, is sentenced, and loses everyone of their appeals - that **P*R*O*V*E*S** **C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y**." - you are out of your mind." - should I do that?



I will agree that what has been happening is damaging to the very fibre of the American political system - because it has weakened the belief of the American people in the "legitimacy of government". I do NOT agree that it is damaging to American culture and society - because it is a direct result of "American culture and society".

Mind you, if you think that exactly the same type of scenario would NOT have been played out if Ms. Clinton had been elected in 2016 then it's time to take your head out of the sand.

What has happened since the 2016 election (campaign started) is EXACTLY what the "American culture and society" has been headed towards ever since the 1950s and 60s.

Is that situation going to improve?

Not until BOTH the Republicans (read as "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") and the Democrats (read as "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") start actually running candidates who are acknowledged by a majority of the people as competent, qualified, suitable, and willing to work with the other party to find solutions acceptable to both parties and which are for the benefit of the American people as a whole rather than just special interest groups".

Is that likely to happen?

Is a pig going to fly from Tehran to Jerusalem and be named Chief Rabbi?

:lamo
Love the pig thing. That's funny.

You're right that both parties are corrupt. Have been for years. What I see...or maybe how I see it...is a rich guy with allot of interesting and colourful habits, and questionable business practices, presented himself for election. He was and is, his ever amusing self. Nasty quips...poor public speech skills...interesting looking hair...yet oddly not for sale. I believe that THIS along with Trump's loud Nationalist rhetoric and now actions, have scared the hell outta the elite Globalists. Thus...they attack...relentlessly.

Would the Republicans have done as much? I don't think so. Not this time. Remember...'bought and paid for'.
Its these Globalists who have the politicians in their pockets.

As for the criminal activities of Hillary-Billary...she may never be charged with anything.
But once Barr's done...and the IG...nobody will be putting up statues of her either.
She escaped with her shin. She would be well advised to keep her skin outta this election cycle.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ya there's the vote of no confidence.

There is also the "caucus vote to expel" and that doesn't change anything in the legislature except that there is a new Prime Minister.

Not sure what you mean about 2008 and 2016...?

I didn't say "2008 AND 2016", what I said was "And this current situation differs from the situation from 2008 to 2016?" (emphasis added).

From 2008 to 2016, the total US economy kept on getting larger. From 2017 to 2019, the total US economy kept on getting larger. The rates at which the total US economy kept on getting larger from 2008 to 2016 and the rate at which the total US economy kept on getting larger from 2017 to 2019 are essentially identical.

The fact that the total US economy kept on getting larger does not mean that the benefits of that increase were spread evenly amongst the American people.

To illustrate, if A has 100 units and the value of those units increases at the compound rate of 10% for 10 years, then A will have 259.37424601 units at the end of that time. If B has 1,000,000 units and the value of those units increases at the compound rate of 10% for 10 years, then B will have 259,374,246.01 units at the end of that time. While the percentage of the total units that A and B have has remained constant, A now has 159.37424601 more "disposable units" than they had at the beginning whilst B has 159,374,246.01 more "disposable units".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Breaking the law is not within his Article 2 powers. Obstruction. You can't run from it.

One of the non-DP commentators raised the interesting question:

"Could a person be convicted of "obstruction of justice" if they obstructed the investigation of an allegation that they HAD obstructed justice when it turns out that the original allegation could not be substantiated (at least not to the point where a reasonable prosecutor would conclude that an indictment could be taken out with a reasonably prospect of obtaining a conviction)?"
​

What will surprise many people is that the answer to that question is "Yes.".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump is the POTUS. Thus he has always been well within his rights to claim exec. privilege.

Did you know that "executive privilege" is a fairly recent construct in the laws of the United States of America?

Did you know that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has actually established that "executive privilege" has quite narrow bounds?

Did you know that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has the jurisdiction to say whether or not, in any particular set of circumstances and with respect to both the nature and extent of any claim for it, "executive privilege" actually exists?

He did not during the "official" witch hunt. This Democrat witch hunt is a re-hashing of old news, and an attempt to get someone to trip up and say something stupid. Thus...exec. privilege.

Sorry, "attempting to prevent someone from tripping up and saying something stupid" does NOT fall within the legally established ambit of "executive privilege".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

WHEN was the request made to the FISA court?

The first such request was made in 2013 or 2014.

 

[Buzz62]

There is also the "caucus vote to expel" and that doesn't change anything in the legislature except that there is a new Prime Minister.



I didn't say "2008 AND 2016", what I said was "And this current situation differs from the situation from 2008 to 2016?" (emphasis added).

From 2008 to 2016, the total US economy kept on getting larger. From 2017 to 2019, the total US economy kept on getting larger. The rates at which the total US economy kept on getting larger from 2008 to 2016 and the rate at which the total US economy kept on getting larger from 2017 to 2019 are essentially identical.

The fact that the total US economy kept on getting larger does not mean that the benefits of that increase were spread evenly amongst the American people.

To illustrate, if A has 100 units and the value of those units increases at the compound rate of 10% for 10 years, then A will have 259.37424601 units at the end of that time. If B has 1,000,000 units and the value of those units increases at the compound rate of 10% for 10 years, then B will have 259,374,246.01 units at the end of that time. While the percentage of the total units that A and B have has remained constant, A now has 159.37424601 more "disposable units" than they had at the beginning whilst B has 159,374,246.01 more "disposable units".

The Obama Economy vs. the Trump Economy - Foundation for Economic Education

 

[Buzz62]

Did you know that "executive privilege" is a fairly recent construct in the laws of the United States of America?

Did you know that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has actually established that "executive privilege" has quite narrow bounds?

Did you know that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has the jurisdiction to say whether or not, in any particular set of circumstances and with respect to both the nature and extent of any claim for it, "executive privilege" actually exists?



Sorry, "attempting to prevent someone from tripping up and saying something stupid" does NOT fall within the legally established ambit of "executive privilege".

Who cares? Do you really think the SCOTUS is gonna rule against executive privilege in this case...under these particular circumstances?

 

[Athanasius68]

One of the non-DP commentators raised the interesting question:

"Could a person be convicted of "obstruction of justice" if they obstructed the investigation of an allegation that they HAD obstructed justice when it turns out that the original allegation could not be substantiated (at least not to the point where a reasonable prosecutor would conclude that an indictment could be taken out with a reasonably prospect of obtaining a conviction)?"
​

What will surprise many people is that the answer to that question is "Yes.".

Ok--But Is it obstruction when a person who has the authority to weigh in on an investigation and/or prosecution, exercises that authority, or considers exercising that authority?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Did you know that "executive privilege" is a fairly recent construct in the laws of the United States of America?

Did you know that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has actually established that "executive privilege" has quite narrow bounds?

Did you know that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has the jurisdiction to say whether or not, in any particular set of circumstances and with respect to both the nature and extent of any claim for it, "executive privilege" actually exists?



Sorry, "attempting to prevent someone from tripping up and saying something stupid" does NOT fall within the legally established ambit of "executive privilege".

Horse ****. Quit spewing misinformation, the first example of executive privilege was Washington. It had to do with the House requesting information on the Jay Treaty in 1796 and the House had no say or power over treaties so the information was provided to the Senate but not the House.

Jackson and Jefferson both asserted executive privilege as well.

Did you know---you have no clue what you are talking about?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Obama Economy vs. the Trump Economy - Foundation for Economic Education

Interesting article.

Did you happen to notice that it said that the US economy was growing during Mr. Obama's terms of office?

The major criticism on Mr. Obama that the article makes is that the economy didn't expand "fast enough" to match "historical patterns".

That said, by your own "proof" the article does NOT dispute what I said.

Thank you for playing "I can post canned opinions that I don't understand as well as any other ignorant person can".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who cares? Do you really think the SCOTUS is gonna rule against executive privilege in this case...under these particular circumstances?

Only if the Supreme Court actually follows the laws of the United States of America as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It's pretty hard to turn a law that says:

1. IF A wants to ask B to do C;
2. AND IF A does ask B to do C;
3. THEN B shall do C.

into one that says

1. IF A wants to ask B to do C;
2. AND IF A does ask B to do C;
3. THEN B doesn't have to do C if D doesn't want them to do C.

However, I agree that there is a possibility that a "stacked" court could do it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ok--But Is it obstruction when a person who has the authority to weigh in on an investigation and/or prosecution, exercises that authority, or considers exercising that authority?

It could well be. It depends on many factors and one of those factors would be "did the investigation impinge on the person who "weighed in" on it and attempted to stop it".