Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Reck]

After all of this is over, you should sue Kyle Griffin for emotional pain and suffering. :lol

This is one of those posts that tend to not age well. Kind of like this tweet.

794255968448020480


:lol says he "doesn't know yet" but its confident enough to think the Mueller investigation will end on a positive note.

[DarrinS]

"Don't know"

That explains alot about you and your theories. You seemed so sure a few days ago :lol


I posted that “I think”, i.e. my opinion. I don’t know for sure and neither do you.

[djohn2oo8]

I posted that “I think”, i.e. my opinion. I don’t know for sure and neither do you.

Lordy a backpedal can be a thing of beauty.

[djohn2oo8]

This is one of those posts that tend to not age well. Kind of like this tweet.

794255968448020480


:lol says he "doesn't know yet" but its confident enough to think the Mueller investigation will end on a positive note.
Darrin. What do ya think about that quote?

[Chris]

Left obsessed with Sanders ever since she gave Jim Acosta the smack down :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Left obsessed with Sanders ever since she gave Jim Acosta the smack down :lol

What do you think about the quote Chris? Is she right?

[DarrinS]

Darrin. What do ya think about that quote?

If you’re attacking them with blanks, then I agree with that quote.

[djohn2oo8]

If you’re attacking them with blanks, then I agree with that quote.

No. Do you agree with the quote yes or no?

[Chris]

Everything is static in djohn la-la land :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Everything is static in djohn la-la land :lol

A yes or no question is too hard for you?

[DarrinS]

What you do when one of your bombshell tweets is a dud.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266387&page=477&p=9205187&viewfull=1#post9205187


I think someone might have been embarrassed.

[djohn2oo8]

Do you agree with the quote yes or no?

[djohn2oo8]

Speaking of being embarrassed, Darrin, why do you claim not to be a Trump supporter?

[DarrinS]

Speaking of being embarrassed, Darrin, why do you claim not to be a Trump supporter?

If thinking the Russia collusion investigation is bogus means you’re a Trump supporter, then I must be a trump supporter.

[djohn2oo8]

If thinking the Russia collusion investigation is bogus means you’re a Trump supporter, then I must be a trump supporter.

Not even that. Anything negative posted about Trump in any capacity, your ass bleeds. BTW, why do you think this investigation is bogus? 3 indictments already. Clearly not a witch hunt.

[djohn2oo8]

My bad. 4 indictments.

[TSA]

Lordy. TSA quoting some site called powerlineblog.com? :rollin

Your free to refute it at any time. I’m sure there’s a Twitter personality who can help you if needed.

[djohn2oo8]

Your free to refute it at any time. I’m sure there’s a Twitter personality who can help you if needed.

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--0j4QzjNw--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_lpad,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_1200/v1496276778/production/designs/1638059_2.jpg

[TSA]

My bad. 4 indictments.

2 process crimes and 2 indictments from years ago that have absolutely nothing to do with Trump and are closely aligned with the Podesta Group. Meanwhile top ranking FBI/DOJ officials are being outed and exposed while you stay mum.

:lol Lordy!

Your entire world is crumbling and it’s a pleasure to watch.

[TSA]

2018 is looking bleak for the djohns of the world.

[djohn2oo8]

2 process crimes and 2 indictments from years ago that have absolutely nothing to do with Trump and are closely aligned with the Podesta Group. Meanwhile top ranking FBI/DOJ officials are being outed and exposed while you stay mum.

:lol Lordy!

Your entire world is crumbling and it’s a pleasure to watch.

You said zero indictments period. Lordy!

[djohn2oo8]

2018 is looking bleak for the djohns of the world.

Does it look bleak for Susan Rice?

[TSA]

You said zero indictments period. Lordy!

And you have a 500+ page thread about Flynn being in major trouble :lmao
:lol process crime
:lol $500 fine
:lol no jail time

[djohn2oo8]

And you have a 500+ page thread about Flynn being in major trouble :lmao
:lol process crime
:lol $500 fine
:lol no jail time

"Mike Flynn is a free man and won't be charged"

After indictment

"Flynn fully intended to get caught"

:rollin

[djohn2oo8]

Pizzagate truly looking bleak. How is Susan Rice doing?

[Chris]

And you have a 500+ page thread about Flynn being in major trouble :lmao
:lol process crime
:lol $500 fine
:lol no jail time


Pardon by Trump :lol Trump can fire Mueller at any time :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Pardon by Trump :lol Trump can fire Mueller at any time :lol

Chris again showing just how stupid he is. Trump would first need to fire Rosenstein then find someone to fire Mueller. Lordy!

[djohn2oo8]

946468297888944129
Looks like Team Trump is going for that pardon :lmao

[Splits]

Team Red: when Team Blue lies to investigators, it is the highest offense. IMPEACH!

Team Red: when Team Red lies to investigators, it is a "process crime"

:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

Team Red: when Team Blue lies to investigators, it is the highest offense. IMPEACH!

Team Red: when Team Red lies to investigators, it is a "process crime"

:lmao

:lol

[TSA]

Team Red: when Team Blue lies to investigators, it is the highest offense. IMPEACH!

Team Red: when Team Red lies to investigators, it is a "process crime"

:lmao

Which sitting President are you referring to in your first Team Blue scenario?

[Splits]

Which sitting President are you referring to in your first Team Blue scenario?

Take a wild fucking guess, hypocrite.

[Pavlov]

Yes, the honesty of an anonymous forum member is better than that of a high ranking FBI agent. You’re a fucking clown.Damn, you're really angry about this -- you should admit you support Trump too. You'll feel better about being an asshole.

[djohn2oo8]

The Australian prime minister,*Malcolm Turnbull, has not denied a report that information from senior diplomat Alexander Downer helped spark the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

Pavlov
Lordy!

[TSA]

947228182935212032

Sorry PissSA. Will keep reposting.Im going to miss you and Chumpdumper circle jerking over this article.

“If :lol Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and is now a cooperating witness, was the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration, his saga is also a tale of the Trump campaign in miniature.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html?referer=https://www.google.com/




“WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later (July), when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html?referer=https://www.google.com/


June 20, 2016: The dossier is first written and sent to the FBI
The document is first dated June 20, 2016. It consists of several unverifiable periodic reports made throughout the summer, according to Mother Jones. The last date in the document is December 13, 2016, more than a month after the election. The author is reported to be British. The document is sent, in dated sections, to the FBI.

http://www.businessinsider.com/timeline-russia-trump-sex-blackmail-golden-shower-dossier-2017-1

[TSA]

The Australian prime minister,*Malcolm Turnbull, has not denied a report that information from senior diplomat Alexander Downer helped spark the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

Pavlov
Lordy!

Watching you and Pavlov circle jerk to the NYT diversion piece was amusing :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Im going to miss you and Chumpdumper circle jerking over this article.

“If :lol Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and is now a cooperating witness, was the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration, his saga is also a tale of the Trump campaign in miniature.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html?referer=https://www.google.com/




“WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later (July), when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html?referer=https://www.google.com/


June 20, 2016: The dossier is first written and sent to the FBI
The document is first dated June 20, 2016. It consists of several unverifiable periodic reports made throughout the summer, according to Mother Jones. The last date in the document is December 13, 2016, more than a month after the election. The author is reported to be British. The document is sent, in dated sections, to the FBI.

http://www.businessinsider.com/timeline-russia-trump-sex-blackmail-golden-shower-dossier-2017-1

Poor TSA, again cutting out this information
947246047033565185

British and Dutch Governments already passed intel to the US about Trump's associates. Before the dossier. Lordy!

[djohn2oo8]

TSA again caught trying to lie :lol

[TSA]

Poor TSA, again cutting out this information
947246047033565185

British and Dutch Governments already passed intel to the US about Trump's associates. Before the dossier. Lordy!

You, your tweet, and the article failed to provide any dates for this new claim, and no where does it say any of that precedes the Steele dossier. With as much shit as you throw in this thread you’d think something would eventually stick :lol

How does your first L of 2018 feel?

[djohn2oo8]

You, your tweet, and the article failed to provide any dates for this new claim, and no where does it say any of that precedes the Steele dossier. With as much shit as you throw in this thread you’d think something would eventually stick :lol

How does your first L of 2018 feel?

British and Dutch already passed intel to FBI. Lordy!!!

[djohn2oo8]

947621744281640973
Keep trying PeeSA. You'll get it one day.

[djohn2oo8]

947838888193740800
Posting twice for being right.

[TSA]

947621744281640973
Keep trying PeeSA. You'll get it one day.

Seth Abramson 2 days ago furiously tweeting a 100 tweet thread

947255216725987328

Seth Abramson today after realizing the NYT was easily dismantled “I already knew about this in April”

[TSA]

947838888193740800
Posting twice for being right.
:rollin

One source suggested the official investigation was making progress. “They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said. “This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

9 months ago :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Poor TSA. Dossier theory shot to shit
https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

[TSA]

Poor TSA. Dossier theory shot to shit
https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

What is this dossier theory you think I have?

I simply called bullshit on the NYT Australia article that was all speculation yet you took it as fact.


“If Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and is now a cooperating witness, was the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration, his saga is also a tale of the Trump campaign in miniature.”


The FBI had the Steele dossier in June before Australian officials contacted the US in July about low level George, if that even ever happened. No one named in the article has confirmed or verified anything claimed.

You and Pavlov prematurely ejaculated for a day straight. Pull up your pants and move on.

[djohn2oo8]

What is this dossier theory you think I have?

I simply called bullshit on the NYT Australia article that was all speculation yet you took it as fact.


“If Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and is now a cooperating witness, was the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration, his saga is also a tale of the Trump campaign in miniature.”


The FBI had the Steele dossier in June before Australian officials contacted the US in July about low level George, if that even ever happened. No one named in the article has confirmed or verified anything claimed.

You and Pavlov prematurely ejaculated for a day straight. Pull up your pants and move on.

Yet the FBI did not interview Steele until October. If they needed the dossier to start their investigation they would have interviewed him ASAP.
https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

[Pavlov]

Watching you and Pavlov circle jerk to the NYT diversion piece was amusing :lol It's amusing watching you not say the dossier was used to get the FISA warrant. :lol

Innuendo.

[djohn2oo8]

And again, Pisser ignoring many other countries handed over intel prior to June.

[djohn2oo8]

It's amusing watching you not say the dossier was used to get the FISA warrant. :lol

Innuendo.

:lol

[Pavlov]

And again, Pisser ignoring many other countries handed over intel prior to June.
It's a significant story but TSA keeps jerking off to the piss stories and Q Antifa uprisings.

[djohn2oo8]

On his own initiative, Steele decided to also pass the information to British and American intelligence services because he believed the findings were a matter of national security for both countries.[33] However, he became frustrated with the FBI, which he believed was failing to investigate his reports, choosing instead to focus on the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. According to The Independent, Steele came to believe that there was a "cabal" inside the FBI, particularly its New York field office linked to Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani, which blocked any attempts to investigate the links between Trump and Russia.

TSA down! TSA down! A 2 hit knockout for the ages folks!

[djohn2oo8]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-file-investigation-hacking-christopher-steele-mi6-a7526901.html%3famp

Lordy! Guess Steele thought they weren't using the dossier as much as Pisser thinks.

[djohn2oo8]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/0ef0c182b3101374edab5be35d8da477/tenor.gif?itemid=9214832

[TSA]

Yet the FBI did not interview Steele until October. If they needed the dossier to start their investigation they would have interviewed him ASAP.
https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

You keep wasting the Banderas gif. I never claimed the dossier was what kick started the investigation.

I don’t know why you two are so hung up on the start date of the investigation anyways. The dossier is important because a top DOJ official was “secretly” meeting with the founder of Fusion GPS and this same top DOJ officials wife was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier. This same dossier naught have been used to secure the FISA warrant on the second attempt.

Speaking of the FISA warrant what ever happened to the FISA judge that recused themself?

[TSA]

It's a significant story but TSA keeps jerking off to the piss stories and Q Antifa uprisings.

What about the completely unverified NYT Australia story is significant?

[TSA]

And what is pisser or peeSA? :lol

[djohn2oo8]

What about the completely unverified NYT Australia story is significant?

If it was unverified, then the Australian PM could deny it or speak about it. Yet, he said couldn't comment because it's an ongoing investigation. Lordy!

[djohn2oo8]

You keep wasting the Banderas gif. I never claimed the dossier was what kick started the investigation.

I don’t know why you two are so hung up on the start date of the investigation anyways. The dossier is important because a top DOJ official was “secretly” meeting with the founder of Fusion GPS and this same top DOJ officials wife was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier. This same dossier naught have been used to secure the FISA warrant on the second attempt.

Speaking of the FISA warrant what ever happened to the FISA judge that recused themself?

Steele believed the FBI was not using it. Lordy! TSA down, unconscious.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HandsomeLimpBlackwidowspider-max-1mb.gif

[Pavlov]

What about the completely unverified NYT Australia story is significant?The actual story-- along with all the other foreign intel agencies' raising red flags.

But you keep spreading det piss innuendo. Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.

[djohn2oo8]

Walk us through.

[TSA]

The actual story-- along with all the other foreign intel agencies' raising red flags.

But you keep spreading det piss innuendo. Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.

What actual story? The NYT was no bombshell like you thought it was. You looked stupid parading it around and today you feel stupider. The Obama administration first sought a FISA warrant on Trump associates before Australia contacted US in July 2016. The investigation had already begun.

[djohn2oo8]

What actual story? The NYT was no bombshell like you thought it was. You looked stupid parading it around and today you feel stupider. The Obama administration first sought a FISA warrant on Trump associates before Australia contacted US in July 2016. The investigation had already begun.

Oh my Lord you still think a President can try and order a wiretap?

[TSA]

2017 Democrats: Steele dossier significant!
2018 Democrats: What Steele dossier?

Going to be a demoralizing year for those of you that put so much effort into pushing the Russian collusion propaganda.

[Pavlov]

What actual story?The story that was reported.
The NYT was no bombshell like you thought it was.I never called it a bombshell -- that's your defensiveness shrieking. It's one of what will probably be many detailed reports of foreign intel providing information on your god's campaign.
You looked stupid parading it around and today you feel stupider.Nope. Feel pretty good actually. It's confirmation.
The Obama administration first sought a FISA warrant on Trump associates before Australia contacted US in July 2016. The investigation had already begun.Yes, it had. :lol

But you keep spreading det piss innuendo. Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.



Don't try to dodge this.

[djohn2oo8]

Oh my Lord you still think a President can try and order a wiretap?

[djohn2oo8]

The story that was reported.I never called it a bombshell -- that's your defensiveness shrieking. It's one of what will probably be many detailed reports of foreign intel providing information on your god's campaign.Nope. Feel pretty good actually. It's confirmation.Yes, it had. :lol

But you keep spreading det piss innuendo. Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.



Don't try to dodge this.

Asking a question like that to a Hannity viewer will cause short circuiting.

[baseline bum]

2017 Democrats: Steele dossier significant!
2018 Democrats: What Steele dossier?

Going to be a demoralizing year for those of you that put so much effort into pushing the Russian collusion propaganda.

Adoptions was the propaganda tbh

[Pavlov]

FBI: We'd like a wiretap for these reasons.

FISC:
http://www.gifmania.com.de/Animierte-Gifs-Gegenstaende/Bilder-Burobedarf/Gif-Animationen-Stempel/Stempel-82158.gif

FBI: Also pee-pee.

FISC:
http://www.dakarsoftware.com/uploads/media/Product-ProductMainImage/180584453-Online-Overtime-Management-3-Overtime-Pre-Approval-YaE.gif

[TSA]

The story that was reported.I never called it a bombshell -- that's your defensiveness shrieking. It's one of what will probably be many detailed reports of foreign intel providing information on your god's campaign.Nope. Feel pretty good actually. It's confirmation.Yes, it had. :lol

But you keep spreading det piss innuendo. Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.



Don't try to dodge this.

The entire NYT piece was innuendo. None of their claims have been confirmed and the investigation had already started before Australia contacted the US. None of the Australia/George story has been given under oath to congress.

“It’s one of what will probably be many detailed reports” :rollin

It couldn’t be any less detailed. No witnesses, no date, no time, no place, no corroboration.

——-


I’ve never claimed to have known the standards for evidence brought before the FISA court, why don’t you walk us through it. And when your done with that walk us through why the federal judge (also on the FISA court) presiding over Mike Flynn’s case was recused.

And what is this piss innuendo you keep referring to?

[djohn2oo8]

947904053861855232
Down goes Pisser. Down goes Pisser!

[Pavlov]

The entire NYT piece was innuendo. None of their claims have been confirmed and the investigation had already started before Australia contacted the US. None of the Australia/George story has been given under oath to congress.

“It’s one of what will probably be many detailed reports” :rollin

It couldn’t be any less detailed. No witnesses, no date, no time, no place, no corroboration.:lmao You just made a big deal out of the date. Downer IS the witness. Kensington Wine Room is the place. As for corroboration -- I guess you can wait for a guy convicted of lying to the FBI to refute it. :lol


I’ve never claimed to have known the standards for evidence brought before the FISA court, why don’t you walk us through it.:lmao That's some pathetic shit when you try to adopt Spurtacular's Jedi mind trick tactic. You look it the fuck up. It's not hard to find. Then you tell us how it fits your piss innuendo. You are all over this FISA stuff without the basic knowledge of how it works. You should fix that.


And what is this piss innuendo you keep referring to?Jesus, dude. You won't commit to any theory since you have been burned so badly before. I understand that -- you looked like a complete idiot so many times -- but you can't deny the fact you are pushing the narrative that the Steele dossier got the FISA warrant as furiously as possible without actually committing to it because you are a coward.

That is your piss innuendo.

[djohn2oo8]

947904053861855232
Down goes Pisser. Down goes Pisser!

TSA i thought you said there has been no verification?

[djohn2oo8]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f5d638b12cde8d9a263f12bc2ce51ee2/tenor.gif?itemid=7544391

Aussies!

[Pavlov]

947904053861855232
Down goes Pisser. Down goes Pisser!From the story:
It remains uncertain precisely the degree to which Australia's reporting of the Downer-Papadopoulos conversation sparked the original investigation, given US authorities were getting information also from other friendly governments and from within the US.I do agree it was gauche to leak Downer's name, but it's probably just a signal to those attacking the FBI they might not want the full story of foreign intel to be known.

[Pavlov]

Something tells me we'll never hear about FISA standards from TSA -- ever.

[TSA]

:lmao You just made a big deal out of the date. Downer IS the witness. Kensington Wine Room is the place. As for corroboration -- I guess you can wait for a guy convicted of lying to the FBI to refute it. :lol

:lmao That's some pathetic shit when you try to adopt Spurtacular's Jedi mind trick tactic. You look it the fuck up. It's not hard to find. Then you tell us how it fits your piss innuendo. You are all over this FISA stuff without the basic knowledge of how it works. You should fix that.

Jesus, dude. You won't commit to any theory since you have been burned so badly before. I understand that -- you looked like a complete idiot so many times -- but you can't deny the fact you are pushing the narrative that the Steele dossier got the FISA warrant as furiously as possible without actually committing to it because you are a coward.

That is your piss innuendo.

:lol triggered

I already said I think the Steele dossier was used to secure the FISA warrant. You keep trying to push the false narrative that I think the Steele dossier was the sole factor in securing the FISA warrant. I don’t care if the Steele dossier was or wasn’t used for the FISA warrant. I’m more interested in Bruce and Nellie Ohr’s involvement with the Steele dossier. A top DOJ official intimately involved in the opposition research of a candidate is a much bigger story than the dossier itself.

[Pavlov]

:lol triggered

I already said I think the Steele dossier was used to secure the FISA warrant. You keep trying to push the false narrative that I think the Steele dossier was the sole factor in securing the FISA warrant. I don’t care if the Steele dossier was or wasn’t used for the FISA warrant. I’m more interested in Bruce and Nellie Ohr’s involvement with the Steele dossier. A top DOJ official intimately involved in the opposition research of a candidate is a much bigger story than the dossier itself.And yet, you won't look it up. And now you pretend it isn't important to you. After all your piss posts. :lol This is the pattern with you.


Something tells me we'll never hear about FISA standards from TSA -- ever.Yep.

[TSA]

And yet, you won't look it up. And now you pretend it isn't important to you. After all your piss posts. :lol This is the pattern with you.

Yep.

I don’t need to look it up as it has no bearing on my thoughts the dossier was used to secure the warrant. Neither of us know if the dossier was or wasn’t used, the FBI/DOJ have been stonewalling Congress requests.

[Pavlov]

I don’t need to look it up as it has no bearing on my thoughts the dossier was used to secure the warrant. Neither of us know if the dossier was or wasn’t used, the FBI/DOJ have been stonewalling Congress requests.You'd have a much more informed opinion on whether piss was used to get a FISA warrant if you knew fuck all about how one is obtained. As it is, you don't.

You prefer innuendo. This is a pattern with you.

[djohn2oo8]

Damn. Pav skullfucking Piss. Somebody needs to

https://m.popkey.co/7d270b/DQoae.gif

[TSA]

You'd have a much more informed opinion on whether piss was used to get a FISA warrant if you knew fuck all about how one is obtained. As it is, you don't.

You prefer innuendo. This is a pattern with you.

Again, neither of us know if the dossier was or wasn’t used, the FBI/DOJ have been stonewalling Congress requests. You seem to believe you are pretty well informed the process of obtaining a FISA warrant so explain why you think the Steele dossier could not have been presented to the FISC court.

[Pavlov]

Again, neither of us know if the dossier was or wasn’t used, the FBI/DOJ have been stonewalling Congress requests. You seem to believe you are pretty well informed the process of obtaining a FISA warrant so explain why you think the Steele dossier could not have been presented to the FISC court.There's no indication any information in the dossier would be considered or was needed at all -- and if it was, there is much more valid information in the dossier than you would wish. FISA standards are higher than you wish them to be, and the process the FBI goes through to meet those standards is more stringent than you wish it to be. You seem to be completely ignorant about the process of obtaining a FISA warrant, so explain why anyone should take anything you have ever said about FISA warrants seriously?

[DarrinS]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html

"CNN has reported that US investigators have corroborated some aspects of the dossier though not some of the more salacious allegations. The FBI used some materials from the dossier in its successful request for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump associate Carter Page."

Fake?

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSevjJvUIAAUpD3.jpg:large

[Pavlov]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html

"CNN has reported that US investigators have corroborated some aspects of the dossier though not some of the more salacious allegations. The FBI used some materials from the dossier in its successful request for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump associate Carter Page."

Fake?


There's no indication any information in the dossier would be considered or was needed at all -- and if it was, there is much more valid information in the dossier than you would wish. FISA standards are higher than you wish them to be, and the process the FBI goes through to meet those standards is more stringent than you wish it to be. You seem to be completely ignorant about the process of obtaining a FISA warrant, so explain why anyone should take anything you have ever said about FISA warrants seriously?

[djohn2oo8]

Again, neither of us know if the dossier was or wasn’t used, the FBI/DOJ have been stonewalling Congress requests. You seem to believe you are pretty well informed the process of obtaining a FISA warrant so explain why you think the Steele dossier could not have been presented to the FISC court.

It's an ongoing investigation. DOJ nor the FBI can release that information. Without proper subpoenas, which Nunes has apparently missed the memo. Next!

[djohn2oo8]

Btw, TSA, what is the procedure to get a FISA warrant?

[Pavlov]

It's an ongoing investigation. DOJ nor the FBI can release that information. Without proper subpoenas, which Nunes has apparently missed the memo. Next!Yeah, why are board Republicans so hot to interfere with, let's just say obstruct -- an ongoing investigation? If Trump and Co. did nothing wrong, they'll be cleared.

[djohn2oo8]

Yeah, why are board Republicans so hot to interfere with, let's just say obstruct -- an ongoing investigation? If Trump and Co. did nothing wrong, they'll be cleared.

A bit suspicious they claim the investigation to be a witch hunt before it's even over. A Nixonian move. But Hillary's investigation was a sham because they didn't find anything :lol

Uranium One!!!!!!

[koriwhat]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSevjJvUIAAUpD3.jpg:large

:tu

[koriwhat]

A bit suspicious they claim the investigation to be a witch hunt before it's even over. A Nixonian move. But Hillary's investigation was a sham because they didn't find anything :lol

Uranium One!!!!!!

they found plenty but they're all the same investigating and ruining our country so of course they found "nothing" when it comes to HRC. stop for a second and think for a bit... take your fucking emotions out of the process for once. she went against our laws but those in power let her and her cronies off because they are her cronies. it is what it is.

[Pavlov]

they found plenty but they're all the same investigating and ruining our country so of course they found "nothing" when it comes to HRC. stop for a second and think for a bit... take your fucking emotions out of the process for once. she went against our laws but those in power let her and her cronies off because they are her cronies. it is what it is.Which laws did she go against?

[koriwhat]

Which laws did she go against?

you can keep going in circles forever if you'd like but what she did with that server was illegal. no matter how you spin it it was illegal. she knew, her cast of shitheads knew, everyone involved knew or else they wouldn't destroy evidence etc...

stay in the dark forever pav. it doesn't matter to me whether or not you ever come into the light.

[Pavlov]

you can keep going in circles forever if you'd like but what she did with that server was illegal. no matter how you spin it it was illegal. she knew, her cast of shitheads knew, everyone involved knew or else they wouldn't destroy evidence etc...

stay in the dark forever pav. it doesn't matter to me whether or not you ever come into the light.What did she do with that server?

[koriwhat]

What did she do with that server?

your line of questioning is retarded and akin to that of someone who thinks he sits at top of the mountain. sorry your candidate lost and rightfully so. boohoo! you know, like everyone else, that HRC and the last 30 yrs of our nation has been ran by those who want this country and world to fail. i only hope one day you wake the fuck up already; not only you but the mentally weak far leftys of this world.

[Pavlov]

your line of questioning is retarded and akin to that of someone who thinks he sits at top of the mountain. sorry your candidate lost and rightfully so. boohoo! you know, like everyone else, that HRC and the last 30 yrs of our nation has been ran by those who want this country and world to fail. i only hope one day you wake the fuck up already; not only you but the mentally weak far leftys of this world.All you have to say is you don't know.

It's not a big deal.

[koriwhat]

All you have to say is you don't know.

It's not a big deal.

your reading comprehension is poor... 2 and 3 posts up i explained just 1% of HRC's bs. take HRC out of it and replace her with DJT and tell me again how no laws were broken. you're just bitter and that's the truth of it all; you and many others so bitter they can't cope with a man in office that didn't look towards the pedophiles of the ME to fund his campaign to the WH.

[Pavlov]

your reading comprehension is poor... 2 and 3 posts up i explained just 1% of HRC's bs. take HRC out of it and replace her with DJT and tell me again how no laws were broken. you're just bitter and that's the truth of it all; you and many others so bitter they can't cope with a man in office that didn't look towards the pedophiles of the ME to fund his campaign to the WH.So what did she do with the server again?

[koriwhat]

So what did she do with the server again?

if you have to say "again", then obviously you already read what she did. stupid or just ignorant; both?

[koriwhat]

btw pav, your line of questioning isn't profound in any way, shape, or form. boring and doesn't move the discussion any further so from here on out i won't be entertaining your bs either. if it's a one sided conversation you want then you got it.

[Pavlov]

if you have to say "again", then obviously you already read what she did. stupid or just ignorant; both?I said "again" because I already asked you once and got no answer.

[Pavlov]

btw pav, your line of questioning isn't profound in any way, shape, or form. boring and doesn't move the discussion any further so from here on out i won't be entertaining your bs either. if it's a one sided conversation you want then you got it.Of course it's one-sided -- you never actually say anything. It's just one perpetual emotion vomit with you.

If you don't know something, don't get all pouty about it.

[koriwhat]

...take HRC out of it and replace her with DJT and tell me again how no laws were broken.

you're just bitter pav like so many on the far left.

[Pavlov]

you're just bitter pav like so many on the far left.What made you so bitter?

[koriwhat]

What made you so bitter?

i'm far from bitter... more like pissed off that we've had/have people in power who would like nothing more than constituents who are so passive they believe up is down and down is up if told so without even questioning a thing. mindless drones with unrealistic ideals of some bs utopia that will never be.

[Chris]

What made you so bitter?

What made you decide to create a troll account?

[Pavlov]

i'm far from bitter... more like pissed off that we've had/have people in power who would like nothing more than constituents who are so passive they believe up is down and down is up if told so without even questioning a thing. mindless drones with unrealistic ideals of some bs utopia that will never be.Which unrealistic ideals are you talking about?

[Pavlov]

What made you decide to create a troll account?Kicks, man. I did it for the kicks.

[koriwhat]

Which unrealistic ideals are you talking about?

like a fucking toddler, "why? why? why?"... boring and not productive one bit. fuck all you trolls!

[Pavlov]

like a fucking toddler, "why? why? why?"... boring and not productive one bit. fuck all you trolls!I guess you consider your emo rants exciting and productive. :lol

[koriwhat]

I guess you consider your emo rants exciting and productive. :lol

you mean the rants where i just debunk the trolls who poke and pry? those rants? hmm... if you fucking trolls weren't around then neither would those rants be.

[koriwhat]

btw pav, don't get all worked up and have a tantrum you toddler.

[Pavlov]

you mean the rants where i just debunk the trolls who poke and pry? those rants? hmm... if you fucking trolls weren't around then neither would those rants be.I've never really seen you do any debunking of a political nature here tbh. Of course I tend to tone out when you start arguing with posters about your personal stuff, so maybe I missed something.

[djohn2oo8]

they found plenty but they're all the same investigating and ruining our country so of course they found "nothing" when it comes to HRC. stop for a second and think for a bit... take your fucking emotions out of the process for once. she went against our laws but those in power let her and her cronies off because they are her cronies. it is what it is.

What did they find?

[koriwhat]

What did they find?

it's not about what "they" found and more of what they covered up. we all know classified info is classified and should only be sent to those with the same credentials... not in this case i suppose because HRC and company are above the law. yall dismiss this just because corrupt Comey decided not to proceed further with the investigation because it was all smoke and mirrors from the get go and that's because he is part of that cabal himself. regardless of your party or candidate, classified is classified and breaking the law is breaking the law. spin it as you will all you bitter fucks.

it's bs! fuck laws, right? daca, obamacare, aid to terrorist nations, open borders, etc... fuck it all!

[Pavlov]

it's not about what "they" found and more of what they covered up. we all know classified info is classified and should only be sent to those with the same credentials... not in this case i suppose because HRC and company are above the law. yall dismiss this just because corrupt Comey decided not to proceed further with the investigation because it was all smoke and mirrors from the get go and that's because he is part of that cabal himself. regardless of your party or candidate, classified is classified and breaking the law is breaking the law. spin it as you will all you bitter fucks.

it's bs! fuck laws, right? daca, obamacare, aid to terrorist nations, open borders, etc... fuck it all!I'm sure the statute of limitations hasn't run out -- why hasn't Trump prosecuted Hillary?

[koriwhat]

I'm sure the statute of limitations hasn't run out -- why hasn't Trump prosecuted Hillary?

not sure. maybe he's part of the deceit too or lining up his ducks first. i'm no agent of any gov office so i couldn't answer that exactly. who knows? but truth is, regardless of everything, classified info is classified and those who are negligent in keeping said info classified deserve to rot in jail. that is a crime and slaps on the wrist to those up top need to fucking stop already. no law for them and a different set of laws for us; that shit needs to end.

[djohn2oo8]

it's not about what "they" found and more of what they covered up. we all know classified info is classified and should only be sent to those with the same credentials... not in this case i suppose because HRC and company are above the law. yall dismiss this just because corrupt Comey decided not to proceed further with the investigation because it was all smoke and mirrors from the get go and that's because he is part of that cabal himself. regardless of your party or candidate, classified is classified and breaking the law is breaking the law. spin it as you will all you bitter fucks.

it's bs! fuck laws, right? daca, obamacare, aid to terrorist nations, open borders, etc... fuck it all!

What did they find?

[djohn2oo8]

Btw, when the FBI contacted both camps about Russia looking to infilitrate campaigns why didnt Team Trump notify the FBI of their contacts?

[koriwhat]

What did they find?

they found out that you're a dipshit.

[koriwhat]

Btw, when the FBI contacted both camps about Russia looking to infilitrate campaigns why didnt Team Trump notify the FBI of their contacts?

why haven't they been given access to those servers? that's a better question. let's see who really "hacked" them, right? that'll end this whole bs altogether. so, why no access for the FBI? hmm...

btw, maybe team trump didn't think much of the whole bs russia thing even from the get go but didn't imagine the bs they're dealing with nowadays. there's ties to russia between HRC and company but hey, lets just dismiss those ties, right?

[djohn2oo8]

why haven't they been given access to those servers? that's a better question. let's see who really "hacked" them, right? that'll end this whole bs altogether. so, why no access for the FBI? hmm...

btw, maybe team trump didn't think much of the whole bs russia thing even from the get go but didn't imagine the bs they're dealing with nowadays. there's ties to russia between HRC and company but hey, lets just dismiss those ties, right?

Why didn't team Trump notify the FBI of Russian efforts to compromise their campaign? Why didn't George Papajohn's tell the FBI about the fact Russia had Hillary's stolen emails?

[djohn2oo8]

And thats a bullshit answer. No matter if you think much of a foreign attempt to influence you or your campaign, you report it period. That's basic shit you learn in the federal government. Any attempt by an outside party or government to try and recruit you, you report to your office Director. In Trump's case the FBI directly warned them.

[koriwhat]

Why didn't team Trump notify the FBI of Russian efforts to compromise their campaign? Why didn't George Papajohn's tell the FBI about the fact Russia had Hillary's stolen emails?

papajohns lol! maybe team trump wasn't so concerned about russia so they thought nothing of it. this is just a guessing game man so whatever answers i come up with are just guesses. why don't we stop speaking in whatifs?


And thats a bullshit answer. No matter if you think much of a foreign attempt to influence you or your campaign, you report it period. That's basic shit you learn in the federal government. Any attempt by an outside party or government to try and recruit you, you report to your office Director. In Trump's case the FBI directly warned them.

basic shit learned in the fed gov huh? how many yrs have you worked in the fed gov for a pres campaign?

[koriwhat]

btw john, wonder why the fbi didn't stop obamas meddling in foreign elections... oh, i forgot, obama isn't russian and is part of the fucking problem.

[Chris]

djohn getting bullied in the paint! Lawdy!

[Reck]

947883109323812865
TSA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7640) DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) read this tweet thread. Gives almost full context.

[DarrinS]

Those FISA standards tho

“FISA court has rejected .0003 percent of all government surveillance requests.”

http://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/


They were probably very reluctant to issue that warrant on a political campaign with golden shower intel. Remove peepee rumor and warrant granted.

[DarrinS]

947883109323812865
TSA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7640) DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) read this tweet thread. Gives almost full context.


Didn’t read. A spouse of a high ranking agent worked for Fusion GPS for fucks sake. Swamp creatures.

[Pavlov]

Those FISA standards tho

“FISA court has rejected .0003 percent of all government surveillance requests.”

http://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/


They were probably very reluctant to issue that warrant on a political campaign with golden shower intel. Remove peepee rumor and warrant granted.

Gee, it's almost as if the feds know what the court standards are and work very hard to meet that standard before they actually request a warrant.

[Reck]

Didn’t read. A spouse of a high ranking agent worked for Fusion GPS for fucks sake. Swamp creatures.

Well, duh.

You dont like context, you hate context. Context destroys your silly idea that this guy was anti Trump or working to undermind him.

Ignorance is bliss as they say.

[DarrinS]

Gee, it's almost as if the feds know what the court standards are and work very hard to meet that standard before they actually request a warrant.

Carter Page went to Russia. Confirmed.

Doesn’t take much more than that.

[Pavlov]

Carter Page went to Russia. Confirmed.

Doesn’t take much more than that.Yes, it does take much more than that. You Trump supporters wear your ignorance like a suit of armor.

[AaronY]

Have we found the silver bullet to take out this hideous Trump beast yet?

[dabom]

Carter Page went to Russia. Confirmed.

Doesn’t take much more than that.

It takes more than that Darrin.

[DarrinS]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455036/new-york-times-trump-russia-collusion-narrative-reset-george-papadopoulos-carter-page

[Pavlov]

Now Darrin says the dossier was not used.

Unless it was!

:lol

[DarrinS]

Now Darrin says the dossier was not used.

Unless it was!

:lol


Huh?

[Pavlov]

Huh?

You've been going on about the dossier's being used to get a FISA warrant. Now you say all it took was a Carter Page trip to Russia.

:lol

[DarrinS]

You've been going on about the dossier's being used to get a FISA warrant. Now you say all it took was a Carter Page trip to Russia.

:lol


Use of the dossier for the FISA on Page was reported by NYT, WAPO, and CNN.

[Pavlov]

Use of the dossier for the FISA on Page was reported by NYT, WAPO, and CNN.Then you changed your mind.

Now you are changing it back.

It's OK, you're allowed to change your story as many times as you need to.

[DarrinS]

Then you changed your mind.

Now you are changing it back.

It's OK, you're allowed to change your story as many times as you need to.


I don’t know what you’re talking about.

[spurraider21]

You've been going on about the dossier's being used to get a FISA warrant. Now you say all it took was a Carter Page trip to Russia.

:lol
Wasn’t his trip to Russia part of the dossier?

[Pavlov]

Carter Page went to Russia. Confirmed.

Doesn’t take much more than that.:lol

[Pavlov]

Wasn’t his trip to Russia part of the dossier?Oh, but that's true.

I thought the whole dossier was made up.

Pee pee!

[DarrinS]

:lol

Obviously, I was being snarky. It’s not the travel, but who he allegedly met with, talked about, etc.

[Pavlov]

Obviously, I was being snarky.:lol

[DarrinS]

:lol

Trump Adviser’s Visit to Moscow Got the F.B.I.’s Attention

Was the NYT suggesting that the mere travel to Russia got their attention? Of course not.

[Pavlov]

Trump Adviser’s Visit to Moscow Got the F.B.I.’s Attention

Was the NYT suggesting that the mere travel to Russia got their attention? Of course not.
They have a whole article after that. You let your snark stand for itself. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Wasn’t his trip to Russia part of the dossier?

IT was. As was Manfort's dealings.

[RandomGuy]

why hasn't Trump prosecuted Hillary?


not sure. maybe he's part of the deceit too or lining up his ducks first. i'm no agent of any gov office so i couldn't answer that exactly. who knows? but truth is, regardless of everything, classified info is classified and those who are negligent in keeping said info classified deserve to rot in jail. that is a crime and slaps on the wrist to those up top need to fucking stop already. no law for them and a different set of laws for us; that shit needs to end.

Isn't going to happen with the current corrupt president.

[RandomGuy]

Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.


What actual story? The NYT was no bombshell like you thought it was. You looked stupid parading it around and today you feel stupider. The Obama administration first sought a FISA warrant on Trump associates before Australia contacted US in July 2016. The investigation had already begun.

I predict TSA won't answer this question.

[spurraider21]

Oh, but that's true.

I thought the whole dossier was made up.

Pee pee!


IT was. As was Manfort's dealings.
point being that Darrin saying the Carter page moscow visit was used to get the FISA warrant ins't the same as him saying "the dossier wasn't used to get the warrant."

[Pavlov]

point being that Darrin saying the Carter page moscow visit was used to get the FISA warrant ins't the same as him saying "the dossier wasn't used to get the warrant."His narrative is nothing in the dossier was ever corroborated and a judge just took everyone's word for it because Hannity and National Review

[DarrinS]

His narrative is nothing in the dossier was ever corroborated and a judge just took everyone's word for it because Hannity and National Review

Nope

[Pavlov]

Nope

What is your narrative then, Darrin? Let's see it.

[TSA]

947883109323812865
TSA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7640) DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) read this tweet thread. Gives almost full context.

Gives almost full context :rollin

[spurraider21]

Gives almost full context :rollin
well, you wouldn't have completely full context unless they released all the texts in that conversation string.

did you read through that tweet thread though? fairly interesting imo

[spurraider21]

947886365429174273

[TSA]

Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.



I predict TSA won't answer this question.FISC court. Stop assuming the standards were followed.


Back in April, they leaked because they figured it would wound President Trump: After all, if the dossier had been used to obtain a FISA warrant, that must mean that the dossier’s sensational allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy were true. That is, the leakers assumed, just as many of us familiar with the FISA process assumed, that the Justice Department would never put information in a FISA warrant application unless the FBI had first corroborated it.

Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.

Then in October, it emerged that the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. More recently, we learned that anti-Trump bias ran rampant in the upper ranks of the Bureau and the Justice Department — to the point that a top FBI counterintelligence agent spoke of the Bureau’s need for an “insurance policy” against the risk of a Trump presidency. Right before Christmas, reporting from Fox News strongly suggested that the FBI, though apparently aware that the dossier was a partisan campaign project, had verified none of its sensational claims. Finally, in a Fox News interview on Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who has inspected relevant classified documents, indicated that the Justice Department used the dossier in its application without disclosing its partisan political genesis to the FISA court

[spurraider21]

national review? hold up lemme rebut that with some salon and dailykos articles

[djohn2oo8]

FISC court. Stop assuming the standards were followed.


Back in April, they leaked because they figured it would wound President Trump: After all, if the dossier had been used to obtain a FISA warrant, that must mean that the dossier’s sensational allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy were true. That is, the leakers assumed, just as many of us familiar with the FISA process assumed, that the Justice Department would never put information in a FISA warrant application unless the FBI had first corroborated it.

Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.

Then in October, it emerged that the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. More recently, we learned that anti-Trump bias ran rampant in the upper ranks of the Bureau and the Justice Department — to the point that a top FBI counterintelligence agent spoke of the Bureau’s need for an “insurance policy” against the risk of a Trump presidency. Right before Christmas, reporting from Fox News strongly suggested that the FBI, though apparently aware that the dossier was a partisan campaign project, had verified none of its sensational claims. Finally, in a Fox News interview on Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who has inspected relevant classified documents, indicated that the Justice Department used the dossier in its application without disclosing its partisan political genesis to the FISA court

So what are the standards?

[TSA]

well, you wouldn't have completely full context unless they released all the texts in that conversation string.

did you read through that tweet thread though? fairly interesting imo

The interpretation by someone of four texts. That’s interesting?

The top counterintelligence agent in the FBI doesn’t get demoted to HR for innocent texts. I’m sure the OIG handed over texts that were far more damning and could not be released to the public.

[TSA]

national review? hold up lemme rebut that with some salon and dailykos articles

You can’t argue the timeline

[djohn2oo8]

What are the standards, TSA?

[Pavlov]

You can’t argue the timeline
You can't post FISA standards. :lol

[spurraider21]

The interpretation by someone of four texts. That’s interesting?
yeah, its an interesting interpretation of the infamous insurance policy text, given the timing of it.


The top counterintelligence agent in the FBI doesn’t get demoted to HR for innocent texts. I’m sure the OIG handed over texts that were far more damning and could not be released to the public.
sure. its also good practice not only to remove actual conflicts of interest but also appearances of conflicts of interest, which are equally damaging in the court of public opinion. until we have full context, it's all speculation.

pretty sure one time you asked me about conflicts on interest that i mentioned when it came up with a judge i was externing for. back when he was a practicing attorney, that he had once been retained by the defendant (edison electric) for an unrelated matter (eminent domain). even though there was no actual conflict, he had to disclose it, because NOT doing so would give the appearance of an actual conflict.

sidenote: the parties ended up waiving the conflict and it proceeded to trial


You can’t argue the timeline
timeline doesn't establish the standards of obtaining a FISA warrant

[TSA]

You can't post FISA standards. :lol

Apparently you can’t either.

[djohn2oo8]

Apparently you can’t either.

I asked you 3 times. Spurraider just asked you. Pav asked you too. Can you post them or not?

[TSA]

yeah, its an interesting interpretation of the infamous insurance policy text, given the timing of it.


sure. its also good practice not only to remove actual conflicts of interest but also appearances of conflicts of interest, which are equally damaging in the court of public opinion. until we have full context, it's all speculation.

pretty sure one time you asked me about conflicts on interest that i mentioned when it came up with a judge i was externing for. back when he was a practicing attorney, that he had once been retained by the defendant (edison electric) for an unrelated matter (eminent domain). even though there was no actual conflict, he had to disclose it, because NOT doing so would give the appearance of an actual conflict.

sidenote: the parties ended up waiving the conflict and it proceeded to trial


timeline doesn't establish the standards of obtaining a FISA warrant

We know the dossier was used to obtain the warrant. We know the dossier was unverified when it was used to obtain the warrant.

“Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.”


Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?

[djohn2oo8]

I asked you 3 times. Spurraider just asked you. Pav asked you too. Can you post them or not?
TSA

[TSA]

TSA

Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?

[djohn2oo8]

Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?

Do you know the standards for obtaining one?

[TSA]

What are the odds that the judge who recused himself from the Flynn case was also the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant?

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/current-membership

[TSA]

Do you know the standards for obtaining one?

Not in detail no. Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy can you post your Trump is compromised by Russia theory again I want to cross check it with this

President Trump announced sanctions Thursday against 13 individuals for human rights violations and corruption, including a Myanmar general accused of ethnic cleansing against Muslim minorities.

Mr. Trump signed an executive order announcing the sanctions, which also target 39 entities and individuals under the Global Magnitsky Act. The president declared a national emergency on global corruption and human rights abuses.

Gen. Maung Maung Soe is accused of directing military operations against the Rohingya in Myanmar, a systematic campaign that Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has called an example of ethnic cleansing.

“The department is committed to protecting and promoting human rights and combating corruption with all of the tools at our disposal,” Mr. Tillerson said of the new sanctions. “Today’s actions advance our values and promote the security of the United States, our allies, and our partners.”

The sanctions are the first to be issued since the Obama administration expanded the Magnitsky Act in 2016. The action will freeze the assets of the targeted people and restrict their access to the global financial system.

Among other individuals sanctioned are Sergey Kusiuk, former head of an elite police force in Ukraine, and the former president of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh. Artem Chayka, the son of Russia’s prosecutor general, is also being sanctioned; as is Slobodan Tesic, a Serbian arms dealer, and a top financial adviser to the president of South Sudan.

“Treasury is freezing their assets and publicly denouncing the egregious acts they’ve committed, sending a message that there is a steep price to pay for their misdeeds,” said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. “At the direction of President Trump, Treasury and our interagency partners will continue to take decisive and impactful actions to hold accountable those who abuse human rights, perpetrate corruption, and undermine American ideals.”

The Treasury Department also imposed sanctions on Wednesday of five Russian and Chechen individuals under the Magnitsky Act, including Chechen leader Ramzan Kadryov, who is considered a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He was designated for extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations.

Three of those people played a significant role in a multimillion-dollar tax fraud scheme uncovered by Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was arrested in 2008 and died in a Moscow prison.

The Kremlin has sought to have the Magnitsky Act reversed. In 2016, Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump officials attended a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin in which Ms. Veselnitskaya has said one of her goals was to lobby Trump officials against the law.

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, applauded the administration’s decision to sanction the five Russians and Chechens under the law.

“Corruption and human rights abuses have become rampant in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and the Magnitsky Act serves as important tool in holding Putin and his cronies accountable,” Mr. McCain said. “I hope that these sanctions will provide the Russian people with a small measure of justice that they are denied under the Putin regime, and bolster the efforts of those who carry on the fight for freedom in Russia and around the world.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/21/donald-trump-sanctions-dozens-foreign-individuals-/


You still can't name one thing you have been right about?

I generally agree Russia's efforts had little overall effect, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. The question is, whether we should put up with active efforts of an intelligence agency of a foreign government to attack the very idea of democracy itself. Western liberal democracy is under threat from authoritarian regimes. That is important.

There is also the matter that the sitting president appears to be actively compromised by that same government.

But then, predicting what Trump will, or won't do is sort of a mugs game. He never fails to do the stupidest shit possible, just when you think he can't be dumber.

The thing about a good theory though, it that it both explains facts, and you can make testable predictions.

Fact 1:
Russia attempted to hack our electoral process through a multi-pronged attack.

Fact 2:
Donald "look how big my inauguration crowd was" Trump has done nothing but deny this even happened, and has gone so far as to take the extraordinary effort to delegitimize his own intelligence services when they something did happen. He has shown no willingness whatsoever to hold Russia to account for anything.

Fact 3:
Donald Trump has a pattern of criticizing anyone, and everyone at the drop of a hat. Allies, enemies, courts, free press, nothing has escaped his remarks and twitter feed, except for ONE/(two) thing(s), and that is Russia/Putin

Fact 4:
Russian efforts appeared designed to support Trump

Fact 5:
Trump directly called on Russia publicly to support his efforts to get elected.

Fact 6:
Donald Trump has gone out of his way to meet and talk with Putin privately in person, with no American witnesses. This is the only leader with which he has acted in this manner.

Fact 7:
Donald Trump, when forced to sign a bipartisan sanctions bill passed with a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress, issued a signing statement saying most of it was unconstitutional, and that his administration would enforce it as little as possible.


Fact 8:
when Russia retaliated against sanctions by forcing the US embassy to cut staff, Trump thanked Putin for the action, making him look weak, something he has said one should never do, and is inconsistent with his past behavior in any other regard.

Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.

This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.

Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.


The way to falsify the theory:
1) Trump criticizes Putin/Russia (good)
2) Trump orders/takes action that materially harms Russian interests (definitive)

Bullshit conspiracy theories fail very often because either: they cannot be falsified, or they directly conflict with observed reality. This theory can be falsified, and does not conflict with what we know as fact.

Donald Trump is unpredictable except for Russia.

xylophone

[Pavlov]

Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?It wouldn't happen. That's why there are standards.

So what are the standards, TSA?

[spurraider21]

What are the odds that the judge who recused himself from the Flynn case was also the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant?

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/current-membership
pretty slim

[Pavlov]

Not in detail no.Not even in general.

[djohn2oo8]

Not even in general.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy can you post your Trump is compromised by Russia theory again I want to cross check it with this

President Trump announced sanctions Thursday against 13 individuals for human rights violations and corruption, including a Myanmar general accused of ethnic cleansing against Muslim minorities.

So let's see if anything in this rises to the level of "materially harms Russian/Putin's interests".

Is there anything in this order that rises to that level? Pick the one that most matches that description.

I'll even help you.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

Two Identified as "Russian".

Sergey Kusiuk


Sergey Kusiuk (Kusiuk) was commander of an elite Ukrainian police unit, the Berkut. Ukraine’s Special Investigations Department investigating crimes against activists identified Kusiuk as a leader of an attack on peaceful protesters on November 30, 2013, while in charge of 290 Berkut officers, many of whom took part in the beating of activists. Kusiuk has been named by the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office as an individual who took part in the killings of activists on Kyiv’s Independence Square in February 2014. Kusiuk ordered the destruction of documentation related to the events, and has fled Ukraine and is now in hiding in Moscow, Russia, where he was identified dispersing protesters as part of a Russian riot police unit in June 2017.


Not wealthy. A minor police official who fled to Russia after being implicated in attacking unarmed protestors.


Artem Chayka

Artem Chayka (Chayka) is the son of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and has leveraged his father’s position and ability to award his subordinates to unfairly win state-owned assets and contracts and put pressure on business competitors. In 2014, reconstruction of a highway began, and Chayka’s competitor for supplying materials to the project suddenly fell under prosecutorial scrutiny. An anonymous complaint letter with a fake name initiated a government investigation against the competitor. Government inspectors did not produce any documents confirming the legality of the inspections, and did not inform subjects of the investigation of their rights. Traffic police were deployed along the route to the competitor, weight control stations were suddenly dispatched, and trees were dug up and left to block entrances. The competitor was forced to shut down, leaving Chayka in a position to non-competitively work on the highway project. Also in 2014, Chayka bid on a state-owned stone and gravel company, and was awarded the contract. His competitor contested the results and filed a lawsuit. Prosecutors thereafter raided his home. After Chayka’s competitor withdrew the lawsuit, prosecutors dropped all charges.

The son of the State Prosecutor. Another comparatively minor figure.

Please explain how this is "materially harmful" to Russian interests, or that of Vladimir Putin.

[TSA]

It wouldn't happen. That's why there are standards.

So what are the standards, TSA?

It wouldn’t happen if standards were followed, you don’t know if they were.

“Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.”

Explain how standards were followed.

[djohn2oo8]

It wouldn’t happen if standards were followed, you don’t know if they were.

“Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.”

Explain how standards were followed.

What are the standards? You keep using that term. So what are they?

[RandomGuy]

Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.

This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.

Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.

He was presented with a list by the state Department, and signed what he was told to. The people involved were "minor" and "inconsequential".

[RandomGuy]

It wouldn’t happen if standards were followed, you don’t know if they were.

“Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.”

Explain how standards were followed.

You claim that the standards were not followed. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Shifting the burden of proof when it is rightfully yours is dishonest.

[TSA]

So let's see if anything in this rises to the level of "materially harms Russian/Putin's interests".

Is there anything in this order that rises to that level? Pick the one that most matches that description.

I'll even help you.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

Two Identified as "Russian".

Sergey Kusiuk



Not wealthy. A minor police official who fled to Russia after being implicated in attacking unarmed protestors.



The son of the State Prosecutor. Another comparatively minor figure.

Please explain how this is "materially harmful" to Russian interests, or that of Vladimir Putin.How about arms sales to Ukraine?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-worthy-choice-to-provide-ukraine-weapons/2017/12/30/c780d8d8-ebf9-11e7-8a6a-80acf0774e64_story.html?utm_term=.e9d99914cc17

[spurraider21]

How about arms sales to Ukraine?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-worthy-choice-to-provide-ukraine-weapons/2017/12/30/c780d8d8-ebf9-11e7-8a6a-80acf0774e64_story.html?utm_term=.e9d99914cc17
i dont believe CIA mouthpiece washington post. do you?

[TSA]

You claim that the standards were not followed. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Shifting the burden of proof when it is rightfully yours is dishonest.

I already claimed not to know what they were and am asking if using an unverified dossier would be following those standards.

[Pavlov]

It wouldn’t happen if standards were followed, you don’t know if they were.:lol you don't know the standards at all.


“Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.”

Explain how standards were followed.I can explain how your pinning everything on a snippet of a Comey quote is pretty stupid of you.

Would you like for me to do that?

[TSA]

:lol you don't know the standards at all.

I can explain how your pinning everything on a snippet of a Comey quote is pretty stupid of you.

Would you like for me to do that?


Would you prefer Andrew McCabe testimony?

“Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/20/mccabe-draws-blank-on-democrats-funding-trump-dossier-new-subpoenas-planned.html

[Pavlov]

Would you prefer Andrew McCabe testimony?

“Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/20/mccabe-draws-blank-on-democrats-funding-trump-dossier-new-subpoenas-planned.htmlDodge #1.

FBI officials don't comment on active investigations. You really don't know much of anything.

You didn't answer the question: I can explain how your pinning everything on a snippet of a Comey quote is pretty stupid of you.

Would you like for me to do that?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

Dodge #1.

FBI officials don't comment on active investigations. You really don't know much of anything.

You didn't answer the question: I can explain how your pinning everything on a snippet of a Comey quote is pretty stupid of you.

Would you like for me to do that?

Yes or no.

Yet McCabe is commenting on the dossier’s contents.

And sure, knock yourself out. When your done with hashing out Comey’s comment please verify the dossiers contents.

[TSA]

948174033882927104

:wow

[djohn2oo8]

948174033882927104

:wow

948175390106947586
Smacked the down again.

[RandomGuy]

How about arms sales to Ukraine?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-worthy-choice-to-provide-ukraine-weapons/2017/12/30/c780d8d8-ebf9-11e7-8a6a-80acf0774e64_story.html?utm_term=.e9d99914cc17

What arms are being sold? SAMs? Sophisticated artillery or counter artillery? Armed drone technology?

Will these arms sales tip the military balance of power?

Find and post a military expert analysis of this deal.

[Spurminator]

948174033882927104

:wow

Your worst source yet.

[RandomGuy]

I already claimed not to know what they were and am asking if using an unverified dossier would be following those standards.

So you don't know. Why is it important?

[RandomGuy]

Hey Randomguy, what about those sactions that Trump signed? That means that Trump isn't compromised, huh, huh?

Looks like those sanctions were really insignificant. Can you show me how you think they are important?




How about arms sales to Ukraine?

:lol Nice deflection.

That means the answer is: Your earlier post was bullshit.

This post is bullshit too. I predict you will not post any serious military analysis of this arms sale.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-us-approves-export-license-small-arms/28930667.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/21/donald-trump-approves-deal-us-sell-sniper-rifles-ukraine-angering/

[TSA]

948175390106947586
Smacked the down again.

You think forwarding classified emails to Anthony Weiner’s laptop is not a crime? :lol

[Pavlov]

Yet McCabe is commenting on the dossier’s contents.

And sure, knock yourself out. When your done with hashing out Comey’s comment please verify the dossiers contents.Don't need to. Comey already said parts were verified under oath.


COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

And McCarthy must've forgotten what he wrote a couple months ago.

On the face of things, most of Steele’s sources are anonymous, another reason his claims have been given the back of the hand by Trump supporters. But from an investigator’s standpoint, the sources are identifiable: If Steele cooperated with the FBI (and in some instances, even if he didn’t), the Bureau could pretty easily figure out who the sources are, follow the leads, and determine whether the dossier is a complete fabrication.

The FBI plainly did not dismiss the dossier out of hand. If it used some of the dossier’s information in a FISA-court surveillance application, that would only be problematic if agents failed to verify that particular information before seeking the warrant. That would be highly irregular....

In trying to wrap my brain around this, here’s what I don’t get: The Justice Department and the FBI now answer to President Trump, not to President Obama. The key players, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein (in place of recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions) and new FBI director Christopher Wray, are Trump appointees. So . . . if the Trump Dossier really is a completely discredited piece of garbage, who on earth has a greater incentive than Trump to expose it? Why are the Trump Justice Department and FBI impeding congressional probes? If the information is false, you would think they couldn’t shovel it out fast enough.

But what if the information — or at least some of it — were true? Under those circumstances, the White House would make a political calculation: Trump would be better served by simply continuing to complain about a purported witch-hunt and politicized abuses of surveillance authority; there would be too much downside risk in directing the Justice Department and FBI to disclose all relevant information to Congress forthwith. If at least some of the dossier’s more important allegations had been corroborated, we would also expect the Justice Department and the FBI to refuse to cooperate with anyone other than Mueller. That would not be due to corruption — quite the opposite. It would owe to the ongoing investigation: Disclosing what the FBI has done to corroborate Steele would expose to danger (particularly of Russian retaliation) the witnesses who have provided information. In other words, if some of the dossier had been substantiated by investigators, things would look . . . just like they look at the moment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452427/trump-dossier-russia-collusion-investigation

:lol PeeSA

[RandomGuy]

I will also, happily, abandon my theory, if Trump does something that really crosses Putin and Russia. I have given a way to falsify it for that reason.

Significant, sustained lethal arms sales to Ukraine that might tip the balance of power on the ground would do that.

[TSA]

Don't need to. Comey already said parts were verified under oath.



And McCarthy must've forgotten what he wrote a couple months ago.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452427/trump-dossier-russia-collusion-investigation

:lol PeeSA

Carter Page went to Moscow. What else has been verified?

[TSA]

I will also, happily, abandon my theory, if Trump does something that really crosses Putin and Russia. I have given a way to falsify it for that reason.

Significant, sustained lethal arms sales to Ukraine that might tip the balance of power on the ground would do that.

Your theory is shit. I’m glad you won’t be spamming it anymore.

[Pavlov]

Carter Page went to Moscow. What else has been verified?So you're saying parts have been verified.

Just like Comey said.

:lol

Sorry, you're way behind in answering questions: What are the standards for getting a FISA warrant?

Several posters have asked you several times and you're being a total bitch about it.

[Pavlov]

I mean shit, Andrew McCarthy provides a link to a reporter who independently verified parts of the dossier almost a year ago in his column I just posted.

You're either lazy or dishonest.

[TSA]

So you're saying parts have been verified.

Just like Comey said.

:lol

Sorry, you're way behind in answering questions: What are the standards for getting a FISA warrant?

Several posters have asked you several times and you're being a total bitch about it.

I asked you to post them and you had a meltdown. First time I’ve ever seen you use the word fuck :tu

[TSA]

It’s amusing watching Democrats try to distance themselves from the dossier they once loved.

[djohn2oo8]

It’s amusing watching Democrats try to distance themselves from the dossier they once loved.

How is a FISA warrant obtained?

[djohn2oo8]

948312151734865925

[TSA]

948196196727783425

948286879551623169

:rollin

[TSA]

How is a FISA warrant obtained?

FISC court.

Who funded the Steele dossier, Republicans or Democrats?

[djohn2oo8]

FISC court.

Who funded the Steele dossier, Republicans or Democrats?

How is it obtained? you did not list the procedures.

[TSA]

How is it obtained? you did not list the procedures.

Google it if your curious.

Who funded the Steele dossier, Republicans or Democrats?

[TSA]

948175390106947586
Smacked the down again.


The State Department produced many more Clinton and Abedin unsecure emails that were classified:

On March 8, 2009, Clinton sent classified information using her unsecure [email protected] account. She forwarded to former Senator George Mitchell an email from Tony Blair relating to Palestine. The email had been sent to her at [email protected]. Clinton responded to Blair, saying she had forwarded the email to Mitchell. A former Senate majority leader, Mitchell was serving as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.
On April 16, 2009, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman sent to Abedin’s unsecure email account classified information about an unknown subject.
On June 18, 2009, Abedin sent classified information summarizing a June 18, 2009, “Middle East Breakfast” meeting between various senators, representatives and State Department officials, at which Deputy Secretary Jack Lew and George Mitchell briefed the congressmen with “an update on our discussions with the [Middle East] parties.”
On June 23, 2009, U.S. diplomat Martin Indyk, who had his security clearance suspended in 2000 for “possible sloppiness” in the handling of classified information, sent a memo containing classified information to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The memo, written for Clinton, pertained to Indyk’s discussions with top Israeli officials:
Could I ask you to review the memo below that I wrote yesterday on my return from Israel? If you think it worthwhile, I’d be very grateful if you showed it to HRC (I have already shared it with Mitchell and Feltman). A confrontation with Bibi appears imminent. I’ve never been one to shy away from that, as she may know. But it has to be done carefully, and that doesn’t appear to be happening. And I’m concerned that she will be tarred with the same brush if this leads to a bad end. So I think she needs to make sure that the friction is productive. I’ve made some suggestions at the end of the memo

On August 1, 2009, Abedin forwarded classified information from State Department official Richard Verma to her unsecure email account. The email from Senator Russ Feingold was sent to Hillary Clinton regarding her upcoming Africa trip.
On August 4, 2009, Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman sent classified information about discussions with Kuwaiti officials to Abedin’s unsecure email account. Feltman noted that the Kuwaitis felt a lunch they had with Obama was “chilly.” The discussions concerned Guantanamo as well as Kuwait’s treatment of detainees.
On Sept 20, 2009, Abedin forwarded classified information to her unsecure email account. The email was from State Department official Esther Brimmer and concerned foreign leaders’ discussions regarding a UNESCO leadership appointment.
On November 1, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to the UAE Rick Olson sent classified information to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The email shows that Olsen was traveling with Hillary in the Middle East, and Abedin asked him to “work on a list of everything covered in the mbz [presumably Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi] meeting for Hillary.” Olson asks: “do you want it on this system (I can sanitize), or on the other system.” She replies: “This system easier. We are staying without class[ified] computers. Thx.”
On December 1, 2009, Abedin sent classified information about foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her unsecure email account. The email originated with State official Sean Misko who wrote to Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan that he first “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was resending.
On December 25, 2009, Abedin sent to her unsecure email account classified information prepared by Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Francis Ricciardone concerning the Afghan elections.
On December 26, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual sent a memo to Clinton, which was found on Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained extensive classified information involving U.S. and Mexican counter-drug operations in Mexico.
On March 22, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information about a telephone conversation between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
On April 13, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information from Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman regarding diplomatic discussions with the foreign ministers of Algeria and Morocco.
On May 24, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information about the minutes of a State Department senior staff meeting regarding State Department officials’ meetings in Uganda.
Among Abedin’s unsecure email records is a document that is simply titled “NOTE” with the date September 12, 2010. The contents are entirely redacted as classified.
On January 28, 2011, Abedin sent Clinton an unsecure email containing classified information relating to a briefing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave.
On March 21, 2012, Clinton received a memo from State Department officials Joseph Yun and Derek Mitchell marked “Sensitive But Unclassified” and sent to Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained classified information about elections in Burma.
Jake Sullivan emailed to Hillary’s unsecure email account classified information in which Sullivan discussed the content of conversations with UK Prime Minister Gordon regarding “the situation” in Northern Ireland. The date of this email is not included on the document.
On April 8, 2012, Abedin sent classified information to her unsecure email regarding a call sheet and an “Action Memo” for Clinton relating to a call with Malawi President Joyce Banda. On April 9, 2012, Monica Hanley again forwarded the classified information to Clinton’s unsecure email account


https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-uncovered-reveal-additional-mishandling-classified-information/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


https://media0.giphy.com/media/vdrsGsdmnaOU8/giphy.gif

[spurraider21]

:lol still can't get over clinton

she lost TSA, get over it

[djohn2oo8]

Google it if your curious.

Who funded the Steele dossier, Republicans or Democrats?

I'm asking you. If you don't know the procedures in standards then do not use those terms in connection with a FISA warrant.

[Spurminator]

"But her emails" still going strong in the 4chan echo chamber.

[TSA]

I'm asking you. If you don't know the procedures in standards then do not use those terms in connection with a FISA warrant.

:lol didn’t know who actually funded the Steele dossier and pretends to be a FISA expert

How High Was the Bar for Getting a FISA Warrant to Monitor Carter Page?

https://www.justsecurity.org/39886/high-bar-fisa-warrant-monitor-carter-page/

Of those involved in securing the FISA how many have been fired, reassigned, or resigned?

851938384541044738

[TSA]

948273800994533376

:lol djohn

[Pavlov]

I asked you to post them and you had a meltdown. First time I’ve ever seen you use the word fuck :tuYou don't read enough to see where I've used it.

You're still melting down and refuse to do a simple google search. :tu

[Pavlov]

It’s amusing watching Democrats try to distance themselves from the dossier they once loved.I got no problem with the dossier. It's amusing watching you bet your entire existence on it.

[Chris]

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case

http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/comeyjames_060817getty_lead2.jpg?itok=VXwV9uKz


Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.


The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America’s top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.

Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said.

Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities. The Clinton email server in question was based in New York.

In normal FBI cases, field offices where crimes are believed to have been committed investigate the evidence and then recommend to bureau hierarchy whether to pursue charges with prosecutors. In this case, the bureau hierarchy controlled both the investigation and the charging decision from Washington, a scenario known in FBI parlance as a “special,” the lawmakers said.

The FBI declined comment on McCabe’s closed-door testimony and the evidence being shared with Congress.

Some Republicans on the committee say the findings and revelations have left them more convinced than ever that FBI leadership rigged the outcome to clear Clinton.

“This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a House Judiciary Committee member who attended the McCabe briefing before the holidays. “Hillary Clinton obviously benefited from people taking actions to ensure she wasn’t held accountable.”

Gaetz said he could not divulge the specifics of what McCabe told lawmakers, but that he left the Dec. 21 session believing the FBI had deviated from its “normal objective practices” while investigating Clinton.

The top Democrat on the panel acknowledged the FBI’s handling of the case was unique, but argued Republicans are politicizing their own panel’s work.

“To the extent that the Assistant Director of the FBI was involved in that investigation, and recognizing that the investigation itself presented a unique set of circumstances, his testimony did not raise any concerns that would justify the Republicans’ outsized obsession with Hillary Clinton’s emails two years after the fact,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) who recently took over as the top Democrat on House Judiciary after former Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) stepped aside after sexual misconduct allegations were made against him.

Gaetz said he has growing questions about the role the Obama Justice Department played in the case.

Former FBI Director James Comey has testified he made the decision not to seek criminal charges against Clinton — with no Justice Department input — because he feared any involvement from the department might taint the findings after then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac during the closing days of the probe in June 2016.

He also argued in an initial July 5, 2016, press conference announcing the decision that he did not believe he could show that Clinton intended to send classified information over her server.

But Gaetz said his panel has evidence the FBI took actions while writing the exoneration statement that required Justice input, such as immunizing witnesses in June 2016. He said he would like to learn more about what instructions, sentiments and communications were conveyed between the department and the FBI.

“I think we have more questions than answers based on what we’ve learned,” Gaetz said.

Both parties are likely to learn more in the first quarter of 2018 when the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release initial findings in what has become a wide-ranging probe into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email case as well as whether agents and supervisors had political connections, ethical conflicts or biases that affected their work.

In the meantime, Republicans on three House committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee have pieced together new evidence from recent interviews and document productions.

That information wasn’t available to them when Comey announced in July 2016 that he would not seek charges against Clinton even though she and her aides had transmitted more than 110 pieces of classified information through her insecure email server, some of it at the “top secret” and “secret” levels.

One storyline that has emerged is that the FBI’s own documents stated there was evidence some laws had been broken, but bureau leaders declined to pursue charges on the grounds they could not prove Clinton and her aides intended to violate the law.

Those concerns were reflected in the initial draft statements Comey and his leadership team began writing in spring 2016. The Hill first reported in November that Comey’s original May 2, 2016, draft included the words “grossly negligent” — the language supporting a criminal charge for mishandling classified information — but it was later changed to the softer “extremely careless.”

GOP congressional investigators told The Hill multiple drafts of the statement also included specific language acknowledging there was “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.”

Furthermore, the May 2, 2016, draft included a second passage that suggested the large amount of highly classified information — eight top secret passages and 37 secret passages — that passed through Clinton’s private server suggested criminality.

“The sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the “up classified” emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information,” the FBI’s original draft read, according to a source who has seen it.

Comey used some of the language the agents had put in the initial drafts of the memo when he made his announcement of no charges.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.

The FBI also confirmed that a key witness, a computer technician who deleted Clinton emails from her server in March 2015 after a congressional subpoena had been issued for them, originally lied to the FBI during his interviews, memos show. The witness's name was redacted from documents released by the FBI but he was identified as an employee of a computer firm that helped maintained Clinton’s email server.

His admission of false statements came one day after the Comey statement was already being drafted, investigators told The Hill.

The computer employee originally told the FBI in a February 2016 interview that he did not recall making any deletions from Clinton’s server in March 2015, FBI records show.

But then on May 3, 2016, the same employee in a subsequent FBI interview told agents he had an “oh shit moment” and in late March 2015 deleted Clinton’s email archive from the server, according to FBI documents reviewed by The Hill.

Lying to the FBI is a federal felony, a crime that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn recently pleaded guilty to. But the FBI decided not to pursue criminal charges against the witness, and instead gave the technician an immunity deal so he could correct his story, congressional investigators said.

Republican investigators say the most glaring irregularity they have found is the decision to begin drafting a statement exonerating Clinton before much of the investigative interviewing and evidence gathering was even done.

While the first draft of the statement was dated May 2, 2016, FBI records gathered by congressional investigators show agents were still receiving evidence responsive to grand jury subpoenas well after that, including documents and other evidentiary items logged on May 13, May 19 and May 26.

A House GOP lawmaker told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted after the drafting effort began, including of some figures who would have key information about intent or possible destruction of evidence.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17 witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made.

“Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it,” the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release.

A senior law enforcement official directly familiar with the investigation, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, told The Hill that the FBI “did have evidence of statutory violations” but the decision not to prosecute was driven by a belief that there wasn’t enough proof Clinton and aides intended to violate those laws or even knew they were violating them.

The official also acknowledged evidence gathering continued even as Comey began drafting the public statement, including the execution of an immunity deal on June 10, 2016, with Clinton advisers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson that resulted in laptops with evidence being turned over to agents late in the probe.

“The leadership had a sense of where the evidence was likely headed and the idea was they would begin drafting their conclusions and if we found anything that changed that sense we’d alert them,” the official said.

The official said the decision to grant immunity to the Clinton advisers as well as the computer technician involved in the email deletions was made “with the idea it would be better to know all the circumstances” before the case was closed out.

Comey has told Congress he made the decision not to charge Clinton after she was interviewed on July 2, 2016.

Congressional investigators told The Hill they also have found some contradictions between the FBI’s official account of what happened and what more recently released documents show.

One that is being pursued aggressively by Grassley involves whether the FBI actually investigated possible violations of the Federal Records Act, which required the preservation of all of Clinton’s work-related emails.

The FBI admits it recovered thousands of State emails that originated or passed through Clinton’s private server — some which had been deleted — that were never turned over to the State Department as government records by Clinton’s team.

While the FBI believed none of those were deleted intentionally to keep them from the government, the Records Act allows for a misdemeanor charge in each instance where a government document is destroyed carelessly, investigators said.

Comey told Grassley back in 2016 that the FBI did investigate whether the unlawful destruction of federal records occurred.

But Grassley’s staff has now obtained a sworn affidavit from an FBI agent that directly contradicts the former director’s assurance. The agent testified under penalty of perjury that the Clinton email case did not address the destruction of federal records, Grassley said.

The longtime Senate chairman went to the Senate floor before the holidays to raise another concern: the FBI did not pursue criminal charges when Clinton’s email archives were permanently deleted from her private server days after a subpoena for them was issued by a congressional committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton’s former chief of staff and her lawyer had a call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called BleachBit, Grassley said.

“You have a conference call with Secretary Clinton’s attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on that very same day her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call using special BleachBit software,” Grassley said. “The emails were State Department records under subpoena by Congress.

“What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction?” Grassley asked. “According to affidavits filed in federal court — absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the handling of classified information.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367141-congressional-investigators-find-irregularities-in-fbis-handling-of

[spurraider21]

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case
*ding*

[Reck]

It's case closed Chris, move the fuck on. Enjoy the trainwreck that is the Trump "presidency" instead.

I hope you and yours know this email thing is not going to impact any more elections and or end up with an indictment on Hillary.

[djohn2oo8]

You don't read enough to see where I've used it.

You're still melting down and refuse to do a simple google search. :tu

He's scared of being wrong again because he lost his main account behind it. He mah bitch.

[TSA]

I got no problem with the dossier. It's amusing watching you bet your entire existence on it.

You have no problem with Ohr secretly meeting with Fusion GPS and his wife working with Fusion GPS on the dossier?

[TSA]

He's scared of being wrong again because he lost his main account behind it. He mah bitch.

Let’s bet accounts again on who funded the Steele dossier. Do you accept yes or no?

[DarrinS]

I mean shit, Andrew McCarthy provides a link to a reporter who independently verified parts of the dossier almost a year ago in his column I just posted.

You're either lazy or dishonest.


That’s not the point at all. If an oppo research product funded by Clinton campaign was used to spy on the oppo campaign— that’s a tainted investigation. Swamp creatures.

And what’s up with heads of NSD division of DOJ sprinting for the exits? John Carlin, Mary McCord, Dana Boente. They can’t wait to GTFO of there.

[Chris]

It's case closed Chris, move the fuck on. Enjoy the trainwreck that is the Trump "presidency" instead.

I hope you and yours know this email thing is not going to impact any more elections and or end up with an indictment on Hillary.

It's not going away. You can't just sweep it under the rug.

948199395371245568

[TSA]

It's not going away. You can't just sweep it under the rug.

948199395371245568

Time to Give Clinton’s Server Technician the Mueller Treatment

*
by Andrew C. McCarthy

New Year’s Eve gets people thinking about resolutions. Alas, when a year passes, a mothballed prosecutor finds himself thinking about the statute of limitations. As 2018 beckons, it has me thinking about Paul Combetta — the Platte River Networks technician who used the “BleachBit” program to destroy thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails when they were under congressional subpoena and preservation orders.

It is not just the tick-tock of the criminal clock that has me thinking about Combetta — about how much longer his obstructive destruction of government files in March 2015 could still be subject to investigation and prosecution. The statute of limitations is five years. Time’s a-wastin’, but there could still be a live case for a while.

The other reason Combetta leaps to the front of the mind is . . . Robert Mueller.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assures us that Special Counsel Mueller is doing a first-rate job probing the possible (but thus far undiscovered) complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s election meddling. That being the case, I’m wondering: Would the Trump Justice Department be up for applying Mueller’s approach to the Clinton caper?

*

No, I’m not suggesting that DOJ direct the FBI to break into Mr. Combetta’s home with guns drawn in the dead of night, as Mueller did with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. I’d save the brass-knuckles tactics for hardened criminals, as the law intends. I’m talking about the aggressive but wholly legitimate step Mueller has taken: Calling BS on attempts by criminal suspects to use lawyers to conceal their schemes.

*

Back in November, we catalogued the stark contrasts between Mueller’s brand of hardball and the kid-gloves treatment given to subjects of the Clinton-emails investigation. The most significant of these involved the attorney–client privilege. Mueller persuaded a federal judge to force an attorney for Manafort and his co-defendant (Richard Gates) to testify against them in the grand jury.

Naturally, the defense attempted to rely on the attorney–client privilege to shield communications between the lawyer and the suspects from disclosure. But Mueller successfully countered that, under the crime-fraud exception to that privilege, communications are not deemed confidential if they are in furtherance of a crime, fraud, or civil wrong — which includes a scheme to dupe the government or undermine an investigation.

Of course, in the Clinton probe — which Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed FBI director James Comey to refer to as a “matter,” lest anyone get the impression the Federal Bureau of Investigation was doing, you know, an investigation — the Obama Justice Department resisted using the grand jury at all, let alone using it to pry information from lawyers. But hyping the attorney–client privilege into an impregnable barrier was the key to whitewashing the case: Witnesses couldn’t be questioned about the process of reviewing Clinton’s emails and destroying tens of thousands of them, about Clinton’s transferring to them classified emails that they lacked necessary clearances to possess, about their storage of classified emails on their private laptops, and so on — all because they were lawyers and such questioning would purportedly violate the attorney–client privilege.

It was unmitigated nonsense, but very useful nonsense. It enabled the Obama Justice Department to feign the appearance of a thoroughgoing inquiry: No, no, the fix wasn’t in; they tried really hard to make the case but, gee whiz, they ran into some legal restrictions that just couldn’t be overcome.

Mueller, to the contrary, is not merely going through the motions. He is doing what the Justice Department usually does: working hard to make the case and knocking over phony roadblocks placed in his path. When the defense says, “attorney–client privilege,” Mueller responds, “Tell it to the judge.” They lose, as he knew they would; then he marches the lawyer in to the grand jury, gets the testimony, and indicts the clients.

See how this works?

I’m thinking it’s a good time for the Justice Department, under new management (the Trump-appointed management that hired Mueller), to show Paul Combetta how it works.

Let’s review a few key facts.

On March 2, 2015, the New York Times broke the news that Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, had used a homebrew server system for all her official email. The House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi jihadist attack immediately issued letters directing that the emails be preserved, along with a subpoena for them. The server system storing Clinton’s emails was then housed at a private contractor, Platte River Networks (PRN), which by no later than March 9, 2015, was aware of the directive that the emails be preserved. (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, p. 18 — First Combetta FBI interview, p. 5, also paginated HRC-76).

Combetta was the PRN technician who managed the Clinton server system. Throughout March 2015, he communicated several times with Mrs. Clinton’s agents, particularly Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s confidant and her chief of staff at the State Department). With the Obama Justice Department’s indulgence, Mills purported to act as Clinton’s attorney in connection with the emails investigation, even though Mills was ineligible to represent Clinton under legal and ethical rules, and because Mills herself was an actor in the facts that were under inquiry.

It was in the course of these communications with Clinton’s agents that Combetta deleted Clinton’s emails and attempted to destroy them with BleachBit so they could not be fully reconstructed. In a nutshell, Combetta had a call with Clinton underlings on March 25, though he has not disclosed which underlings they were, or what was said in the conversation. Two days later (March 27), Clinton lawyer David Kendall informed the House committee that there were no longer any existing emails from Clinton’s tenure. PRN logs indicate that Combetta deleted emails and installed BleachBit on March 31. On that same day, Combetta had a conference call with Mills and Kendall. (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, pp. 18–19.)

In an early FBI interview on February 18, 2016 (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, pp. 14–20), the recalcitrant Combetta lied to the agents, falsely telling them he did not recall deleting the emails. He also refused to answer questions about his conversations with Clinton’s lawyers, particularly the March 25 and 31 conference calls. Strangely, he invoked the attorney–client privilege. This made no sense: Clinton’s lawyers were not his lawyers, and in any event, the privilege would not cover communications related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of a congressional investigation.

(Because an FBI report refers to the “Fifth Amendment” (see FBI Clinton File, Part 3, p. 18), there has been some suggestion that Combetta also invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. While not impossible, this would have been inconsistent with Combetta’s approach to avoiding self-incrimination, which was to lie, not to refuse to answer. A more comprehensive FBI report says Combetta actually invoked the attorney–client privilege. See FBI Clinton File, Part 1, p. 19 — also paginated HRC-19.)

In most Justice Department cases, and certainly in the Mueller investigation, lying to the FBI is treated as what it is — a felony. The specter of prosecution is used to pressure low-ranking players to plead guilty to their crimes and cooperate against more culpable suspects. But this was the Obama Justice Department’s “investigation” of Hillary Clinton, so the felony was instead treated as the occasion to reward Combetta with immunity.

Figuring he was home free, Combetta promptly revised his story in a subsequent FBI interview on May 3, 2016. (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, pp. 21–27.) Now he admitted he had destroyed the emails, but claimed he had done it on his own. Like a bolt from the blue (what Combetta called his “Oh s**t!” moment), he suddenly remembered that Mills had told him, five or six months earlier, to “change the retention policy” so that Clinton’s emails would be deleted automatically after 60 days. Because it was beyond this 60-day window by late March, he supposedly took it on himself to delete the emails, and to apply the BleachBit program for good measure. We’re to believe his contacts with the Clinton camp had nothing to do with it.

On the matter of the March 25 call (i.e., shortly before he started deleting and bleaching), Combetta denied being able to remember it — even being shown an email about the call, which made a cryptic reference to “backups,” did not jar Combetta’s conveniently faulty memory. What is more astonishing, assuming the FBI’s report reflects the full scope of the later interview, is that Combetta was not even asked about his conversation with Mills and Kendall on March 31 — the day he (just coincidentally, I’m sure) deleted and destroyed Clinton’s subpoenaed emails.

In other words, once he got immunity, Combetta admitted the thing he had previously lied about (i.e., the only thing he calculated the government might be able to prosecute him for), but claimed not to remember anything that might implicate anyone else in such crimes as obstruction and the destruction of government files. Moreover, it appears that the FBI deferred to Combetta’s prior invocation of the attorney–client privilege to avoid discussing the March 31 conversation with Kendall and Mills. This expansive interpretation of the privilege would be absurd, yet fully consistent with the Obama Justice Department’s indulgence of privilege claims throughout the Clinton probe.

The Trump Justice Department should appoint a solid United States attorney and some hard-nosed FBI agents from outside Washington, and instruct them to follow Mueller’s aggressive model in investigating Combetta.
But here’s the thing — two things, actually. First, the Justice Department’s immunity practice is designed, for obvious reasons, to prevent just this kind of gamesmanship. Immunity is conditional on the witness’s providing truthful, accurate, and complete information. If in the judgment of the investigators the witness gives an account that is misleading and withholds information, the immunity can be revoked. The witness may then be prosecuted for his crimes, in addition to any false statements he has made while feigning cooperation.

Second, the crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege is designed, for equally obvious reasons, to prevent the insinuation of lawyers from blocking the discovery of corrupt schemes to destroy evidence, influence testimony, and undermine investigations. As Mueller has shown, even if the lawyer is an innocent dupe rather than a knowing conspirator, communications that further a crime or fraud are not privileged.

Should there be a wholesale reopening of the Clinton investigation? I believe so, but that bridge can be crossed later. For now, how about simply reopening the Combetta investigation?

The Trump Justice Department should appoint a solid United States attorney and some hard-nosed FBI agents from outside Washington, with no prior involvement in the Clinton probe, and instruct them to follow Mueller’s aggressive model in investigating Combetta. In return for the immunity he should never have been granted in the first place, the PRN tech should be compelled to reveal exactly what he was told in these conversations with Clinton lawyers. If he refuses, Combetta should be prosecuted, at a minimum, for lying to the FBI and obstructing Congress’s Benghazi investigation.

As Robert Mueller might say of Paul Manafort: That should get his attention.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455020/hillary-clinton-server-emails-erased-technician-should-be-pressured

[spurraider21]

:cry mueller investigation taking too long and wasting too much money

:madrun lets re-hash and re-open the clinton investigation!

[Pavlov]

You have no problem with Ohr secretly meeting with Fusion GPS and his wife working with Fusion GPS on the dossier?We're laws broken? Collusion?

[Pavlov]

Time to Give Clinton’s Server Technician the Mueller Treatment

*
by Andrew C. McCarthy

New Year’s Eve gets people thinking about resolutions. Alas, when a year passes, a mothballed prosecutor finds himself thinking about the statute of limitations. As 2018 beckons, it has me thinking about Paul Combetta — the Platte River Networks technician who used the “BleachBit” program to destroy thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails when they were under congressional subpoena and preservation orders.

It is not just the tick-tock of the criminal clock that has me thinking about Combetta — about how much longer his obstructive destruction of government files in March 2015 could still be subject to investigation and prosecution. The statute of limitations is five years. Time’s a-wastin’, but there could still be a live case for a while.

The other reason Combetta leaps to the front of the mind is . . . Robert Mueller.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assures us that Special Counsel Mueller is doing a first-rate job probing the possible (but thus far undiscovered) complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s election meddling. That being the case, I’m wondering: Would the Trump Justice Department be up for applying Mueller’s approach to the Clinton caper?

*

No, I’m not suggesting that DOJ direct the FBI to break into Mr. Combetta’s home with guns drawn in the dead of night, as Mueller did with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. I’d save the brass-knuckles tactics for hardened criminals, as the law intends. I’m talking about the aggressive but wholly legitimate step Mueller has taken: Calling BS on attempts by criminal suspects to use lawyers to conceal their schemes.

*

Back in November, we catalogued the stark contrasts between Mueller’s brand of hardball and the kid-gloves treatment given to subjects of the Clinton-emails investigation. The most significant of these involved the attorney–client privilege. Mueller persuaded a federal judge to force an attorney for Manafort and his co-defendant (Richard Gates) to testify against them in the grand jury.

Naturally, the defense attempted to rely on the attorney–client privilege to shield communications between the lawyer and the suspects from disclosure. But Mueller successfully countered that, under the crime-fraud exception to that privilege, communications are not deemed confidential if they are in furtherance of a crime, fraud, or civil wrong — which includes a scheme to dupe the government or undermine an investigation.

Of course, in the Clinton probe — which Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed FBI director James Comey to refer to as a “matter,” lest anyone get the impression the Federal Bureau of Investigation was doing, you know, an investigation — the Obama Justice Department resisted using the grand jury at all, let alone using it to pry information from lawyers. But hyping the attorney–client privilege into an impregnable barrier was the key to whitewashing the case: Witnesses couldn’t be questioned about the process of reviewing Clinton’s emails and destroying tens of thousands of them, about Clinton’s transferring to them classified emails that they lacked necessary clearances to possess, about their storage of classified emails on their private laptops, and so on — all because they were lawyers and such questioning would purportedly violate the attorney–client privilege.

It was unmitigated nonsense, but very useful nonsense. It enabled the Obama Justice Department to feign the appearance of a thoroughgoing inquiry: No, no, the fix wasn’t in; they tried really hard to make the case but, gee whiz, they ran into some legal restrictions that just couldn’t be overcome.

Mueller, to the contrary, is not merely going through the motions. He is doing what the Justice Department usually does: working hard to make the case and knocking over phony roadblocks placed in his path. When the defense says, “attorney–client privilege,” Mueller responds, “Tell it to the judge.” They lose, as he knew they would; then he marches the lawyer in to the grand jury, gets the testimony, and indicts the clients.

See how this works?

I’m thinking it’s a good time for the Justice Department, under new management (the Trump-appointed management that hired Mueller), to show Paul Combetta how it works.

Let’s review a few key facts.

On March 2, 2015, the New York Times broke the news that Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, had used a homebrew server system for all her official email. The House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi jihadist attack immediately issued letters directing that the emails be preserved, along with a subpoena for them. The server system storing Clinton’s emails was then housed at a private contractor, Platte River Networks (PRN), which by no later than March 9, 2015, was aware of the directive that the emails be preserved. (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, p. 18 — First Combetta FBI interview, p. 5, also paginated HRC-76).

Combetta was the PRN technician who managed the Clinton server system. Throughout March 2015, he communicated several times with Mrs. Clinton’s agents, particularly Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s confidant and her chief of staff at the State Department). With the Obama Justice Department’s indulgence, Mills purported to act as Clinton’s attorney in connection with the emails investigation, even though Mills was ineligible to represent Clinton under legal and ethical rules, and because Mills herself was an actor in the facts that were under inquiry.

It was in the course of these communications with Clinton’s agents that Combetta deleted Clinton’s emails and attempted to destroy them with BleachBit so they could not be fully reconstructed. In a nutshell, Combetta had a call with Clinton underlings on March 25, though he has not disclosed which underlings they were, or what was said in the conversation. Two days later (March 27), Clinton lawyer David Kendall informed the House committee that there were no longer any existing emails from Clinton’s tenure. PRN logs indicate that Combetta deleted emails and installed BleachBit on March 31. On that same day, Combetta had a conference call with Mills and Kendall. (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, pp. 18–19.)

In an early FBI interview on February 18, 2016 (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, pp. 14–20), the recalcitrant Combetta lied to the agents, falsely telling them he did not recall deleting the emails. He also refused to answer questions about his conversations with Clinton’s lawyers, particularly the March 25 and 31 conference calls. Strangely, he invoked the attorney–client privilege. This made no sense: Clinton’s lawyers were not his lawyers, and in any event, the privilege would not cover communications related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of a congressional investigation.

(Because an FBI report refers to the “Fifth Amendment” (see FBI Clinton File, Part 3, p. 18), there has been some suggestion that Combetta also invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. While not impossible, this would have been inconsistent with Combetta’s approach to avoiding self-incrimination, which was to lie, not to refuse to answer. A more comprehensive FBI report says Combetta actually invoked the attorney–client privilege. See FBI Clinton File, Part 1, p. 19 — also paginated HRC-19.)

In most Justice Department cases, and certainly in the Mueller investigation, lying to the FBI is treated as what it is — a felony. The specter of prosecution is used to pressure low-ranking players to plead guilty to their crimes and cooperate against more culpable suspects. But this was the Obama Justice Department’s “investigation” of Hillary Clinton, so the felony was instead treated as the occasion to reward Combetta with immunity.

Figuring he was home free, Combetta promptly revised his story in a subsequent FBI interview on May 3, 2016. (FBI Clinton File, Part 3, pp. 21–27.) Now he admitted he had destroyed the emails, but claimed he had done it on his own. Like a bolt from the blue (what Combetta called his “Oh s**t!” moment), he suddenly remembered that Mills had told him, five or six months earlier, to “change the retention policy” so that Clinton’s emails would be deleted automatically after 60 days. Because it was beyond this 60-day window by late March, he supposedly took it on himself to delete the emails, and to apply the BleachBit program for good measure. We’re to believe his contacts with the Clinton camp had nothing to do with it.

On the matter of the March 25 call (i.e., shortly before he started deleting and bleaching), Combetta denied being able to remember it — even being shown an email about the call, which made a cryptic reference to “backups,” did not jar Combetta’s conveniently faulty memory. What is more astonishing, assuming the FBI’s report reflects the full scope of the later interview, is that Combetta was not even asked about his conversation with Mills and Kendall on March 31 — the day he (just coincidentally, I’m sure) deleted and destroyed Clinton’s subpoenaed emails.

In other words, once he got immunity, Combetta admitted the thing he had previously lied about (i.e., the only thing he calculated the government might be able to prosecute him for), but claimed not to remember anything that might implicate anyone else in such crimes as obstruction and the destruction of government files. Moreover, it appears that the FBI deferred to Combetta’s prior invocation of the attorney–client privilege to avoid discussing the March 31 conversation with Kendall and Mills. This expansive interpretation of the privilege would be absurd, yet fully consistent with the Obama Justice Department’s indulgence of privilege claims throughout the Clinton probe.

The Trump Justice Department should appoint a solid United States attorney and some hard-nosed FBI agents from outside Washington, and instruct them to follow Mueller’s aggressive model in investigating Combetta.
But here’s the thing — two things, actually. First, the Justice Department’s immunity practice is designed, for obvious reasons, to prevent just this kind of gamesmanship. Immunity is conditional on the witness’s providing truthful, accurate, and complete information. If in the judgment of the investigators the witness gives an account that is misleading and withholds information, the immunity can be revoked. The witness may then be prosecuted for his crimes, in addition to any false statements he has made while feigning cooperation.

Second, the crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege is designed, for equally obvious reasons, to prevent the insinuation of lawyers from blocking the discovery of corrupt schemes to destroy evidence, influence testimony, and undermine investigations. As Mueller has shown, even if the lawyer is an innocent dupe rather than a knowing conspirator, communications that further a crime or fraud are not privileged.

Should there be a wholesale reopening of the Clinton investigation? I believe so, but that bridge can be crossed later. For now, how about simply reopening the Combetta investigation?

The Trump Justice Department should appoint a solid United States attorney and some hard-nosed FBI agents from outside Washington, with no prior involvement in the Clinton probe, and instruct them to follow Mueller’s aggressive model in investigating Combetta. In return for the immunity he should never have been granted in the first place, the PRN tech should be compelled to reveal exactly what he was told in these conversations with Clinton lawyers. If he refuses, Combetta should be prosecuted, at a minimum, for lying to the FBI and obstructing Congress’s Benghazi investigation.

As Robert Mueller might say of Paul Manafort: That should get his attention.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455020/hillary-clinton-server-emails-erased-technician-should-be-pressured
:lol McCarthy

[Reck]

You have no problem with Ohr secretly meeting with Fusion GPS and his wife working with Fusion GPS on the dossier?

Maybe read this before embarrassing yourself further.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html?_r=0

Truth bombs. Republicans "investigators" refuse to release transcripts. Only selectively leaking what suits them.

It's that whole context thing your kind is not so fond of.

[Spurtacular]

:lol McCarthy

I take it not a certified sperm shielder like you.

[Pavlov]

That’s not the point at all. If an oppo research product funded by Clinton campaign was used to spy on the oppo campaign— that’s a tainted investigation. Swamp creatures.

And what’s up with heads of NSD division of DOJ sprinting for the exits? John Carlin, Mary McCord, Dana Boente. They can’t wait to GTFO of there.

lol tainted. Steele went to the FBI. Should they just ignore possible crimes because magic R?

[Pavlov]

I take it not a certified sperm shielder like you.

You don't know anything

[Spurtacular]

You don't know anything

So, not a certified sperm shielder like you?

[djohn2oo8]

948382178345390080
Like my nig Reck just posted

[djohn2oo8]

948383431037280257
Antoniobanderas.gif

[djohn2oo8]

Lordy! a mole inside of team trump

[TSA]

We're laws broken? Collusion?

Answer the question pussy.

[TSA]

Maybe read this before embarrassing yourself further.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html?_r=0

Truth bombs. Republicans "investigators" refuse to release transcripts. Only selectively leaking what suits them.

It's that whole context thing your kind is not so fond of.

Read this op-ed from the founder of a smear factory trying to cover his ass :rollin

[TSA]

948382178345390080
Like my nig Reck just posted

Let’s bet accounts again on who funded the Steele dossier. Do you accept yes or no?

[djohn2oo8]

948376877382725638

[djohn2oo8]

948376877382725638

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/589434_o.gif

[Reck]

Read this op-ed from the founder of a smear factory trying to cover his ass :rollin

Reading is essential.

It doesn't matter what you think of them. It's what they said and are under oath about what's important.

And the fact republicans dont want the public to see.

:lol 21 Hours of testimony under oath
:lol Laying down the foundation of the dossier, how they crafted it, etc
:lol Pointing them on the right path to investigate Trump/Deutche Bank connection
:lol Instead republicans look into Fusion GPS Deutche Bank account
:lol Find nothing in there
:lol Republicans "investigators"
:lol TSA Finds more credibility in Trump's tweets than actual people who know what they're talking about
:lol I have a nuclear button to push too
:lol TSA impressed by a madman

:lol Your life

[djohn2oo8]

lol Pisser trying to dispute what was said under oath.