Reply With Quote
He’s been given irrefutable evidence he was wrong. He’ll see it and admit it.
So what do you want to bet?
You made Nono the judge. He said you're wrong. That's it.
He’s been given irrefutable evidence he was wrong. He’ll see it and admit it.
So what do you want to bet?
He already said that you're wrong. That's it.
Lol "irrefutable"
And he’ll be back to say I was right. And yes, irrefutable.
Blake never offers any substance, just interjections and quips. He's never gotten over "her". #stillwither (not the Clinton , the other )
DMC just here to talk about my personal life.
Quips from the cuck corner
"Yeah that's it, her, she deserves it.. I deserve it.. I'll never have her they way you have her, her. her"
I mean, lol.
"Quips"
That's exactly what you're implying. You're claiming that without the Steele dossier there would be no Mueller investigation, and that's pure speculation.I never claimed his investigation covered only the Steele dossier. Here you go again arguing something I never claimed
The fact is that the Mueller report based very little, if anything, on that dossier.
Don't take my word for it, it was in the indictment. Mueller took over the investigation in May 2017.
"In connection with the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the later
investigation by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, the FBI relied substantially on the
Company Reports in these FISA applications to assert probable cause that Advisor- I was a witting
agent of the Russian Federation."
"In the context of these efforts, the FBI learned that U.K. Person-I relied primarily
on a U .S.-based Russian national, IGOR DANCHENKO ("DANCHENKO"), the defendant
herein, to collect the information that ultimately formed the core of the allegations found in the Company Reports.
From in or about January 2017 through in or about November 2017, and as
part of its efforts to determine the truth or falsity of specific information in the Company Reports,
the FBI conducted several interviews of DANCHENKO regarding, among other things, the
information that DANCHENKO had provided to U.K. Person-I (collectively, the "Interviews")."
https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-re...46386/download
Now tell me again how Danchenko/Steele were never part of the Mueller investigationbecause you can't read? It doesn't say Mueller relied on it, it merely says Mueller took over the investigation from the FBI.
As a matter of fact, it plainly states it was the FBI, not Mueller, that relied on that to seek FISA applications.
Again, now it's your time to stop dodging and put up: link where Steele/Sussman/Danchenko (and Clinton) were part of any investigation at the time?
The real point to address here is the FBI, tbh... which apparently are the good or bad guys depending if you like who they busted or didn't, or who they investigated or didn't. So let's get a few things out of the way:
- The FBI receives a million tips every day. The vast majority are bull . They try to weed out what's either credible or what would have serious implications (natsec or otherwise) if they were true, and launches investigations into those.
- Some of them might reach the FISC, some might not.
- Even if they reach the FISC and approved, it's only for surveillance. It doesn't mean the investigation is a sure-fire thing or anything. It's their duty to investigate, that's why they're called the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The surveillance is requested because there might be probable cause of a crime, that's why there's judicial review (I should repeat for the nth time though, that I don't like secret courts and the FISC is a secret court. While the judicial review standard is met, the fact that it lacks an adversary is, IMO, weak. Plus, the regular judicial system has the tools to deal with secrecy when warranted).
- *If* they find evidence of a crime, all they can do is hand it to the DOJ for prosecution, who might or might not prosecute. This split is not capricious. It's an additional bar that must be met to certify that the evidence can withstand scrutiny.
- Also notable, because apparently it's feigned as not-known, they do investigate political candidates and political persons all the time. We all know this because Shillary was a candidate and we knew the FBI had at least a file on her on butter emails, plus the FBI itself came out like 2 weeks before the election to point out that they were re-opening that investigation.
So the FBI is, generally, neither good or bad. They just do their job. When the OIG looked specifically at the FISA requests, they spotted clinesmith (who got tried) and on the same report stated plainly they found no written or oral evidence of any crime. The process was a mess, and full of mistakes, sure. But when you go to a criminal court, 'connect the dots' doesn't win you cases, actual tangible evidence does.
I will give you this though: what made the FBI look bad here is that somebody leaked to the press, and eventually Shillary, that the investigation was ongoing. All these investigations are supposed to be strictly secret, because in a lot of cases don't lead to anything. To the point that the FBI never officially comments on ongoing investigations.
That was wrong, and that really was the political operation, if you want to call it that.
Yeah but "irrefutable"
Holy dude you’ve completely abandoned the original point of contention. You really need to go back to the start of our convo and see how far you’ve veered. Hint: I said Mueller SCO was either incompetent or negligent based on something.That's exactly what you're implying. You're claiming that without the Steele dossier there would be no Mueller investigation, and that's pure speculation.
The fact is that the Mueller report based very little, if anything, on that dossier.
As a matter of fact, it plainly states it was the FBI, not Mueller, that relied on that to seek FISA applications.
Again, now it's your time to stop dodging and put up: link where Steele/Sussman/Danchenko (and Clinton) were part of any investigation at the time?
You been drinking all day? Seriously shocked to see you stray like this lol.
Here’s your refresher. Lol at how far you’ve gone off path.
Shocked!!!
I been fine all along, not sure I can say same the about you, but hope you're doing alright too.
You've been saying Mueller, Mueller, Mueller all day, but provided zero evidence Mueller was investigating any of these people.
Just stop dodging and start putting up: link where Steele/Sussman/Danchenko (and Clinton) were part of any investigation at the time?
Never implied nor claimed that. You’re making shut up.
So? I’m not discussing what the report was based on.The fact is that the Mueller report based very little, if anything, on that dossier.
Again, I never said he relied on it.
Mueller took over the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation starting in May 2017. Mueller’s team was FBI. FISA’s sought after Crossfire Hurricane was shuttered were sought under Mueller’s investigation. Danchenko was interviewed multiple times after Mueller took over the investigation. The FBI knew Danchenko lied in February, and Mueller’s team knew he lied once they took over the investigation. Mueller had no problem charging Flynn, Gates, Manafort, and Papadapolous for lying, why didn’t Mueller charge Danchenko for lying?it merely says Mueller took over the investigation from the FBI.
As a matter of fact, it plainly states it was the FBI, not Mueller, that relied on that to seek FISA applications.
Short memory? It's in the last page, let me quote you:
That's convenient but the entire premise you presented here that Mueller was negligent or incompetent rests on attempting to prove that Mueller relied on that dossier for his investigation, since Danchenko is only involved in that dossier.
No, Mueller's team was not the FBI. I know you would love that to be the case, but it's not. Mueller's team worked with the FBI and took over some of their investigations, just as Durham's team is also working with the FBI and took over some of their investigations.
The FBI is the investigative and enforcement arm. Rick Gates was arrested by the FBI, but was charged and prosecuted by Mueller's team of lawyers in coordination with the DOJ. Similarly, Danchenko was arrested by the FBI, but will be charged and prosecuted by Durham's team in coordination with the DOJ.
Mueller charged those people because he had the evidence to back it up in court. As a matter of fact, most of those people actually plead guilty. Durham is doing the same with Danchenko because he appears to have the evidence that will withstand in court.
Why Mueller didn't charge Danchenko? Hard to know without more details, but plenty of plausible explanations:
- He didn't have the evidence at the time. Durham has been working on this for over a year and apparently didn't have the evidence either until now (and he did have evidence on Clinesmith, who was charged early on)
- Mueller and Durham investigations have different goals and target different people.
Don't forget also that Durham's investigation also includes Mueller's team. Yet, nobody from that team was indicted alongside Danchenko as co-conspirators or anything of the sort, at least not yet.
Like I said earlier, have no problem with Durham's investigation, actually good that's being done. I'm just not going to jump into conclusions, just like I didn't during Mueller's investigation.
Are you FINALLY conceding that Danchenko was in fact part Mueller’s investigation?
I never claimed Mueller relied on the dossier for his investigation I just said it was a part of it.
I also never claimed Mueller’s team was “the” FBI, I just said his team was FBI.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...a-probe-594345
He obviously also worked with DOJ but you get my point concerning the investigation aspect.
Pretty flimsy to claim Mueller might not have had the evidence at the time considering he took over the investigation after FBI analyst already knew Danchenko lied to the FBI. (already linked that for you). So Mueller didn’t charge because of incompetence (didn’t read FBI analysis of interview) or negligent (read analysis but didn’t charge)
No, I don't. I don't know either way, I've been asking you for evidence, but so far, just flailing.Are you FINALLY conceding that Danchenko was in fact part Mueller’s investigation?
I'm simply pointing out that even under your own theory, there's rational explanations that don't include any conspiracy, and also line up with Durham's investigation as well.
There's simply no evidence of that. Feel free to present it anytime you want. Tired of asking and nothing showing up.
No, I don't get your point. Durham's team "is FBI" also, whatever that means. Special prosecutors work with federal law enforcement, that happens to be the FBI. They also work with the DOJ. Danchenko himself was arrested by FBI agents.
Mueller had his own teams of lawyers as well, which are the ones that presented the cases against Gates, etc.
The problem with this theory is that it would also indicate Durham is incompetent and negligent since he had this 'evidence' for over a year and didn't do anything with it. It's just implausible.
I don't deem neither Mueller nor Durham any of those things. Especially Mueller, whose investigation was indeed top notch (I don't recall him losing any case he presented in court on this matter, for example).
Are you FINALLY conceding that Danchenko was in fact part Mueller’s investigation?
demanding agreement and "always being right" is a disease, more or less
There’s no evidence that the Steele dossier was part of Mueller’s investigation?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco...73816/download
Mueller said Page didn’t coordinate with the Russian government and that Cohen didn’t go to Prague. Where did those allegations come from?
But that's exactly the point, it actually directly contradicts the dossier, which points to Mueller conducting it's own investigation on the matter, and not using/relying on the dossier.There’s no evidence that the Steele dossier was part of Mueller’s investigation?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco...73816/download
Mueller said Page didn’t coordinate with the Russian government and that Cohen didn’t go to Prague. Where did those allegations come from?
The only mention of the dossier or Steele in the entire report is a re-print of a Trump tweet (Page 111), and that Congress (not him) relied on that report to question Cohen (Page 139)
However, Mueller's report also points out why there was probable cause to investigate Carter Page: Russian intelligence officials had formed relationships with Page in 2008 and 2013
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
