Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

**spurraider21** · 01-17-2019

Never claimed it was binding law. Again, you asked for a legal basis OR an authority on the subject. If that isn't where you wanted the conversation headed you should have thought about that before saying it. The head of the FBI would be considered an authority on the subject.

Did the FBI hide evidence that would have painted a materially different picture than what they presented?

Was the application submitted a complete picture of the evidence?

Define what is or isn't FISA abuse.

i asked for legal basis or authority. authority would typically be some kind of controlling case law.

i wasn't referring to an authority figure on the subject, but looking back i certainly could have been more clear.

**TSA** · 01-17-2019

Originally Posted by spurraider21

i asked for legal basis or authority. authority would typically be some kind of controlling case law.

i wasn't referring to an authority figure on the subject, but looking back i certainly could have been more clear.

understood

**spurraider21** · 01-17-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

Did the FBI hide evidence that would have painted a materially different picture than what they presented?

nah, they disclosed it came from political opposition research aimed at discrediting candidate trump. that gives the judge a big red flag concerning bias.

if they said it was paid for by the DNC and/or Hillary for America, then all that would do is inform the court that it is political opposition research aimed at discrediting candidate trump, which would give the judge a big red flag concerning bias.

Was the application submitted a complete picture of the evidence?

yes, see above

Define what is or isn't FISA abuse.

tbh i dont know which code section i need to be looking for. but i think if they intentionally misled the court by withholding that the source was political opposition research aimed at discrediting candidate trump, that would be a pretty big deal.

**boutons_deux** · 01-17-2019

**TSA** · 01-17-2019

Originally Posted by spurraider21

nah, they disclosed it came from political opposition research aimed at discrediting candidate trump. that gives the judge a big red flag concerning bias.

if they said it was paid for by the DNC and/or Hillary for America, then all that would do is inform the court that it is political opposition research aimed at discrediting candidate trump, which would give the judge a big red flag concerning bias.

yes, see above

tbh i dont know which code section i need to be looking for. but i think if they intentionally misled the court by withholding that the source was political opposition research aimed at discrediting candidate trump, that would be a pretty big deal.

guess we'll just agree to disagree on the importance of disclosing who funded the dossier that was essential to securing the FISA warrant.

**spurraider21** · 01-17-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

guess we'll just agree to disagree on the importance of disclosing who funded the dossier that was essential to securing the FISA warrant.

the end result of disclosing the name would be to alert the judge to bias which would then be considered when deciding to rely on that information or not. they accomplished that.

**boutons_deux** · 01-17-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

guess we'll just agree to disagree on the importance of disclosing who funded the dossier that was essential to securing the FISA warrant.

doesn't making ANY ING difference who funded the Steele dossier that was used by FBI as leads, as tipoffs, to pursue crimes.

**Pavlov** · 01-17-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

guess we'll just agree to disagree on the importance of disclosing who funded the dossier that was essential to securing the FISA warrant.

Yeah, you'll have to find a precedent or black letter statute or regulation regarding FISA warrants requiring that kind of specific disclosure.

Not one person has.

That's all.

And I'll have to ask you again since I don't think you know -- what are the requirements for renewing a FISA warrant?

**TSA** · 01-17-2019

The former partners tossed the former Obama White House counsel right under the ing bus and then ran him over multiple times

**Pavlov** · 01-17-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

The former partners tossed the former Obama White House counsel right under the ing bus and then ran him over multiple times

Oh, that report they wrote with Trump's campaign manager?

**boutons_deux** · 01-17-2019

Trump Russia affair: Key questions answered

https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.o...anada-42493918

**boutons_deux** · 01-17-2019

Dan Abrams: This Has Been ‘The Worst 48 Hours For Trump So Far’ in the Russia Probe

“I’m going to make a big statement here,” said Mediaite founder Dan Abrams on SiriusXM Thursday.

“I think that what we have learned from the Trump team in the past 48 hours has [resulted in] the worst 48 hours for Trump so far,”

citing the trifecta of

disclosure from Rudy Giuliani on CNN that he “never said” that members of the Trump campaign didn’t collude with Russia,

a conversation in which Trump denied Russian election interference to New York Times reporter (which, as Abrams notes, completely flies in the face of the charges spelled out in the two indictments of the alleged Russian conspirators) , and

Michael Cohen fingering Trump in a reported attempt to rig major online public opinion polls.

Abrams pointed out that Giuliani now might be trying to distance himself from the “campaign”

these issues go to the heart of Russian efforts to interfere in the election and whether members of the Trump campaign were involved:

“When you’re talking about rigging polls and collusion with Russia . . .

these three stories together are bad news for President Trump,”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/dan-...-russia-probe/