BOOM: DOJ finds dossier author Christopher Steele ‘credible’ after 16-hour interview while Trump was in London
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/boom-doj-finds-dossier-author-christopher-steele-credible-after-16-hour-interview-while-trump-was-in-london/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=612&rec ip_id=298460&list_id=1
And this is Trash's compromised, politicized Barr DoJ
boom
From your own article dummy
“According to Reuters, Inspector General Michael Horowitz found Steele’s testimony compelling enough to extend an investigation into whether the FBI acted properly by using the dossier to obtain court permission for surveillance on the Trump campaign”
WTF is wrong with "leads" being handed to the FBI from anybody?
Esp since the FBI was already tapping the Russians in Trump Tower, and knew Trash and his mafiya had multiple contacts with Russians.
It's not as if Steele's info was huge surprise for the FBI.
Nothing is wrong with a lead being handed to the FBI, that’s not being investigated. What’s being investigated is what the FBI did with that lead when presenting it to the FISC.
TSA did you actually read the full order (i just finished getting through it) or just the tweets about them?
because nowhere in there do you get the impression that the court is questioning the accuracy or honesty of the mueller report whatsoever
the issue here is that the mueller report "established" that the crimes that are accused in this case occurred, and that violates a rule wherein lawyers associated with the prosecution or defense are barred from releasing publicly any opinion as to the defendant's guilt or innocence
the court here held that the mueller report's discussion of IRA was a violation of that rule, but not worthy to initiate contempt proceedings. mainly because the rule was a standing order and not a separate direct order from the court which mueller's team went out and defied. violations of standing orders are still violations, but not typically considered to be conscious or willful attempts to undermine the court's authority (those are cir stances where contempt proceedings are more appropriate, as their primary purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court)
Last edited by spurraider21; 07-09-2019 at 03:08 PM.
been trying to tell him exactly that
he didnt read it
yup
they alleged “criminal contempt”
judge said “maybe civil”
judge then pondered if any recourse was necessary but felt that mueller did not go that far
barr was accused right alongside mueller but tsa forgot to in lude barr lol
i mean, whether or not they were held in contempt is irrelevant to TSA's claim of whether or not the judge called elements of the Mueller report false.
but the judge never said anything that even approaches that. the judge just noted that this indictment does not allege that the IRA was acting on behalf of the russian government, whereas the mueller report does. but there's no reason why they would have to allege that in this indictment. they're charging the IRA, not the russian government, in this case.
as long as they did the acts alleged, they're guilty, regardless of whether or not it was at the direction of the russian government
Yeah I read the full order and again not here to discuss the contempt charge whatsoever as its insignificant.
The court clearly states the Mueller report is at odds with the indictment. The Mueller report suggests the IRA was working at the direction of the Kremlin. The actual indictment makes no such claim and does not link the defendants to the Kremlin and instead alleges private conduct by private actors.
and there's nothing wrong with that. they aren't required to charge the IRA as an actor of the russian government (heck, i'm not even sure they would have the jurisdiction to do so). if the IRA committed the acts alleged, they're guilty, irrespective of whether or not they were directed by the kremlin.
can you point to where the judge makes any comment as to the falsity of the mueller report (page/line)?
Yes. It was Schiff.
He made a good move not running after all. Too big of a field with too many heavy hitters to even get noticed.
I knew it was one of those two that were always on tv giving Russian collusion interviews
probably because the court lacks jurisdiction to try the russian government on criminal charges, whereas the special counsel didn't have that restriction, as he was tasked with investigating the russian government's actions, as opposed to bringing the russian government to justice
TSA: “but-but who will defend mother Russia?”
I doubt the using the same wording in the Mueller report would somehow invalidate the court's jurisdiction. Can you confirm it would?
I'm with Mate on this one, just another slimy tactic from team Mueller (Weissman)
i'm saying that i dont think a federal district court would have the authority to try the Russian government in a criminal action
of course you areI'm with Mate on this one,
none of the stuff mate is talking about there has anything to do with the judge's order thoughjust another slimy tactic from team Mueller (Weissman)
Michael Flynn Changes His Story, Putting Him on Collision Course With Judge
Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, backed off his planned testimony in a federal case against a former associate,
Mr. Flynn had previously admitted that he lied on foreign lobbying disclosure forms submitted to the Justice Department
but now is blaming his former lawyers, accusing them of filing inaccurate forms without his knowledge.
He did not dispute that the filing itself contained false information.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/u...ss&partner=rss
I get what you’re saying. I’m asking if a federal district court would still have the authority to try the IRA as private actors if it was said in the indictment that it was at the direction of the Kremlin.
Since you brought it up, what are the criteria for renewing a FISA warrant?
oh, i have no idea. i imagine they would abstain from that for diplomatic reasons. but in either version, if the charges are the same, then who they were acting in the direction of what be immaterial to those charges.
you're free to point me to where the judge said that a certain part of mueller's report was false, as you originally claimed
Judge: Mueller report alleges activities in indictment were at the direction of the Kremlin
Judge: indictment does not allege activities were at the direction of the Kremlin
yes. the indictment does not allege it. that is correct. that doesn't mean the contents of the reports were false. the scope of mueller's report far exceeds the scope of this particular indictment. trying to take the judge's order (which makes no reference of the truth or falsity of the report) and describing it as the judge calling the report false is like squinting into the dogs asshole to see jesus
you're looking for something which quite frankly isnt there
you’re free to point me to where I say the judge called the report false.
ok. see bolded below
That’s not even in the ballpark of me saying the judge called the Mueller report false
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
