The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Scraper]

You have to remember that is a highly biased memo designed to support the "Deep State" narrative, and this is still the best they can come up with.

Sadly it's not too different from "30,000" emails, but that managed to gain traction within the base, so my guess is conservative media will stretch this one as far as they possibly can.

[El Guapo]

https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/stat ... 1472299008

[stessier]

This is also evidence that we classify wayyyyyyy too many documents. What in there wasn't already in the public record?

[LordMortis]

This is also evidence that we classify wayyyyyyy too many documents. What in there wasn't already in the public record?

Or previously leaked and never denied but rather only made the orange head turn red, thereby confirming it.

[malchior]

Interesting nuggets

Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations -- an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September -- before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October -- but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

I bolded the snippet here because that seems to be the idea behind the Grassley/Graham referral for prosecution.

For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to 0hr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files – but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

Sure it could be a 'bias'. But also it could just be judgement. In the sense that an intelligence agent thought the Presidential candidate was compromised by the Russians and was against it.

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

Even more hot husband/wife deep state sleeper cell action!

[Grifman]

The memo makes a big deal as to the fact that the Clinton campaign paid for at least part of the Steele dossier. But from what I've read, Steele was never informed as to who was paying Fusion GPS for his work. If that is true (someone correct me if I am wrong), then it is irrelevant. If he didn't know who paid for it, then that could not influence his work. There are a few issues raised that at first glance seem legitimate, but I know that Nunes has slanted the memo and has left things out so I'll wait to see the Democratic response. That said, while even if there are issues with the FISA warrant submitted to tap Page, I don't see anything really impacting the larger Mueller investigation. So far, this is a big nothing. When I finished it, my first responsw was, "That's it?"

[Formix]

What I truly don't understand is, how does bias matter? Do you think the cop who is trying to wiretap a suspected drug dealer doesn't have a bias? If he could prove that the FISA court had a bias, then we'd have something. Also, the Steele dossier was originally paid for by the republicans, so how does who's paying matter at all?

[Grifman]

What I truly don't understand is, how does bias matter? Do you think the cop who is trying to wiretap a suspected drug dealer doesn't have a bias? If he could prove that the FISA court had a bias, then we'd have something. Also, the Steele dossier was originally paid for by the republicans, so how does who's paying matter at all?

Exactly. By Nunes own logic, I should disbelieve his memo because it is produced by a biased pro-Trump Republican. If we are going to go so far as to say that we can't trust people with bias to act professionally and do the right thing, then we can't trust anyone. The argument is self refuting of the worst kind.

Besides, even if biased, the FBI can't create facts. They didn't create a meeting called by DTJ to try to get info on Hillary Clinton, they didn't create Paul Manafort laundering money, they didn't create Trump firing Comey or doing anything else that smacks of obstruction of justice.

[El Guapo]

What I truly don't understand is, how does bias matter? Do you think the cop who is trying to wiretap a suspected drug dealer doesn't have a bias? If he could prove that the FISA court had a bias, then we'd have something. Also, the Steele dossier was originally paid for by the republicans, so how does who's paying matter at all?

The logic of it doesn't really matter. The text of the memo is really saying "LOL the FBI and DOJ are biased against Trump, so it's ok with us if you decide to fire Mueller and/or Rosenstein. Signed, Nunes and Ryan."

[Formix]

To misquote Colbert - "Reality has a known anti-Trump bias.

[Rip]

Really makes me wonder why so many Democrats were up in arms about releasing it. I fail to see how anything in there is even close to damaging to the intel community. They obtained FISA warrants with sketchy evidence. That should surprise no one, that is what everyone assumes cops do anytime they get the chance. If anything it is an indictment on the FISA system that everyone should have known was just a false barricade to make everyone think the government couldn't just monitor your calls for whatever reason the can make up. Same as cops making car stops and probable cause. We all know they are supposed to have it but seldom do.

My hope would be that this would lead to more resistance to all these crazy spying powers but I won't hold my breath.

[malchior]

What I truly don't understand is, how does bias matter? Do you think the cop who is trying to wiretap a suspected drug dealer doesn't have a bias? If he could prove that the FISA court had a bias, then we'd have something. Also, the Steele dossier was originally paid for by the republicans, so how does who's paying matter at all?

The logic of it doesn't really matter. The text of the memo is really saying "LOL the FBI and DOJ are biased against Trump, so it's ok with us if you decide to fire Mueller and/or Rosenstein. Signed, Nunes and Ryan."

Exactly the paper thin framing is just to drum up support for whatever they decide to do down the line. That it was blatantly self-serving along with Trump's open blabbing about obstruction only make the whole episode more sinister. They are telegraphing their intentions and many people are shrugging or cheering it on. It is crazy.

[El Guapo]

What I truly don't understand is, how does bias matter? Do you think the cop who is trying to wiretap a suspected drug dealer doesn't have a bias? If he could prove that the FISA court had a bias, then we'd have something. Also, the Steele dossier was originally paid for by the republicans, so how does who's paying matter at all?

The logic of it doesn't really matter. The text of the memo is really saying "LOL the FBI and DOJ are biased against Trump, so it's ok with us if you decide to fire Mueller and/or Rosenstein. Signed, Nunes and Ryan."

Exactly the paper thin framing is just to drum up support for whatever they decide to do down the line. That it was blatantly self-serving along with Trump's open blabbing about obstruction only make the whole episode more sinister. They are telegraphing their intentions and many people are shrugging or cheering it on. It is crazy.

That said, the media coverage does matter a lot (I expect) in what they do next. They can count on Fox breathlessly reporting allegations. Beyond that, what they're looking for is "Republicans say this shows serious abuses and biases in the Mueller investigation, while Democrats say the opposite" from mainstream outlets, so that most people shrug this off as partisan bickering.

[malchior]

Really makes me wonder why so many Democrats were up in arms about releasing it. I fail to see how anything in there is even close to damaging to the intel community.

Did you miss the parts where they blatantly said people were leaving out material facts for their witchhunt?

They obtained FISA warrants with sketchy evidence. That should surprise no one, that is what everyone assumes cops do anytime they get the chance. If anything it is an indictment on the FISA system that everyone should have known was just a false barricade to make everyone think the government couldn't just monitor your calls for whatever reason the can make up. Same as cops making car stops and probable cause. We all know they are supposed to have it but seldom do.

We have no idea how sketchy the evidence is because it wasn't released. That the biased-har har-memo claims it is sketchy isn't too convincing.

My hope would be that this would lead to more resistance to all these crazy spying powers but I won't hold my breath.

Why would it? This is un-serious criticism - why would it guide policy discussion at all.

[Remus West]

Really makes me wonder why so many Democrats were up in arms about releasing it. I fail to see how anything in there is even close to damaging to the intel community. They obtained FISA warrants with sketchy evidence. That should surprise no one, that is what everyone assumes cops do anytime they get the chance. If anything it is an indictment on the FISA system that everyone should have known was just a false barricade to make everyone think the government couldn't just monitor your calls for whatever reason the can make up. Same as cops making car stops and probable cause. We all know they are supposed to have it but seldom do.

My hope would be that this would lead to more resistance to all these crazy spying powers but I won't hold my breath.

Rip takes aim and fires at a 90 degree angle to his target.

While I agree that it is odd the Democrats gave a rat's ass about this being made public step away from your own bias long enough to look at why the Republicans gave a rat's ass about writing it because without admitting El Guapo's point that has to be even more baffling.

[tjg_marantz]

Comey pissed.

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/959498570532577285

[malchior]

There is some sunshine here - if this is the best hit job they could come up with - then their case is 1) extremely weak and 2) extremely desperate. This is not what innocent people do or act. They are scared as shit. This is a dog ate my homework level excuse.

[YellowKing]

Here's what gives me hope:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that somehow Trump successfully uses this memo to fire Rosenstein, install a lackey, and stymie Mueller (which I think we'd all agree is worst case scenario).

It's not like all this is suddenly going to just vanish into thin air and the Republicans are going to magically enjoy majority approval ratings throughout the country. The media isn't going to suddenly go "Oh, OK, everything's alright then. Never mind. As you were!"

There's only one reason that the GOP would fight this hard, with this flimsy a weapon, and be so blatant about it. They know they're in deep shit. These are the desperate attacks of a cornered honey badger.

We're watching a party who lives in a bubble where 1/3 of America is somehow the majority. And while it may be disheartening and frustrating that these yahoos hold all the cards right now, it can't hold. Will they do damage? Oh hell yes. The honey badger is probably going to wreck the entire house before we manage to kick him out the door. And it will be a very expensive mess to clean up. But we're not going to suddenly all start loving honey badgers.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Also, doesn't the memo leave out that the Steele Dossier was originally funded by Republicans running against Trump? Seems like a pretty big thing to leave out unless (duh) the whole point is to try show bias at the FBI.

[El Guapo]

Here's what gives me hope:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that somehow Trump successfully uses this memo to fire Rosenstein, install a lackey, and stymie Mueller (which I think we'd all agree is worst case scenario).

It's not like all this is suddenly going to just vanish into thin air and the Republicans are going to magically enjoy majority approval ratings throughout the country. The media isn't going to suddenly go "Oh, OK, everything's alright then. Never mind. As you were!"

There's only one reason that the GOP would fight this hard, with this flimsy a weapon, and be so blatant about it. They know they're in deep shit. These are the desperate attacks of a cornered honey badger.

We're watching a party who lives in a bubble where 1/3 of America is somehow the majority. And while it may be disheartening and frustrating that these yahoos hold all the cards right now, it can't hold. Will they do damage? Oh hell yes. The honey badger is probably going to wreck the entire house before we manage to kick him out the door. And it will be a very expensive mess to clean up. But we're not going to suddenly all start loving honey badgers.

That's all true, but bear in mind that due to gerrymandering, clustering, and the Senate map, the Republicans can lose the 2018 congressional elections by a fair margin (say, 5-6 points), and still hold onto all the levers of power. If that happens, that gives them another couple years (at least) to take apart democratic and legal restrictions on their power.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Also, I think Schiff has stated that the memo given to the WH has be mollified by Nunez compared to what was voted on by the committee. So perhaps the more explosive allegations were removed?

[El Guapo]

Also, I think Schiff has stated that the memo given to the WH has be mollified by Nunez compared to what was voted on by the committee. So perhaps the more explosive allegations were removed?

That's right, and I have read some reports suggesting that they took out the more explosive allegations...but I'm a bit confused as to why? Like, it doesn't seem like they feel grounded by facts. Maybe those were so flimsy that Nunes began to be worried that they were too easily disproven?

[El Guapo]

https://twitter.com/TGowdySC/status/959495152770469888

Good on Gowdy for saying this. It's important for Republicans to say stuff like this now, because that would make Trump pause before firing Rosenstein and/or Mueller.

And man, if you can't get Mr. Benghazi on your crazy train...

[Sepiche]

Oh shit, this is going to be tough...

I... I... I ag.. I agree with Trey Gowdy.

Ugh.

[El Guapo]

Well buckle up - you're going to have to agree with Alberto Gonzalez now too.

https://twitter.com/mollyesque/status/9 ... 5100437504

[Rip]

Really makes me wonder why so many Democrats were up in arms about releasing it. I fail to see how anything in there is even close to damaging to the intel community.

Did you miss the parts where they blatantly said people were leaving out material facts for their witchhunt?

They obtained FISA warrants with sketchy evidence. That should surprise no one, that is what everyone assumes cops do anytime they get the chance. If anything it is an indictment on the FISA system that everyone should have known was just a false barricade to make everyone think the government couldn't just monitor your calls for whatever reason the can make up. Same as cops making car stops and probable cause. We all know they are supposed to have it but seldom do.

We have no idea how sketchy the evidence is because it wasn't released. That the biased-har har-memo claims it is sketchy isn't too convincing.

My hope would be that this would lead to more resistance to all these crazy spying powers but I won't hold my breath.

Why would it? This is un-serious criticism - why would it guide policy discussion at all.

Being said by the same people that went to the WH and made them scrub some material facts out over security concerns?

I'm all for releasing it all publically but we all know that isn't about to happen unless it ends up in court, if even then. At the end of the day it was admitted by FBI officials that without the "Steele dossier" they would not have obtained a FISA warrant. The fact that a news article written by Steele was held up as corroborating for the warrant is laughably underhanded.

[Sepiche]

Jennifer Rubin at the Post has been writing some great opinion pieces on Drumpf lately, and her latest article encapsulates a lot of the known flaws with the Nunes memo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... dcc622eb60

- There is no explanation that FISA courts set a high bar for issuance of warrants and generally require multiple pieces of evidence.
- There is no acknowledgment that Steele was a respected former MI6 agent or that some of his findings were confirmed by evidence provided from other sources. (Nunes says they were “minimally” sourced.)
- There is no recognition the intelligence community already had Page on its radar screen as early as 2013.
- There is no indication Steele knew who had funded the dossier (which was begun for a right-leaning publication and later financed by a Democratic associate of Hillary Clinton’s campaign).
- There is no proof Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein thought the dossier was unreliable.
- There is no proof anything in the dossier was in fact false.
- There is no proof that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III or FBI Director Christopher A. Wray (whom Trump hired) had anything to do with the application for the warrant or that it affected their work. Both were hired the year after the initial FISA warrant request.
- There is no reason spelled out why Rosenstein, whom Trump later appointed, would have intentionally misled the court.

[Formix]

Again, this comes back to the FISA court more than anything. Do we really believe that they okayed a wiretap based on a Yahoo news article? C'mon.

[El Guapo]

Jennifer Rubin at the Post has been writing some great opinion pieces on Drumpf lately, and her latest article encapsulates a lot of the known flaws with the Nunes memo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... dcc622eb60

- There is no explanation that FISA courts set a high bar for issuance of warrants and generally require multiple pieces of evidence.
- There is no acknowledgment that Steele was a respected former MI6 agent or that some of his findings were confirmed by evidence provided from other sources. (Nunes says they were “minimally” sourced.)
- There is no recognition the intelligence community already had Page on its radar screen as early as 2013.
- There is no indication Steele knew who had funded the dossier (which was begun for a right-leaning publication and later financed by a Democratic associate of Hillary Clinton’s campaign).
- There is no proof Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein thought the dossier was unreliable.
- There is no proof anything in the dossier was in fact false.
- There is no proof that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III or FBI Director Christopher A. Wray (whom Trump hired) had anything to do with the application for the warrant or that it affected their work. Both were hired the year after the initial FISA warrant request.
- There is no reason spelled out why Rosenstein, whom Trump later appointed, would have intentionally misled the court.

This whole Trump thing is such a fascinating sanity check for conservatives. It's not like the GOP was *that* much less crazy in 2012, when Rubin (IIRC) supported Romney over Obama. But Rubin has definitely passed her sanity check thoroughly, as has Bill Kristol (for example).

[Sepiche]

This whole Trump thing is such a fascinating sanity check for conservatives. It's not like the GOP was *that* much less crazy in 2012, when Rubin (IIRC) supported Romney over Obama. But Rubin has definitely passed her sanity check thoroughly, as has Bill Kristol (for example).

Agreed, it's rather fascinating. I feel like at it's core it's really just revealing the divide between the old school conservatives like Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, etc. and the new wave of Tea Party Republicans who are much more idealogical, partisan, and don't have the collective institutional knowledge needed to actually govern effectively.

[El Guapo]

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/959491393663197190

[malchior]

Again, this comes back to the FISA court more than anything. Do we really believe that they okayed a wiretap based on a Yahoo news article? C'mon.

It clearly means that Yahoo! is corrupt and part of the Deep State!

[LordMortis]

I think I'm going through 7 stages of grief in an afternoon here. Today, I've gone from curious, to confused, and now I'm starting to feel annoyed at what a waste of time and news this has been. Fucking bots.

I'm Nunes' fucking stooge. I knew he was worthless months ago and I still got baited. I'd say it's time to step away from the Internet for the weekend but it's light work day. I was supposed to patch firmware updates on a bunch of Intel chipsets only to discover that all of the firmware updates got pulled last work for until an estimated February 9th. Makes me wonder if I dodged a bullet by not having time to get to them earlier.

[pr0ner]

Where's the Marshal of the Supreme Court when you need her?

[Holman]

Oh, and this happened:

WSJ reporter reads all 380+ pages of the recovered Peter Strzok / Lisa Page FBI text messages, and there is no sign of any conspiracy beyond catty opinions.

Edit: That direct link is paywalled, but the link through this tweet is not:

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/959470048699125760

[Combustible Lemur]

Again, this comes back to the FISA court more than anything. Do we really believe that they okayed a wiretap based on a Yahoo news article? C'mon.

4 times no less. The warrant was approved by 4 separate judges.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[El Guapo]

Again, this comes back to the FISA court more than anything. Do we really believe that they okayed a wiretap based on a Yahoo news article? C'mon.

4 times no less. The warrant was approved by 4 separate judges.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The other thing is that extensions have to be based on evidence obtained during the surveillance period. Which means that when they get the extensions they can't rely on the original intelligence, they have to rely on stuff they've turned up as a result of the surveillance. Which suggests that the surveillance was turning up useful information.

[$iljanus]

Again, this comes back to the FISA court more than anything. Do we really believe that they okayed a wiretap based on a Yahoo news article? C'mon.

4 times no less. The warrant was approved by 4 separate judges.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The other thing is that extensions have to be based on evidence obtained during the surveillance period. Which means that when they get the extensions they can't rely on the original intelligence, they have to rely on stuff they've turned up as a result of the surveillance. Which suggests that the surveillance was turning up useful information.

4 partisan liberal judges?!? The reach of the Deep State is long indeed...

[Carpet_pissr]

Oh shit, this is going to be tough...

I... I... I ag.. I agree with Trey Gowdy.

Ugh.

I refuse to give him kudos for this. Where was this kind of "country first" stance before he announced he was not running for re-election? I guess it's easy to pretend to be upstanding when you're effectively a lame duck, but hard when you are in office. Goes both ways, regardless of party. And yeah, I know, that IS politics in some ways, but I think we would all be in a better place if this kind of tweetery from our so-called leaders happened on a regular basis.

[GreenGoo]

Really makes me wonder why so many Democrats were up in arms about releasing it.

I love how you turned this memo into into shade for democrats.

You're the best,

signed, spin doctor.

There's partisanship, and then there is dishonesty.

Do you have an ounce of honesty? Do you leave it home when you're out and about? I blame you specifically for all the damage Drumpf and his republican handlers are doing to America. You personally. I hope that helps during your stigginit jerk off sessions.