Trump's Russian Collusion

[seacoaster]

"Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral."

This one gets repeated and repeated, and I don't doubt that, at this point, drinking from the same dirty little spittoon over and over and over, you actually believe it. But there is literally no evidence that either of these people perverted the course of the investigation, altered the facts or findings to reach any prearranged conclusion, etc. There is -- and I get that you simply cannot let go -- there is a giant gulf between two people exchanging texts and carrying out their official duties in tandem with, under the supervision of others.

Chips nailed the response to the "don't ask a question to which you don't know the answer." The hearing was discovery, and the witness was difficult. No one was "gobsmacked."

So remember: a fan, as usual, is right -- if a foreign power meddles in a campaign, well now it's just hands off until the campaign is over because we wouldn't want a campaign investigated by the "Deep State." You guys are a contemporary lesson in how Weimar collapsed; we just have stronger institutions, for now anyway.

[MDlaxfan76]

What also p*sses me off is that after the FISA leaks, no one in Congress is working to improve what is obvious not the best system,
...FISA is not working correctly, if you believe all the FoxNation complaints.

Maybe that's part of what Barr wants to look into.
Perhaps that's part of what prompted him to re-enter the fray.
To clean up what's transpired since he left the DoJ.

Could you guys re-educate us old guys with memory issues what exactly is wrong with the FISA warrant process?

Surely you don't want surveillance of US citizens without warrants, right?

And if it's part of counterintelligence, it needs to not be public, right?

So you need a judge or panel of non-political judges to approve the application for a warrant, on the basis of counterintelligence concerns, right? And then need to periodically re-approve it based on actual results from the prior warrant, right?

Which aspect needs fixing?

Or are you saying the original counterintelligence concerns were entirely baseless?

We know now, despite Trump's denials again and again and again (even after being presented the intelligence by his own intelligence chiefs), that the Russians really did have an active measures effort to interfere with the 2016 election...and that such was to influence the election to the benefit of Trump and to the detriment of Clinton. Right?

So, how in god's green earth would the US intelligence services not have a concern about people in the Trump campaign being complicit, whether wittingly or unwittingly?

And hey, we've learned that the Russians were, at a minimum, making efforts to establish a relationship with the Trump campaign, various ways, most importantly (perhaps) the Trump Tower offer.

And double hey, we've also learned that Trump was classically compromised with the Russians as he lied again and again and again to the American public about not doing business with the Russians all while he was trying to do a huge deal in Moscow.

Nah, no reason for concern.

So, again, exactly what is wrong with the FISA process?

[MDlaxfan76]

"Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral."

This one gets repeated and repeated, and I don't doubt that, at this point, drinking from the same dirty little spittoon over and over and over, you actually believe it. But there is literally no evidence that either of these people perverted the course of the investigation, altered the facts or findings to reach any prearranged conclusion, etc. There is -- and I get that you simply cannot let go -- there is a giant gulf between two people exchanging texts and carrying out their official duties in tandem with, under the supervision of others.

Chips nailed the response to the "don't ask a question to which you don't know the answer." The hearing was discovery, and the witness was difficult. No one was "gobsmacked."

So remember: a fan, as usual, is right -- if a foreign power meddles in a campaign, well now it's just hands off until the campaign is over because we wouldn't want a campaign investigated by the "Deep State." You guys are a contemporary lesson in how Weimar collapsed; we just have stronger institutions, for now anyway.

I think "gobsmacked" is a perfectly fine description...weren't most of us by such an outrageous statement by the AG? He walked it way back later in the hearing after either realizing how incendiary the word was or because he knew the damage was already done and he needed to clean it up for the permanent record. Either way, he knew it was a baseless statement and he effectively later said so.

I agree otherwise.

[seacoaster]

"Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral."

This one gets repeated and repeated, and I don't doubt that, at this point, drinking from the same dirty little spittoon over and over and over, you actually believe it. But there is literally no evidence that either of these people perverted the course of the investigation, altered the facts or findings to reach any prearranged conclusion, etc. There is -- and I get that you simply cannot let go -- there is a giant gulf between two people exchanging texts and carrying out their official duties in tandem with, under the supervision of others.

Chips nailed the response to the "don't ask a question to which you don't know the answer." The hearing was discovery, and the witness was difficult. No one was "gobsmacked."

So remember: a fan, as usual, is right -- if a foreign power meddles in a campaign, well now it's just hands off until the campaign is over because we wouldn't want a campaign investigated by the "Deep State." You guys are a contemporary lesson in how Weimar collapsed; we just have stronger institutions, for now anyway.

I think "gobsmacked" is a perfectly fine description...weren't most of us by such an outrageous statement by the AG? He walked it way back later in the hearing after either realizing how incendiary the word was or because he knew the damage was already done and he needed to clean it up for the permanent record. Either way, he knew it was a baseless statement and he effectively later said so.

I agree otherwise.

Yep, in that respect and in that way, folks were surely gobsmacked. Agreed.

[a fan]

What also p*sses me off is that after the FISA leaks, no one in Congress is working to improve what is obvious not the best system,
...FISA is not working correctly, if you believe all the FoxNation complaints.

Maybe that's part of what Barr wants to look into.
Perhaps that's part of what prompted him to re-enter the fray.
To clean up what's transpired since he left the DoJ.

And that's fine. But his job isn't to look for flaws in FISA. His job is to prosecute lawbreakers. Congress has fix FISA. And so far, they've done nothing. And now the Dems are on the hook for doing nothing, too.

[CU88]

Who thinks that the Mueller report should be fully released to the public, for full viewing and transparency?

If yes, why?

If no, why?

[dislaxxic]

THE LOGISTICS OF THE JULIAN ASSANGE INDICTMENT

Lengthy analysis by SaltyRad's squeeze Marcy...

..

[holmes435]

Who thinks that the Mueller report should be fully released to the public, for full viewing and transparency?

If yes, why?

If no, why?

I think it should be released in full to Congress instead of letting a Trump appointee, especially one with Barr's history, decide how to move forward. We need checks and balances, especially as the office of the president has consolidated so much power over the past few decades.

I don't think it should be released fully, unredacted to the public.

Feel free to vigorously investigate and prosecute any illegal leaks coming out of Congress.

[njbill]

"Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral."

This one gets repeated and repeated, and I don't doubt that, at this point, drinking from the same dirty little spittoon over and over and over, you actually believe it. But there is literally no evidence that either of these people perverted the course of the investigation, altered the facts or findings to reach any prearranged conclusion, etc. There is -- and I get that you simply cannot let go -- there is a giant gulf between two people exchanging texts and carrying out their official duties in tandem with, under the supervision of others.

I agree 100%. This one ticks me off, too. Do you think Eliot Ness disliked Al Capone? How do you think Vincent Bugliosi felt about Charles Manson? Or Marcia Clark about OJ? Or Rudy Giuliani (back when he was a respected lawyer) about the mob? But did they manufacture evidence or suborn perjury to “get their man”? No. Same with Strzok and Page. No evidence – ZERO – that they manufactured any evidence. So what if they dislike Trump? The vast majority of Americans do. Puts them in pretty good company.

[holmes435]

Strzok worked for 2 months on the investigation, and was removed extremely fast after Mueller found out about his texts. Republican and Republican-appointed Mueller worked for nearly 2 more years without Strzok on the investigation.

Even right wing media investigations into Strzok's texts (which were released) found no conspiracy against Trump.

Mueller is one of the more trustworthy individuals in this investigation - and this is coming from an independent even though Mueller is a Republican appointed by a Republican.

Leaks were virtually non-existent. Even after the summary, leaks are virtually non-existent. The complaints that do exist are that Barr mis-represented the report, not any substance about what he mis-represented.

[old salt]

What also p*sses me off is that after the FISA leaks, no one in Congress is working to improve what is obvious not the best system,
...FISA is not working correctly, if you believe all the FoxNation complaints.

Maybe that's part of what Barr wants to look into.
Perhaps that's part of what prompted him to re-enter the fray.
To clean up what's transpired since he left the DoJ.

And that's fine. But his job isn't to look for flaws in FISA. His job is to prosecute lawbreakers. Congress has fix FISA. And so far, they've done nothing. And now the Dems are on the hook for doing nothing, too.

Not his job to look for flaws in FISA ? FISA warrant applications are prepared & submitted by the FBI via the DoJ.

It's his job to look for flaws in his Dept's compliance with FISA.

FISA is fine (& necessary), so long as it is not abused by officials who use it & have access to the intel that it yields.

[old salt]

THE LOGISTICS OF THE JULIAN ASSANGE INDICTMENT

Lengthy analysis by SaltyRad's squeeze Marcy...

...talk dirty to me Marcy !

[a fan]

Not his job to look for flaws in FISA ? FISA warrant applications are prepared & submitted by the FBI via the DoJ.

It's his job to look for flaws in his Dept's compliance with FISA

Not true. It's his job to look a this very specific case.

This isn't the only business in front of the FISA judges. So sorry, no one is looking at the FISA system.

And you know better than to vouch for FISA. It's secretive. We have no way to know if it is functioning well or not. The case in question doesn't inspire confidence, assuming all your complaints are valid----I'm not following this stuff as closely as you are..

[cradleandshoot]

"Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral."

This one gets repeated and repeated, and I don't doubt that, at this point, drinking from the same dirty little spittoon over and over and over, you actually believe it. But there is literally no evidence that either of these people perverted the course of the investigation, altered the facts or findings to reach any prearranged conclusion, etc. There is -- and I get that you simply cannot let go -- there is a giant gulf between two people exchanging texts and carrying out their official duties in tandem with, under the supervision of others.

I agree 100%. This one ticks me off, too. Do you think Eliot Ness disliked Al Capone? How do you think Vincent Bugliosi felt about Charles Manson? Or Marcia Clark about OJ? Or Rudy Giuliani (back when he was a respected lawyer) about the mob? But did they manufacture evidence or suborn perjury to “get their man”? No. Same with Strzok and Page. No evidence – ZERO – that they manufactured any evidence. So what if they dislike Trump? The vast majority of Americans do. Puts them in pretty good company.

When Strzok used the term insurance policy in case trump won the election in his converstations with his girl he opened the can of worms himself. The statement itself is clearly ambiguous and ill defined but it certainly in some peoples minds creates the impression he may heve been out to get Trump in some manner. He was in a position of authority to do so. I don't know the answer but has Strzok ever answered what he meant by that comment? I just a few articles on this issue. There are a number of people twisting themselves up into pretzels trying to explain what he meant. IMO when you have to "explain what you meant" you are in deep doo doo from the get go. It seems more like these two people never believed their conversation, given the belief that HRC was a shoe in winner, would ever be known to anyone.

[seacoaster]

Who thinks that the Mueller report should be fully released to the public, for full viewing and transparency?

If yes, why?

If no, why?

I think it should be released in full to Congress instead of letting a Trump appointee, especially one with Barr's history, decide how to move forward. We need checks and balances, especially as the office of the president has consolidated so much power over the past few decades.

I don't think it should be released fully, unredacted to the public.

Feel free to vigorously investigate and prosecute any illegal leaks coming out of Congress.

Agreed.

[6ftstick]

If I recall correctly from laxpower most of the same posters that hated Trump also were anti-Tiger Woods.

Gonna be a bad week for you guys. Better take the full tab of Prozac!

[seacoaster]

I like Tiger, and a good redemption song.

It’s like your always wrong about stuff.

[old salt]

Not his job to look for flaws in FISA ? FISA warrant applications are prepared & submitted by the FBI via the DoJ.

It's his job to look for flaws in his Dept's compliance with FISA

Not true. It's his job to look a this very specific case.

This isn't the only business in front of the FISA judges. So sorry, no one is looking at the FISA system.

And you know better than to vouch for FISA. It's secretive. We have no way to know if it is functioning well or not. The case in question doesn't inspire confidence, assuming all your complaints are valid----I'm not following this stuff as closely as you are..

I do not understand your disconnect on this. There is FISA oversight. You're just whining because it is finally happening.

Look at the lengthy excerpt I quoted in the Barr thread showing how the FISC called out the intel agencies when they abused the sharing of intel gathered under FISA.

The DoJ IG is currently investigating the DoJ & FBI on possible abuse in the FISA warrant application process & dissemination/disclosure of the results of FISA authorized surveillance.

[cradleandshoot]

I like Tiger, and a good redemption song.

It’s like your always wrong about stuff.

I may be wrong about a lot of things... but I love Tiger. I could not be happier for the man. Watching him walk side by side with his son brought a tear to my eye. Tiger worked so hard to get back to where he was. He earned this moment because he worked so hard for this victory.

[seacoaster]

Exactly. It has no relation to politics. Just a great story.