monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Once the President decides that there should not be an investigation, there is no longer any legally empowered investigation.

We had had the period of absolutism here as well ... 1648-1789.

1 Reply

the memo wrote:

The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff...

One thing that hasn't really been brought up regarding this memo is that the FBI accused Steele of lying to them. This is probably a false accusation, and that, if nothing else, that would explain why he hasn't been charged with a crime, like Flynn was. He didn't lie, so how can they charge him with it? They simply lied when they accused him of it.

The lie? They claim that Steele told them (and that they supposedly believed) that he was not the source of the Yahoo article. Funny that the author of that piece says he wouldn't have published it without prior contact with the FBI, who confirmed it's investigation of Page, among other things. The FBI knew he had been talking to Steele and knew it was going to be published before it ever was. Yet they told the court that it was an independent "confirmation" of Steele's false dossier claims.

Either the FBI lied, or their "reliable informant" lied to them. Either way, they're fucked.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You've been told repeatedly that when the indictments come down, they won't be for collusion, which is merely the commonly used term for it, not the legal one. Rather they will probably be for things that are crimes, and fit under that commonly used rubric, probably conspiracy or accepting things of value (not necessarily money) from foreign entities. Ldegal experts will wite them and they'll use the appropriate legal language, which is actually there

1 Reply

@layman,

I forgot to include this part, in case somebody aint seen it:

the memo wrote:

The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Constitutionally the President is there to carry out the will of Congrss, which can empower inevstiigations too. If he obstructs a congressional investigation and tries to shut it down unilaterally,SCOTUS should constitutionally tell him it's illegal. LOCK HIM UP.

1 Reply

FYI- ALL family members, business owners and employees, have benefitted significantly from the tax cuts. One business raised all employees who made less than a specific amount — to that amount. The next higher tier (the second lowest tier) were given a one time $1000. bonus.

I wonder how many people experienced this.

0 Replies

Trump’s Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement

By SHARON LaFRANIERE, KATIE BENNER and PETER BAKERFEB. 3, 2018

Quote:

In the days before the 2016 election, Donald J. Trump expressed “great respect” for the “courage” of the F.B.I. and Justice Department for reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Sixteen months later, he has changed his mind.

The agencies have been “disgraceful” and “should be ashamed,” he declared Friday, just weeks after pronouncing the F.B.I.’s reputation “in tatters” and the “worst in history.” Under attack by President Trump, the deputy F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, was pushed out last week. Mr. Trump has hinted that he may fire the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein. And his aides fear that Christopher A. Wray, his F.B.I. director, may resign over the president’s criticism of the bureau, although associates doubt he would.

The war between the president and the nation’s law enforcement apparatus is unlike anything America has seen in modern times. With a special counsel investigating whether his campaign collaborated with Russia in 2016 and whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice in 2017, the president has engaged in a scorched-earth assault on the pillars of the criminal justice system in a way that no other occupant of the White House has done.

The president’s focus on a memo drafted by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee and released on Friday reflected years of conspiracy-minded thinking by Mr. Trump. “Something is going on, folks,” he would warn at his campaign rallies. He has long sought to find the hidden hand at work behind the scenes in government, and he has encouraged that theme in the disparagement by his supporters of a “deep state” organized to resist the policies of an elected president.

At the start of his administration, Mr. Trump targeted the intelligence community for his criticism. Now he has broadened the attacks to include the sprawling federal law enforcement bureaucracy that he oversees.

(...)

NYT

2 Replies

@layman,

Washington Post wrote:

It is wrong to say that this “Western intelligence source,” presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently.

Full report

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Washington Post wrote:
It is wrong to say that this “Western intelligence source,” presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently.
Full report

I aint payin to read Wapo crap, Walt. Tell me

1. what were the "three other sources?"
2. Who is the author of this, and how does he know?
3. How does he determine what is "more prominent?"

Are you aware that that the FBI allowed NO ONE, except Trey Gowdy, in congress to see the full search warrant application?

Well, maybe I misunderstood the claim. Are you talking about the article, or it's use in the search warrant application?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I aint payin to read Wapo crap, Walt. Tell me

It's all in that linked" report. And even if I'm a "Kraut", I'm not your servant - you can post your response as often as you want

2 Replies

@hightor,

Apparently the NYT writer does not see the Executive orders from former President Obama to discontinue or suspend the enforcement of segments o9f our immigration law - done without the approval of the Congress - as an action against law enforcement. Same goes for the obvious collusion of the Justice Department, the AG and, yes, the upper echelons of the FBI, in whitewashing then candidate Hillary Clinton's many violation of security laws (and her own directives to State Department employees) regarding the security of classified communications.

If there's a war going on it appears that the Obama era Justice apparatus started it.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

layman wrote:
I aint payin to read Wapo crap, Walt. Tell me

It's all in that linked" report. And even if I'm a "Kraut", I'm not your servant - you can post your response as often as you want

I can't read it. But let me ask something about you. What did you conclude from reading this article, if you read it?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

We had had the period of absolutism here as well ... 1648-1789.

You mean your executive is not in charge of her executive branch?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You've been told repeatedly that when the indictments come down, they won't be for collusion, which is merely the commonly used term for it, not the legal one.

We are switching gears from imaginary obstruction to imaginary collusion?

Generally it is me who is explaining that there won't be any charges for collusion.

Note also that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

MontereyJack wrote:

Rather they will probably be for things that are crimes, and fit under that commonly used rubric, probably conspiracy or accepting things of value (not necessarily money) from foreign entities.

That involves stretching the law beyond recognition. Very unlikely that the courts will allow such nonsense.

MontereyJack wrote:

Ldegal experts will wite them and they'll use the appropriate legal language, which is actually there

Except it isn't there. Stretching the meaning of the law beyond recognition is hardly a winning legal strategy.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Constitutionally the President is there to carry out the will of Congrss,

The will of Congress as interpreted by the courts (which will strike down anything that contradicts the Constitution).

MontereyJack wrote:

Congrss, which can empower inevstiigations too. If he obstructs a congressional investigation and tries to shut it down unilaterally,SCOTUS should constitutionally tell him it's illegal.

No one is proposing any interference with a Congressional investigation.

Note that the FBI, the Office of the Independent Council, and anything else with the power to prosecute is part of the executive branch, and is by definition not a Congressional investigation.

0 Replies

@hightor,

The New York Times wrote:

Trump’s Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement

It is proper that rogue and unaccountable agencies be reined in. Their job is to do what the President orders them to do. If they can't do that, they need to be fired.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I found a way to get around their lame-ass paywell, Walt. The article is a complete joke. It does, however, reinforce my post about the FBI lying about Steele lying:

WaPo wrote:

The FBI did not need a Yahoo article to inform a FISA court that Page was on the “radar screen” of federal law enforcement.

One of these supposedly "more prominently featured sources" was the FBI it's own damn self, eh?

Isikoff spent over an hour talking to Steele in a private dining room, he says. That was his source. The other supposed "sources" of his article are irrelevant. Well, except for the FBI leak, I mean.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, he prefers White Supremacist, Racist antiAmerican crap; ie, unBreitBart....

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

You mean your executive is not in charge of her executive branch?

No, I meant the prosecution - the public prosecutor's offices are criminal justice bodies attached to the judiciary).

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I found a way to get around their lame-ass paywell, Walt.

If you open a paywall source in incognito/private browsing mode (where no tracking information or cookies are logged by your browser) it never records that you've read one of your limited number of articles for the month, and you can keep opening an unlimited number of their articles.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know