The Robert Mueller Investigation

[David Dennison 18656]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There were no hearings at FISC associated with the Page applications. As such there are no transcripts. 

Then you can't make any judgment until you read the entire unredacted application.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No. I would love to and think it should all be declassified. I will concede that it is quite possible that those words are in redacted portions.  There are some redactions in footnotes that could be compatible with that theory, however I am not sure why those words would have been redacted while the applications representations that "Source #1's reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses Source #1 to be reliable" and "...the FBI believes Source #1's reporting to be credible." are unredacted. In sum, I'd bet against those words showing up linked together in the redacted portions. 

[Anastasis 23395]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Then you can't make any judgment until you read the entire unredacted application.

I was responding to a positive claim made by another poster regarding how the information was specifically presented in the application.  I indicate that the positive claim is not supported by the materials available to us.  Your response is to tell me that I can't make any judgements until I read the whole application.  I am sure that you can see how your logic is misapplied in this exchange. 

[Anastasis 23395]

6 minutes ago, seven said:

I'm not the ana basher a lot of the surl is, but dude, the obsession with this dossier and the FISA warrant is hugoesque

Fair enough.  I am sensitive to the nauseating nature of my obsession wrt the surveillance state on this issue, and the fact that I reply to people who quote me. I'll try to tone it down.  OIG will be out soon, and then posters can throw tomatoes at me and call me more names. 

[David Dennison 18656]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I was responding to a positive claim made by another poster regarding how the information was specifically presented in the application.  I indicate that the positive claim is not supported by the materials available to us.  Your response is to tell me that I can't make any judgements until I read the whole application.  I am sure that you can see how your logic is misapplied in this exchange. 

Do you think the warrant would have been issued without intelligence from the dossier?

[Celery Man 20886]

Doesn't matter.  IF you lie to your spouse about where you were last night, you can't cleanse it by showing you didn't really have an affair.

Especially if you’re Donald Trump

[GW Hayduke 1952]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Fair enough.  I am sensitive to the nauseating nature of my obsession with chicken orifices, and the fact that I can never catch one. I'll try to tone it down.  I’ll satisfy myself with a bucket of KFC soon, and then posters can throw tomatoes at me and call me more names. 

FIFY

[Biff Tannen 45494]

Just had a caller in to NPR saying how it is hypocritical to call out the Russian interference in our elections because we have interfered in foreign elections in the past.  I just don't get how they think this is a good argument.  So because we have been a bad actor in the past, any and all transgressions against us should be excused?  GTFO.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I was responding to a positive claim made by another poster regarding how the information was specifically presented in the application.  I indicate that the positive claim is not supported by the materials available to us.  Your response is to tell me that I can't make any judgements until I read the whole application.  I am sure that you can see how your logic is misapplied in this exchange. 

That "positive claim" is standard for warrant applications.  "Here's what we have, we aren't finished investigating, we believe our source is credible".

You know this.  You're just being you.  You're casting aspersions on the process in a desperate attempt to deflect from the obvious.  Hey, though, you're a "both sides" kind of guy.  LMAO.  You still think you have people convinced of that utter nonsense.

[Red Five 40660]

Just had a caller in to NPR saying how it is hypocritical to call out the Russian interference in our elections because we have interfered in foreign elections in the past.  I just don't get how they think this is a good argument.  So because we have been a bad actor in the past, any and all transgressions against us should be excused?  GTFO.

We dropped two nukes on Japan so if anyone wants to nuke two of our major cities, go right ahead. It would be hypocritical for us not to encourage it, really.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

We dropped two nukes on Japan so if anyone wants to nuke two of our major cities, go right ahead. It would be hypocritical for us not to encourage it, really.

Exactly.  It's just a poorly manufactured excuse to support the dotard.

[Foosters 17731]

Edit: redundant post

Edited May 9, 2019 by Foosters

[Bama Chick 28596]

Look at this pathetic bitch.

[Captainant 27450]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Look at this pathetic bitch.
 

Man, John Goodman would be perfect on SNL to lampoon Barr.

[Anastasis 23395]

38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're casting aspersions on the process in a desperate attempt to deflect from the obvious.  Hey, though, you're a "both sides" kind of guy.  LMAO.  You still think you have people convinced of that utter nonsense.

I am attacking the integrity of an unconstitutional surveillance process, yes. You think it's a deflection because Trump, but it is a consistent perspective I have had and expressed going back to time when Bush was in office and we enabled a large and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus to fight an endless war on terror. I am not really breaking any virgin ground with these concerns. I see an angle to highlight potential abuses of that process, and will continuing do so.  And you can continue excusing it and hiding behind deflection. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 45557]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am attacking the integrity of an unconstitutional surveillance process, yes. You think it's a deflection because Trump, but it is a consistent perspective I have had and expressed going back to time when Bush was in office and we enabled a large and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus to fight an endless war of terror. I am not really breaking any virgin ground with these concerns. I see an angle to highlight potential abuses of that process, and will continuing do so.  And you can continue excusing it and hiding behind deflection. 

Bull.  Shit.  

[henrygandorf 29175]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am attacking the integrity of an unconstitutional surveillance process, yes. You think it's a deflection because Trump, but it is a consistent perspective I have had and expressed going back to time when Bush was in office and we enabled a large and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus to fight an endless war of terror. I am not really breaking any virgin ground with these concerns. I see an angle to highlight potential abuses of that process, and will continuing do so.  And you can continue excusing it and hiding behind deflection. 

haven't you heard?  unconstitutional stuff is cool now.  ag out front should've toldya.

[Anastasis 23395]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Bull.  Shit.  

Engaging. 

[jimmyjazz 45557]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Engaging. 

Fuck you if you think anyone has the time to dig through hundreds of posts in which you target the movement to discredit Trump and his campaign.  It's absolutely transparent.  You seem to think you can fool people by cloaking your intentions but you fail to understand that the record shows a strong bias in your allegations.

Dude, we are not stupid.

Give.  It.  Up.

[notre dame joe 172]

I don't get this.  Any barely competent con mixes some obvious truth in with the lie.  Do you think the FISA application explicitly declared the dossier came from the opposing party's paid research. 

 

9 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You're suggesting none of the information in the dossier is true. Like it's one big lie. That suggestion, or in Trump's case, explicit statements, that the entire Steele dossier is fake is in itself a lie. Also, you're conflating unverified raw intel with intentional lies. Even in a court of law with a higher bar to clear, you can be charged with a multitude of crimes, be convicted of some and aquitted of some. That still makes you guilty. 

 

 

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45557]

2 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

I don't get this.  Any barely competent con mixes some obvious truth in with the lie.  Do you think the FISA application explicitly declared the dossier came from the opposing party's paid research. 

I don't recall if it did or not.  Page wasn't part of the Trump campaign when the warrant was sought, and according to the campaign, was NEVER active.  Furthermore, who gives a fuck?  Who cares who paid for the information?  Republicans initially funded Fusion GPS.  The FBI took over from the Clinton campaign.

Try harder.  It's right in front of you.

[Anastasis 23395]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fuck you if you think anyone has the time to dig through hundreds of posts in which you target the movement to discredit Trump and his campaign. 

I think that the OIG report will stop short of issuing a finding that concludes that decision making at the FBI  was clearly influenced by political bias or intent. I think that will shake out much like the Clinton Investigation report in that regard.

I do however think it likely that politically motivated intentions influenced leaks of information from certain intelligence agencies after the election. Or, in the words of an FBI agent closely involved with the investigation:

https://www.apnews.com/08476f79b6fcdca39fc7d0e7824dcbab

In a letter, the lawmakers cited specific text and email exchanges in which Mr. Strzok, a former FBI counterintelligence official, wrote that he suspected another agency was disclosing details to the media about the government Russia’s probe.

“Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad,” Mr. Strzok said to Ms. Page, a former lawyer for the bureau, in December 2016. “Scorned and worried and political, they’re kicking in to overdrive.”

 

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Dude, we are not stupid.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Anastasis

[JimmyJames 12271]

Gifs are a troll refuge and a tell. Someone here, not gonna say who, has been posting a lot of gifs lately, like he’s TCU fan or something. 

[DDD Dad 14251]

31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the OIG report will stop short of issuing a finding that concludes that decision making at the FBI  was clearly influenced by political bias or intent. I think that will shake out much like the Clinton Investigation report in that regard.

Did I just see goalposts move?

[Anastasis 23395]

10 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Did I just see goalposts move?

I don't think so, that's what I think that the OIG will report out. I also listed a bunch of other stuff that I think that the OIG report will find in a previous post. In that same post I also said almost exactly the same thing that you just quoted. You told me I was wrong. I told you I was curious wrt what specifically you thought that I had wrong, and whether you had read some of the testimony that lends me to that opinion?  It was post 27398.  I would still be interested in your thoughts.  

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Anastasis

[GW Hayduke 1952]

[DDD Dad 14251]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think so, that's what I think that the OIG will report out. I also listed a bunch of other stuff that I think that the OIG report will find in a previous post. You told me I was wrong. I told you I was curious wrt what specifically you thought that I had wrong, and whether you had read some of the testimony that lends me to that opinion?  It was post 27398.  I would still be interested in your thoughts.  

 

 

 

In reading both posts quickly (not carefully), it seemed like you were backtracking a little from last night.  That's why there was a question mark.

I said I thought you were wrong.  I have no idea what the report will show but my sense is that it's less likely that it will find wrongdoing than find it.  Just a hunch.

Edited May 9, 2019 by DDD Dad

[Dolemite 143]

 

[David Dennison 18656]

His cry after Mueller and McGahn testify will be epic.

So will the press conference after the contempt vote.

[retread 2951]

Fuck that dissembling stooge.

[hobbes2702 12824]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

I don't get this.  Any barely competent con mixes some obvious truth in with the lie.  Do you think the FISA application explicitly declared the dossier came from the opposing party's paid research. 

 

 

It did.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

I don't get this.  Any barely competent con mixes some obvious truth in with the lie.  Do you think the FISA application explicitly declared the dossier came from the opposing party's paid research. 

 

 

It implicitly declared it, avoiding explicitly declaring per standard procedure. It is the credibility of Steele based on his past track record of working with the FBI that is considered, not who is paying for his services in a particular case. Likewise, if you hire a longtime private investigator known amongst local law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges as a credible source in an acrimonious divorce with your wife, the credibility of evidence he presents against your wife will be judged far more on his past track record than the fact you're paying him to investigate your wife, whom, it turns out, funny enough, was already being investigated by law enforcement.

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/23/631343524/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-much-discussed-carter-page-fisa-document

 

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign," it says.

The document avoids making many direct references to people or institutions as part of national security Washington's practices called "minimization."

The application continues: "Notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

[TtomTerrific 200]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

His cry after Mueller and McGahn testify will be epic.

So will the press conference after the contempt vote.

lol

 

Mueller can't comment derogatorily about anyone that isn't under indictment.

He gave you a complete reporting of his investigation.You are not going to discover anything under this further "investigation into the investigation.  He is not going to un-redact anything that I am sure is where all of the goodies are.

 

You are fucked....this has been a disastrous fuckall by the Dems and the media.

Take the loss, pussies. 

[hobbes2702 12824]

Tom just shut the fuck up dude. God damn.

[TtomTerrific 200]

I know that it hurts....sorry man.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

Man, seek help.  Your routine is clockwork.

[Bookman 4610]

How was the investigation a loss?

[TtomTerrific 200]

Watching y'all get faced with reality is akin to aggy needing to do the same thing once in a while and there is NO WAY that I don't slow down to watch.

fuck you, Jimmy.

 

sorry to break up the echo chamber jackoff session here.

 

wait.....no I'm not. 

 

[David Dennison 18656]

They sure seem worried.

[hobbes2702 12824]

10 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

I know that it hurts....sorry man.

It hurts my brain to read your stupid fucking posts everyday. Seriously dude get help or something.

[TtomTerrific 200]

2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

How was the investigation a loss?

no collusion, no obstruction...nothing but a trigged AG with a completely compliant boss who is going to spend the rest of his time in office coming right at the institutional weaponization of the Justice Department. 

 

Do you think that you are pissed now?  wait until 2021 while mother fuckers who actually broke the law are actually being targeted by a pissed off fat man with no recourse.

you can't help yourselves. 

[TtomTerrific 200]

take the loss, pussy. (Hobbes)

[Bookman 4610]

Interesting thoughts. Why would the fat man have no recourse?

[seven 1366]

Why do all the resident trump defenders seem to suffer from some mental imbalance? I don't mean that derogatorily and indeed hope ttom and icono and the rest eventually get whatever care they need, but it's an interesting anecdotal data point. 

[David Dennison 18656]

1 minute ago, TtomTerrific said:

no collusion, no obstruction...nothing but a trigged AG with a completely compliant boss who is going to spend the rest of his time in office coming right at the institutional weaponization of the Justice Department. 

 

Do you think that you are pissed now?  wait until 2021 while mother fuckers who actually broke the law are actually being targeted by a pissed off fat man with no recourse.

you can't help yourselves. 

You might want to read the report. It doesn't say that.

[Dolemite 143]

32 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

His cry after Mueller and McGahn testify will be epic.

So will the press conference after the contempt vote.

Yabba dabba doo!

[TtomTerrific 200]

1 minute ago, Bookman said:

Interesting thoughts. Why would the fat man have no recourse?

because this type of politicking ends with this orange headed moron in charge.

[Red Five 40660]

Are there any “conservative” posters left that aren’t straight fucking trolls?

[jimmyjazz 45557]

13 minutes ago, Bookman said:

How was the investigation a loss?

TTom doesn't understand "profit", as in "the investigation secured more financial gains in recovered assets than it cost".

 

[hobbes2702 12824]

11 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

take the loss, pussy. (Hobbes)

What loss? Your posts are filled with falsehoods, shit talking, and poorly structured sentences. I’m not even trying to argue with you, I just wish you would stop filling the board with your insane ramblings and seriously get professional treatment for whatever is going on with your brain.

Edited May 9, 2019 by hobbes2702