The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 45403]

Anastasis' over-arching problem here is his utter disdain for surveillance activities.  There is absolutely nothing in his mind that would justify law enforcement surveillance of a private citizen, and so to argue these points with him is a fruitless endeavor.

[Biff Tannen 45432]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anastasis' over-arching problem here is his utter disdain for surveillance activities.  There is absolutely nothing in his mind that would justify law enforcement surveillance of a private citizen, and so to argue these points with him is a fruitless endeavor.

This.  The FBI could have caught someone who murdered his mother, but if they did it using not exactly the spot on, correct protocol he would waive it away.  Right Anastasis?

[henrygandorf 29169]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  The FBI could have caught someone who murdered his mother, but if they did it using not exactly the spot on, correct protocol he would waive it away.  Right Anastasis?

what if the murderer and his buddies broke the law 50x covering it up?

nothing to see here?

[Anastasis 23316]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anastasis' over-arching problem here is his utter disdain for surveillance activities.  There is absolutely nothing in his mind that would justify law enforcement surveillance of a private citizen, and so to argue these points with him is a fruitless endeavor.

 

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  The FBI could have caught someone who murdered his mother, but if they did it using not exactly the spot on, correct protocol he would waive it away.  Right Anastasis?

Well, it is true that I don't like it when people shit on the 4th Amendment.  I am able however to draw some distinction between specific instances of domestic crimes such as matricide and large scale mass domestic data collection and intrusive targeted surveillance activities undertaken on the basis of secret ex parte court orders.  

 

[Anastasis 23316]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

what if the murderer and his buddies broke the law 50x covering it up?

nothing to see here?

For the record, I have stated that Trump should be impeached and removed from office on the basis of the obstruction evidence. Just so we are clear. 

[seven 1366]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

For the record, I have stated that Trump should be impeached and removed from office on the basis of the obstruction evidence. Just so we are clear. 

You should probably just make that a post sig at this point 

[triplehorn 2664]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I don't have any issue with political opposition research.  All part of the game.  It's a different matter though when that material gets inserted into the surveillance apparatus and used to justify surveillance operations against US persons.

This is about Trump.  The issue is accepting goods from a foreign power to influence an election.  You can pay for oppo research at a fair market price - even if the services provided are from outside the US.  

Trump was briefed during the campaign that Russia was attacking our election.  During that time there were greater than 100 personal contacts with Russians all of which were initially denied and lied about by Trump and others.  Russian cutout Wikileaks timed the release of stolen emails to maximize effect on American voters, and evidence Mueller has shows Trump campaign officials communicated about instructing Roger Stone to reach out to Wikileaks about how to further the benefit.

What was the fair market priceTrump campaign paid for all of that ? 

Initial payment was, within hours of being sworn in, Trump stampeding to lift sanctions on Russia.  

Everything Trump says about this, including last week with George Steph, is pure gaslighting.  100% deception and lying to cover up his illegal acts.  He is compromised.

[Biff Tannen 45432]

22 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Trump was briefed during the campaign that Russia was attacking our election.  During that time there were greater than 100 personal contacts with Russians all of which were initially denied and lied about by Trump and others.  Russian cutout Wikileaks timed the release of stolen emails to maximize effect on American voters, and evidence Mueller has shows Trump campaign officials communicated about instructing Roger Stone to reach out to Wikileaks about how to further the benefit.

This right here, by itself, should be enough to bury this president.  These are facts.  And yet here we are.

[ndawg 1242]

23 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

This is about Trump.  The issue is accepting goods from a foreign power to influence an election.  You can pay for oppo research at a fair market price - even if the services provided are from outside the US.  

Trump was briefed during the campaign that Russia was attacking our election.  During that time there were greater than 100 personal contacts with Russians all of which were initially denied and lied about by Trump and others.  Russian cutout Wikileaks timed the release of stolen emails to maximize effect on American voters, and evidence Mueller has shows Trump campaign officials communicated about instructing Roger Stone to reach out to Wikileaks about how to further the benefit.

What was the fair market priceTrump campaign paid for all of that ? 

Initial payment was, within hours of being sworn in, Trump stampeding to lift sanctions on Russia.  

Everything Trump says about this, including last week with George Steph, is pure gaslighting.  100% deception and lying to cover up his illegal acts.  He is compromised.

And yet, for some of us, the idea that the answer could be so plain and out in the open is impossible to accept. The truth must be something deeper, more nuanced -- something only our clever minds could perceive.

Yeah, this is gonna go right over his head.

[jimmyjazz 45403]

Right, because none of it matters -- Carter Page was in some people's minds treated unfairly, and therefore Trump is exonerated of all but subsequent obstruction activities.

[Loco 3752]

meanwhile

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

A US political party hires a foreign spy, who pays off Russian intelligence operatives for information. Those Russian sources provide him with pivotal pieces of disinformation forming a narrative of sophisticated coordination and collusion between Russia and a Presidential campaign, which the foreign spy combines with other streams of information collected from media, google, and other sources. This work product is inserted into the FBI through a process outside the normal SOPs via the law firm representing the political party, by individuals in the media, and via state department intermediaries. This material is ultimately used by the FBI to bolster applications for the most aggressive and intrusive forms of US surveillance against an American person, allowing them to capture not only the communications of an individual associated with the campaign of a candidate for president, but also 2-3 degrees of separation. This information continues to be used even after the FBI assesses that the Russian sources were unreliable. The FBI includes a few footnotes with vague descriptions describing the provenance of the material, so it's all above board. This material is further deployed by individuals associated with the US intelligence community to spin up public perception around the legitimacy of the election of that candidate.

 

But that's all totally cool and legal cause a FMV assessment was conducted when the US political party hired the spy through their legal representation. What a world.   

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Delusion was believing that the Trump campaign had the capability of sophisticated coordination amongst themselves, much less the capability of coordinating a sophisticated and multifaceted international conspiracy related to brokerage rights and organization of on the ground operations and funding of Russian hacking activities.

No it isn't. It's the same stale drama queen playbook insinuating something nefarious is occurring due to Mueller not being able to tack a 38th indictment in addition to his extraordinary 37 indictments on a C list actor who's surrounded by people indicted or going to prison.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

read all the lovey dove text messages between Sean Hannity and Manafort.  

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6165126-Manafort-logs.html

 

They are indistinguishable from bubble right wing conversation you see in the dumbest of boards.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

22 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

They are indistinguishable from bubble right wing conversation you see in the dumbest of boards.

Manafort and Hannity?  Fancy that, they are running this operation.  

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Amazing Hannity has no criminal liability yet with Cohen as his attorney and Manafort feeding him information on the investigation to relay to Trump. 

[notre dame joe 171]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Amazing Hannity has no criminal liability yet with Cohen as his attorney and Manafort feeding him information on the investigation to relay to Trump. 

I didn't think Manafort was knowingly leaking FBI classified material to be published. 

[Anastasis 23316]

8 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Cool. I'm good with 50/50 as long as all in the justice system who viewed the breadth of evidence vetted it to justify an investigation and subsequent warrants. My assumption is that it was all above board. 

Yeah, so I ain't good with 50/50. Totally not good with a coin flip on the probable cause being met to initiate intrusive surveillance against even a lower level individual associated with a candidate for President. Which given the hop rules gives them capability to surveil communications of individuals at the top of the campaign if not the candidate themselves. The potential for abuse is just far too high. And while I appreciate that you are willing to make an exception for Trump in this situation, I really don't think that you are good with that standard either.  If this would have occurred under the Bush administration, targeting Obama for ties to "radicals" and "foreign influence" drummed up by the RNC during an election campaign, for example, most of the people here calling me names would have been losing their minds. In fact, many of them were speaking out consistently against far less significant IC abuses under Bush. So was I. As far as the assumption that all was above board, yeah, I've heard that one a lot here, between the name calling. We'll see. A few different reports incoming. I'll be here to take my lumps if my wingnuts are showing. We'll see how many of the posters who have told me that everything was 100% by the book are, if it shakes out otherwise.  If recent history is indication, there are few who will have the integrity to stand up and own their nonsense. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Anastasis

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, so I ain't good with 50/50. Totally not good with a coin flip on the probable cause being met to initiate intrusive surveillance against even a lower level individual associated with a candidate for President. Which given the hop rules gives them capability to surveil communications of individuals at the top of the campaign if not the candidate themselves. The potential for abuse is just far too high. And while I appreciate that you are willing to make an exception for Trump in this situation, I really don't think that you are good with that standard either.  If this would have occurred under the Bush administration, targeting Obama for ties to "radicals" and "foreign influence" drummed up by the RNC during an election campaign, for example, most of the people here calling me names would have been losing their minds. In fact, many of them were speaking out consistently against far less significant IC abuses under Bush. So was I. As far as the assumption that all was above board, yeah, I've heard that one a lot here, between the name calling. We'll see. A few different reports incoming. I'll be here to take my lumps if my wingnuts are showing. We'll see how many of the posters who have told me that everything was 100% by the book are, if it shakes out otherwise.  If recent history is indication, there are few who will have the integrity to stand up and own their nonsense. 

If an outgoing President discusses an effort by a hostile power with incoming candidates, and those candidates don't do everything to be transparent to the authorities of any and all communications with said hostile power....let alone publicly advocating for that hostile power to assist them by breaking a law.....expect an investigation. And it would be fully warranted. You are filling the non-public knowledge gaps of this timeline with conspiracy and nefarious intent by a whole group of individuals and organizations. Your assumption would be much harder to pull off without a whistleblower than the more conservative assumption of the process acting mostly as intended with the crazy situation at hand. 

Do you content that Manafort didn't provide polling data to Russia? That Trump didn't publicly request assistance(even jokingly)? That his son didn't go after a meeting to talk about help? That individuals in his campaign didn't have connections with Russia? All things neglected to be provided to the authorities whenever told of the actions of Russia. Trump acted in his own self interest, over the countries security, and that made all eyes be on him. An investigation rightly ensued. 

[Anastasis 23316]

 

39 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

An investigation rightly ensued.

I don't have a problem with the investigation that ensued post election. As I said at the time it was initiated back on the scat site. I think that a full investigation that examined all efforts to influence the 2016 election campaign was warranted, and that the results of that investigation and all underlying supporting evidence should be fully disclosed to the American people in unclassified form. If gallows were warranted based on the findings, we should set them up in front of the capitol. 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? Are you also good with that same standard when the American citizen is associated with a political campaign, or when politically motivated but unverified intelligence work product is used to push the application beyond the coin flip standard?

Edited June 22, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 18471]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I don't have a problem with the investigation that ensued post election. As I said at the time it was initiated back on the scat site. I think that a full investigation that examined all efforts to influence the 2016 election campaign was warranted, and that the results of that investigation and all underlying supporting evidence should be fully disclosed to the American people in unclassified form. If gallows were warranted based on the findings, we should set them up in front of the capitol. 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? Are you also good with that same standard when the American citizen is associated with a political campaign, or when politically motivated but unverified intelligence work product is used to push the application beyond the coin flip standard?

What have you done to lobby your elected representatives to change the FISA procedures?

[Anastasis 23316]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What have you done to lobby your elected representatives to change the FISA procedures?

Try again. 

[David Dennison 18471]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Try again. 

Have you done anything to let the people who represent you know that you want the law changed?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? 

There's a one in two chance surveillance will be warranted to apply for FISA measures? 

 

I'm going go with yes. 

[retread 2951]

I don't know the right answer to the 50-50 odds. Thinking out loud, the bar should be pretty low for eyebrows being raised when a candidate becomes entangled with a foreign power. I think we all agree the the bulk of the smarts was on the Russian side in this arrangement, while Trump/Manafort/Stone/Cohen certainly knew how to be scumbags and play in the gray area. If a candidate receives foreign help and is elected, it's very difficult for him/her to be removed, as we're experiencing now.

Maybe FISA applications for candidates should undergo a different examination with more eyeballs on the approval process? It's sad that this would need to be codified.

Whatever the end result, the FBI director or similar doesn't need to be holding ham-handed press conferences to 'clear' certain candidates while staying mum on others. That can't happen ever again.

[Anastasis 23316]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

There's a one in two chance surveillance will be warranted to apply for FISA measures? 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

Maybe presidents should be able to pass a background check for manning a silo 

[David Dennison 18471]

At least Anastasis isn't calling it unconstitutional anymore.

[retread 2951]

3 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Maybe presidents should be able to pass a background check for manning a silo 

If the USA survives his play time in the WH, I'm sure that will be on a long list of rules that actually have to be written into law.

[Anastasis 23316]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At least Anastasis isn't calling it unconstitutional anymore.

I'll leave it to the ACLU. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You defined the idiotic 50-50 standard.

 

What's yours?

[Anastasis 23316]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You defined the idiotic 50-50 standard.

 

What's yours?

Actually, Sally Moyers in House testimony said that the application was 50/50 in terms of probability of meeting the PC standard.  I think wires are getting crossed in the translation of what that actually means. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I don't have a problem with the investigation that ensued post election. As I said at the time it was initiated back on the scat site. I think that a full investigation that examined all efforts to influence the 2016 election campaign was warranted, and that the results of that investigation and all underlying supporting evidence should be fully disclosed to the American people in unclassified form. If gallows were warranted based on the findings, we should set them up in front of the capitol. 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? Are you also good with that same standard when the American citizen is associated with a political campaign, or when politically motivated but unverified intelligence work product is used to push the application beyond the coin flip standard?

1. We are using this coin flip standard based on one person's understanding of the situation

2. I don't think there is a playbook for the situation that happened. It is completely plausible corners were cut or protocol broken but within good intent to protect the country. Now that has a lot of grey area, I get that. But, you are wanting to assume towards the most nefarious of the grey. 

And when you needle these types of issues during a time where the president is the most immediate risk to our nation, your argument seems disingenuous. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

Incredulity powered down to obfuscation thru vagueness peacocking as you-just-don't-get-it

 

Fresh power sweep!

[jimmyjazz 45403]

45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute?

Yup.

[jimmyjazz 45403]

That said, @Anastasis isn't accurately representing what Sally Moyer said.  Funny how that works.

She said for HER it was 51/49 or 50/50 without the dossier.  She also admitted other officials felt the warrant was justified without the dossier, and that with the dossier, she felt the warrant was more than sufficient.

So, what we have here is someone cherry-picking statements from a single official to try to sway the argument, with full knowledge that this particular officials' perspective wasn't necessarily widespread.  Like a Trumpkin would do.

Foxy lady

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Actually, Sally Moyers in House testimony said that the application was 50/50 in terms of probability of meeting the PC standard.  I think wires are getting crossed in the translation of what that actually means. 

Well.....

 

Sounds Super Scandalous! Waaaay more scandalous than anything else going on right now...

 

I dunno... I'm bored.... maybe we should look in to this....

[Anastasis 23316]

Fun day on the thread guys.  We've seen a consensus reached that no longer is probable cause the standard for engaging invasive surveillance; we've reduced it to being ok with a 50/50 coin flip that probable cause was established.  Good evening gentlemen. 

[jimmyjazz 45403]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Fun day on the thread guys.  We've seen a consensus reached that no longer is probable cause the standard for engaging invasive surveillance; we've reduced it to being ok with a 50/50 coin flip that probable cause was established.  Good evening gentlemen. 

You could actually try the truth.  I mean, you're getting virtually everything wrong, and most of it you're getting wrong on purpose.  We call that "gaslighting".  It puts you in really shitty company.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

You are the laser pointer. High five!

[David Dennison 18471]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Fun day on the thread guys.  We've seen a consensus reached that no longer is probable cause the standard for engaging invasive surveillance; we've reduced it to being ok with a 50/50 coin flip that probable cause was established.  Good evening gentlemen. 

Nope. Probable cause is the standard. 

[Anastasis 23316]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Nope. Probable cause is the standard. 

Not if the Surly CR had their way. 

[David Dennison 18471]

 

35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'll leave it to the ACLU. 

It's not up to them.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

In a normal world, this Hannity/Manafort back channel story would be a five alarm fire resulting in Hannity’s termination.  

But because we know they’re all corrupt lying frauds, it’s a blip.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

That's not important. Carter Page was investigated. What in the good goddamn diddly has this country become?

[Anastasis 23316]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That said, @Anastasis isn't accurately representing what Sally Moyer said.  Funny how that works.

She said for HER it was 51/49 or 50/50 without the dossier.  She also admitted other officials felt the warrant was justified without the dossier, and that with the dossier, she felt the warrant was more than sufficient.

 So, what we have here is someone cherry-picking statements from a single official to try to sway the argument, with full knowledge that this particular officials' perspective wasn't necessarily widespread.  Like a Trumpkin would do.

 Foxy lady

I quoted her testimony up thread. I followed up by characterizing her testimony as "according to Sally Moyer, the probable cause was a 50/50 51/49 proposition without the material, in her assessment." Which resulted in the response "Cool. I'm good with 50/50 as long as all in the justice system who viewed the breadth of evidence vetted it to justify an investigation and subsequent warrants. My assumption is that it was all above board." As far as the wide spread nature of her view, I will note that Baker has refused to characterize his assessment of the probable cause without the dossier material during congressional testimony, as well as in public events. We'll see how it all shakes out soon enough.  Looks like OIG report will be delayed from the May/June time frame previously reported.  Taking a little longer than expected to write up that executive summary concluding that everything was 100% by the book. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13528]

Okay. Got it.

[jimmyjazz 45403]

Why are you leaning on Sally Moyer's opinion more than that of some of her peers?  Is it not possible that there was a range of viewpoints on the matter, ranging from 50/50 on the low end to well beyond on the high end?  

[Bash Riprock 1695]

so when's the big day?