The Robert Mueller Investigation

Biff Tannen · June 19, 2019

We live in a reality tv show.

triplehorn · June 20, 2019

On 6/17/2019 at 9:23 PM, Thetexashammer said:

This. This is how we get to 1000.

yes. yes it is.

and now this

NYT: Deutsche Bank Faces Criminal Investigation for Potential Money-Laundering Lapses

By David Enrich, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum

June 19, 2019

Federal authorities are investigating whether Deutsche Bank complied with laws meant to stop money laundering and other crimes, the latest government examination of potential misconduct at one of the world’s largest and most troubled banks, according to seven people familiar with the inquiry.

The investigation includes a review of Deutsche Bank’s handling of so-called suspicious activity reports that its employees prepared about possibly problematic transactions, including some linked to President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, according to people close to the bank and others familiar with the matter.

cont. VVV

Quote

The criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank is one element of several separate but overlapping government examinations into how illicit funds flow through the American financial system, said five of the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the inquiries. Several other banks are also being investigated.

The F.B.I. recently contacted the lawyer for a Deutsche Bank whistle-blower, Tammy McFadden, who publicly criticized the company’s anti-money-laundering systems, according to the lawyer, Brian McCafferty.

Ms. McFadden, a former anti-money-laundering compliance officer at the bank, told The New York Times last month that she had flagged transactions involving Mr. Kushner’s family company in 2016, but that bank managers decided not to file the suspicious activity report she prepared. Some of her colleagues had similar experiences in 2017 involving transactions in the accounts of Mr. Trump’s legal entities, although it was not clear whether the F.B.I. was examining the bank’s handling of those transactions.

The same federal agent who contacted Ms. McFadden’s lawyer also participated in interviews of the son of a deceased Deutsche Bank executive, William S. Broeksmit. Agents told the son, Val Broeksmit, that the Deutsche Bank investigation began with an inquiry into the bank’s work for Russian money launderers and had expanded to cover a broader array of potential misconduct at the bank and at other financial institutions. One element is the banks’ possible roles in a vast money-laundering scandal at the Danish lender Danske Bank, according to people briefed on the investigation.

The broader scope of the investigations and many details of precisely what is under scrutiny are unclear, and it is not known whether the inquiries will result in criminal charges. In addition to the F.B.I., the Justice Department’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section in Washington and the United States attorney’s offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations. Representatives for the agencies declined to comment.

Deutsche Bank has said that it is cooperating with government investigations and that it has been taking steps to improve its anti-money-laundering systems.

Even so, the governmental scrutiny — from regulators, members of Congress and now the Justice Department and F.B.I. — has been a drag on the bank’s stock price, which is hovering near historic lows because of investors’ doubts about its future.

The congressional investigations are focused on Deutsche Bank’s close relationship with Mr. Trump and his family. Over the past two decades, it was the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with Mr. Trump, who had a history of defaulting on loans. The bank lent him a total of more than $2 billion, about $350 million of which was outstanding when he was sworn in as president.

Two House committees have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for records related to Mr. Trump and his family, including records connected to the bank’s handling of potentially suspicious transactions. The president has sued to block Deutsche Bank and Capital One, where he also holds money, from complying with the subpoenas. A federal judge rejected Mr. Trump’s request for an injunction, and the president has appealed that ruling.

The Justice Department has been investigating Deutsche Bank since 2015, when agents were examining its role in laundering billions of dollars for wealthy Russians through a scheme known as mirror trading. Customers would use the bank to convert Russian rubles into dollars and euros via a complicated series of stock trades in Europe and the United States.

In early 2017, federal and state regulators in the United States and British authorities imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties on Deutsche Bank for that misconduct, but prosecutors never brought a criminal case against the bank. That led some senior Deutsche Bank executives to believe they were in the clear, according to people familiar with their thinking.

By last fall, though, federal agents were investigating a wider range of anti-money-laundering lapses and other possible misconduct at the bank.

F.B.I. agents met this year with Val Broeksmit, whose father was a senior Deutsche Bank executive who committed suicide in January 2014. Mr. Broeksmit said he had provided the agents with internal bank documents and other materials that he had retrieved from his father’s personal email accounts.

Until his death, William Broeksmit sat on the oversight board of a large Deutsche Bank subsidiary in the United States, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, which regulators have criticized for having weak anti-money-laundering systems.

Many of the bank’s anti-money-laundering operations are based in Jacksonville, Fla., where Ms. McFadden was one of hundreds of employees vetting transactions that computer systems flagged as potentially suspicious.

Ms. McFadden told The Times that she had warned in summer 2016 about transactions by the Kushner Companies involving money being sent to Russian individuals. Other Deutsche Bank employees prepared reports in 2017 flagging transactions involving legal entities associated with Mr. Trump, including his now-defunct charitable foundation, according to current and former bank employees. In both instances, the suspicious activity reports were never filed with the Treasury Department.

Deutsche Bank officials have said that the reports were handled appropriately and that it is not uncommon for managers to overrule employees and opt not to file suspicious activity reports with the government.

There is no indication that Kushner Companies is under investigation. The company said any allegations regarding its relationship with Deutsche Bank that involved money laundering were false. A Trump Organization spokeswoman said that she had no knowledge of any Deutsche Bank transactions being flagged.

The federal Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to alert the government if they suspect that transactions involve criminal proceeds or are being used for illegal purposes. Banks can face civil or criminal penalties for failing to file reports about transactions that are found to be illegal. In recent years, banks like JPMorgan Chase and HSBC have incurred such penalties.

Banks argue that when they err on the side of reporting potential problems, they end up flooding the government with false leads.

Former Deutsche Bank employees, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Times that the company had pushed them to rush their reviews of transactions and that managers sometimes created obstacles that discouraged them from filing suspicious activity reports.

Deutsche Bank has scrambled to toughen its anti-money-laundering procedures.

To address complaints about inadequate staffing, it brought in contractors to supplement its Jacksonville work force, although some employees said that the contractors were inexperienced and lacked the appropriate training.

Deutsche Bank also recently sent letters to hundreds of companies, warning that they could be cut off from the bank’s services if they did not swiftly provide up-to-date information about the sources of their money and the names of their business partners, according to bank employees who saw the letters. Deutsche Bank officials said the letters, first reported by the Financial Times, were part of their efforts to comply with “know your customer” rules, a crucial component of any bank’s anti-money-laundering efforts.

In Jacksonville, Deutsche Bank’s anti-financial-crime staff works in a white, three-story building surrounded by palm trees. The F.B.I. has a field office just down the road, clearly visible from the bank’s campus.

Bank employees recently have taken to joking that when the F.B.I. raids their offices, they will be able to see the agents coming.

Zavala · June 20, 2019

On 6/19/2019 at 11:33 AM, Biff Tannen said:

We live in a reality tv show.

Promise it's for your own good. Enjoy the show!

Hugo Stiglitz · June 20, 2019

Biff Tannen · June 20, 2019

No one saw that coming.

henrygandorf · June 20, 2019

what kind of fucking moron violates a gag order via social media?

i mean, i guess asked and answered, but still.

wildcat09 · June 20, 2019

I'm honestly surprised he made it as long as he did without violating the gag order.

NWBuck · June 20, 2019

56 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm honestly surprised he made it as long as he did without violating the gag order.

True- Given how much he likes to be violated and gagged...

NWBuck · June 20, 2019

Hope Hicks' testimony- Transcript

Bama Chick · June 20, 2019

Hugo Stiglitz · June 20, 2019

The Mueller Report is so devastating no one wants to talk about it in public, especially Mueller.

David Dennison · June 20, 2019

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Mueller Report is so devastating no one wants to talk about it in public, especially Mueller.

All of these people will be in front of cameras eventually.

henrygandorf · June 21, 2019

1 hour ago, NWBuck said:

Hope Hicks' testimony- Transcript

Chairman Nadler. Please take a moment to review the second highlighted portion of the exhibit. Would you read it out loud, please?

Ms. Hicks. I note that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas, but our President of the United States is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn't have a special prosecutor-slash-counsel because he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign with him for 9 months. There were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact because I was there. He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history. Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I'm going to meet with the special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.

Chairman Nadler. Yeah. Ms. Lewandowski, I think, in reading this --

Ms. Hicks. My name is Ms. Hicks.

Chairman Nadler. I'm sorry, Ms. Hicks. I'm preoccupied. I think in reading this you skipped the first sentence, which reads: The President directed that Sessions should give a speech publicly announcing --

Ms. Hicks. Sorry. There wasn't an indication that I was supposed to read that. The President directed that Sessions should give a speech publicly announcing the portion I just read.

Chairman Nadler. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection?

Ms. Hicks. No.

Chairman Nadler. After the June 19th meeting, did you see the President?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Can you describe his reaction to that meeting?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Did you at any point discuss with the President any of the matters raised during the meeting?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. Did the President at any point ever tell you he dictated that message to Mr. Lewandowski?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Chairman Nadler. According to the report, the President told Mr. Lewandowski to tell Sessions that if Sessions delivered that statement, he would be the, quote, most popular guy in the country, unquote, from volume 292 -- page 92 of the Mueller report. Did the President tell you he said that?

Mr. Purpura. Objection.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

Ms. Lewandowski

LOL. Zero chance that was not intentional.

henrygandorf · June 21, 2019

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL. Zero chance that was not intentional.

it happened several times apparently. i only got to about page 35 and had to stop.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

it happened several times apparently. i only got to about page 35 and had to stop.

Of course he did. Can't have a circus without at least a few clowns.

triplehorn · June 21, 2019

The legal difference between accepting goods from a foreign govt to influence a US election and paying for services by a foreign source for market rate:

Spoiler

Thought this would be helpful for any cretins still making false equivalences.

All those layers and multi-faceted angles Russia used to attack our election for the express goal to to put Trump in office - it was done for FREE right? Nothing expected in return, right ?? Because that's how Putin rolls.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

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.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Anastasis

WhatTheBuck · June 21, 2019

9 minutes 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.

Nice spin, Trumpkin. Now say "collusion delusion" again.

Zavala · June 21, 2019

17 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Nice spin, Trumpkin. Now say "collusion delusion" again.

haha GOT EM! you called him a name! Great rebuttal to his points.

here @Anastasis

Let these celebrities tell you the CNN/DNC talking points

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Nice spin, Trumpkin. Now say "collusion delusion" again.

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. The even greater delusion was believing that Carter Page possessed the capacity to be the lynch pin in the whole thing. But lots of people went with it, ingesting a constant stream of media taking heads and twatters who were happy to stoke the psychological defense mechanisms engaged to rationalize how America elected a dipshit like Donald Trump to the office of President..

David Dennison · June 21, 2019

33 minutes 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.

Which political party hired him?

David Dennison · June 21, 2019

1 minute 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. The even greater delusion was believing that Carter Page possessed the capacity to be the lynch pin in the whole thing. But lots of people went with it, ingesting a constant stream of media taking heads and twatters who were happy to stoke the psychological defense mechanisms engaged to rationalize how America elected a dipshit like Donald Trump to the office of President..

And then the president of the United States committed multiple felonies covering it up.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Which political party hired him?

The DNC via Perkins Coie via Fusions GPS in June 2016.

David Dennison · June 21, 2019

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The DNC via Perkins Coie via Fusions GPS in June 2016.

Try again.

SmokeyTheBear · June 21, 2019

3 minutes 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. The even greater delusion was believing that Carter Page possessed the capacity to be the lynch pin in the whole thing. But lots of people went with it, ingesting a constant stream of media taking heads and twatters who were happy to stoke the psychological defense mechanisms engaged to rationalize how America elected a dipshit like Donald Trump to the office of President..

There is a whole lot of loaded assumptions there. All that sophistication was taken care of by Russia and their "troll farms". They designed, manufactured and sold the weapon. Trump just allowed it to be used and Paul Manafort helped provide the target lists. There is no need for sophistication on Trump's side, just a willingness to go along with it.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

21 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Try again.

Why? I was factually accurate the first time.

From simpson's House testimony.

Quote

23 Q. So it has been widely reported that you

24 engaged Christopher Steele to do part of the

25 research, the opposition research on Candidate

1 Trump. Is that accurate?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And he was working in that capacity as a

4 subcontractor for you? And when I say "you" here I

5 mean Fusion GPS.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And when did you engage Mr. Steele to

8 conduct opposition research on Candidate Trump?

9 A. I don't specifically recall, but it would

10 have been in the -- it would have been May or June

11 of 2016.

Quote

Edited June 21, 2019 by Anastasis

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

19 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

There is a whole lot of loaded assumptions there.

Take it up with Steele and the FBI. It's the former's narrative.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Anastasis

WhatTheBuck · June 21, 2019

20 minutes 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. The even greater delusion was believing that Carter Page possessed the capacity to be the lynch pin in the whole thing. But lots of people went with it, ingesting a constant stream of media taking heads and twatters who were happy to stoke the psychological defense mechanisms engaged to rationalize how America elected a dipshit like Donald Trump to the office of President..

You believe things that you wouldn't otherwise believe if Trump didn't tell you what to believe. You let Donald Fucking Trump tell you what to think. Good for you.

retread · June 21, 2019

Has it ever been confirmed that the dossier was the primary justiication for the FISAs? I know that was Nunes' narrative that he was trying to push.

Carter Page had been contacted by Russians for at least a couple of years before the campaign. The FBI sat down with the Trump campaign and warned them of Russians trying to use them. Then, the campaign had further interactions and told the FBI nothing about it.

TornACL · June 21, 2019

I am so goddamn sick of the word narrative.

RomaVicta · June 21, 2019

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The DNC via Perkins Coie via Fusions GPS in June 2016.

31 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Try again.

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Why? I was factually accurate the first time.

From simpson's House testimony.

Here's the deal from Vanity Fair:

Quote

As David Corn, who first reported on the dossier, wrote for Mother Jones in October 2016, the project originally began as opposition research by a U.S. firm (later identified as Fusion GPS) financed by a Republican. Steele (then identified only as a “former Western intelligence officer”) took over the project after its financing switched to a Democrat. As he began to look closer at Trump’s businesses and connections to the Russian government, he said, he grew increasingly alarmed, which eventually led him to bring his findings to the F.B.I. Corn did not name either the Republican or Democratic client.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Here's the deal from Vanity Fair:

You left off DD's initial question. For sake of completeness.

41 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which political party hired him [the foreign spy, Steele]?

Edited June 21, 2019 by Anastasis

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

1 minute ago, retread said:

Has it ever been confirmed that the dossier was the primary justiication for the FISAs? I know that was Nunes' narrative that he was trying to push.

Primary, secondary, or supporting? I don't think that anybody is ever going to definitively establish that qualitatively. However, according to the House testimony of Sally Moyer, without the Steele material the probable cause basis was significantly weakened. A "50/50, 51/49" proposition. I don't know the terminology Nunes has used, but you will note that I consistently use the term "bolster" (support or strengthen; prop up.) to describe the use of the material in the FISA. I think that is an accurate and appropriate term given the evidence and testimony.

Q If it did not have the Christopher Steele information in it, would it still have been sufficient from a probable cause standard?

A So I think it's a close call, like 50/50, 51/49. I really think it's a close call. There were others that I believed felt more strongly about it. I do think --

Q More strongly about --

A That there was probable cause without the Steele information, including the line attorney that signed off on it, but --

Q So even without the people that felt it was sufficient without it, it was still a close call?

A Right.

SmokeyTheBear · June 21, 2019

Just now, Anastasis said:

You left of DD's initial question. For sake of completeness.

Again, one of the Republican candidates hires Steele via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump during the primaries. Once they (Bush?) were knocked out, the Clinton campaign picked it back up.

RomaVicta · June 21, 2019

7 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Again, one of the Republican candidates hires Steele via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump during the primaries. Once they (Bush?) were knocked out, the Clinton campaign picked it back up.

According to Vanity Fair, Steele didn't begin work on the Fusion GPS research contracted by a GOP until the Dems took it over. I'm not sure how important that distinction is if it's important at all.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

Just now, SmokeyTheBear said:

Again, one of the Republican candidates hires Steele via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump during the primaries. Once they (Bush?) were knocked out, the Clinton campaign picked it back up.

This is just not accurate timeline of events. Rubio supporter via Washington Free Beacon hires Fusion GPS to do general oppo research on Trump during primaries. They stop funding the research some time in Spring 2016. In April 2016 DNC takes over funding. In June 2016 Steele is first hired as subcontractor by GPS. It is detailed in Simpson's (Fusion GPS) testimony I quoted earlier, as well as his other testimony. Steele came in under teh DNC funded operation.

Captainant · June 21, 2019

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Primary, secondary, or supporting? I don't think that anybody is ever going to definitively establish that qualitatively. However, according to the House testimony of Sally Moyer, without the Steele material the probable cause basis was significantly weakened. A "50/50, 51/49" proposition. I don't know the terminology Nunes has used, but you will note that I consistently use the term "bolster" (support or strengthen; prop up.) to describe the use of the material in the FISA. I think that is an accurate and appropriate term given the evidence and testimony.

Couldn't be that the dossier acted as independent corroboration of fact patterns already identified by investigators, pushing the argument for the warrant over the top, right? You're definitely better off believing whatever Nunez and Trump are telling you to believe.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

According to Vanity Fair, Steele didn't begin work on the Fusion GPS research contracted by a GOP until the Dems took it over. I'm not sure how important that distinction is if it's important at all.

I think that the PC lawyer delivering the dossier content to his personal contact FBI (Baker) is kind of an important wrinkle. This is not a standard path for acquisition and handling of evidence at the FBI.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Couldn't be that the dossier acted as independent corroboration of fact patterns already identified by investigators, pushing the argument for the warrant over the top, right? You're definitely better off believing whatever Nunez and Trump are telling you to believe.

I have cited information sourced from testimony of three different individuals before the House in the last few posts. Nothing from Trump or Nunes. But I do note that nobody has actually addressed any specific content or arguments I laid out. Name calling and deflection. You and Buck are boring me, and your only real competition at this point is droning conference calls.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Anastasis

SmokeyTheBear · June 21, 2019

I stand corrected. I still do not understand the consternation with it all. It is all dirty pool but within the confines of the law (a framework of laws I do not personally agree with).

Captainant · June 21, 2019

Just now, Anastasis said:

I have cited information sourced from testimony of three different individuals before the House in the last few posts. Nothing from Trump or Nunes. But I do note that nobody has actually addressed any specific content or arguments I laid out. Name calling and deflection. You guys are boring me, and your only real competition at this point are droning conference calls.

Hope you're extra successful in ~~killing more people seeking medical care~~ building shareholder value today

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

7 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

I stand corrected. I still do not understand the consternation with it all. It is all dirty pool but within the confines of the law (a framework of laws I do not personally agree with).

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.

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Hope you're extra successful in ~~killing more people seeking medical care~~ building shareholder value today

Oh good. More name calling and deflection.

SmokeyTheBear · June 21, 2019

3 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.

Why the automatic assumption that the dossier was the sole piece of evidence to trigger an investigation? Do you believe it possible that there could have been years of evidence on several persons/organizations that the dossier merely supported or connected dots to support an investigation?

Chooky · June 21, 2019

1 minute 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.

Why? If a research contractor identifies possible criminal behavior with a foreign country or financial crimes or any criminal behavior and reports it to law enforcement why should they not consider investigating it? Simply because it was derived from a political campaign? If the police were dispatched by a noise complaint from my hateful neighbor should the police ignore the human head on my lawn and the stolen vehicle in my driveway? And if a FISA court authorizes surveillance for further investigation what's the problem with that?

Anastasis · June 21, 2019

2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Why the automatic assumption that the dossier was the sole piece of evidence to trigger an investigation?

I have never said that it was the sole evidence. What I did say, just a few posts up, is that according to Sally Moyer, the probable cause was a 50/50 51/49 proposition without the material, in her assessment.

Captainant · June 21, 2019

Just now, Anastasis said:

I have never said that it was the sole evidence. What I did say, just a few posts up, is that according to Sally Moyer, the probable cause was a 50/50 51/49 proposition without the material, in her assessment.

And again, you're completely dismissing the equally likely possibility that the dossier was independent validation of already-existing suspicions.

If you thought your neighbor was stealing your shit but didn't have proof, and then another neighbor said they saw your shit getting stolen, that changes things from a hunch to a validated concern. Say, like improving the probable cause from 50/50 to actually issuing a warrant for further investigation.

SmokeyTheBear · June 21, 2019

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I have never said that it was the sole evidence. What I did say, just a few posts up, is that according to Sally Moyer, the probable cause was a 50/50 51/49 proposition without the material, in her assessment.

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. So again, why the consternation about the process that unfolded? Is it your stance that elements of the dossier are tainted or false in any way and should not have even been reviewed for validity by the justice system?

retread · June 21, 2019

I remember when the Nunes memo was released, some Ds and Rs on the HPSCI got to see the unredacted version. IIRC, the Ds refuted the assertion that, without the dossier, the FISA warrant might not have been approved.

The D response to Nunes' memo stated that the FBI acted correctly.

Quote

"FBI and DOJ officials did not 'abuse' the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign," the Democratic memo asserts.

The FBI and DOJ "would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page," the Democrats write, adding that the "DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA's probable cause requirement."

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/24/588563076/memo-by-house-intelligence-committee-democrats-released-as-nunes-addresses-cpac

Sign In

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Recommended Posts

Biff Tannen 45473

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho

Incredulity

Chooky

Posted Images

triplehorn 2664

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Zavala 1384

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Biff Tannen 45473

Link to comment

Share on other sites

henrygandorf 29174

Link to comment

Share on other sites

wildcat09 29184

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NWBuck 8543

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NWBuck 8543

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bama Chick 28596

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18580

Link to comment

Share on other sites

henrygandorf 29174

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23361

Link to comment

Share on other sites

henrygandorf 29174

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23361

Link to comment

Share on other sites

triplehorn 2664

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23361

Link to comment

Share on other sites

WhatTheBuck 28700

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Zavala 1384

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23361

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18580

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18580

Link to comment