The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Anastasis 23,469]

32 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You’ve done it!  You’ve actually put all the pieces together and proven both sides are actually the same. Congratulations! 

It is unsurprising that you miss the point completely.

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is basically correct, with the relevant additional point that the Russia Russia Russia focus of the Fusion work in general, and Steele's work in particular, only took off once the DNC/HRC got involved. 

I mean Russia did interfere in our election right? And Mueller report uncovered 272 contacts and 32 meetings between Russian agents and Trump's circle during that period. I'd venture to guess that is more than they had with any other country, by far. Mueller did not find a smoking (smocking) gun to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that certain individuals committed conspiracy, but he found a shit ton of collusion, which is not a crime. 

The revisionist history here is incredible. There was more than ample evidence to open an investigation absent the dossier. And after Trumps boys in the DOJ/NSA have poked through every single document all they can turn up is the equivalent that somebody forgot to put a cover on their TPS report. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

And after Trumps boys in the DOJ/NSA have poked through every single document all they can turn up is the equivalent that somebody forgot to put a cover on their TPS report. 

Speaking of incredible revisionist history. 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Speaking of incredible revisionist history. 

What crime or violation have they uncovered? No speculation please. Actual crime. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 minute ago, Lagunamadre said:

What crime or violation have they uncovered? No speculation please. Actual crime. 

You mean other than the part where the lawyer falsified the substantive content of an email from their CIA contact re: page's work as a CIA asset?

[wildcat09 29,354]

You should send your theory to Bill Barr.

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

Why is the Mueller report inconsistent?

I would agree that it is inconclusive as pertains to Trump, but that was a Catch-22 from jump.

[Longhorn 145]

25 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

What crime or violation have they uncovered? No speculation please. Actual crime. 

A crime was committed, 100%. Leaking Flynn’s name to the media is a crime. It should be investigated and the responsible party should be prosecuted.

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

1 minute ago, Longhorn said:

A crime was committed, 100%. Leaking Flynn’s name to the media is a crime. It should be investigated and the responsible party should be prosecuted.

I completely agree with that. And you are correct. Not an insignificant chance the leaker in this case speaks Russian. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why is the Mueller report inconsistent?

I would agree that it is inconclusive as pertains to Trump, but that was a Catch-22 from jump.

I would suggest that they pulled on threads of Russian election interference/influence quite selectively.

One of the clearly most impactful actions influencing the outcome of the 2016 election was Comey's public handling of the MYE investigation. His public handling of that investigation was reportedly influenced by a piece of Russian disinformation that was intended to appear to compromise the AG. Seems kinda relevant to a "full and thorough investigation" of Russian election influence operations, wouldn't you think? Maybe somebody want to look into that and report the findings? Seeing as that all played out inside the FBI, should be a pretty easy lift? No, OK.  But they're gonna sniff real hard at a server conspiracy propagated by DNC lawyers and the HRC campaign? Ok. 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You mean other than the part where the lawyer falsified the substantive content of an email from their CIA contact re: page's work as a CIA asset?

I just re-read the executive summary of the Horowitz and must have missed that part. The Page FISA applications were certainly sloppy and there were omissions, over-statements and mis-communications between departments and agencies, but I didn't see anything about falsifying content.  Horowitz called them "errors and omissions", but did not identify any crimes. 

"We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case."

[Longhorn 145]

14 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I completely agree with that. And you are correct. Not an insignificant chance the leaker in this case speaks Russian. 

WaPo seems to disagree. They say it is certainly someone from Obama admin.

But this much is certain: Obama administration officials leaked unmasked intelligence about Flynn to the press. The fact that those individuals have gone unpunished for three years, while Flynn has endured a legal hell, is appalling.

 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would suggest that they pulled on threads of Russian election interference/influence quite selectively.

One of the clearly most impactful actions influencing the outcome of the 2016 election was Comey's public handling of the MYE investigation. His public handling of that investigation was reportedly influenced by a piece of Russian disinformation that was intended to appear to compromise the AG. Seems kinda relevant to a "full and thorough investigation" of Russian election influence operations, wouldn't you think? Maybe somebody want to look into that and report the findings? Seeing as that all played out inside the FBI, should be a pretty easy lift? No, OK.  But they're gonna sniff real hard at a server conspiracy propagated by DNC lawyers and the HRC campaign? Ok. 

Here is a 568 page review of the Midyear Exam investigation, if you are interested. 

 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

Edited May 20, 2020 by Lagunamadre

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

WaPo seems to disagree. They say it is certainly someone from Obama admin.

But this much is certain: Obama administration officials leaked unmasked intelligence about Flynn to the press. The fact that those individuals have gone unpunished for three years, while Flynn has endured a legal hell, is appalling.

 

That is not WaPo, that is an opinion piece by a conservative political pundit who has no idea where that info came from. A little advice going forward in life, when you get to the part of a paper or a website that is entitled "opinion", the views you read there are not those of the paper nor are they fact checked or vetted, they are opinions, not unlike what we post here. 

Here is the article that you didn't link for reference......https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/14/someone-committed-crime-michael-flynn-case-it-wasnt-him/

Edited May 20, 2020 by Lagunamadre

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why is the Mueller report inconsistent?

I use that descriptor because I don't think statements like this are particularly clarifying:

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

 

Taken in conjunction with his statements saying (in effect) "if we could have exonerated him, we would have" it paints a muddy picture, mostly because of DOJ policy about indicting a sitting President.  You'll recall that Mueller also pointed out that he thought it would be unfair to implicate the President without charging him, because it wouldn't give him legal recourse to defend himself.  (I'm not saying that's a bad perspective, necessarily, but the whole thing was fairly hamstrung from the jump.)

As an aside, I do find it amusing that our resident Dark Trumpkins seem to be all about "he could have investigated ANYTHING and didn't investigate the HRC campaign" yet at the time every fucking one of them was all about how narrow the investigation needed to be.  Ah, revisionist history.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

this thread:

[Anastasis 23,469]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this thread:

More accurate if they were in a quarantine cage throwing empty bottles at each other. 

 

The thread was a lot more fun when people were getting all amped up about Prague for the second time, or a server for the third.  The good ole days.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23,469]

21 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I just re-read the executive summary of the Horowitz and must have missed that part.

Discussed in detail starting on page 247.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf

 

[Longhorn 145]

7 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

That is not WaPo, that is an opinion piece by a conservative political pundit who has no idea where that info came from. A little advice going forward in life, when you get to the part of a paper or a website that is entitled "opinion", the views you read there are not those of the paper nor are they fact checked or vetted, they are opinions, not unlike what we post here. 

Here is the article that you didn't link for reference......https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/14/someone-committed-crime-michael-flynn-case-it-wasnt-him/

Fair enough.  The WaPo article that broke the leak was also an opinion piece from David Ignatius.  Are you ok with him?

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

31 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

Fair enough.  The WaPo article that broke the leak was also an opinion piece from David Ignatius.  Are you ok with him?

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

You and I are in agreement that anybody who leaks classified information (or commits any crime) should be punished, whether it be Susan Rice or Devin Nunes. I'll take Ignatius's word for it if he broke the story. 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Discussed in detail starting on page 247.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf

 

Interesting, I never got that far in the weeds. That dude fucked up for sure but seems very unlikely that would be a crime. Possibly a violation of FBI procedure, but that would be a hard to indict on. 

For those that didn't get down to pg. 247. They cover email and IM exchanges between FBI agents, an FBI lawyer, and a rep from an unnamed agency, probably CIA. The FBI lawyer asks the other agency if Page was a source because they would need to include that in the FISA application. The other agency says they sent stuff about Page to them already and that he was likely a "digraph", meaning that he had interacted with the other agencies source but was not a source himself but he could be a sub-source, a source to the source. The FBI attorney eventually forwards an email exchange that includes the original email and he inserts after "digraph" - "Not a source" . The FBI agents use that as reasoning not to include that Page was a source/sub-source in a footnote in the FISA. So the crime would be the lawyer inserting his own color on the forwarded email without letting the recipient know it was his own commentary. The commentary wasn't necessarily incorrect either, as Paige was not a source to the other agency, rather a source to their source. Any Shaggy lawyers want to weigh in on this. 

Thank you for pointing out the page Anastasis, much appreciated. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

20 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The commentary wasn't necessarily incorrect either, as Paige was not a source to the other agency, rather a source to their source.

I don't believe that this is a correct reading.

The OGC Attorney told us that- his belief that Page had never been a source for the other U.S. government agency, but instead interacted with a source-was based on telephone conversations with the Liaison. He said he recalled the Liaison "saying that [Page] was not a source of theirs," but rather "incidentally reporting information via a source of theirs" and that they "ended up not actually opening him. "396

When we asked the Liaison about the OGC Attorney's interpretation of the Liaison's email, the Liaison told us that her email stated just the opposite, namely that Page was a U.S. person who had provided direct reporting to the other U.S. government agency in the past. The Liaison also said that the reason she offered, in her email, to assist in providing language for the FISA application was because she was telling the OGC Attorney that, using the FBI's terminology, Page had been a source for the other agency. The Liaison also stated that she saw no basis for the OGC Attorney to have concluded, based on their communications and the August 17 Memorandum, that Page never had a direct relationship with the other agency. 

...

The Liaison focused on the portion of the exchange in which the 0GC Attorney stated that Page "was never a source." The Liaison told us that this statement was wrong, as was the 0GC Attorney's statement that Page "was a U.S. sub-source of a source." The Liaison said that such an assertion is "directly contradictory to the [documents]" the agency provided to the FBI. The Liaison also said it was inaccurate to describe Carter Page as "like a sub-source of [a digraph]" and to state that the other agency had "confirmed explicitly that [Page] was never a source."

 

 

As far as the rest, every other individual involved in the episode felt that the omission of context and altering of the email reflected a substantive alteration of the communication. In the context of their IM exchange, it was clear what he was doing.  He told the SSA that the CIA liaison had explicitly told him that Page was not a CIA source.  The CIA liaison never told him that.  So he added it to the email exchange with the CIA liaison. He didn't want to have to write a "terrible footnote" in the FISA submission. 

 

The SSA knew what was up after it all got unpacked.

SSA 2 also said that he understood the OGC Attorney's comment about not having to draft a "terrible footnote" to mean that the team could avoid having to explain in Renewal Application No. 3 that they had "just now come to determine that [Page] was an asset of the [other agency] and 253 probably being tasked to engage ... [with] Russians which is ... why we opened a case on him."

 

Likewise the OI attorney.

The 01 Attorney also focused on the portion of the exchange where SSA 2 expressed a belief that Page was a source and where the 0GC Attorney mentioned not having to prepare a "terrible footnote." He told us that 01 should have been made aware of any "internal debate" within the FBI about whether Page was a source for another U.S. government agency, because with the FISC there is no "defense counsel on the other side," and it is up to 01 "to over tell the story."

 

33 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The FBI attorney eventually forwards an email exchange that includes the original email and he inserts after "digraph" - "Not a source" .

 So the crime would be the lawyer inserting his own color on the forwarded email without letting the recipient know it was his own commentary.

Also, this is not color and commentary, it was direct alteration of the key content in the exchange, blended in with the words of the unaltered email to make it appears as though they came from the CIA liaison.

Immediately following the June 19 instant message exchange between the 0GC Attorney and SSA 2, SSA 2 received an email from the 0GC Attorney that appeared to be forwarding the Liaison's June 15 response email concerning Page's historical contact with the other U.S. government agency. However, the 0IG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison's response email had been altered. Specifically, the words "and not a 'source,,, had been inserted in the Liaison's June 15 response after the word "[digraph]." Thus, the Liaison's email was altered to read: "My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] '[digraph]' and not a 'source' but the [documents] will explain the details." (Emphasis added). The OGC Attorney also did not include in the email sent to SSA 2 the initial email inquiry from the OGC Attorney to the Liaison about Page's status as a "[ digraph] source. "398

 

All of the people involved in the situation knew exactly what was done, why it was important, and why it was wrong. 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't believe that this is a correct reading.

The OGC Attorney told us that- his belief that Page had never been a source for the other U.S. government agency, but instead interacted with a source-was based on telephone conversations with the Liaison. He said he recalled the Liaison "saying that [Page] was not a source of theirs," but rather "incidentally reporting information via a source of theirs" and that they "ended up not actually opening him. "396

When we asked the Liaison about the OGC Attorney's interpretation of the Liaison's email, the Liaison told us that her email stated just the opposite, namely that Page was a U.S. person who had provided direct reporting to the other U.S. government agency in the past. The Liaison also said that the reason she offered, in her email, to assist in providing language for the FISA application was because she was telling the OGC Attorney that, using the FBI's terminology, Page had been a source for the other agency. The Liaison also stated that she saw no basis for the OGC Attorney to have concluded, based on their communications and the August 17 Memorandum, that Page never had a direct relationship with the other agency. 

...

The Liaison focused on the portion of the exchange in which the 0GC Attorney stated that Page "was never a source." The Liaison told us that this statement was wrong, as was the 0GC Attorney's statement that Page "was a U.S. sub-source of a source." The Liaison said that such an assertion is "directly contradictory to the [documents]" the agency provided to the FBI. The Liaison also said it was inaccurate to describe Carter Page as "like a sub-source of [a digraph]" and to state that the other agency had "confirmed explicitly that [Page] was never a source."

 

 

As far as the rest, every other individual involved in the episode felt that the omission of context and altering of the email reflected a substantive alteration of the communication. In the context of their IM exchange, it was clear what he was doing.  He told the SSA that the CIA liaison had explicitly told him that Page was not a CIA source.  The CIA liaison never told him that.  So he added it to the email exchange with the CIA liaison. He didn't want to have to write a "terrible footnote" in the FISA submission. 

 

The SSA knew what was up after it all got unpacked.

SSA 2 also said that he understood the OGC Attorney's comment about not having to draft a "terrible footnote" to mean that the team could avoid having to explain in Renewal Application No. 3 that they had "just now come to determine that [Page] was an asset of the [other agency] and 253 probably being tasked to engage ... [with] Russians which is ... why we opened a case on him."

 

Likewise the OI attorney.

The 01 Attorney also focused on the portion of the exchange where SSA 2 expressed a belief that Page was a source and where the 0GC Attorney mentioned not having to prepare a "terrible footnote." He told us that 01 should have been made aware of any "internal debate" within the FBI about whether Page was a source for another U.S. government agency, because with the FISC there is no "defense counsel on the other side," and it is up to 01 "to over tell the story."

 

Also, this is not color and commentary, it was direct alteration of the key content in the exchange, blended in with the words of the unaltered email to make it appears as though they came from the CIA liaison.

Immediately following the June 19 instant message exchange between the 0GC Attorney and SSA 2, SSA 2 received an email from the 0GC Attorney that appeared to be forwarding the Liaison's June 15 response email concerning Page's historical contact with the other U.S. government agency. However, the 0IG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison's response email had been altered. Specifically, the words "and not a 'source,,, had been inserted in the Liaison's June 15 response after the word "[digraph]." Thus, the Liaison's email was altered to read: "My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] '[digraph]' and not a 'source' but the [documents] will explain the details." (Emphasis added). The OGC Attorney also did not include in the email sent to SSA 2 the initial email inquiry from the OGC Attorney to the Liaison about Page's status as a "[ digraph] source. "398

 

All of the people involved in the situation knew exactly what was done, why it was important, and why it was wrong. 

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

Is this the only crime uncovered so far? A lawyer in the FBI altering three words in an email? Not saying it wasn't wrong, but not quite earth shattering. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Lagunamadre

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

48 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

Is this the only crime uncovered so far? A lawyer in the FBI altering three words in an email? Not saying it wasn't wrong, but not quite earth shattering. 

Exactly.  Anastasis demands that every investigation of <checks notes> conservative actors be done 100% by the book, and if any individual strays even a pubic hair, the whole investigation is rendered moot.

Meanwhile, POTUS and his family have been actively courting successful enemy interference in our elections.  Ah well, nevertheless.

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Exactly.  Anastasis demands that every investigation of <checks notes> conservative actors be done 100% by the book, and if any individual strays even a pubic hair, the whole investigation is rendered moot.

Meanwhile, POTUS and his family have been actively courting successful enemy interference in our elections.  Ah well, nevertheless.

The standards of propriety do seem a tad askew.

[4th&Five 41,551]

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

24 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Totes norms.  - 'stasis' Mom

[notre dame joe 187]

20 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Why the fuck would a special counsel have been needed to investigate the Clinton campaign?

It's pretty well known that they were coordinating to raise money from China.  It's also old news as in, the other Clinton. 

[wildcat09 29,354]

1 minute ago, notre dame joe said:

It's pretty well known that they were coordinating to raise money from China.  It's also old news as in, the other Clinton. 

What do you think the purpose of a special counsel investigation is?

[David Dennison 18,860]

8 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

It's pretty well known that they were coordinating to raise money from China.  It's also old news as in, the other Clinton. 

Someone should have probably investigated the other Clinton.

 

[HenryJames 66,052]

 

[hayden_horn 11,362]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8344205/Donald-Trumps-disgraced-attorney-Michael-Cohen-FREE-released-early.html

Quote

President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen was freed from federal prison just before 9am Thursday to serve the remainder of his sentence at home.

Cohen had been serving a federal prison sentence at FCI Otisville in New York after pleading guilty to numerous charges, including campaign finance fraud and lying to Congress.

He was seen leaving the low-security prison in a silver Mercedes A-class sedan driven by his son Jake. He was not wearing a mask and was wearing a crisp white shirt with French cuffs and no tie.

Later Cohen was seen arriving at his Manhattan apartment, wearing a University of Miami cap and a mask. His personal items, including a box clearly marked 'Legal Documents', were brought in a luggage cart and carried in by his son Jake.  

so i guess this brings into question the purpose of putting these non violent type people in prison. 

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so i guess this brings into question the purpose of putting these non violent type people in prison. 

Look, the prison industry isn't going to populate those cells all by itself.

[Captainant 27,667]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Look, the prison industry isn't going to populate those cells all by itself.

That's what the war on black people drugs is for, durrrr. Can't have all these white collar criminals filling the cells up 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8344205/Donald-Trumps-disgraced-attorney-Michael-Cohen-FREE-released-early.html

so i guess this brings into question the purpose of putting these non violent type people in prison. 

I never would have thought at the beginning of this whole alternate reality that Cohen would become the only sympathetic character in Trump's orbit. 

[sheeeit 129]

22 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

Is this the only crime uncovered so far? A lawyer in the FBI altering three words in an email? Not saying it wasn't wrong, but not quite earth shattering. 

It really depends on the 3 words that were omitted.  The reason it was actually "earth shattering" is because the warrant would not have been approved as written if the FBI admitted that Page was a source for the CIA.  The application process would get much, much more difficult and more people would have to be made aware of the request.  There is a reason that the judges in FISA cases ask if the person in question was working with any other agency.  It immediately sends up lots of flares and concerns when it does.  The FBI did not want close scrutiny of the application so they just lied about it.

Also, I do think indictments will result from Durham's probe but I doubt they get to director level or higher.  We will see when the actual report comes out but there is another angle to it that most people have forgotten about.  When the FBI used the dossier as part of their evidence against Page, they had to have, by statute, additional corroborating evidence.  That is the standard for FISA.  The FBI used the media story about the same allegations against Page and claimed that the media article served as independent corroboration.  And as part of their filing they included that  (paraphrasing) the source for the Dossier (Steele) had not spoken to any media, which then allowed them to use the other media story as corroboration.  The problem though, is that the author of the corroborating story openly and publicly stated that Steele was his source.  And in some of the recently released emails, Bruce Ohr told the FBI that Steele was talking to the media.  So either Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI lied to the court, again, on their application.  The guy that wrote the corroborating story said the FBI never contacted him and he was not protecting a source.  

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

And in some of the recently released emails, Bruce Ohr told the FBI that Steele was talking to the media.  So either Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI lied to the court, again, on their application.  The guy that wrote the corroborating story said the FBI never contacted him and he was not protecting a source.  

I thought Barr has determined that this is no longer a crime? 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Lagunamadre

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

It really depends on the 3 words that were omitted.  The reason it was actually "earth shattering" is because the warrant would not have been approved as written if the FBI admitted that Page was a source for the CIA.  The application process would get much, much more difficult and more people would have to be made aware of the request.  There is a reason that the judges in FISA cases ask if the person in question was working with any other agency.  It immediately sends up lots of flares and concerns when it does.  The FBI did not want close scrutiny of the application so they just lied about it.

Also, I do think indictments will result from Durham's probe but I doubt they get to director level or higher.  We will see when the actual report comes out but there is another angle to it that most people have forgotten about.  When the FBI used the dossier as part of their evidence against Page, they had to have, by statute, additional corroborating evidence.  That is the standard for FISA.  The FBI used the media story about the same allegations against Page and claimed that the media article served as independent corroboration.  And as part of their filing they included that  (paraphrasing) the source for the Dossier (Steele) had not spoken to any media, which then allowed them to use the other media story as corroboration.  The problem though, is that the author of the corroborating story openly and publicly stated that Steele was his source.  And in some of the recently released emails, Bruce Ohr told the FBI that Steele was talking to the media.  So either Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI lied to the court, again, on their application.  The guy that wrote the corroborating story said the FBI never contacted him and he was not protecting a source.  

Paige was never indicted. I doubt the public is going to find it earth shattering that a FISA was granted to listen to a guy who is a self-proclaimed "informal advisor to the Kremlin", while the Kremlin was engaged in digital warfare against the US. 

[sheeeit 129]

15 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I thought Barr has determined that this is no longer a crime? 

Actually no.  What Barr found was that, in this particular case, a particular defendant that plead guilty had exculpatory evidence in his favor that was withheld, illegally, from his defense team.  That it is unclear that an actual lie took place, certainly not knowingly or intentional.  That the supposed lie had no material effect on any ongoing investigation and that the case was scheduled to be closed because the FBI's own field office recommended "the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.""

If those same facts exist with Steele or the FBI then they should walk also.

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

22 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms.  - 'stasis' Mom

Actually, it is pretty normal.

Once the GJ material is disclosed, there's no putting the cat back in the bag.  I'd expect this kind of ruling from any Supreme Court in a case like that.

As to how the actual appeal comes out, that's a different story.  The governing rule, Rule 6, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure is not completely clear on that.  Because Congress is free to fix that for the future and maybe retroactively, I might see the Supremes ruling that there's no "inherent" or "implied" right of Congress to GJ material, or that impeachment is "another judicial proceeding."

Edited May 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DigglerontheHoof 21,199]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, it is pretty normal.

Once the GJ material is disclosed, there's no putting the cat back in the bag.  I'd expect this kind of ruling from any Supreme Court in a case like that.

As to how the actual appeal comes out, that's a different story.  The governing rule, Rule 6, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure is not completely clear on that.  Because Congress is free to fix that for the future, I might see the Supremes ruling that there's no "inherent" or "implied" right of Congress to GJ material.

Workin' up the #6 on 'em. 

[sheeeit 129]

23 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Paige was never indicted. I doubt the public is going to find it earth shattering that a FISA was granted to listen to a guy who is a self-proclaimed "informal advisor to the Kremlin", while the Kremlin was engaged in digital warfare against the US. 

Lulz.  Page said he was an advisor to the Kremlin in his marketing of himself for his own financial benefit and said it was on energy related matters.  There are  1000s of other finance folks, and 1000s of attorneys and 100,000s of business guys that tout their relationship with russia and the Kremlin.   Are they all spies?  Should we surveil all of them?

[sheeeit 129]

22 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms.  - 'stasis' Mom

This is and was completely normal.

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Actually no.  What Barr found was that, in this particular case, a particular defendant that plead guilty had exculpatory evidence in his favor that was withheld, illegally, from his defense team.  That it is unclear that an actual lie took place, certainly not knowingly or intentional.  That the supposed lie had no material effect on any ongoing investigation and that the case was scheduled to be closed because the FBI's own field office recommended "the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.""

If those same facts exist with Steele or the FBI then they should walk also.

Counterpoint.

By pleading guilty simultaneously with being "indicted,"** Flynn waived his right to discovery from the government and any right or claim under Brady for wrongful withholding.

**I say "indicted" because he was never indicted.  His plea agreement was filed simultaneously with an information charging a crime.  That is, he pled guilty before charges were even filed.   An information is filed before a case is given to a grand jury.  A defendant has the right to have his case put before the grand jury.  Flynn waived that, too.

Also, I would make an educated guess that if these same facts arose with a different defendant, or the same defendant and a different DOJ, neither defendant would be acquitted, nor would the case be dismissed on account of a Brady violation.

Edited May 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[sheeeit 129]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Counterpoint.

By pleading guilty simultaneously with being "indicted,"** Flynn waived his right to discovery from the government and any right or claim under Brady for wrongful withholding.

**I say indicted because he was never indicted.  His plea agreement was filed simultaneously with an information charging a crime.  An information is filed before a case is given to a grand jury.  A defendant has the right to have his case put before the grand jury.  Flynn waived that, too.

Interesting.  Is that the case in any plea deal?  if I am understanding what you are saying, the government can withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant and if that defendant pleads guilty, then the government gets away with it?  That seems unlikely?  What am I missing?

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Interesting.  Is that the case in any plea deal?  if I am understanding what you are saying, the government can withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant and if that defendant pleads guilty, then the government gets away with it?  That seems unlikely?  What am I missing?

No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted.  Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin.  In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea.  But it is ended by the guilty plea:  you have no right to further discovery once you plead.

But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.

Edited May 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23,469]

23 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Exactly.  Anastasis demands that every investigation of <checks notes> conservative actors be done 100% by the book, and if any individual strays even a pubic hair, the whole investigation is rendered moot.

Meanwhile, POTUS and his family have been actively courting successful enemy interference in our elections.  Ah well, nevertheless.

I would expect that when our government deploys the surveillance apparatus in a political context, that yes, it is done by the book.  I have a problem with politically motivated, unvetted information from foreign spooks packaging up Russian disinformation through a screen of political operatives being used uncritically by the FBI at the intersection of politics and civil liberties.  The "book" exists in this case for a reason, and that is to protect your right as an American citizen under the Constitution. 

Crazy shit I know. 

 

[David Dennison 18,860]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would expect that when our government deploys the surveillance apparatus in a political context, that yes, it is done by the book.  I have a problem with politically motivated, unvetted information from foreign spooks packaging up Russian disinformation through a screen of political operatives being used uncritically by the FBI at the intersection of politics and civil liberties.  The "book" exists in this case for a reason, and that is to protect your right as an American citizen under the Constitution. 

Crazy shit I know. 

 

That's why we have these things called judges.

[Anastasis 23,469]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's why we have these things called judges.

And why full transparency and adherence to the procedures in filings presented to these judges is important.