The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Anastasis 23724]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

That’s because you don’t understand it.

I had to provide you with reading material after you continually demonstrated your ignorance.  I tried to get some of your fellow professionals to bail you out cause I knew that you just had a brain block when engaging with me in particular, but they didn't even respect you enough to help you avoid the continued embarrassment. 

[Dbeasy 15612]

Here you go go [mention=540]Dbeasy[/mention]
I'll move this here so people don't get their panties in a bunch when I respond to shit people say.
I sincerely wish that I wasn't the only one who would acknowledge that the laws intended to protect Americans from unwarranted government surveillance were broken in the course of the Russiagate thing. But I recognize that I am speaking to an audience of posters who largely think that a UK spook operating in a political context to seed disinformation from Russians to influence our election was operating in our best interests. Breaking that delusion down has caused some real brain damage. 
Not at all.  You may not like the way that I frame it, but every component of that statement is supported by the facts and circumstances.
 
It's amazing to me that anybody who has read the IG report as well as the related information coming out of the UK would still be caping for Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.  Some of the weeds they set appear to have deep roots and are hard to free.  
 

The Steele situation is a small piece of the case, as proven by the multiple convictions. Why you’ve chosen to frame the whole case around just that piece is myopic.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I had to provide you with reading material after you continually demonstrated your ignorance.  I tried to get some of your fellow professionals to bail you out cause I knew that you just had a brain block when engaging with me in particular, but they didn't even respect you enough to help you avoid the continued embarrassment. 

Ha ha! Good one my man. They only failed to comment out of respect for me? I had no idea my stature on this board was so great. That’s trump level delusion. Warrant, FISA, Carter, Mueller, PC. Warrant, FISA, Carter, Mueller, PC.

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Interesting revisionist history Jimmy.  To be honest, I don't really need an education on probable cause as it relates to FISA from a lawyer who I already had to explain key legal issues and distinctions related to case opening predication and probable cause on this very thread.

Why don’t you educate the board then on the “distinctions related to case opening predication and probable cause?” 

[Anastasis 23724]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Ha ha! Good one my man. They only failed to comment out of respect for me? I had no idea my stature on this board was so great. That’s trump level delusion. Warrant, FISA, Carter, Mueller, PC. Warrant, FISA, Carter, Mueller, PC.

Jesus, you are really this fucking stupid. 

[Anastasis 23724]

8 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The Steele situation is a small piece of the case, as proven by the multiple convictions. Why you’ve chosen to frame the whole case around just that piece is myopic.

Yes, one aspect of the situation.  And one so fucking absurd that I called it out in that post as emblematic of the shit that people were huffing uncut in this thread, with nary an ounce of skepticism or critical thinking. The relationship to the surveillance techniques and the absurdity is exactly why I highlight it.  I did not misrepresent anything specific to that case, but I do note that you have pivoted your position apparently from one of misrepresentation to scope of focus.  

Edited August 6, 2020 by Anastasis

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Jesus, you are really this fucking stupid. 

Hey it wasn’t me who started this stupid discussion over whether other imaginary lawyers on the board failed to comment or not on your stupid points out of respect/disrespect. 

Just admit you don’t know what you are talking about, are talking out of your ass, and move on.

[jimmyjazz 47265]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You may not like the way that I frame it, but every component of that statement is supported by the facts and circumstances.

Well, no, but most of us have finally tired of arguing with you given the fact that you have absolutely zero interest in trying to see the bigger picture.  I'm sure this will elicit the standard snotty response, a mixture of snark, vague references, and arrogance, but ultimately you should know that nobody really gives a fuck, because on this issue, you've made yourself irrelevant.  It's just not worth the effort.

And . . . GO!!!

[Anastasis 23724]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no...

Well, yes...

[Anastasis 23724]

I do think it somewhat curious how certain aspects of this whole story arc suddenly went from the "bible" and "gospel" and "eyewitness to the crime of the century" to irrelevant. Not particularly surprising, but curious. 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

The real issue is the Dems paid for some opposition research from a foreigner. It was totally legal but it’s the closest Nunes and the Fox News echo chamber can get to a BoTh SiDeS argument. If folks parrot the narrative enough, maybe people will start to believe it. 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I sincerely wish that I wasn't the only one who would acknowledge that the laws intended to protect Americans from unwarranted government surveillance were broken in the course of the Russiagate thing. But I recognize that I am speaking to an audience of posters who largely think that a UK spook operating in a political context to seed disinformation from Russians to influence our election was operating in our best interests.

You will be the only one to acknowledge it, and it is because you are uniquely positioned to see the real truth. There is no one else in this world who can figure this out, and can see it for what it actually was. It was a coup. Hillary was using her private server to email Steele and the Russians. They were planning to stage an orgy while wearing Trump masks, and then Steele was supposed to have sent the tapes to the FBI. Ultimately the plan fell through, so Steele wrote a fake dosier at the last minute to give to the FBI instead. They fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

[Ted Lange 16433]

And if only GARY JOHNSON had been around, he’d have somehow 3rd partied fixed everything!

[notre dame joe 205]

On 7/21/2020 at 4:16 PM, JimmyJames said:

It seems to me that at this point the only reason to bump this thread is to spread disinformation in anticipation of the no doubt coming attack by Russia on our upcoming election.

Or can someone point out the other reasons to bump the thread? Is American Patriot Carter Page being persecuted again? Are secret FISA warrants flying out of the courthouse at warp speed?

Well some people are angry at abusive law enforcement getting off scott free.  I guess others excuse it depending on who got abused. 

[UncleCharlie 334]

53 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Well some people are angry at abusive law enforcement getting off scott free.  I guess others excuse it depending on who got abused. 

Type that out again....slowly.  Buy now you're black.

[Anastasis 23724]

4 hours ago, UncleCharlie said:

Type that out again....slowly.  Buy now you're black.

Yeah. I mean imagine if the RNC ran the same operation on Obama during the tail end of the Bush administration.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah. I mean imagine if the RNC ran the same operation on Obama during the tail end of the Bush administration.

Totally!!! The only problem is we would also have to pretend both sides are the same and that the Obama campaign publicly asked a foreign country for assistance and then that foreign country actually provided assistance. 

[Biff Tannen 46192]

Not to mention the Rs ran the same operation on Obama for 8 years and came up with jack shit. 

[jimmyjazz 47265]

I inadvertently posted this on the wrong thread.  In the spirit of detente, I'm hoping to see @Anastasis walk us through his impressions of the Steele Dossier, Carter Page surveillance, FISA court, etc.  This will hopefully be my last attempt to clarify things.

Quote

I'd still like to see you lay out in very simple, concise terms, step by step, exactly where you think the Obama administration and the DNC went wrong.  I know you feel you've done that, but every single time you pepper your language with lingo that many of us simply don't understand.  For instance, I still don't know what a "cutout" is.  I can't figure it out from context.  It isn't in any dictionary, at least in the manner politicos use it.  Reading wonk writing is like reading the prose of a Rhetoric professor -- almost none of them can communicate their ideas because they spend all their time in a bubble speaking among themselves in a tangential, non-standard form of English.  (I'm serious about this.  Go read RhetComp profs' blogs.  It might as well be Greek, and I don't think it's all because of my limited intellect.)

Start at the top.  What was the first transgression?  I'm actually open to being convinced.

 

[Anastasis 23724]

 

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I inadvertently posted this on the wrong thread.  In the spirit of detente, I'm hoping to see @Anastasis walk us through his impressions of the Steele Dossier, Carter Page surveillance, FISA court, etc.  This will hopefully be my last attempt to clarify things.

 

Let me try to bullet point this.

The surveillance state we have erected in this country is dangerous and unconstitutional.

The intersection of that surveillance apparatus with domestic politics is extremely fraught, and deserves heightened protections and level of scrutiny.

In this specific example, we have one party of the political apparatus that engaged a foreign agent through two cut outs (cut out: a compartmentalized channel for exchange of information, intended to obscure traceability and accountability).

That foreign agent, who was also simultaneously working on behalf of a Russian oligarch attempting to curry favor with the US, crafted a narrative with the central thesis that the nominee of the other political party was engaged in a well developed conspiracy directly with a foreign power to undermine the US political system. The specifics of that narrative were horseshit, a blend of open source information, disinformation from foreigners, and some just right out fabrications. If it stopped there, maybe we could just chalk that up to dirty politics and leave it at that. But it didn't. 

Through a variety of different channels (the FBI and State department, as well as compliant media mouthpieces), that information was disseminated and ultimately inserted into the intelligence community by the two cut outs and the foreign agent. It was then used as the central and essential component of an application to secure the ability to conduct surveillance on individuals affiliated with the political campaign. In the process numerous errors, omissions, and an outright forgery in the application materials occurred along the way. 

Further that information was used by members of the intelligence community and media mouthpieces to undermine the newly elected official, and to perpetuate an initial investigation that was going no where, creating endless cycles of some of the most hysterical nonsense. This was even after interviews with Steele and his subsource had definitively undermined the material.

It fails me why a person would not have a problem with this. The intersection of state surveillance, the intelligence community, and politics.  I highlighted certain aspects of all this and some of the potential problems and red flags along the way in this thread. I was told in no uncertain terms everything ranging from Steele's work was gospel, everything was 100% by the book, I was wrong and a liar, didn't understand the concepts in play and a variety of other things. When most of what I was saying on these specific things ended up being proven out, I am now told that it is all irrelevant.  That's fine, but some posters should have just led with that from the get go.   

Now imagine for a second that the RNC ran the exact same play against John Kerry, ultimately resulting in the newly granted powers under the Patriot Act to conduct secret surveillance of people associated with the Kerry campaign using such thin justification. Would you be ok with that? I wouldn't. Not under any circumstances. 

So who to hold to account in all of this?  It represents a systematic failure.  The intelligence community can simply not be trusted to use the tools that they have been given. It has been demonstrated time and time and time again.  This time at an intersection with domestic politics.

I hope that helps clarify. I suck at concise bullet points. 

 

 

[Dbeasy 15612]

Yes, one aspect of the situation.  And one so fucking absurd that I called it out in that post as emblematic of the shit that people were huffing uncut in this thread, with nary an ounce of skepticism or critical thinking. The relationship to the surveillance techniques and the absurdity is exactly why I highlight it.  I did not misrepresent anything specific to that case, but I do note that you have pivoted your position apparently from one of misrepresentation to scope of focus.  

What an incredible pretzel bend your mind has taken to argue that focusing on a small part of a case isn’t a misrepresentation. That is some grade A delusional thinking right there. I hope you have a dictionary and thesaurus next to your dresser to give you the relief from reality you apparently are so focused on achieving by redefining words. Good luck with all that.

[Anastasis 23724]

6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

What an incredible pretzel bend your mind has taken to argue that focusing on a small part of a case isn’t a misrepresentation. That is some grade A delusional thinking right there. I hope you have a dictionary and thesaurus next to your dresser to give you the relief from reality you apparently are so focused on achieving by redefining words. Good luck with all that.

Good talk. 

[Dbeasy 15612]

 
 
Let me try to bullet point this.
The surveillance state we have erected in this country is dangerous and unconstitutional.
The intersection of that surveillance apparatus with domestic politics is extremely fraught, and deserves heightened protections and level of scrutiny.
In this specific example, we have one party of the political apparatus that engaged a foreign agent through two cut outs (cut out: a compartmentalized channel for exchange of information, intended to obscure traceability and accountability).
That foreign agent, who was also simultaneously working on behalf of a Russian oligarch attempting to curry favor with the US, crafted a narrative with the central thesis that the nominee of the other political party was engaged in a well developed conspiracy directly with a foreign power to undermine the US political system. The specifics of that narrative were horseshit, a blend of open source information, disinformation from foreigners, and some just right out fabrications. If it stopped there, maybe we could just chalk that up to dirty politics and leave it at that. But it didn't. 
Through a variety of different channels (the FBI and State department, as well as compliant media mouthpieces), that information was disseminated and ultimately inserted into the intelligence community by the two cut outs and the foreign agent. It was then used as the central and essential component of an application to secure the ability to conduct surveillance on individuals affiliated with the political campaign. In the process numerous errors, omissions, and an outright forgery in the application materials occurred along the way. 
Further that information was used by members of the intelligence community and media mouthpieces to undermine the newly elected official, and to perpetuate an initial investigation that was going no where, creating endless cycles of some of the most hysterical nonsense. This was even after interviews with Steele and his subsource had definitively undermined the material.
It fails me why a person would not have a problem with this. The intersection of state surveillance, the intelligence community, and politics.  I highlighted certain aspects of all this and some of the potential problems and red flags along the way in this thread. I was told in no uncertain terms everything ranging from Steele's work was gospel, everything was 100% by the book, I was wrong and a liar, didn't understand the concepts in play and a variety of other things. When most of what I was saying on these specific things ended up being proven out, I am now told that it is all irrelevant.  That's fine, but some posters should have just led with that from the get go.   
Now imagine for a second that the RNC ran the exact same play against John Kerry, ultimately resulting in the newly granted powers under the Patriot Act to conduct secret surveillance of people associated with the Kerry campaign using such thin justification. Would you be ok with that? I wouldn't. Not under any circumstances. 
So who to hold to account in all of this?  It represents a systematic failure.  The intelligence community can simply not be trusted to use the tools that they have been given. It has been demonstrated time and time and time again.  This time at an intersection with domestic politics.
I hope that helps clarify. I suck at concise bullet points. 
 
 

So let’s just say for the moment that everything you’ve listed happened, that there was coordination with a foreign agent and abuse of the intelligence function against political opponents. And let’s say it’s just as bad as you’ve described.

Your argument is that we should all be deeply deeply concerned and should have done something about it and are angry that nothing was done about it.

Well guess what? Everything you just described is exactly what Trump and his crew were not only also accused of doing, they were convicted of doing it. So how can you possibly minimize those same illegal actions by Trump and crew, while demanding the same illegal actions by the other side is the real story. That’s another pretzel bend of epic proportions.

[jimmyjazz 47265]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Let me try to bullet point this.

I will try to respond in sections.

Quote

The surveillance state we have erected in this country is dangerous and unconstitutional.

The intersection of that surveillance apparatus with domestic politics is extremely fraught, and deserves heightened protections and level of scrutiny.

Vague and not what I was asking.  The first claim is arguable, but it's a fair take.  The second is unclear -- fraught with what exactly?  Don't answer that, I'd rather we focus on Obama, intelligence, the DNC, Fusion/Steele, Trump and his campaign, etc.

 

Quote

In this specific example, we have one party of the political apparatus that engaged a foreign agent through two cut outs (cut out: a compartmentalized channel for exchange of information, intended to obscure traceability and accountability).

What are these two cutouts?  Is one Steele?

[JimmyJames 12271]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

 

Let me try to bullet point this.

The surveillance state we have erected in this country is dangerous and unconstitutional.

The intersection of that surveillance apparatus with domestic politics is extremely fraught, and deserves heightened protections and level of scrutiny.

In this specific example, we have one party of the political apparatus that engaged a foreign agent through two cut outs (cut out: a compartmentalized channel for exchange of information, intended to obscure traceability and accountability).

That foreign agent, who was also simultaneously working on behalf of a Russian oligarch attempting to curry favor with the US, crafted a narrative with the central thesis that the nominee of the other political party was engaged in a well developed conspiracy directly with a foreign power to undermine the US political system. The specifics of that narrative were horseshit, a blend of open source information, disinformation from foreigners, and some just right out fabrications. If it stopped there, maybe we could just chalk that up to dirty politics and leave it at that. But it didn't. 

Through a variety of different channels (the FBI and State department, as well as compliant media mouthpieces), that information was disseminated and ultimately inserted into the intelligence community by the two cut outs and the foreign agent. It was then used as the central and essential component of an application to secure the ability to conduct surveillance on individuals affiliated with the political campaign. In the process numerous errors, omissions, and an outright forgery in the application materials occurred along the way. 

Further that information was used by members of the intelligence community and media mouthpieces to undermine the newly elected official, and to perpetuate an initial investigation that was going no where, creating endless cycles of some of the most hysterical nonsense. This was even after interviews with Steele and his subsource had definitively undermined the material.

It fails me why a person would not have a problem with this. The intersection of state surveillance, the intelligence community, and politics.  I highlighted certain aspects of all this and some of the potential problems and red flags along the way in this thread. I was told in no uncertain terms everything ranging from Steele's work was gospel, everything was 100% by the book, I was wrong and a liar, didn't understand the concepts in play and a variety of other things. When most of what I was saying on these specific things ended up being proven out, I am now told that it is all irrelevant.  That's fine, but some posters should have just led with that from the get go.   

Now imagine for a second that the RNC ran the exact same play against John Kerry, ultimately resulting in the newly granted powers under the Patriot Act to conduct secret surveillance of people associated with the Kerry campaign using such thin justification. Would you be ok with that? I wouldn't. Not under any circumstances. 

So who to hold to account in all of this?  It represents a systematic failure.  The intelligence community can simply not be trusted to use the tools that they have been given. It has been demonstrated time and time and time again.  This time at an intersection with domestic politics.

I hope that helps clarify. I suck at concise bullet points. 

 

 

That’s a whole lot of words to describe what you think happened without mentioning Paul Manafort’s name one time yet getting a John Kerry mention thrown in. 

[Biff Tannen 46192]

I get so confused when both the Jimmies are on the same thread.

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I get so confused when both the Jimmies are on the same thread.

I’m the one Anastasis thinks is an idiot. Which of course is in fact a compliment. 

[Anastasis 23724]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Vague and not what I was asking.  The first claim is arguable, but it's a fair take.  The second is unclear -- fraught with what exactly?  Don't answer that, I'd rather we focus on Obama, intelligence, the DNC, Fusion/Steele, Trump and his campaign, etc.

Those were really just some foundational points to set up what I see as the problem with this specific case. The use of government surveillance in a political context is inherently dangerous, with significant potential for abuse. For example when the CIA spies on the senate oversight committee.  Or when the FBI ran a play at MLK (in his understanding encouraging him to commit suicide) by black mailing him. If these types of things do not concern you as a starting point for the discussion, none of the rest really matters.

I am not sure why you want to focus on Obama. I have never really made Obama specifically a component of my arguments on this topic.  I don't know what if any role he played wrt Steele or the surveillance actions.  I think all the other aspects were discussed. 

42 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What are these two cutouts?  Is one Steele?

Steele would be the foreign agent. Perkins Coie would be the primary interface to the DNC.  Fusion, contracted to the DNC, would be the primary interface to Steele. Creates a very well constructed multi layer buffer for blow back and accountability. Compare the level of protection provided by that set up to the clown show of the Trump campaign/Roger Stone.   

[JimmyJames 12271]

Disinformation is a thing y’all. Hell, we have it on this very board. 

[Anastasis 23724]

50 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Your argument is that we should all be deeply deeply concerned and should have done something about it and are angry that nothing was done about it.
 

My actual argument is that we need to castrate the broad surveillance capabilities the government has built, and especially those that are domestically facing and involve mass surveillance. 

[jimmyjazz 47265]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Those were really just some foundational points to set up what I see as the problem with this specific case. The use of government surveillance in a political context is inherently dangerous, with significant potential for abuse. 

This will take some time -- days, really, but I appreciate the dialogue.  Let's set the facts straight as I see them:

1.  The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative entity funded in part by Paul Singer, a man who has backed Jeb Bush and Mario Rubio, among other Republicans, hired Fusion GPS to investigate Donald Trump and his campaign.

2.  Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to do some of the digging.

3.  After Trump secured the Republican nomination for POTUS, law firm Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton and the DNC, took over and continued to fund Steele.

 

Which of those entities, if any, is "the government" or "used government surveillance"?  Or are we just not there yet?

 

Quote

I am not sure why you want to focus on Obama. I have never really made Obama specifically a component of my arguments on this topic.  I don't know what if any role he played wrt Steele or the surveillance actions.  I think all the other aspects were discussed.

Two reasons:  one, Trump periodically rages about Obama "spying on him", and two, if we're going to address "government surveillance", we should probably assume that the POTUS at the time was involved.

 

Quote

Steele would be the foreign agent. Perkins Coie would be the primary interface to the DNC.  Fusion, contracted to the DNC, would be the primary interface to Steele. Creates a very well constructed multi layer buffer for blow back and accountability. Compare the level of protection provided by that set up to the clown show of the Trump campaign/Roger Stone.   

See above.  It's my understanding that Fusion GPS was in the initial chain, but once Clinton/DNC took over, they funded Steele directly.  I could be wrong.  I don't think it matters, but I want to be very clear about the facts here.

Edited August 7, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[TwiceHorn 32094]

I think anastasis' point is that the factually flimsy Steele Dossier then was used to secure surveillance warrants on Carter Page, with the warrant-seekers being fully aware that the dossier was flimsy without sharing the flimsiness with the warrant judge.

I agree with him that that is bad news.  But the bad news is mitigated somewhat in that Page faced no charges as a result.

He then wants to use a variant of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to cast doubt on the entire subsequent investigation.  I'm not sure I'm on board with that.

Edited August 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Dbeasy 15612]

I think anastasis' point is that the factually flimsy Steele Dossier then was used to secure surveillance warrants on Carter Page, with the warrant-seekers being fully aware that the dossier was flimsy without sharing the flimsiness with the warrant judge.
I agree with him that that is bad news.  But the bad news is mitigated somewhat in that Page faced no charges as a result.
He then wants to use a variant of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to cast doubt on the entire subsequent investigation.  I'm not sure I'm on board with that.

Bingo. That’s why his entire argument is just nonsense.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

[jimmyjazz 47265]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think anastasis' point is that the factually flimsy Steele Dossier then was used to secure surveillance warrants on Carter Page, with the warrant-seekers being fully aware that the dossier was flimsy without sharing the flimsiness with the warrant judge.

I agree with him that that is bad news.  But the bad news is mitigated somewhat in that Page faced no charges as a result.

He then wants to use a variant of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to cast doubt on the entire subsequent investigation.  I'm not sure I'm on board with that.

Well, I get that to some degree, but I want to walk through this carefully so any false steps are clear.

In my view, no criminal investigation of any consequence could likely be conducted without running afoul of process or even legal standards.  That doesn't necessarily render the results moot.  In some cases?  Sure.  By definition?  I don't think so.

[Anastasis 23724]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This will take some time -- days, really, but I appreciate the dialogue.  Let's set the facts straight as I see them:

1.  The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative entity funded in part by Paul Singer, a man who has backed Jeb Bush and Mario Rubio, among other Republicans, hired Fusion GPS to investigate Donald Trump and his campaign.

2.  Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to do some of the digging.

3.  After Trump secured the Republican nomination for POTUS, law firm Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton and the DNC, took over and continued to fund Steele.

 

Which of those entities, if any, is "the government" or "used government surveillance"?  Or are we just not there yet?

You need to flip the order of two and three to more accurately represent the timeline.  Steele came on board after the DNC took over and Fusion decided to focus the effort on Russia. 

Up until this point in your outline, nor in mine, has government surveillance been used. 

33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Two reasons:  one, Trump periodically rages about Obama "spying on him", and two, if we're going to address "government surveillance", we should probably assume that the POTUS at the time was involved.

That has nothing to do with what I outlined, though.  You asked me to describe my impressions, my impressions didn't include anything about Obama. I don't know what he knew, directed, or otherwise and don't have a particularly strong take on it.  If you wanted me to speculate, I think that Clapper was likely reading him in on certain things, perhaps things they were getting out of the NSA database queries. Separately, there are suggestions in the Flynn case that the FBI didn't want raw intelligence (CR cuts) going to Clapper because they didn't want them ending up in the White House.   But I don't think that it's ever been a core component in anything I've posted.

 

50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

See above.  It's my understanding that Fusion GPS was in the initial chain, but once Clinton/DNC took over, they funded Steele directly.  I could be wrong.  I don't think it matters, but I want to be very clear about the facts here.

And see my response.  Steele was only brought in after the decision to deep dive Russia after the DNC took over funding.  This is from Simpson's congressional testimony.  

 

[jimmyjazz 47265]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You need to flip the order of two and three to more accurately represent the timeline.  Steele came on board after the DNC took over and Fusion decided to focus the effort on Russia.

Yes, you are correct.  I screwed that up, and knew better.  I'll change it:

1.  The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative entity funded in part by Paul Singer, a man who has backed Jeb Bush and Mario Rubio, among other Republicans, hired Fusion GPS to investigate Donald Trump and his campaign.

2.  After Trump secured the Republican nomination for POTUS, law firm Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton and the DNC, took over and continued to fund Fusion GPS, which subsequently hired Christopher Steele.

Is that accurate?

We can leave Obama out of it.

 

SO:  is Fusion GPS' hiring of Christopher Steele, as part of opposition research of Donald Trump for Clinton/DNC, the first place you think the process went sideways?

[Anastasis 23724]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think anastasis' point is that the factually flimsy Steele Dossier then was used to secure surveillance warrants on Carter Page, with the warrant-seekers being fully aware that the dossier was flimsy without sharing the flimsiness with the warrant judge.

I agree with him that that is bad news.  But the bad news is mitigated somewhat in that Page faced no charges as a result.

He then wants to use a variant of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to cast doubt on the entire subsequent investigation.  I'm not sure I'm on board with that.

We're on the same page on the first two. 

I don't think that I have made a fruit of the poisonous tree argument.  It is clear though that the Steele dossier did reinvigorate the initial investigation that was coming up blank. Prior to receiving that material they ran confidential human sources at Page, Papadopoulos and others, "although those operations had not resulted in collection of any inculpatory evidence". They discussed using FISA surveillance, but determined there wasn't enough there to support it.  Until the Steele material showed up, and they used that material to meet the probable cause threshold. That's been my area of focus, the development, delivery and use of that material to support surveillance. There's another wrinkle here regarding timing and how Steele prompted delivery of the material to the CH team, but that's probably going too far afield at the moment. 

Anyways, to the point about results of the subsequent investigation...Papadopoulos was charged with lying about timing of his encounter with mifsud, pled, and went to jail. Flynn was charged with lying about a discussion with the Russian ambassador and trying to soften reprisals, pled, and should have gone to jail. Manafort and Gates were convicted/pled to tax and banking fraud for things that occurred years before what we are discussing.  Stone likewise tampering and lying during the course of testimony. He should be in jail. I don't think any of those convictions hinge on anything that I am talking about, and I don't think that what I have been discussing invalidates them.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23724]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

SO:  is Fusion GPS' hiring of Christopher Steele, as part of opposition research of Donald Trump for Clinton/DNC, the first place you think the process went sideways?

This would probably be a good place to start in my outline for where things went particularly sideways:

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If it stopped there, maybe we could just chalk that up to dirty politics and leave it at that. But it didn't. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32094]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

We're on the same page on the first two. 

I don't think that I have made a fruit of the poisonous tree argument.  The Steele dossier did reinvigorate the initial investigation that was coming up blank. Prior to receiving that material they ran confidential human sources at Page, Papadopoulos and others, "although those operations had not resulted in collection of any inculpatory evidence". They discussed using FISA surveillance, but determined there wasn't enough there to support it.  Until the Steele material showed up, and they used that material to meet the probable cause threshold. That's been my area of focus, the development, delivery and use of that material to support surveillance. There's another wrinkle here regarding timing and how Steele prompted delivery of the material to the CH team, but that's probably going too far afield at the moment. 

Anyways, to the point about results of the subsequent investigation...Papadopoulos was charged with lying about timing of his encounter with mifsud, pled, and went to jail. Flynn was charged with lying about a discussion with the Russian ambassador and trying to soften reprisals, pled, and should have gone to jail. Manafort and Gates were convicted/pled to tax and banking fraud for things that occurred years before what we are discussing.  Stone likewise tampering and lying during the course of testimony. He should be in jail. I don't think any of those convictions hinge on anything that I am talking about, and I don't think that what I have been discussing invalidates them.

Yeah, I should have said that the last is only implicit or inferred (by denizens of this thread).

And I tend to agree about the results of the Mueller investigation.  Only the Stone and Russian hackers prosecutions really strike at the heart of it.

But, it is clear if it was not from the outset, that Trump is a stinking liar surrounded by people that are either stinking liars or complete enablers and there was plenty of smoke to indicate that the Trump campaign knowingly benefited from, if not encouraged or abetted Russian interference.

[Anastasis 23724]

 

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I should have said that the last is only implicit or inferred (by denizens of this thread).

And I tend to agree about the results of the Mueller investigation.  Only the Stone and Russian hackers prosecutions really strike at the heart of it.

But, it is clear if it was not from the outset, that Trump is a stinking liar surrounded by people that are either stinking liars or complete enablers and there was plenty of smoke to indicate that the Trump campaign knowingly benefited from, if not encouraged or abetted Russian interference.

Grifters, clowns, liars, enablers.  I think that covers it. 

[jimmyjazz 47265]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This would probably be a good place to start in my outline for where things went particularly sideways:

I'm probably violating my promise to try to take this step by step, but let's just accept for the moment that your description of the Steele Dossier is reasonably apt. 

 

-- In application for the FISA warrant of Carter Page, was the dossier not described as "unverified"?  

-- do you believe the FBI etc. knowingly failed to disclose what they knew were false statements, etc. in the dossier? 

 

[horn4life 3838]

The problem with the Senate trying to investigate wrongdoing is that like most ill fated logic the basic premise is false.  The Obama administration didn't go After Donald Trump's campaign.  That is the basis of all thought processes by the slack jawed Republicans playing to the slack jawed watchers of Fox News.

The problem with this premise is REQUIRES you suspend reality.  You have to pretend that there was knowledge of Russian interference in the election on behalf of Donald Trump. You have to suspend reality in saying... Nah... the US Simply should take no interest in what Russians do in our country.  Imagine that part for a second.  Now the basic premise of National Security for the GOP is simply ignore everything (if there is an R behind the name). In fact you need never ever, ever take any interest in what foreign governments are doing.  Just pretend that what is logical to do is not... 

In a vacuum (the mind of a Fox News watcher is this way) you can say it was baseless spying on the Trump campaign.  This will never ever, ever stop the slack jawed on insisting there was no reason at all for a gazillion contacts between the Trump campaign members and Russians. It must be nice to live in a word so very, very simple.

But to not investigate the ties would have been criminal.  For President Trump to ANSWER EVEN ONE FUCKING QUESTION about obstruction of justice would ahve also... been criminal. Because of course he would have iied.

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by horn4life

[Pig Bellmont 8887]

Wait, Anastasis thinks Steele was fed *negative* Trump disinformation from Russian state sponsored sources? Despite overwhelming consensus among even Senate Republicans, who investigated and reported that Russians worked actively in favor of getting Trump elected?

Look take umbrage with the FISA process- I’m fine with those criticisms. But you also lose me on alleged political motivation to take down the Trump campaign. If any of that was true- why didn’t the public find out about it until *after* he was elected? FBI told the public Clinton’s investigation was re opened just weeks before the election. Despite an active investigation regarding soliciting foreign aid, we heard nothing about it until well after the votes were counted. 

[Anastasis 23724]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm probably violating my promise to try to take this step by step, but let's just accept for the moment that your description of the Steele Dossier is reasonably apt. 

 

-- In application for the FISA warrant of Carter Page, was the dossier not described as "unverified"?  

-- do you believe the FBI etc. knowingly failed to disclose what they knew were false statements, etc. in the dossier? 

 

I think that the OIG report sufficiently summarizes the problems with the applications.  I'll go ahead and put the executive summary behind the spoiler tags. Note these of course include all of the problems identified, which include more than just Steele's work. It's a long list. 

As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:

1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;

2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,"which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;

3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that ( 1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and " may engage in some embellishment" and (2) the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation on Person 1 a few days before the FISA application was filed;

4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File-Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;

5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;

6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in t ension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and

7. Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page ix had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

 

As noted above, the FBI filed three renewal applications wit h t he FISC, on January 12, April 7, and June 29, 2017. In addition to repeating the seven significant errors contained in the first FISA application and outlined above, we identified 10 additional xi significant errors in the three renewal applications, based upon information known to the FBI after the first application and before one or more of the renewals. We describe the circumstances surrounding these 10 errors in Chapter Eight, and provide a chart list ing additional errors in Appendix One. As more fully described in Chapter Eight, the renewal applications:

8. Omitted the fact that Steele's Primary Subsource, who the FBI found credible, had made statements in January 2017 raising significant questions about the reliability of allegations included in the FISA applications, including, for example, that he/she did not recall any discussion wit h Person 1 concerning Wikileaks and there was "nothing bad" about the communications between the Kremlin and the Trump team, and that he/she did not report to Steele in July 2016 that Page had met with Sechin;

9. Omitted Page's prior relationship with another U.S. government agency, despite being reminded by the other agency in June 2017, prior to the fil ing of the fi nal renewal application, about Page's past st atus with that other agency; instead of including this information in the final renewal application, the OGC Attorney altered an email from the other agency so that the email stated t hat Page was " not a source" for the other agency, which the FBI affiant relied upon in signing t he final renewal application;

10. Omitted information from persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele or had direct knowledge of his work-related performance, including statements that Steele had no history of reporting in bad faith but "[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor judgment," "pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value," "didn't always exercise great judgment," and it was " not clear what he would have done to validate" his reporting;

11. Omitted information obtained from Ohr about Steele and his election reporting, including that ( 1) Steele's reporting was going to Clinton's presidential campaign and others, (2) Simpson was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media, and (3) Steele was "desperate t hat Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President"; 

12. Failed to update the description of Steele after information became known to the Crossfire Hurricane team, from Ohr and others, that provided greater clarity on t he political origins and connections of Steele's reporting, including that Simpson was hired by someone associated with the Democratic Party and/or the DNC;

13. Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that the FBI did not believe that Steele directly provided information to the reporter who wrote the September 23 Yahoo News article, even though there was no information in the Woods File to support this claim and even after certain Crossfire Hurricane officials learned in 2017, before the third renewal application, of an admission that Steele made in a court filing about his interactions with the news media in the late summer and early fall of 2016;

14. Omitted the finding from a FBI source validation report that Steele was suitable for continued operation but that his past contributions to the FBI's criminal program had been " minimally corroborated," and instead continued to assert in the source characterization statement that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings";

15. Omitted Papadopoulos's statements to an FBI CHS in late October 2016 denying that the Trump campaign was involved in t he circumstances of the DNC email hack;

16. Omitted Joseph Mifsud's denials to the FBI that he supplied Papadopoulos with the information Papadopoulos shared with the FFG (suggesting that the campaign received an offer or suggestion of assistance from Russia); and 17. Omitted information indicating that Page played no role in the Republican platform change on Russia's annexation of Ukraine as alleged in the Report 95, which was inconsistent with a factual assertion relied upon to support probable cause in all four FISA applications.

[Bozo_Casanova 26898]

18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Wait, Anastasis thinks Steele was fed *negative* Trump disinformation from Russian state sponsored sources? Despite overwhelming consensus among even Senate Republicans, who investigated and reported that Russians worked actively in favor of getting Trump elected?

 

He’s just asking me questions! The election of Donald Trump was a painful but crucial step to prevent the decadence and corruption of our political establishment from electing someone like Donald Trump.

[Anastasis 23724]

32 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Wait, Anastasis thinks Steele was fed *negative* Trump disinformation from Russian state sponsored sources?

I don't think that I've made that argument specifically, regarding state sponsored sources.  However, if you consider Oleg Deripaska a state sponsored source, others certainly have.  Marcy Wheeler wrote up a couple takes on the situation circulating around OVD, Steele, and Manafort and how the play might have been run. 

[jimmyjazz 47265]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the OIG report sufficiently summarizes the problems with the applications.  I'll go ahead and put the executive summary behind the spoiler tags. Note these of course include all of the problems identified, which include more than just Steele's work. It's a long list. 

I recall those 17 conclusions when they were revealed, and there was considerable difference of opinion as to whether or not they should have led the FISA court to reject the warrant application.  Do  you agree?

[Anastasis 23724]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I recall those 17 conclusions when they were revealed, and there was considerable difference of opinion as to whether or not they should have led the FISA court to reject the warrant application.  Do  you agree?

Do I think that the court should have approved an application with knowledge that there were a litany of material errors? No, I don't think they should have. Where the errors material to the authorization? Yes, they were. We know that the application wouldn't even have been submitted without the Steele material to tip the scale on probable cause. We know the FBI overstated Steele's credibility and how he was distributing the work.  We know that they didn't describe his source's credibility given the information they had at the time. There are other errors/omissions as well, but those are the ones that are most directly relevant to the central and essential aspect of the submission, the Steele material. Do you agree that the Steele material should not have been used as the central and essential component of establishing probable cause, at a minimum without more rigorous vetting?

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 47265]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Do I think that the court should have approved an application with knowledge that there were a litany of material errors? No, I don't think they should have. Where the errors material to the authorization? Yes, they were. We know that the application wouldn't even have been submitted without the Steele material to tip the scale on probable cause. We know the FBI overstated Steele's credibility and how he was distributing the work.  We know that they didn't describe his source's credibility given the information they had at the time. There are other errors/omissions as well, but those are the ones that are most directly relevant to the central and essential aspect of the submission, the Steele material. Do you agree that the Steele material should not have been used as the central and essential component of establishing probable cause, at a minimum without more rigorous vetting?

I don't know.  I do know there was and is disagreement with your position regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to issue the warrant.

I'm trying to drill down into your repeated and continuous brow-beating of posters on this site as to the breadth of your concerns.  I mean, I can point to a whole bunch of shit that in my mind would warrant an investigation, including (but not limited to) Trump Junior eagerly signing up for a meeting with Russians who offered dirt on Hillary Clinton.  I realize you think the Carter Page warrant should have never been issued, but what I'm not sure of is whether that is the extent of your concerns and how you think that played into Mueller's subsequent work as assigned and carried out.