It Begins: Journalists start admitting Trump-Russia conspiracy was a fabricated lie

[anatta]

A Russian agent is someone acting as an agent for the Russian government. A GRU agent and an FSB agent are particular varieties of Russian agents. If someone wants to accuse the Trumps of knowingly meeting with people they had been told were GRU or FSB agents, I'll point out that we don't know that to be true. But they were quite clear they were meeting with Russian agents.[an atty is not a spy, or sn intelligence offer being directed by the FSB/GRU.

There is a world of difference as an atty is a civilian employee of the government-but liable to get the info from anywhere nt directed by the Russian governemnt.
It's an important distinction,especially when speaking of any collusions

I haven't claimed there is. In the same way, if I point out Trump is a crook and a philanderer, that's not a claim that "crook" and "philanderer" are legally defined categories. Collusion is a common English term meant to refer to secret collaboration for illicit purposes. That definitely describes what the Trump campaign was doing. Not only did they knowingly violate the letter of campaign finance law, but they violated its spirit, as well (several parts of campaign finance law are set up with the clear intent of keeping foreigners from influencing our elections, and the Trump campaign met with Russian agents for the express purpose of helping the Russians influence the election). I have no idea whether the Justice Department will have the balls to try to make a criminal case stick on that basis, but it's collusion one way or the other.

DoJ would lose ( though the TDS crowd doesn't care about justice -just killing Trump) because "contributions are monetary or in kind like services -not just opposition,and it wasn't paid for

We don't know exactly what he's looking for, other than in the long list of cases he has already charged or gotten a guilty plea from. When the report comes out, we'll know better. But, as you can see from the cases he's already made, it does not require a quid pro quo.

of course. but the mission of the SC s to look for crimes.
a CFR violation was rarely prosecuted before Mueller - more bad blow back from having a SC.

Campaign law clearly bans the provision of anything of value to campaigns by foreigners. If that will now be unofficially modified, solely to protect Trump, it sets a new precedent that effectively renders the law pointless. After all, if in-kind donations of valuable information do not count as in-kind donations of something of value, then any foreigner looking to contribute to a US campaign merely has to do so by way of an organization set up to deal strictly in information. Campaigns can then outsource all information-based needs to those foreign organizations, at no cost. That could include all their opposition research, of course, their polling, their surveys, their compiling of voter lists, their data processing, their data storage, the creation of their advertising, the writing of their talking points and speeches, etc. Heck, even computer code is just information, so you could have the foreign-funded corporation do custom coding for you, for anything from internal communications systems to chatbots for spreading your information. As long as the campaign contributions are laundered through the organization that keeps itself strictly to information-based in-kind help for campaigns, campaign finance laws would no longer apply. The "Trump Exception" would effectively swallow the rule, since such a large portion of a campaign's expenses come down to the expenses around information.

ya. they could I suppose. but campaigns aren't going to outsource any of that . This was not the reason for CFRs though -it was always about money/in kind.
Knowing Mueller and his narrative, you might see that bastard try to do it

This is where we end up, thanks to the utter subservience of conservatives to the interests of Donald Trump. Since they start with the understanding that if Trump or his team did something, it can't be illegal, our laws can be whittled away at will, simply be creating an unwritten exception wide enough to cover anything Trump does. If the Trump campaign solicited in-kind donations of valuable information from foreigners, then there must be an unwritten "information" exception to the general rule about not being able to solicit anything of value from foreigners for a campaign, right?

hogwash.
The Dems are out for blood and they don't care how they get it. which is why you are going to se hearing on all kinds of crap.
Just like Mueller -nobody is bound to any limits. I'm a lot more concerned about prosecutorial abuse given the Dems resistance mindset

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The House Intelligence Committee, in its memo focusing on the FBI's application to the secret FISA court to win a warrant to wiretap onetime Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page, included a 16-word passage from an Ohr 302 in which Ohr described Christopher Steele's motivation to stop candidate Trump. (Even though Ohr's interviews with the FBI took place after the election, he apparently described things Steele told him during their contacts in the months before the election, as well as new information.) Here is the relevant portion of the House memo:

Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files — but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-russia-allegations-to-fbi-after-the-election

Rather meaningless since the court was informed that the dossier was opposition research so was already aware of that bias.

 

[anatta]

Rather meaningless since the court was informed that the dossier was opposition research so was already aware of that bias.

it is meaningful in that Steele's expressed hostility as the source to Trump easily can color his research. Especially since none of this was verified for the FISA.
Would any judge give a warrant based on a source that was hostile to the target without any other corroboration?

Especially so since the Dossier was the backbone of the FISA

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I didn’t say that lol.

I granted, that it was a provisional conclusion. It’s apparently important to you that at least some hope remains Mullet will get Page for something.

I’ll leave you to your delusions.

Reality is what it is. Failure to charge anyone for a crime is not proof of innocence. To make such a claim is merely a false dichotomy fallacy.

I have no idea what evidence Mueller has so I can't claim he will or won't charge Page. Page has stated he expects to be charged with lying to Congress which likely means Page knows he wasn't truthful in some part of his testimony. Whether prosecutors find that untruthfulness to be material enough to charge him, I don't know. I don't claim Page is guilty because he admits to lying go Congress. I also don't claim Page is not guilty because he hasn't been charged. I try to avoid logical fallacies.

 

[anatta]

Reality is what it is. Failure to charge anyone for a crime is not proof of innocence. To make such a claim is merely a false dichotomy fallacy.

I have no idea what evidence Mueller has so I can't claim he will or won't charge Page. Page has stated he expects to be charged with lying to Congress which likely means Page knows he wasn't truthful in some part of his testimony. Whether prosecutors find that untruthfulness to be material enough to charge him, I don't know. I don't claim Page is guilty because he admits to lying go Congress. I also don't claim Page is not guilty because he hasn't been charged. I try to avoid logical fallacies.

another process crime. Mueller is gonna save us all from such horrors

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I haven't claimed there is. In the same way, if I point out Trump is a crook and a philanderer, that's not a claim that "crook" and "philanderer" are legally defined categories. Collusion is a common English term meant to refer to secret collaboration for illicit purposes. That definitely describes what the Trump campaign was doing.

We don't know the extent of any coordination at this point. There are hints of possible contacts but not much evidence of actual coordination between the campaign itself and Russia. Being stupid isn't necessarily a crime.

Not only did they knowingly violate the letter of campaign finance law, but they violated its spirit, as well (several parts of campaign finance law are set up with the clear intent of keeping foreigners from influencing our elections, and the Trump campaign met with Russian agents for the express purpose of helping the Russians influence the election). I have no idea whether the Justice Department will have the balls to try to make a criminal case stick on that basis, but it's collusion one way or the other.

The meeting with Russian nationals in Trump Tower can only really violate the campaign law that prohibits soliciting contributions from foreign nationals. It has nothing to do with foreign agents whether an FSB agent or a government lawyer.

 

[Getin the ring]

"collusion"

 

[Darth Omar]

another process crime. Mueller is gonna save us all from such horrors

Streets are safer, crime is down and we’re protected from terrorists.

Strong work, Mullet lol!

 

[Darth Omar]

Reality is what it is. Failure to charge anyone for a crime is not proof of innocence. To make such a claim is merely a false dichotomy fallacy.

I have no idea what evidence Mueller has so I can't claim he will or won't charge Page. Page has stated he expects to be charged with lying to Congress which likely means Page knows he wasn't truthful in some part of his testimony. Whether prosecutors find that untruthfulness to be material enough to charge him, I don't know. I don't claim Page is guilty because he admits to lying go Congress. I also don't claim Page is not guilty because he hasn't been charged. I try to avoid logical fallacies.

The constitutional reality is Page is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Junior makes a clumsy, amateur hour attempt, at doing opposition research with a Russian; no money changes hands, no quid pro quo, no conspiracy, not even any evidence he hears or obtains anything and people accuse him of ‘treason’ and want to throw the whole Trump family in the brig over it.

Because a bank robber is clumsy, drops his gun and runs from the bank with no money doesn't absolve him from the possibility he committed a crime. By simply meeting with the intent to get something of value from a foreign national violates the law. All the rest of your argument is irrelevent.

Democrats actively pursue Russians, using at least two cut-outs, pay big money for and actually obtain unverified/unverifiable information from the Russians.

And it’s ho-hum, big Nothing Burger.

Setting aside the fact that the unverified/unverifiable part is a huge Red Flag, most reasonable and fair minded folks are going to say wtf? at the clear double-standard.

It’s ridiculously easy to get the idea democrats play by different rules.

There is no double standard. You are simply ignoring the law and the facts in making a false comparison.
One side pays a US company. That US company hires a foreign national who in turn interviews other foreign nationals. You have no evidence that the Clinton campaign directed GPS Fusion to hire Steele. That would be required before you could even come close to saying they are similar.
Most reasonable people that look at the facts would see they are not the same thing.

One side meets with a foreign national, knowing they are a foreign national, expecting to get information from them for free.
The other side hires a US company, pays that company and has no knowledge of any contacts with foreign nationals.

There is nothing remotely similar since it is only the actions of the first side that could be considered to violate US law.

 

[anatta]

Streets are safer, crime is down and we’re protected from terrorists.

Strong work, Mullet lol!

The only reason for Mueller is "Russian collusion" with Trump.
everything else is just a byproduct of his Scorched Earth way of getting process crimes to support his narrative.

It's amazing the same Dem asshats that decried the Starr chamber now are salivating for Mueller

 

[Darth Omar]

it is meaningful in that Steele's expressed hostility as the source to Trump easily can color his research. Especially since none of this was verified for the FISA.
Would any judge give a warrant based on a source that was hostile to the target without any other corroboration?

Especially so since the Dossier was the backbone of the FISA

They try and deny that Steele’s anti-Trump animus [which is actually a ‘thing’ these days] is irrelevant with respect to his ‘work’.

Which is utter nonsense. Such an individual would be tempted to cherry-pick his sources in order to lead to a preferred conclusion. Or even just make some crap up.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

another process crime. Mueller is gonna save us all from such horrors

So you are OK with all persons involved with the Clinton server lying to Congress and there being no repercussions or criminal charges? I highly doubt that.

Lying to Congress is a very serious offense since Congress is charged with oversight. If they can't get true and accurate testimony they can't do oversight. I feel anyone that lies to Congress should face some consequences. Then it is only a matter of whether the person knowingly lied and how material the lie was to decide how serious the consequences should be.

 

[anatta]

So you are OK with all persons involved with the Clinton server lying to Congress and there being no repercussions or criminal charges? I highly doubt that.

which liars are you talking about.. Clinton's minions got immunity, and Mills was allowed in the room as her atty
( while being a witness). Clinton didn't lie to the FBI -she just couldn't recall 57 times during an hour interview

Lying to Congress is a very serious offense since Congress is charged with oversight. If they can't get true and accurate testimony they can't do oversight. I feel anyone that lies to Congress should face some consequences. Then it is only a matter of whether the person knowingly lied and how material the lie was to decide how serious the consequences should be.

dude you don't have to go on and on about lying to Congress.

 

[Darth Omar]

The only reason for Mueller is "Russian collusion" with Trump.
everything else is just a byproduct of his Scorched Earth way of getting process crimes to support his narrative.

It's amazing the same Dem asshats that decried the Starr chamber now are salivating for Mueller

Whoever the permanent AG turns out to be, they need to appoint an SP to see how it came to be that the whole IC was cock-sure Trump was colluding with the Russians—and if there was any crimes committed against Carter Page or anyone else.

Wait till after Mullet reports so democrats won’t be able to whine about ‘interference’ with the ‘Russian’ investigation. The country should never be put through this again.

 

[anatta]

They try and deny that Steele’s anti-Trump animus [which is actually a ‘thing’ these days] is irrelevant with respect to his ‘work’.

Which is utter nonsense. Such an individual would be tempted to cherry-pick his sources in order to lead to a preferred conclusion. Or even just make some crap up.

Steele said his dossier was raw intelligence
why is raw intelligence able to be sworn to as true?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The constitutional reality is Page is innocent until proven guilty.

That is the constitutional reality. But the constitutional reality doesn't necessarily reflect whether someone committed a crime or not.

If Page is indicted that indictment isn't proof he committed the crime.
If Page is not indicted that lack of indictment isn't proof he didn't commit the crime.

 

[anatta]

Whoever the permanent AG turns out to be, they need to appoint an SP to see how it came to be that the whole IC was cock-sure Trump was colluding with the Russians—and if there was any crimes committed against Carter Page or anyone else.

Wait till after Mullet reports so democrats won’t be able to whine about ‘interference’ with the Russian investigation. The country should never be put through this again.

Sessions fucked that up. Huber isn't doing anything, and while the IG/Huber report will come back to lots of questionable "moves" -they are meaningless without a criminal indictment.

The really funny part is an SC is supposed to be used to investigate DoJ crimes - not outsiders.
That's why Congress got rid of the SP -because it's innately political/generating process crime like Bill Clinton's
"I did not have sex with that woman" statement

 

[anatta]

That is the constitutional reality. But the constitutional reality doesn't necessarily reflect whether someone committed a crime or not.

If Page is indicted that indictment isn't proof he committed the crime.
If Page is not indicted that lack of indictment isn't proof he didn't commit the crime.

your lack of presumption of innocence is duly noted

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

which liars are you talking about.. Clinton's minions got immunity,

Immunity gives you immunity from prosecution of any crimes you reveal. It doesn't give you immunity for any lies you tell while you have immunity.

and Mills was allowed in the room as her atty
( while being a witness). Clinton didn't lie to the FBI -she just couldn't recall 57 times during an hour interview


dude you don't have to go on and on about lying to Congress.

It seems I do have to go on and on about since some people think it is OK for some people to lie to Congress.