Postmortem on Mueller

I have no idea what Schiff or any Democrats think they are going to get out of Mueller. He wrote his report and despite a notable punt on the issue of obstruction (doing a disservice to the nation) I haven't noticed any substantial criticism of the content of the report. Mueller already gave his press conference telling America to read the report (he worked really hard on it) - and he has been sticking to that line.
There is a theory that the Mueller report lacked impact because all the details were figured out by the media before the investigation wrapped and therefore known to everyone by the time the report . The thinking goes that you can get a 'do-over' of sorts by having a sensational hearing that goes into the details and putting the information out to a wider audience.

It's a theory.

There is some precedent. Allegedly Watergate turned into a big deal (tm) when they began having public hearings. It was the first time the public really groked what had happened. I do think it's easy to think everyone is informed as we are and are just dismissive. I wouldn't be surprised if most people aren't informed but I'm not really convinced anything would change even if they were.
I think exec priv is limited to Trump's interactions with staff/advisors etc, like McGahn and Hope
Since when have restrictions mattered to him? edit: ninja'd by @Broken_Erika
 
It was a joke, Berzerker.

Anyway, I would just ask him one question. I would start the proceeding by saying, "Thank you for coming to speak with us Mr. Mueller. I am only going to ask you a single question. In your report, when you say that you "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" because that might "preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct," what constitutional process did you have in mind?

He'll say "Impeachment."

"Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Mueller. You are free to go."

You gotta know cases when less is more. It's a stunt, but the headlines then read "Mueller calls for impeachment!"

That would be too smart for the Democrats to pull off
 
Interesting times, it appears the Kremlin fed Christopher Steele disinformation to sow discord in the USA.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/eric...sseminating-russian-disinformation-to-the-fbi

Does the fact that those memos were distributed at State for years mean U.S. policy might have been warped by Russian disinformation, as some on Capitol Hill fear? No, says a senior State Department official who was serving at the time—because the Russia hands weren’t naïve. Asked about the Russia and Ukraine memos Steele provided to State, the official tells The Weekly Standard, “We were not aware of his specific sources but assumed that many of them were close to Putin and were peddling information that was useful to the Kremlin.”

The official says the Putinesque spin of the memos led them to take Steele’s analysis with more than a grain of salt: “There was a huge discount factor for that reason.”

This was the reputation Steele had at the upper reaches of State: Among the people who saw his work most frequently and who had the most expertise in Russian issues, the onetime MI6 officer was seen as “peddling information that was useful to the Kremlin".

Yet his dossier resulted in a FISA warrant to spy on Page and his associations. The Clinton campaign funded Steele's dossier which was Kremlin BS and it was used to spy on the Trump people by the Obama administration.

July 17th is approaching :)
 
Interesting times, it appears the Kremlin fed Christopher Steele disinformation to sow discord in the USA.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/eric...sseminating-russian-disinformation-to-the-fbi
Fun fact - that assertion isn't really backed up by the article. Using exceptionally vague and circumstantial evidence - exceptional even by the standards of reporting on the security services - the article asserts that Steele had a closer relation with Oleg Deripaska than commonly known. While interesting, the article isn't able to really go anywhere with that. The article emphatically was unable to demonstrate that Steele was a willing or unknowing funnel for Russian disinformation.
And again, as we have been over many times before, the FBI received the packet of completely unverified* intel from Steele and reviewed it as part of their pre-existing investigation of the Trump campaign's ties with Russian interests.

*I know you are going to jump on this, but remember that just about all humint reaches the security services as unverified intel. It is the job of the analysts to piece it together with existing intel and, if need be, gather additional intel.

Yet his dossier resulted in a FISA warrant to spy on Page and his associations.
Yet again, we've been over this many times before, that the 'Steele Dossier' comprised a small portion of the FISA application and was accompanied by over a page worth of footnotes.
Lawfare said:
Now we have some additional information in the form of the redacted FISA applications themselves, and the Nunes memo looks even worse. In my earlier post, I observed that the FBI’s disclosures about Steele were contained in a footnote, but argued that this did not detract from their sufficiency: “As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes.” Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.

There’s also more detail on the previous disclosure from the House intelligence committee Democrats’ memo on how Steele went to the press with the “dossier” when FBI Director James Comey sent his October 2016 letter to Congress disclosing the possible newfound importance of the Weiner laptop in the Clinton investigation. According to the FISA applications, Steele complained that Comey’s action could influence the election. But when Steele went to the press, it caused FBI to close him out as an informant—facts which are disclosed and cross-referenced in the footnote in bold text.

While I am sure people will try, my initial impression is that with all the redactions it is going to be very tough to figure out the full scope of information supporting the Court’s repeated finding of probable cause to believe that Carter Page was an agent of Russia. There is a mention of two Russians, one of whom pleaded guilty to being an unregistered agent of a foreign government and was sentenced to 30 months, but even that is disconnected from the redacted discussion that precedes it. Substantively, the government seems to have hewed as closely to the prior disclosures as it could in applying FOIA.

But it is worth noting that—and as the Democrats previously pointed out—the judges who signed off on these four FISA applications were all appointed by Republican presidents, including one George H.W. Bush appointee (Anne Conway), two George W. Bush appointees (Rosemary Collyer and Michael Mosman) and one Reagan appointee (Raymond Dearie). I know some of those judges, and they certainly are not the types to let partisan politics affect their legal judgments.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications
 
Any news on Meuller's impending testimony? I've heard some grumbling to the effect that Barr is moving to aggressively silence Meuller through various means but I haven't been following it too closely. It gets lost in the noise of Trump's latest racist tirades.
 
Interesting times, it appears the Kremlin fed Christopher Steele disinformation to sow discord in the USA.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/eric...sseminating-russian-disinformation-to-the-fbi



Yet his dossier resulted in a FISA warrant to spy on Page and his associations. The Clinton campaign funded Steele's dossier which was Kremlin BS and it was used to spy on the Trump people by the Obama administration.

July 17th is approaching :)

It is July 21st. . . where the hell is this bombshell?
 
Was July 17th supposed to be Mueller's testimony day?

IG report? Idk, something berserker, J, and Old Hippy would go on and on about. All the investigators were going to be hanged for being traitors or soemthing.
 
IG report? Idk, something berserker, J, and Old Hippy would go on and on about. All the investigators were going to be hanged for being traitors or soemthing.
no the 17th was supposed to be Mueller's day before the House... its now the 24th... are you still hoping he finds some "Russian Collusion'' that he just forgot to put in his report?...
 
no the 17th was supposed to be Mueller's day before the House... its now the 24th... are you still hoping he finds some "Russian Collusion'' that he just forgot to put in his report?...

Where is that IG report? Wasn't that supposed to be out last month? I mean why isn't the glorious retribution in full swing yet? You guys promised me such visceral shredding of careers!
 
Where is that IG report? Wasn't that supposed to be out last month? I mean why isn't the glorious retribution in full swing yet? You guys promised me such visceral shredding of careers!
timing... the dem's house seems to not want Mueller questioned by the Republicans... or maybe Mueller doesn't want to answer them Questions
patience... you should have learnt it by now after 2 years you guys have promised for so long... I can wait for the inevitable glorious retribution...
 
Last edited:
timing... the dem's house seems to not want Mueller questioned by the Republicans... or maybe Mueller doesn't want to answer them Questions
patience... you should have learnt it by now after 2 years you guys have promised for so long... I can wait for the inevitable glorious retribution...

This is like that Benghazi patience things I'm thinking.
 
except Mueller only has 3 days to bring forth the white rabbit from his hat...

If they can;t impeach him with all the laws he is currently breaking now, they aren't going to. . . It turns out all you need to break law with total disregard is a complicit political party. I mean we already knew that before Trump but he does it so blatantly right in front of TV cameras that it is certainly a new level of "swampiness" .

Anyways I was referring to the patience it is going to take to see an IG report that is already two months late that was supposedly going to exonerate Trump and crucify his enemies.
 
Anyways I was referring to the patience it is going to take to see an IG report that is already two months late that was supposedly going to exonerate Trump and crucify his enemies.
I have always said it would come out after the Mueller fiasco is over.. give them enough rope...
I was referring to the patience I have learnt waiting for the proof that the DNC was hacked by the Russians along with all the other claims made about Trump...2 years seems like nothing... I can guarantee that the IG report will come out before the election in 2020... timing and patience like i said :mischief:
all the T's and I's must be doted...that's how 'proper investigations are run... with no leaks
 
Supposedly this coming Wednesday the 24th about 8 am est

Fun fact - that assertion isn't really backed up by the article. Using exceptionally vague and circumstantial evidence - exceptional even by the standards of reporting on the security services - the article asserts that Steele had a closer relation with Oleg Deripaska than commonly known. While interesting, the article isn't able to really go anywhere with that. The article emphatically was unable to demonstrate that Steele was a willing or unknowing funnel for Russian disinformation.

The article says documents show Steele worked with Deripaska and his lawyers and experts at State had reason enough to think Steele's info could be designed to help Putin

And again, as we have been over many times before, the FBI received the packet of completely unverified* intel from Steele and reviewed it as part of their pre-existing investigation of the Trump campaign's ties with Russian interests.

So when did the dossier become verified? Before or after the warrant on Page? That warrant was renewed a few times In Jan of '17 Comey met with Trump to tell him about the dossier calling it salacious and unverified. Some people think that was the intel community laying down the gauntlet to Trump not to make waves because 'we' can screw you over. Sen Charles Schumer of NY admitted as much when he said they can get Trump 6 ways to Sunday. Schumer didn't say that to warn Americans about the deep state and the threat it poses to democracy.

*I know you are going to jump on this, but remember that just about all humint reaches the security services as unverified intel. It is the job of the analysts to piece it together with existing intel and, if need be, gather additional intel.

Yet again, we've been over this many times before, that the 'Steele Dossier' comprised a small portion of the FISA application and was accompanied by over a page worth of footnotes.

But its supposed to be verified to get a fisa warrant and the dossier was never verified, not even to this day. But the FBI vouched for Steele and his dossier nonetheless. In the fisa application source 1 is the dossier and it plays a very prominent role, I read the application and there was no source 2, at least in the parts we could read. So why do you think it played a minor role? It was source 1 in an application with 1 identified source.

This is why there will be no impeachment, the Democrats want to drop formalities and mislead us instead. Thats why they're so upset about investigating the investigators. The more that comes out the worse they look.
 
Supposedly this coming Wednesday the 24th about 8 am est



The article says documents show Steele worked with Deripaska and his lawyers and experts at State had reason enough to think Steele's info could be designed to help Putin



So when did the dossier become verified? Before or after the warrant on Page? That warrant was renewed a few times In Jan of '17 Comey met with Trump to tell him about the dossier calling it salacious and unverified. Some people think that was the intel community laying down the gauntlet to Trump not to make waves because 'we' can screw you over. Sen Charles Schumer of NY admitted as much when he said they can get Trump 6 ways to Sunday. Schumer didn't say that to warn Americans about the deep state and the threat it poses to democracy.



But its supposed to be verified to get a fisa warrant and the dossier was never verified, not even to this day. But the FBI vouched for Steele and his dossier nonetheless. In the fisa application source 1 is the dossier and it plays a very prominent role, I read the application and there was no source 2, at least in the parts we could read. So why do you think it played a minor role? It was source 1 in an application with 1 identified source.

This is why there will be no impeachment, the Democrats want to drop formalities and mislead us instead. Thats why they're so upset about investigating the investigators. The more that comes out the worse they look.

has it really been long enough to rehash all these lies and innuendos to promote your narrative?
 
The article says documents show Steele worked with Deripaska and his lawyers and experts at State had reason enough to think Steele's info could be designed to help Putin
The only person saying something like that is described as a former senior State Department official. While there is nothing wrong with using anonymous sources for national security reporting, one journalistic rule for using them is they should be described as accurately as possible. Nothing indicated this anonymous official was involved in work on Russia, let alone dealt with Steele's work. "Former senior official who worked in Russian issues and was familiar with Steele's work" is a lot more compelling than "former senior guy". Having not seen any other articles on this topic or by people who tend to rubbish the 'Russiagate' stuff like Glenn Greenwald or Craig Murray, I'm not seeing much else to support this article.
Plus, as anyone familiar with intelligence work knows, even disinformation can be useful as it is telling you what the other side wants you to think.

So when did the dossier become verified? Before or after the warrant on Page? That warrant was renewed a few times In Jan of '17 Comey met with Trump to tell him about the dossier calling it salacious and unverified.
Who says Steele's dodgy dossier was ever verified? The Carter Page FISA application was very long, far longer than the entirety of Steele's entire output. Clearly the FBI believed there was plenty of intelligence indicating Page was a valid FISA target. While I will be the first to say our FISA program is open to abuse, so far nothing has emerged that the FBI acted improperly in surveilling Page other than some ridiculous junk peddled by Devin Nunes that was only taken seriously by the deluded or hacks.

But its supposed to be verified to get a fisa warrant and the dossier was never verified, not even to this day.
Jesus H Christ we've been over this. Look at it this way, if the police have an informant saying I am involved in arms trafficking and other information they have on me indicates I might be involved with that, they do not have to verify ahead of time that I am, in fact, an arms trafficker before going to a judge to get a warrant to either search my place or wiretap me. The warrant is used to gather additional evidence to determine whether or not I am an arms trafficker. Same thing with Page. The FBI went to the FISA court saying "here is a whole bunch of information indicating that Page might be a Russian agent, at the very least a person of interest, and we would like to gather additional information through a wiretap".
I know you want to try and turn this into some sort of Iran-Contra, but nothing so far has suggested any of the Security Services went off the reservation like MI5 did with the allegations by Peter Wright and Colin Wallace.
I mean, how you present things makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. That the FBI ultimately determined Page is not a Russian agent is for you evidence they acted improperly in surveillance. Had they determined Page was an agent, you would be shouting it was a stitch up.

But the FBI vouched for Steele and his dossier nonetheless. In the fisa application source 1 is the dossier and it plays a very prominent role, I read the application and there was no source 2, at least in the parts we could read. So why do you think it played a minor role? It was source 1 in an application with 1 identified source.
I have no idea where you get the idea there was one identified source in an application that is over 400 pages, the overwhelming majority before and after the Steele reference being redacted.
 
If the FBI knew of his media contacts and the concerns about the reliability of his dossier before seeking the warrant, it would constitute a serious breach of FISA regulations and the trust that the FISA court places in the FBI.

That’s because the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent.

We now know the FBI used an article from Yahoo News as independent corroboration for the Steele dossier when, in fact, Steele had talked to the news outlet.

If the FBI knew Steele had that media contact before it submitted the article, it likely would be guilty of circular intelligence reporting, a forbidden tactic in which two pieces of evidence are portrayed as independent corroboration when, in fact, they originated from the same source.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...vide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet

The application was posted here and it was maybe 40 pages and much of that was redacted. Who was source #1? Steele. Who was source #2? Why do you think source #1 played a minor role in obtaining the warrant?
 
Supposedly this coming Wednesday the 24th about 8 am est



The article says documents show Steele worked with Deripaska and his lawyers and experts at State had reason enough to think Steele's info could be designed to help Putin



So when did the dossier become verified? Before or after the warrant on Page? That warrant was renewed a few times In Jan of '17 Comey met with Trump to tell him about the dossier calling it salacious and unverified. Some people think that was the intel community laying down the gauntlet to Trump not to make waves because 'we' can screw you over. Sen Charles Schumer of NY admitted as much when he said they can get Trump 6 ways to Sunday. Schumer didn't say that to warn Americans about the deep state and the threat it poses to democracy.



But its supposed to be verified to get a fisa warrant and the dossier was never verified, not even to this day. But the FBI vouched for Steele and his dossier nonetheless. In the fisa application source 1 is the dossier and it plays a very prominent role, I read the application and there was no source 2, at least in the parts we could read. So why do you think it played a minor role? It was source 1 in an application with 1 identified source.

This is why there will be no impeachment, the Democrats want to drop formalities and mislead us instead. Thats why they're so upset about investigating the investigators. The more that comes out the worse they look.

has it really been long enough to rehash all these lies and innuendos to promote your narrative?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...vide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet

The application was posted here and it was maybe 40 pages and much of that was redacted. Who was source #1? Steele. Who was source #2? Why do you think source #1 played a minor role in obtaining the warrant?

Same question. Has it really been long enough for you to think this hasn't been pounded into sand well enough for you to bring it back up? Nothing is different here, it is the same accusation with the same evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom