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?
The bolded is a flat lie, something you stated after being informed in the post above is was over 400 pages . https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf
As to why I think Steele's 'dodgy dossier' comprised only a minor role, please note that Steele's dossier comprised a total of 35 pages. There is clearly a lot more in the FISA application for Page.
What laws is he breaking? And I don't want some vague terminology either, I want a list of the exact statutes he is currently violating and exactly how he is violating them.
Getting so tired of hearing people accuse others of breaking the law when most of the time they can't even cite exactly what laws are being broken.
The bolded is a flat lie, something you stated after being informed in the post above is was over 400 pages . https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf
As to why I think Steele's 'dodgy dossier' comprised only a minor role, please note that Steele's dossier comprised a total of 35 pages. There is clearly a lot more in the FISA application for Page.
There are no pages over 400, the document reflects an ongoing year-long process and is broken up into sections starting with the original warrant followed by added renewal applications every 90 days. The section for the original warrant is first and 'the conclusion' for probable cause is on p32, the rest of the unredacted first section (66 pages) is devoted to other issues like parameters for spying and the court's reasons for giving permission.
So who is source #2 and why is Steele #1 if he played such a minor role? Wouldn't your 1st source be the most important to making the case? Do you think its just a coincidence the application appeared chronologically about a month or so after the FBI got their hands on the dossier? Much of what they had on Page was from previous investigations that cleared him, but the dossier shows up and magically the FBI had the goods to spy on him.
Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general’s investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially “running a covert operation against” the president, starting with a private “defensive briefing” he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a “counterintelligence assessment” of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York
“In an unprecedented action, Comey created a new FBI reserve position for Ferrante, enabling him to have an ongoing relationship with the agency, retaining his clearances and enabling him to come back in [to bureau headquarters],” said a former National Security Council official who requested anonymity.
“Between the election and April 2017, when Ferrante finally left the White House, the Trump NSC division supervisor was not allowed to get rid of Ferrante,” he added, "and Ferrante continued working — in direct conflict with the no-contact policy between the White House and the Department of Justice.”
Through a spokeswoman at FTI Consulting, which maintains the BuzzFeed contract, Ferrante declined to comment.
So Comey was skeptical of the dossier and used it to get a warrant on Page anyway? Wow... Thats like a prosecutor using a 'witness' they think is full of it.
What laws is he breaking? And I don't want some vague terminology either, I want a list of the exact statutes he is currently violating and exactly how he is violating them.
Getting so tired of hearing people accuse others of breaking the law when most of the time they can't even cite exactly what laws are being broken.
Obstruction of Justice
Democrats made their biggest push yet for impeachment when six members of the House unveiled five articles of impeachment last week. Announcing the move, Steve Cohen of Tennessee began, as Sherman had done before, by accusing Trump of obstruction of justice in his ousting of Comey. The matter has also played an increasing role in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
Violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause
The Constitution bars federal officials from receiving payments from foreign officials, something Trump has been accused of breaching since before he even took office. Many of the complaints have centered on the Trump Organization's hotels and golf resorts around the globe. Multiple lawsuits have been filed accusing Trump of violating the clause.
Violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause
The domestic emoluments clause prohibits a sitting president from accepting compensation beyond that of his salary. Trump's new hotel in Washington, D.C., which has hosted multiple foreign dignitaries and government officials, has been a particular source of controversy.
All three of these are ongoing crimes. There is a lot more in there about how he is a terrible leader which I'm inclined to agree with most of too, but these are the three laws he has clearly and is still clearly breaking every day.
It should be noted that the emoluments clauses he is breaking every day of his presidency are the exact kind of thing his supporters supposedly elected him to stop in Washington. Yet his criminality and corruption is probably the worst and most blatant seen in a hundred years. He is literally accepting foreign and domestic bribes and acting on it.
Also here is a decent list with citation of his long career of skirting or outright breaking the law.
The Justice department has issued Mueller with a formal warning not to talk about anything not in his report. I mean, the report itself is damning enough and I'm looking forward to them digging into it but our system of governance has completely broken down when the executive can bar people from testifying when summoned by Congress.
Yeah I don't know. I think really the intent is to intimidate him. And given how much he shackled himself based on Nixon-era memos with little to no legal standing, I've got the feeling his testimony won't be very useful. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even talk about the findings in the report very much. I expect a lot of Democratic posturing, Republican shouting, with Mueller just sitting there listening without saying much.
Yeah I don't know. I think really the intent is to intimidate him. And given how much he shackled himself based on Nixon-era memos with little to no legal standing, I've got the feeling his testimony won't be very useful. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even talk about the findings in the report very much. I expect a lot of Democratic posturing, Republican shouting, with Mueller just sitting there listening without saying much.
In the end Mueller has always been a Republican pro executive branch power guy. The idea he was ever going to be the salvation of a congress this inept was pretty silly. I could be wrong though, I almost always enjoy being wrong.
Obstruction of Justice
Democrats made their biggest push yet for impeachment when six members of the House unveiled five articles of impeachment last week. Announcing the move, Steve Cohen of Tennessee began, as Sherman had done before, by accusing Trump of obstruction of justice in his ousting of Comey. The matter has also played an increasing role in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
He only tried to obstruct injustice. The Mueller probe was a which-hunt. It's amazing that there are people still clinging to that assortment of lies about Russians under Trump's (metaphorical) bed. The allegation of hacking on the DNC: claimed without proof, and the FBI deliberately refused to even attempt to take custody of evidence or investigate. The proof presented for the allegations repeated by Mueller is nil. The allegation about a russian company somehow linked to the government attempting to do political propaganda: is is being fought over in courts and the prosecution (started by Mueller) has been so incapable of presenting evidence that they were forbidden by the judge on that case from continuing to publish unsubstantiated claims.
The one no one ever in the history of your country obeyed? The one that Clinton, Obama, etc shamelessly violated also? That's stick, keep hoping... I mean, Obama taking his very much undeserved Nobel Prize is one violation right there, taking swedish money given in an attempt to influence foreign policy of the US.
It would be nice if you had leaders who were not out to enrich themselves. When was the last time you had one such? You actually think any member of the Washington political class is going to try to impeach Trump on those grounds?
Stop living in la-la-land. Trump broke on laws as they are currently in force in the US. There is no way he's going to be touched over allegations of lawbreaking. Doing politics based on that phony idea has doomed his opposition from day one.
Obstruction of injustice is still a crime. Nice try
Saying other have broken the law on Emoluments doesn't make what he does legal. Most at least had the dignity to pretend they weren't doing it.
Most other president put the money in blind trusts to make it harder. Trump put his money under his brand to make it easier.
No politician gets attacked without at least attempting a defense. That he studied and discussed his options is not a crime, you have to prove he exercised any. Thoughtcrime is not yet a thing over there, is it?
As for the others, I'm commenting on how realistic it is to be attempting to make an issue of them. It's not. It hasn't paid off to those who did it, it won't pay off. He is making money from the office, and he is following a tradition so entrenched that none of his fellows in Washington is going to actually move against over that.
Politically, all this was useless. The only purpose it served, and badly as it will turn out, was to protect from retaliation some people who prematurely attempted to lick the wrong boots because they thought the other candidate was going to win. That millions of people decided to deposit their political hopes on a piece of court intrigue is tragic. You don't change politics by betting on this or that courtier involved in its own personal intrigues. You do it by participating and supporting those who are willing to talk to you and back your interests.
You don't get anywhere by wasting your time and energy being cheerleaders for the intrigues of people like Comey, Clapper or Brennan. They care about themselves and their careers, nothing else.
The $145 million bribe is a bit hard to quantify. A bunch of that money came from someone who might have sold his stake already long before the donation and the deal.
Don't take this as a defence of the Foundation, merely as a clarification of the accusation against it. I think it was sketchy to have both the Foundation and the public power at the same time.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
