Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 14:37:53 GMT -5
Presidents don't interview candidates for US Attorney, but Trump interviewed 3 for NY and DC who'd have jurisdiction for investigations of him... Paul Manafort faces a money-laundering probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney as Trump weighs who will run that office.... Oh..
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 25, 2017 14:40:38 GMT -5
Let me start by saying that I didn't support Trump, didn't vote for him, and won't defend him. But does it bother any of the frequent posters on this board that it now appears that the FBI agreed in October 2016, one month before the election, to fund an opposition research project that was previously funded by an unnamed Republican Trump opponent and then by the Clinton campaign? Dallas, I believe you have your chronology wrong not withstanding the other reporting that suggests otherwise. The Republican donor (still unidentified) initiated the project, which he/she stop funding after Trump won the GOP primary. Then Marc Elias through his law firm Perkins Coie picked up the funding which continued until one week prior to the election. The FBI never considered funding it as "an opposition research project." After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports. Thus, your question is based upon a factual inaccuracy. The FBI could not fund "opposition research" since Trump had already won, but it was only contemplating paying an asset to assist in its foreign counterintelligence investigation, which had been ongoing since July 2016. (Regardless, if you are hinting that the FBI was putting its thumb on the scale in favor of HRC that cannot possibly be true given Comey's later action for which he has been roundly criticized by many). Setting that aside, it doesn't bother me based upon my 8 years of working in the National Security Division at DOJ rendering legal advice to the FBI on foreign counterintelligence investigations. Approximatley one third of my portfolio consisted of Russian matters. (Hope I'm not sounding condescending . The fact is the FBI and the USIC were quite familiar with Christopher Steele as former MI6 agent as he was instrumental in assisting the FBI in the FIFA investigation. During his time at MI6 he was also surely familiar to the FBI/CIA in a liaison relationship as well. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for the FBI to pay for assistance either to a confidential informant or to an asset (anyone who may have particular knowledge) to assist in an investigation. Such an asset can be someone such as a low level hotel clerk who has access to records to someone like Steele, a former MI6 agent now in the private sector, to a foreign government official willing to provide information in exchange for payment. (See e.g., the payment of the FBI to hackers to crack the iPhone of the San Bernandino shooter when Apple would not do so voluntarily). www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_dossier-630pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4b274a302f54www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-paid-professional-hackers-one-time-fee-to-crack-san-bernardino-iphone/2016/04/12/5397814a-00de-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.htmlwww.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele/former-mi6-spy-known-to-u-s-agencies-is-author-of-reports-on-trump-in-russia-idUSKBN14W0HNWhy do I suspect you would have a different reaction if THE FBI had picked up the investigation of Republican OP research on the Democratic candidate or nominee? I am sure you would have cited your vast experience in that arena and quoted numerous judicial decisions to back up your case. Right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 14:43:54 GMT -5
The buck stops anywhere but here. Just as he did with the Yemen raid....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2017 14:48:03 GMT -5
Dallas, I believe you have your chronology wrong not withstanding the other reporting that suggests otherwise. The Republican donor (still unidentified) initiated the project, which he/she stop funding after Trump won the GOP primary. Then Marc Elias through his law firm Perkins Coie picked up the funding which continued until one week prior to the election. The FBI never considered funding it as "an opposition research project." After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports. Thus, your question is based upon a factual inaccuracy. The FBI could not fund "opposition research" since Trump had already won, but it was only contemplating paying an asset to assist in its foreign counterintelligence investigation, which had been ongoing since July 2016. (Regardless, if you are hinting that the FBI was putting its thumb on the scale in favor of HRC that cannot possibly be true given Comey's later action for which he has been roundly criticized by many). Setting that aside, it doesn't bother me based upon my 8 years of working in the National Security Division at DOJ rendering legal advice to the FBI on foreign counterintelligence investigations. Approximatley one third of my portfolio consisted of Russian matters. (Hope I'm not sounding condescending . The fact is the FBI and the USIC were quite familiar with Christopher Steele as former MI6 agent as he was instrumental in assisting the FBI in the FIFA investigation. During his time at MI6 he was also surely familiar to the FBI/CIA in a liaison relationship as well. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for the FBI to pay for assistance either to a confidential informant or to an asset (anyone who may have particular knowledge) to assist in an investigation. Such an asset can be someone such as a low level hotel clerk who has access to records to someone like Steele, a former MI6 agent now in the private sector, to a foreign government official willing to provide information in exchange for payment. (See e.g., the payment of the FBI to hackers to crack the iPhone of the San Bernandino shooter when Apple would not do so voluntarily). www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_dossier-630pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4b274a302f54www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-paid-professional-hackers-one-time-fee-to-crack-san-bernardino-iphone/2016/04/12/5397814a-00de-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.htmlwww.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele/former-mi6-spy-known-to-u-s-agencies-is-author-of-reports-on-trump-in-russia-idUSKBN14W0HNWhy do I suspect you would have a different reaction if THE FBI had picked up the investigation of Republican OP research on the Democratic candidate or nominee? I am sure you would have cited your vast experience in that arena and quoted numerous judicial decisions to back up your case. Right? The FBI investigated HRC for the claims put forth by Bannon and Mercer in the Clinton Cash book. That news broke during the election. In fact the Uranium one "scandal" Republican suddenly dug up is from that book... SS can defend himself, but don't recall him saying that was out of bounds. Conversely, I don't recall anyone of you guys on the right saying at the time it was improper tbf... If oppo research never led to a criminal investigation, Bob Menendez wouldn't be on trial right now...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,402
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 25, 2017 15:29:30 GMT -5
Why do I suspect you would have a different reaction if THE FBI had picked up the investigation of Republican OP research on the Democratic candidate or nominee? I am sure you would have cited your vast experience in that arena and quoted numerous judicial decisions to back up your case. Right? [/quote] I suspect you think I would have a different reaction because of your mistaken assumption that I see the law through partisan lens and you would be wrong. My "vast experience" with the FBI tells me this: The FBI loves going after politicians of either party if the facts merit the investigation (Jesse Jackson Jr., Rod Blagojevich, Robert Menendez, Chaka Fattah, all Democrats, all during the Obama Administration). An historical example: Do you recall the illegal campaign finance scandal and contributions from the Chinese to Clinton in the 1996 Presidential campaign? I fully supported that investigation. (Last I checked Clinton was Democrat and by the way I didn't vote for him because of his "character" or lack thereof and his perjurious conduct in his deposition that led to his impeachment). Trump's lack of character is apparently no bar to your support of him. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/background.htmDo you have anything of substance to contribute in response to my reply to Dallas? Dallas sought an "intelligent political discussion" and I tried to provide one. If Dallas thinks I didn't provide one, he'll respond. I guess I should apologize for actually having relevant substantive experience in the topic under discussion. (Ed, this is the last time I engage you in any discussion since it appears to be wholly unproductive).
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,402
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 25, 2017 15:45:07 GMT -5
Why do I suspect you would have a different reaction if THE FBI had picked up the investigation of Republican OP research on the Democratic candidate or nominee? I am sure you would have cited your vast experience in that arena and quoted numerous judicial decisions to back up your case. Right? The FBI investigated HRC for the claims put forth by Bannon and Mercer in the Clinton Cash book. That news broke during the election. In fact the Uranium one "scandal" Republican suddenly dug up is from that book... SS can defend himself, but don't recall him saying that was out of bounds. Conversely, I don't recall anyone of you guys on the right saying at the time it was improper tbf... If oppo research never led to a criminal investigation, Bob Menendez wouldn't be on trial right now... On the Uranium One deal, it is virtually impossible for the Secretary of State to control that process and an investigation was warranted and apparently closed. If Nunes wants to drag it up at HPSCI, have at it. Even Elijah Cummings (ranking member) didn't have much to say about re-examining the CFIUS process/FBI investigation on Uranium One so spend time and money if it makes the GOPers feel better. It will likely turn up nothing except fodder for the conspiracy theorists out there. But then again, that is an area of expertise of the Republicans. See e.g. Trump and Alex Jones, Infowars.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 25, 2017 19:02:32 GMT -5
Why do I suspect you would have a different reaction if THE FBI had picked up the investigation of Republican OP research on the Democratic candidate or nominee? I am sure you would have cited your vast experience in that arena and quoted numerous judicial decisions to back up your case. Right? I suspect you think I would have a different reaction because of your mistaken assumption that I see the law through partisan lens and you would be wrong. My "vast experience" with the FBI tells me this: The FBI loves going after politicians of either party if the facts merit the investigation (Jesse Jackson Jr., Rod Blagojevich, Robert Menendez, Chaka Fattah, all Democrats, all during the Obama Administration). An historical example: Do you recall the illegal campaign finance scandal and contributions from the Chinese to Clinton in the 1996 Presidential campaign? I fully supported that investigation. (Last I checked Clinton was Democrat and by the way I didn't vote for him because of his "character" or lack thereof and his perjurious conduct in his deposition that led to his impeachment). Trump's lack of character is apparently no bar to your support of him. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/background.htmDo you have anything of substance to contribute in response to my reply to Dallas? Dallas sought an "intelligent political discussion" and I tried to provide one. If Dallas thinks I didn't provide one, he'll respond. I guess I should apologize for actually having relevant substantive experience in the topic under discussion. (Ed, this is the last time I engage you in any discussion since it appears to be wholly unproductive). [/quote] Condescending again. I have a hard time believing your assertion that your reaction would not have been influenced by your political opinions. Daily/hourly you castigate Trump for every report or rumor you can find and give us your "unbiased" opinions. Yet, I am still looking for your daily/hourly angry response to Clinton/DNC and their denials of having anything to do with the famous dosier. Nor your angry comments on the uranium deal. Nor anything else that is from the left. I'm from Missouri: show me. BTW I am not a Trump-defender. I can't stand his manner of leading by bullying. I can't stand his inability to work with a Republican congress. I can't stand his disfunctional staff. Yet, he is the President of the United States and I want him, and the country, to succeed. And I abhor one-sided coverage of things, on this board and in the MSM.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 25, 2017 20:57:25 GMT -5
Yet, I am still looking for your daily/hourly angry response to Clinton/DNC and their denials of having anything to do with the famous dosier. Why should anyone be mad at Clinton or the DNC for funding Steele, or for denying that they funded Steele? I don't get why they'd deny it (well, I guess I do - Putin has a nasty habit of rubbing out people who are inconvenient) - but it's pretty much the only worthwhile thing the DNC did all last year. What are we supposed to be mad about here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 10:21:30 GMT -5
1) Wikileaks is a “hostile intelligence service” helped by Russia, according to the new CIA director Mike Pompeo. In his first public speech since becoming head of the US spy agency, he said the whistleblowing website's founder Julian Assange “and his ilk” claimed to act in the name of liberty and privacy, their mission was actually "personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values". His comments were in sharp contrast to those made during last year’s presidential election by Donald Trump and members of his campaign team – including Mr Pompeo himself – who frequently cited Wikileaks data www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wikileaks-hostile-intelligence-service-russia-cia-director-mike-pompeo-donald-trump-dnc-hacked-a7683341.html______ 2) NEW: Julian Assange confirms that he was approached by Trump’s data firm during the campaign www.thedailybeast.com/trump-data-guru-i-tried-to-team-up-with-julian-assangeNix, who heads Cambridge Analytica, told a third party that he reached out to Assange about his firm somehow helping the WikiLeaks editor release Clinton’s missing emails, according to two sources familiar with a congressional investigation into interactions between Trump associates and the Kremlin. (CNN later reported Cambridge backer Rebekah Mercer was one of the email's recipients.)
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 26, 2017 10:28:51 GMT -5
Can I also just say, Ed/Elvado complain a lot that there's too much negativity here towards Trump - there's like 7 or 8 fresh hells that come up every day that don't make the board.
Like for example this :
70 year old man literally asserting he's intelligent on the basis of elitism. I don't think this is this big a deal in context of the fact that we're on the brink of war with North Korea, Puerto Rico is a disaster, Trump is on the brink of firing Mueller, we have a President colluding with Russia, and the ridiculous amount of corruption we're dealing with, but this would have fueled Fox News for a month.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 26, 2017 14:51:55 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 26, 2017 18:51:24 GMT -5
TC, I have seen no significant evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. I mean hard evidence, not suspicious activity.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Oct 26, 2017 21:24:43 GMT -5
Ed, I certainly admire your optimism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 7:13:42 GMT -5
The Government accepted no other bids before Whitefish was grated this contract. Whitefish was the only company considered.
1) $332.41 per person for accommodations *each day* $79.82 per person for food *each day*. 400 + per day for food and lodging
2) Whitefish Energy relies on subcontractors. Their rates per CBS: $462 per hour for a supervisor, $319 per hour for a lineman. 3,692 per 8hr workday for a supervisor, 2,552 for a lineman.
3) Whitefish contract states, "In no event shall [government bodies] have the right to audit or review the cost and profit elements."
___
All that money being thrown around and the government can't audit? Oh, ok... Sweet gig, wonder how they got it...
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Oct 27, 2017 8:23:31 GMT -5
1) $332.41 per person for accommodations *each day* $79.82 per person for food *each day*. 400 + per day for food and lodging While the other stuff to shady as hell, this is actually pretty reasonable. The food per diem is in line with what DoD suggests (GSA only has per diem rates for the 50 States). Also, while the lodging rate is high compared to DoD rates, prices are higher due to increased demand and likely lower supply. For example, I almost had to go down to PR for my job last week and when search Hilton (my loyalty program), they had 0 available within 25 miles of San Juan available, so I couldn't even get a price to compare to Whitefish. All that said, for your other listed reasons, that contract is shady...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 10:26:46 GMT -5
1) $332.41 per person for accommodations *each day* $79.82 per person for food *each day*. 400 + per day for food and lodging While the other stuff to shady as hell, this is actually pretty reasonable. The food per diem is in line with what DoD suggests (GSA only has per diem rates for the 50 States). Also, while the lodging rate is high compared to DoD rates, prices are higher due to increased demand and likely lower supply. For example, I almost had to go down to PR for my job last week and when search Hilton (my loyalty program), they had 0 available within 25 miles of San Juan available, so I couldn't even get a price to compare to Whitefish. All that said, for your other listed reasons, that contract is shady... Gotchya, thx KS...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 11:51:59 GMT -5
The Government accepted no other bids before Whitefish was grated this contract. Whitefish was the only company considered. 1) $332.41 per person for accommodations *each day* $79.82 per person for food *each day*. 400 + per day for food and lodging 2) Whitefish Energy relies on subcontractors. Their rates per CBS: $462 per hour for a supervisor, $319 per hour for a lineman. 3,692 per 8hr workday for a supervisor, 2,552 for a lineman. 3) Whitefish contract states, "In no event shall [government bodies] have the right to audit or review the cost and profit elements." ___ All that money being thrown around and the government can't audit? Oh, ok... Sweet gig, wonder how they got it... #3 tells you all you need to know. Everything else that might be wrong about this contract pales in comparison. I work for a small nonprofit organization. The largest grants we receive tend to be $100,000. If we EVER tried to put a clause like that in a grant proposal, we would be rejected so quickly. And we would probably be told not to apply again.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,402
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 27, 2017 18:18:56 GMT -5
Natalia V. Veselnitskaya arrived at a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 hoping to interest top Trump campaign officials in the contents of a memo she believed contained information damaging to the Democratic Party and, by extension, Hillary Clinton. The material was the fruit of her research as a private lawyer, she has repeatedly said, and any suggestion that she was acting at the Kremlin’s behest that day is anti-Russia “hysteria.” But interviews and records show that in the months before the meeting, Ms. Veselnitskaya had discussed the allegations with one of Russia’s most powerful officials, the prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika. And the memo she brought with her closely followed a document that Mr. Chaika’s office had given to an American congressman two months earlier, incorporating some paragraphs verbatim. The coordination between the Trump Tower visitor and the Russian prosecutor general undercuts Ms. Veselnitskaya’s account that she was a purely independent actor when she sat down with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul J. Manafort, then the Trump campaign chairman. It also suggests that emails from an intermediary to the younger Mr. Trump promising that Ms. Veselnitskaya would arrive with information from Russian prosecutors were rooted at least partly in fact — not mere “puffery,” as the president’s son later said. www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.htmlUranium One analysis and in depth discussion of CFIUS process: www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-lawRight-wing media are pushing supposed new revelations involving a 2010 deal said to give Moscow control of a large swath of U.S. uranium interests. But it didn’t actually give them any control because those interests are essentially worthless. www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/27/claims-of-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-are-a-real-empty-barrel/
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 27, 2017 18:58:14 GMT -5
Natalia V. Veselnitskaya arrived at a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 hoping to interest top Trump campaign officials in the contents of a memo she believed contained information damaging to the Democratic Party and, by extension, Hillary Clinton. The material was the fruit of her research as a private lawyer, she has repeatedly said, and any suggestion that she was acting at the Kremlin’s behest that day is anti-Russia “hysteria.” But interviews and records show that in the months before the meeting, Ms. Veselnitskaya had discussed the allegations with one of Russia’s most powerful officials, the prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika. And the memo she brought with her closely followed a document that Mr. Chaika’s office had given to an American congressman two months earlier, incorporating some paragraphs verbatim. The coordination between the Trump Tower visitor and the Russian prosecutor general undercuts Ms. Veselnitskaya’s account that she was a purely independent actor when she sat down with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul J. Manafort, then the Trump campaign chairman. It also suggests that emails from an intermediary to the younger Mr. Trump promising that Ms. Veselnitskaya would arrive with information from Russian prosecutors were rooted at least partly in fact — not mere “puffery,” as the president’s son later said. www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.htmlUranium One analysis and in depth discussion of CFIUS process: www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-lawThx for the links, SS. Truly appreciate the links that you, YaBoy, and others provide.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 27, 2017 19:12:23 GMT -5
The last paragraph of the lawfareblog article you show says it all:
"It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency. That is troubling (and had it been me, I would have tried to generate opposition to the sale). It isn't a "give away," but it is the case that Rusatom has de jure and de facto legal rights that can be exercised to limit production if it wishes to do so."
And Hillary's State Department did not object to this?
Interesting the author relegated this to the last paragraph while devoting the rest to discussing the procedures.
|
|