|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 12, 2019 13:23:49 GMT -5
I do not agree with the IG's conclusions and await the Special Investigator's report due in spring or summer. On a related subject, Byron York has an exhausted look at the subject of spying on the Trump campaign. It starts with: "The great debate about whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign continues. The question is why there is still any argument. The newly released report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz shows that by any definition the FBI did indeed spy." I will see if I can figure out how to show the link. Here's the link to York's column: www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/of-course-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaignTo answer your question, Ed, no I'm not at all happy about how the FBI acted and, consistent with Horowitz's conclusions, I think it's imperative that reforms to the FISA process occur, particularly in the context of extremely sensitive targets. A presidential campaign certainly qualifies. But York (and you) saying that "the FBI spied" puts the rabbit completely in the hat. Sure, the FBI "spied" in the same sense that if the FBI had evidence that you were about to rob a bank, they'd get a warrant to tap your phone or might convince someone to approach you wearing a wire. That's "spying," I suppose. But it's spying that we, as a society, permit. This is no different. Horowitz confirms that the FBI had the proper basis to perform the investigation. You (and York) may not like the apparently low bar that is used to determine whether there is a proper basis, but the IG says they met it. Change the threshold, then -- that's fine. But don't use a loaded word like "spying" that to the average American is decidedly pejorative to describe what was apparently legal surveillance. And let me back up to a 50,000 foot level: We can talk about the Steele dossier (much of which has turned out to be true but plenty of which is not), or about "biased" FBI agents (needless to say, ALL FBI agents -- since they're human -- have political preferences of some sort). But, really, just in a colloquial sense, it seems to me entirely appropriate for the FBI (or some appropriate governmental entity) to have investigated the issue. It's undisputed that President Trump "welcomed" or "invited" Russian involvement in the election. It's undisputed that he requested that Russia find the "missing" emails. It's undisputed that Russia hacked the DNC servers. It's undisputed that a friendly foreign power apparently believed that Russia had damning evidence concerning Trump that could serve as blackmail bait. To not investigate whether there was potentially coordination between Trump (or his campaign) and Russia would be investigative malpractice, given all those facts. Frankly, I think that gets lost in all the strawmen that are constructed about "dossiers" and "FBI agents having affairs."
|
|
boxout05
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 573
|
Post by boxout05 on Dec 12, 2019 17:39:05 GMT -5
It's undisputed that Russia hacked the DNC servers. I’ve heard differently.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 12, 2019 19:18:45 GMT -5
It's undisputed that Russia hacked the DNC servers. I’ve heard differently. Oh yeah, what have you heard?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 12, 2019 20:13:17 GMT -5
I do not agree with the IG's conclusions and await the Special Investigator's report due in spring or summer. On a related subject, Byron York has an exhausted look at the subject of spying on the Trump campaign. It starts with: "The great debate about whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign continues. The question is why there is still any argument. The newly released report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz shows that by any definition the FBI did indeed spy." I will see if I can figure out how to show the link. Here's the link to York's column: www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/of-course-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaignTo answer your question, Ed, no I'm not at all happy about how the FBI acted and, consistent with Horowitz's conclusions, I think it's imperative that reforms to the FISA process occur, particularly in the context of extremely sensitive targets. A presidential campaign certainly qualifies. But York (and you) saying that "the FBI spied" puts the rabbit completely in the hat. Sure, the FBI "spied" in the same sense that if the FBI had evidence that you were about to rob a bank, they'd get a warrant to tap your phone or might convince someone to approach you wearing a wire. That's "spying," I suppose. But it's spying that we, as a society, permit. This is no different. Horowitz confirms that the FBI had the proper basis to perform the investigation. You (and York) may not like the apparently low bar that is used to determine whether there is a proper basis, but the IG says they met it. Change the threshold, then -- that's fine. But don't use a loaded word like "spying" that to the average American is decidedly pejorative to describe what was apparently legal surveillance. And let me back up to a 50,000 foot level: We can talk about the Steele dossier (much of which has turned out to be true but plenty of which is not), or about "biased" FBI agents (needless to say, ALL FBI agents -- since they're human -- have political preferences of some sort). But, really, just in a colloquial sense, it seems to me entirely appropriate for the FBI (or some appropriate governmental entity) to have investigated the issue. It's undisputed that President Trump "welcomed" or "invited" Russian involvement in the election. It's undisputed that he requested that Russia find the "missing" emails. It's undisputed that Russia hacked the DNC servers. It's undisputed that a friendly foreign power apparently believed that Russia had damning evidence concerning Trump that could serve as blackmail bait. To not investigate whether there was potentially coordination between Trump (or his campaign) and Russia would be investigative malpractice, given all those facts. Frankly, I think that gets lost in all the strawmen that are constructed about "dossiers" and "FBI agents having affairs." I could argue with some of the points you made, but assuming they are correct, I would agree it needed to be investigated. However, we are talking about a major party presidential candidate with some chance of being elected. This is not your run of the mill person and he should have been treated as someone special. Seems to me there are other means of investigating without resorting to SPYING on him and members of his team. I say spying because they used an agent to spy in the Oval Office. I think going to the FISA court in this case was completely out-of-bounds and, possibly an abuse of power by the then Commander in Chief. You might say there is no evidence President Obama was aware of this but it is, in my opinion, unlikely this would not have had the concurrence of the President. Just my opinions; you, of course, are free to disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 20:49:09 GMT -5
The FISA warrant in question was for Carter Paige not Trump and it was A month after he left the Trump campaign. Amazing spin. www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/The key point here is no matter how much evidence says otherwise you guys are just going to believe what you believe. You just said I have no evidence but this is what I believe. How do you argue with that??
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 12, 2019 20:54:23 GMT -5
Here's the link to York's column: www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/of-course-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaignTo answer your question, Ed, no I'm not at all happy about how the FBI acted and, consistent with Horowitz's conclusions, I think it's imperative that reforms to the FISA process occur, particularly in the context of extremely sensitive targets. A presidential campaign certainly qualifies. But York (and you) saying that "the FBI spied" puts the rabbit completely in the hat. Sure, the FBI "spied" in the same sense that if the FBI had evidence that you were about to rob a bank, they'd get a warrant to tap your phone or might convince someone to approach you wearing a wire. That's "spying," I suppose. But it's spying that we, as a society, permit. This is no different. Horowitz confirms that the FBI had the proper basis to perform the investigation. You (and York) may not like the apparently low bar that is used to determine whether there is a proper basis, but the IG says they met it. Change the threshold, then -- that's fine. But don't use a loaded word like "spying" that to the average American is decidedly pejorative to describe what was apparently legal surveillance. And let me back up to a 50,000 foot level: We can talk about the Steele dossier (much of which has turned out to be true but plenty of which is not), or about "biased" FBI agents (needless to say, ALL FBI agents -- since they're human -- have political preferences of some sort). But, really, just in a colloquial sense, it seems to me entirely appropriate for the FBI (or some appropriate governmental entity) to have investigated the issue. It's undisputed that President Trump "welcomed" or "invited" Russian involvement in the election. It's undisputed that he requested that Russia find the "missing" emails. It's undisputed that Russia hacked the DNC servers. It's undisputed that a friendly foreign power apparently believed that Russia had damning evidence concerning Trump that could serve as blackmail bait. To not investigate whether there was potentially coordination between Trump (or his campaign) and Russia would be investigative malpractice, given all those facts. Frankly, I think that gets lost in all the strawmen that are constructed about "dossiers" and "FBI agents having affairs." I could argue with some of the points you made, but assuming they are correct, I would agree it needed to be investigated. However, we are talking about a major party presidential candidate with some chance of being elected. This is not your run of the mill person and he should have been treated as someone special. Seems to me there are other means of investigating without resorting to SPYING on him and members of his team. I say spying because they used an agent to spy in the Oval Office. I think going to the FISA court in this case was completely out-of-bounds and, possibly an abuse of power by the then Commander in Chief. You might say there is no evidence President Obama was aware of this but it is, in my opinion, unlikely this would not have had the concurrence of the President. Just my opinions; you, of course, are free to disagree. Please explain what you're referring to with this comment?
|
|
boxout05
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 573
|
Post by boxout05 on Dec 13, 2019 0:19:29 GMT -5
Oh yeah, what have you heard? Lots of people (e.g. politicians from one particular party, pundits on one particular network) are disputing it, saying it was Ukraine.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 13, 2019 8:47:13 GMT -5
Oh yeah, what have you heard? Lots of people (e.g. politicians from one particular party, pundits on one particular network) are disputing it, saying it was Ukraine. I can’t tell if you are serious about this. I have no doubt that you have heard about the Ukranian idea from those sources (we all have) but do you think that theory has any validity?
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on Dec 13, 2019 10:39:57 GMT -5
Lots of people (e.g. politicians from one particular party, pundits on one particular network) are disputing it, saying it was Ukraine. I can’t tell if you are serious about this. I have no doubt that you have heard about the Ukranian idea from those sources (we all have) but do you think that theory has any validity? Tons of right wing pundits and congressmen have been pushing this for the past week including Ted Cruz (even though Trump lap dog Lindsey Graham has refuted it). Louisiana Senator John Kennedy has double and tripled down on it even after being confronted with the fact that Ukrainian interference has been debunked. Literally everyone who supports Trump or is a member of the GOP has gone crazy in their cult like support of him. Truth literally doesn’t matter anymore.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Dec 13, 2019 10:47:36 GMT -5
The same people claiming that Ukraine was behind the DNC hacks were claiming it was Seth Rich three years ago, and they were lying then too.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 13, 2019 11:14:31 GMT -5
I can’t tell if you are serious about this. I have no doubt that you have heard about the Ukranian idea from those sources (we all have) but do you think that theory has any validity? Tons of right wing pundits and congressmen have been pushing this for the past week including Ted Cruz (even though Trump lap dog Lindsey Graham has refuted it). Louisiana Senator John Kennedy has double and tripled down on it even after being confronted with the fact that Ukrainian interference has been debunked. Literally everyone who supports Trump or is a member of the GOP has gone crazy in their cult like support of him. Truth literally doesn’t matter anymore. I know where the nonsense is coming from. I just couldn't tell if the original post was serious or sarcastic.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 13, 2019 11:24:51 GMT -5
The FISA warrant in question was for Carter Paige not Trump and it was A month after he left the Trump campaign. Amazing spin. www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/The key point here is no matter how much evidence says otherwise you guys are just going to believe what you believe. You just said I have no evidence but this is what I believe. How do you argue with that?? You are correct. The FISA warrant was for Carter Page. It led to surveilling Page, formerly associated with the Trump campaign, also to surveilling Papadopolous, advisor to the Trump campaign, and a third unnamed person associated with the Trump campaign. Ultimately, it also led to an FBI agent, under the guise of briefing Trump, spying on candidate Trump. Mistakenly I said this took place in the Oval Office. Thus, there was a systematic surveillance of persons associated with candidate Trump, and of Trump himself. So the FISA warrant for Page was, in fact, aimed at the candidacy of Trump.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 13, 2019 11:43:19 GMT -5
I might be old fashioned but I feel like this idea that the head of the jury will be coordinating with the defense is a bad thing. And, I think the fact that the same juror has already decided the outcome and is telling everyone before the first bit of evidence is even presented is also bad. All this to protect Donald F-ing Trump. WTF?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 12:51:48 GMT -5
The FISA warrant in question was for Carter Paige not Trump and it was A month after he left the Trump campaign. Amazing spin. www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/The key point here is no matter how much evidence says otherwise you guys are just going to believe what you believe. You just said I have no evidence but this is what I believe. How do you argue with that?? You are correct. The FISA warrant was for Carter Page. It led to surveilling Page, formerly associated with the Trump campaign, also to surveilling Papadopolous, advisor to the Trump campaign, and a third unnamed person associated with the Trump campaign. Ultimately, it also led to an FBI agent, under the guise of briefing Trump, spying on candidate Trump. Mistakenly I said this took place in the Oval Office. Thus, there was a systematic surveillance of persons associated with candidate Trump, and of Trump himself. So the FISA warrant for Page was, in fact, aimed at the candidacy of Trump. Carter Page was under FBI surveillance way before he even came into Trumps circle. He was the subject of a FISA warrant in 2013/2014. It was those contacts that were part of the basis for suspecting Page had been recruited to act as an “agent of a foreign power.” www.justsecurity.org/59837/reports-carter-page-subject-fisa-warrant-2013-2014/They didn't even apply for the FISA warrant against Page until Oct 21 2016. That's 2 weeks before the election and nearly a month after Kelly Ann Conway said he was no longer part of their campaign. To claim that was aimed at "candidacy of Trump" is a dubious distinction as they continued to surveil Page way after Trump was already elected, and started way before he ever knew Trump. Ironically they did NOT surveil him while he was part of his campaign. You can see the timeline in the first link I shared. Papadopolous, advisor to the Trump campaign relayed conversations he had with Russian officials back to the campaign. Specifically Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort, Sam Clovis, and Stephen Miller. What got him in hot water was he bragged to an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on HRC, and that he had advanced knowledge they were going to release the Podesta emails. That would imply that he was in contact with Russian officials who coordinated the hack. Otherwise how would he have advanced knowledge of that operation? When he was questioned on it he lied to investigators. That's a crime. There is nothing in the Horowitz report that says the FISA warrant against him was improper, and it was his own big mouth that got him in trouble. There are at least 101 known points of contact between people associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government-linked individuals or entities from November of 2015 all the way up to January of 2017. That includes the Don Jr Trump Tower meeting that he took thinking they were going to give him dirt on Hillary Clinton. You can't sanitize this and act like these guys were doing nothing wrong. They were actively pursuing these leads. They just weren't successful at it. That's the reason the FBI was so concerned. and they should have been. If this was a Dem's campaign acting like this I feel you would see this a lot differently.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 7, 2020 14:01:45 GMT -5
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jan 17, 2020 21:11:43 GMT -5
Not weird or suspicious at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 20:40:13 GMT -5
|
|
AvantGuardHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something."
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by AvantGuardHoya on Aug 4, 2020 11:55:02 GMT -5
Clearly that review and statement is a whitewash. Ducks and runs for Covi... cover. ☻
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 11, 2020 11:01:40 GMT -5
Acting SG Jeffrey Wall getting beat up by DC Circuit in rehearing en banc in mandamus argument in Flynn. (Georgetown C '98) Judge Nina Pillard is a former professor at GULC. Sydney Powell, Flynn's personal attorney not very impressive IMO. Wall in response to a hypothetical by Judge Wilkins argues that even if a trial judge is apprised of fact that the dismissal of an indictment was the result of bribery, Rule 48(a) does not give the judge authority to deny the government's to dismiss. The "leave of court" language of the rule, in the view of Powell and DOJ, is almosr purely ministerial. 3 GOP appointed judges and only Henderson and Rao on the original panel seem to be going his way. Griffith, the other GOP appointee seemed skeptical and Judge Katsas (Trump appointee) recused himself I believe. Rao also Trump appointee and authored the split panel decision but she never worked at DOJ. I believe Katsas had some dealings in Civil Division with some Trump Russia matters which led to his recusal. Beth Wilkinson now up for Judge Sullivan. Argues "limited discretion" to deny motion. If it occurs, proceed to sentencing and then regular process of appeals. Wilkinson now being grilled on what Judge Sullivan's intent is if a hearing under Rule 48(a) is allowed to proceed. She suggests Sullivan's questioning would be "narrowly prescribed." Hearing now in its 3rd hour. Technical difficulties cut off Wilkinson! Now reconnected. Meeting in a rare full session, most members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voiced skepticism about preventing U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan from reviewing the government’s move to undo Flynn’s guilty plea of lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts before Trump took office in 2017. www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-bid-to-drop-criminal-case-against-michael-flynn-returns-to-court/2020/08/10/af06f540-db24-11ea-8051-d5f887d73381_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_flynn-740am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Aug 11, 2020 20:17:46 GMT -5
Acting SG Jeffrey Wall getting beat up by DC Circuit in rehearing en banc in mandamus argument in Flynn. (Georgetown C '98) Judge Nina Pillard is a former professor at GULC. Sydney Powell, Flynn's personal attorney not very impressive IMO. Wall in response to a hypothetical by Judge Wilkins argues that even if a trial judge is apprised of fact that the dismissal of an indictment was the result of bribery, Rule 48(a) does not give the judge authority to deny the government's to dismiss. The "leave of court" language of the rule, in the view of Powell and DOJ, is almosr purely ministerial. 3 GOP appointed judges and only Henderson and Rao on the original panel seem to be going his way. Griffith, the other GOP appointee seemed skeptical and Judge Katsas (Trump appointee) recused himself I believe. Rao also Trump appointee and authored the split panel decision but she never worked at DOJ. I believe Katsas had some dealings in Civil Division with some Trump Russia matters which led to his recusal. Beth Wilkinson now up for Judge Sullivan. Argues "limited discretion" to deny motion. If it occurs, proceed to sentencing and then regular process of appeals. Wilkinson now being grilled on what Judge Sullivan's intent is if a hearing under Rule 48(a) is allowed to proceed. She suggests Sullivan's questioning would be "narrowly prescribed." Hearing now in its 3rd hour. Technical difficulties cut off Wilkinson! Now reconnected. Meeting in a rare full session, most members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voiced skepticism about preventing U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan from reviewing the government’s move to undo Flynn’s guilty plea of lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts before Trump took office in 2017. www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-bid-to-drop-criminal-case-against-michael-flynn-returns-to-court/2020/08/10/af06f540-db24-11ea-8051-d5f887d73381_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_flynn-740am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ansJudge Katsas had best watch his back, since we know that "recusal" is a sign of weakness and treason to Scumbag Don.
|
|