|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 12:57:05 GMT -5
Mueller kept Strozk and Page on the team until forced off by the fact that they exhibited bias against Trump. And now it turns out that top Mueller aide Weissman was in on the dossier as early as summer of 2016. And of course McCabe stayed on until fired for cause. So yes the "insurance policy crowd stayed on, and joined Muller members like Jennie Rhee: Wikipedia: "Previously, Rhee represented Hillary Clinton during the 2015 lawsuit regarding her private emails. Rhee also represented ex-Obama National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering case." With thousands of superbly qualified lawyers in and around DC, Mueller picks Rhee? And now about Weissman: "Mueller attorney praised Yates as DOJ official, email shows. www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/mueller-emails-praise-doj-yates/index.htmlWashington (CNN)A lawyer on the special counsel team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US election lavished praise on Sally Yates after her decision in January to defy President Donald Trump and not enforce his travel ban executive order, according to government emails published Tuesday by the conservative activist group Judicial Watch. "I am so proud," Andrew Weissman, then a top prosecutor in the Justice Department's criminal division, wrote to then-acting Attorney General Yates after the move. "And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects." Wut? This is innuendo, not proof. Can you define precisely what their "insurance policy" is? How does Weissmann praising Sally Yates for not enforcing a travel ban t= "the MCCabe/Strozk/Page insurance policy morphing into Mueller investigation.?" The Weissmann comments refer to the political bias on the Myeller team. Al a Jennie Rhee. Will respond re: insurance policy later . But in the meantime, Ponder the significance of Pete’s text to Lisa Where and he stated that around election time he had been in southern Virginia, and could smell the stench of Trump supporters. And then ask yourself, is this a truly objective investigator, or is it, perhaps, a person with an agenda? As a trial attorney with nearly 40 years of experience, we always look for bias on the part of a witness. Please tell me whether you believe, objectively, that comments like these, and many others, do not bear upon the credibility of, and integrity of, these people? |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 10:48:48 GMT -5
The Trump haters are in peak delusional status. The real and proven collusion with Russia was DNC/HRC-> Perkins Coie->Fusion GPS->Steele -> Russian sources. All to influence the election, with the added bonus of use of Obama US intelligence and law enforcement apparatus. And the MCCabe/Strozk/Page insurance policy morphing into Mueller investigation.JLD54: "I am a lawyer and was trained that person making a claim must prove it." Can you prove this? Mueller kept Strozk and Page on the team until forced off by the fact that they exhibited bias against Trump. And now it turns out that top Mueller aide Weissman was in on the dossier as early as summer of 2016. And of course McCabe stayed on until fired for cause. So yes the "insurance policy crowd stayed on, and joined Muller members like Jennie Rhee: Wikipedia: "Previously, Rhee represented Hillary Clinton during the 2015 lawsuit regarding her private emails. Rhee also represented ex-Obama National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering case." With thousands of superbly qualified lawyers in and around DC, Mueller picks Rhee? And now about Weissman: "Mueller attorney praised Yates as DOJ official, email shows. www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/mueller-emails-praise-doj-yates/index.htmlWashington (CNN)A lawyer on the special counsel team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US election lavished praise on Sally Yates after her decision in January to defy President Donald Trump and not enforce his travel ban executive order, according to government emails published Tuesday by the conservative activist group Judicial Watch. "I am so proud," Andrew Weissman, then a top prosecutor in the Justice Department's criminal division, wrote to then-acting Attorney General Yates after the move. "And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects." |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 10:39:45 GMT -5
I don’t know how one can read that comment from Mueller’s office and conclude that the report is false. It seems to me that there would be a much more decisive and definitive refutation if it was completely false. Instead, it’s a very carefully worded statement which reads to me like they are saying this is not all correct but not wrong either. Trump is still screwed. And Trump lovers will still refuse to believe it. Maybe he is screwed, but not from this Buzzfeed BS. But keep looking on the bright side, right? You are respectfully grasping at straws. |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 9:23:27 GMT -5
Mueller’s statement is much more interesting for what it does not say. Any Trump camp member taking solace in that statement is whistling past the graveyard. It is in no way any type of exoneration. From the Washington Post, no less: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.d03218cdd2aaSpecial counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s office on Friday denied an explosive report by BuzzFeed News that his investigators had gathered evidence showing President Trump directed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about a prospective business deal in Moscow. The statement was remarkable on several levels — first, the special counsel’s office speaks exceedingly rarely, and second, the statement seemed to drive a stake through a sensational allegation that Democratic lawmakers suggested earlier in the day could spell the end of the Trump presidency. As earthshaking as the claims in the story were, no other media organizations were able to match them. I suggest that this is not about taking solace in the Mueller statement. An objective observer can see that the MSM, Dems and this Board ran with with a story that was implausible on its face and required the extraordinary step of a public statement by the Special Counsel. Again this BS allows Trump to credibly claim "Fake News": @realdonaldtrump 11h11 hours ago More Fake News is truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! 31,558 replies 33,137 retweets 119,343 likes Reply 32K Retweet 33K Like 119K In line with the current craze of "what if, if true" speculation if Mueller has the dagger to destroy Orange Man, this ain't it!  |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 8:11:12 GMT -5
BREAKING NEWS: CNN - Mueller's office disputes BuzzFeed report that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.htmlSpecial counsel Robert Mueller's office is disputing a BuzzFeed report that President Donald Trump directed his then-personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the proposed Moscow Trump Tower project. "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement. Carr's statement is extremely rare. The special counsel's office has almost never commented on published stories. Weren't you just complaining about Mueller "leaking" (with no proof)? Now he makes a public statement, and you are bandying it about because it supports your point. I did not allege that Mueller was leaking, my statement was IF the story was true, his office had to be leaking, since the bogus sources were “people with knowledge of his investigation”. It turns out, as suspected, that the story was false, hence Mueller was not leaking. This is simple logic and nothing else. As stated above you are twisting yourself into pretzels. You all lapped up a BS story without question due to your hatred of Trump. The Columbia Journal stated well before this article that one of the authors was a “serial fabulist”, yet the board attacked in unison when I stated that there may be red flags. Did you ever stop to ask that if Trump suborned perjury, would Cohen be going to prison for years? Wouldn’t PROVEN subornation of perjury have caused Mueller to offer a much better deal, likely total immunity? Incidents like have happened time and time again over the past 2 to 3 years. Without exception, every story that is proven false is, of course, an anti– Trump story. Do you understand that when these things happen, and orange man screams “fake news”, he is correct? The publication of these lies and the spin of them in the media/Democratic Party echo chamber actually helps Trump. For instance, CNN ran this story nonstop all day yesterday. It was the lead story on all the TV shows. And, the headline yesterday in the New York Times was that the Democratic House announced that it will investigate this story. Now, not only does BuzzFeed have egg on his face, but so do CNN, the networks, and the Democrats. At this point this is very little about Trump and really about the degradation of the media. The legacy media is essentially propaganda— mainly for the left, but also with Fox propaganda on the right. One would think that a legacy media with any sense of self respect would verify a story, and make sure that it was air tight before publishing something that could arguably take down the president of the United States. But no, we have a 24 hour which went “Trump will be impeached” to “never mind“. |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 22:24:45 GMT -5
The only way Trump isn’t president after 2020 is if he dies. No chance he gets removed via impeachment, no chance he resigns, and no chance his true believers abandon him. So, let’s all hope for a massive heart attack soon. Yes, let’s blow up the White House, Madonna. 👍🎉🍺 |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 21:44:28 GMT -5
All I know is that you and many others here took at face value a report that had many red flags. I pointed out the questionable history of the author but many still defended the article. It said that Mueller has certain info; Mueller said no I don't. I agree with your advice that who to believe should be based upon the truth. The truth is Trump through Giuliani denied the report and Mueller did as well. When the hunter and the hunted agree that the Buzzdfeed story is nonsense I believe that. If if if... remember? Just a post above you accused Mueller of leaking to Buzzfeed based on nothing at all. Most of our posts are knocking down your weird conspiracy theories if your being honest with yourself. Wrong. I stated that the article was likely false, but IF TRUE, then once must conclude that Mueller was leaking. My Initial statement was proven true, by Mueller no less, so the alternative that Mueller was leaking is false. You are, respectfully, twisting yourself in knots. Why not just write this off to premature joy over your fervently desired demise of Orange Man...? |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 21:35:41 GMT -5
All I know is that you and many others here took at face value a report that had many red flags. I pointed out the questionable history of the author but many still defended the article. It said that Mueller has certain info; Mueller said no I don't.
I agree with your advice that who to believe should be based upon the truth. The truth is Trump through Giuliani denied the report and Mueller did as well. When the hunter and the hunted agree that the Buzzdfeed story is nonsense I believe that.
I have no posted a single statement that is not based on provable fact. I was told that the FBI investigation was not known before the election and was challenged to prove this with links. I then linked to the Corn and Isakoff articles which demonstrated this conclusively. So yes I can cite evidence to back up my statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 21:09:15 GMT -5
Breaking: I gues Mueller’s team didn’t leak to Buzzfeed despite previous claims. It also looks like Mueller’s team is dedicated to treating people fairly and not some hack job like what’s been alleged in the last few pages. All day on this site and in the media the narrative was that the Buzzfeed story was the end of the line for the President. I did not see anyone here bother to look at the background of the author. A quick internet search showed that there were red flags about the author's credibility -- from the Columbia Review, hardly a right-wing source! Hence the "if', if, if...", and "if the queen had xxx, she'd be king" comment. How many times have there been "bombshells" that spell the end, etc., and then are quickly debunked? But people bite every single time. I submit that the media has so degraded itself in the past few years that its credibility is in serious doubt permanently. |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 19:57:44 GMT -5
BREAKING NEWS: CNN - Mueller's office disputes BuzzFeed report that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.htmlSpecial counsel Robert Mueller's office is disputing a BuzzFeed report that President Donald Trump directed his then-personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the proposed Moscow Trump Tower project. "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement. Carr's statement is extremely rare. The special counsel's office has almost never commented on published stories. |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 19:21:11 GMT -5
Not to burst your bubbles, but check out the Columbia Journalism review about Buzz-Feed author Leopold: Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again archives.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php"We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and s erial fabulist Jason Leopold. Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who w as caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, self-admittedly “getting it completely wrong” in pieces for Dow Jones, and h ad his own memoir cancelled because of concerns over the accuracy of quotations." And who else but Mueller team would be leaking this, if the sources are so credible? Just saying... |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 18:49:36 GMT -5
Fox News' Chris Wallace on the BuzzFeed report: If true, "it’s the kind of thing that could get you impeached.” Have you checked up on the dubious history of one of the authors? Caught twice for false reporting including that Dick Cheney was indicted! And the other author says that he had not seen any documentary proof but has sources well connected to Mueller. If the latter is true, why is Mueller team leaking to shady outfit like BuzzFeed? |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 18:43:16 GMT -5
Fox News' Chris Wallace on the BuzzFeed report: If true, "it’s the kind of thing that could get you impeached.” If, if, if...sigh And if queen had xxxxx, she would be king... |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 17:34:30 GMT -5
You are simply wrong on your chronology. There was a vague letter from Reid that said nothing. Please link to any source indicating that the American electorate was aware that the Trump campaign was under a counterintelligence investigation PRIOR to the election. The DHS had reported that Russia was interfering in October 2016 and McConnell refused to issue any joint statement with DHS. Neither said Trump was involved. But Trump did publicly call for Russia to release HRC's emails which clearly looks incriminating in light of the investigation. I'm done engaging with someone who lacks the basic facts of what had occurred. In response to your request to "...Please link to any source indicating that the American electorate was aware that the Trump campaign was under a counterintelligence investigation PRIOR to the election': Michael Isakov, Yahoo News, 19/23/16 www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html"U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials — including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue" David Korn, Mother Jones, 10/31/2016 www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/On Monday, [10/31]NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chief. But Reid’s recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump— and that the FBI requested more information from him.
So, my friend, the American electorate was aware of the investigations before the election. Steele was the source of the two above articles and the FBI supposedly terminated him because of this. But Bruce Ohr -- #4 in DOJ and spouse of GPS Fusion operative Nellie Ohr -- continued the relationship and continued to feed Steele info to the investigators nonetheless. Please John Solomon;s article in The HIll, hardly a right-wing rag! thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425739-fisa-shocker-doj-official-warned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 16:01:17 GMT -5
You did not answer the question. Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that there was counterintelligence investigation against Trump campaign and/or its aides PRIOR to the election? That would have been the simplest way to attempt to stop Trump from becoming President -- yet no one in the FBI did so despite the fevered Trump cultisits belief in the "deep state." And who say anything about Comey leaking -- clearly, Strzok and Page were the ones to do this if there was this vast "deep state" conspiracy to prevent Trump's election. The "insurance policy" text message was August 16, 2016, predating the election. Strzok testified in a public hearing that it wasn't to stop Trump from becoming President but that it simply meant that the investigation would continue. Why keep that in your pocket if you could simply leak the fact of the investigation to blow up Trump's campaign, as Comey did in his ill-advised press conferences about Clinton's emails? From the Inspector General's Report on Stzok/Page and whether there was improper bias in the investigation (it concluded there was not but I guess the IG is simply part of the "deep state" right, for you Trump cultists): “Strzok said the reference in his text message to an ‘insurance policy’ reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win,” the report reads. www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.be6f72ab09a7Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote. www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policyIf Strzok is so pure and credible why did Mueller’s team delete all of his emails from the time he served with Mueller - and Lisa Page’s as well. We will never know what the these two were saying, as we will never see the 30,000 emails that Clinton deleted and bleachbit despite the fact that they were under Federal subpoena. If my client unilaterally told the Judge that he/she/it unilaterally decided what was relevant destroyed evidence under subpoena severe sanctions would ensue. It is clear that millions including the posters on this string despise Trump. But does this hatred justify the conduct of Comey/McCabe et al? |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 15:55:23 GMT -5
You did not answer the question. Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that there was counterintelligence investigation against Trump campaign and/or its aides PRIOR to the election? That would have been the simplest way to attempt to stop Trump from becoming President -- yet no one in the FBI did so despite the fevered Trump cultisits belief in the "deep state." And who say anything about Comey leaking -- clearly, Strzok and Page were the ones to do this if there was this vast "deep state" conspiracy to prevent Trump's election. The "insurance policy" text message was August 16, 2016, predating the election. Strzok testified in a public hearing that it wasn't to stop Trump from becoming President but that it simply meant that the investigation would continue. Why keep that in your pocket if you could simply leak the fact of the investigation to blow up Trump's campaign, as Comey did in his ill-advised press conferences about Clinton's emails? From the Inspector General's Report on Stzok/Page and whether there was improper bias in the investigation (it concluded there was not but I guess the IG is simply part of the "deep state" right, for you Trump cultists): “Strzok said the reference in his text message to an ‘insurance policy’ reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win,” the report reads. www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.be6f72ab09a7Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote. www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policyI answered the question. The FBI did not have to leak because Steele and Harry Reid had already put this out into the public domain. Did you read the David Koran Mother Jones article and Michael Isakov article on this? Did you read Harry Reid’s letter to Congress about this? And this was well before the election. These are publicly available facts. |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 14:04:37 GMT -5
Comey did not have to leak. His extension Steele did so to david Korn n and Isakov, and Harry Reid wrote to Congress about it as well. All before the election.
What is your explanation for the Strok Page MCCabe insurance policy references?
|
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 12:24:01 GMT -5
Read the facts in the Strassel article — then respond. You say they did not spy on Trymp, just his associates. Are you OK with spying on the Dem staff but not the candidate without a valid basis to do so? And the problem with the dossier is that Comey himself admitted it was unverified when they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on American citizens. I have a problem. With spying on Americans no matter how unsavory they may be unless there is a proven basis to do so. FISA was intended to surveil foreign actors and one can do this to citizens under limited circumstances. One would hope that US law enforcement would take this extraordinarily step only with sound verification of allegations. I have seen no evidence that this happened and rely upon the sworn testimony of Comey that the dossier was not verified. It is not a partisan position to believe this. You need corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. True or false? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Yes you need proof. Problem is that the FBI director testify none of that the dossier was not verified. |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 11:32:24 GMT -5
Read Kim Strassel’s article today in the WSJ. Hardly a pro-Trump publication. Then tell me you are OK with what Bruce Ohr revealed about the conduct of the FBI. To be clear I did not support or vote for Trump in 2020. I abstained. But I have major issues with the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ behavior as a matter of civil liberties. Loretta Lynch meeting the prime suspect’s husband for 30 minutes on a plane on a tarmac in Phoenix and few days before Coney exonerates her? Do you really think that will need discussed or “golf and grandchildren”? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. How are you talking about partisan opinions and telling me to check out Kim Strassel's article? How about we discuss what's in front of us..... They didn't spy on Trump. They spied on members of his campaign, Manafort, Page, and Papadopolous. You have to have corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. It can't be based solely on the dossier. How are you a lawyer, but you're getting basic facts about the case wrong? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Care to respond? Read the facts in the Strassel article — then respond. You say they did not spy on Trymp, just his associates. Are you OK with spying on the Dem staff but not the candidate without a valid basis to do so? And the problem with the dossier is that Comey himself admitted it was unverified when they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on American citizens. I have a problem. With spying on Americans no matter how unsavory they may be unless there is a proven basis to do so. FISA was intended to surveil foreign actors and one can do this to citizens under limited circumstances. One would hope that US law enforcement would take this extraordinarily step only with sound verification of allegations. I have seen no evidence that this happened and rely upon the sworn testimony of Comey that the dossier was not verified. It is not a partisan position to believe this. |
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 11:21:41 GMT -5
Worst case scenario, you get Pence. From what I understand Pence doesn't spend 6 hrs a day watching tv and another 3 tweeting. He probably does more to push the agenda you're in favor of, and at least we know he's loyal to the United States. Just saying... Read Kim Strassel’s article today in the WSJ. Hardly a pro-Trump publication. Then tell me you are OK with what Bruce Ohr revealed about the conduct of the FBI. To be clear I did not support or vote for Trump in 2016. I abstained. But I have major issues with the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ behavior as a matter of civil liberties. Loretta Lynch meeting the prime suspect’s husband for 30 minutes on a plane on a tarmac in Phoenix a few days before Coney exonerates her? Do you really think that they only discussed or “golf and grandchildren”? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. Why wasn’t Bill C. investigated for obstruction of justice?under Mueller’s standards wouldn’t this happen? |
|
