Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Well, that was fun!

Now onto other news. Disgraced former FBI official Andrew McCabe who was very involved in the early stages of the Russia investigation finds himself under the microscope:



Grand jury investigates

No reason they could not broaden it to include the Lovers too right?

Lock 'em up!
Click to expand...
So an FBI investigation into McCabe and Strozk is a good thing. But an investigation into the Trump cabal is a bad thing? Nice to see your scepticism showing there TBD.
 
Parsman said:
So an FBI investigation into McCabe and Strozk is a good thing. But an investigation into the Trump cabal is a bad thing? Nice to see your scepticism showing there TBD.
Click to expand...

Amazeballs! A Rule of So and a tu quoque fallacy and a full serving of ridiculously ironic patronizing.Oh mercy, that was almost a Grand Salami!

Any comment about the article I linked or the Grand Jury investigation of McCabe?
 
The Big Dog said:
Where did you get the 7.7 million figure I originally quoted in my post?

:D:D:thumbsup::thumbsup::D:D
Click to expand...

You shouldn't have to ask that question since, unlike you, not only did I link to what I was quoting, I also quoted what I thought was relevant.

It's you who likes to caper around like a jester, not me.
 
The Big Dog said:
Grand jury investigates
Click to expand...

Good. As long as it's not influenced by partisanship, or pressure from any quarter to come to any particular conclusion, then this is entirely appropriate and right. That said, I think that article may well be right about the leaking of this news one month after the fact being an attempt at distraction.

No reason they could not broaden it to include the Lovers too right?
Click to expand...

Neither Page nor Strzok are implicated in anything related to this investigation. Page spoke to a reporter on McCabe's behalf, but there's no implication that she was in any way remiss in doing so.

I think, perhaps, what you mean is that there should be another separate investigation into them. Which, sure, if you think it's necessary - with exactly the same caveats as above, it would probably be a good thing.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. I'm saying that nailing people for lying to the FBI shouldn't be one of the primary tools in the FBI's toolkit. It shouldn't dominate the number of convictions they obtain, particularly in these sort of fishing expedition investigations. There's a very strong aspect of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" with how the FBI operates.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
In general? No, of course not.

In this specific case, of the 8 non-Russians charged so far as a result of the Mueller investigation, 5 of them have been charged with making false statements, and for three of them that was the only charge.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html
You can quibble about how exactly you want to do the counting, so if you want to say that's not a majority because you want to count the number of crimes charged rather than the people, go ahead. That's not a fight worth having to me. But such a heavy reliance on process charges is troubling.
Click to expand...

Maybe if lying to the FBI didn't "dominate" the number of statements made to the FBI by these crooks, then the charges of lying to the FBI wouldn't "dominate" the charges brought? Seriously - lawyers, lobbyists and politicians all knew damn well that lying to the FBI is a serious crime, and they did it anyway. Now I am supposed to care that some 3 out of the 8 Americans charged by Mueller's investigation (so far at this arbitrary point in time) have only been charged with a "process crime" for their part in this criminal affair. Well, boo hoo.
 
carlitos said:
Maybe if lying to the FBI didn't "dominate" the number of statements made to the FBI by these crooks, then the charges of lying to the FBI wouldn't "dominate" the charges brought? Seriously - lawyers, lobbyists and politicians all knew damn well that lying to the FBI is a serious crime, and they did it anyway. Now I am supposed to care that some 3 out of the 8 Americans charged by Mueller's investigation (so far at this arbitrary point in time) have only been charged with a "process crime" for their part in this criminal affair. Well, boo hoo.
Click to expand...
We're apparently supposed to believe that all of this lying is happening for inexplicable reasons other than to hide criminal acts.

Sticking it to the man or protecting friend or relative from consequences or whatever other loftily presented reasons one might rationalize for being deceptive just doesn't cut it.

Those are corrupt motives. They place personal gain (or mitigation of liability) ahead of social good.

I've lately been distancing myself from those who have been presenting such behavior as defensible (or even admirable). They've revealed who they really are in my mind.
 
Ziggurat, if someone lies* to the FBI while they are investigating something how should the FBI respond?

As a corollary, how should they treat other crimes they discover while investigating something?




*with all of the limitations laid out in the prior post that cited the statute, you know materiality and such. Not BS about how you pulled into the parking lot.
 
River said:
So congressmen, and former FBI officials are fabricating this "rumor" in your opinion?


Outgoing FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trey-g...uld-not-have-been-authorized-without-dossier/
Click to expand...


Did you, perhaps, cite that link by mistake?

The headline is;

Gowdy says surveillance warrant would not have been authorized without dossier
Click to expand...

... and goes on to lead with;

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, one of the four authors of the GOP memo released Friday, told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that he believes a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page would not have ever been authorized without the existence of the controversial "Steele dossier."
Click to expand...


Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is mentioned nowhere at all in the article.

Or are you confusing Trent Gowdy with Andrew McCabe?
 
quadraginta said:
Did you, perhaps, cite that link by mistake?

The headline is;

​

... and goes on to lead with;

​


Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is mentioned nowhere at all in the article.

Or are you confusing Trent Gowdy with Andrew McCabe?
Click to expand...

carlitos said:
I'll take "wrong things that Trey Gowdy believes" for $400, Alex.
Click to expand...

Oy vey, the article is about and links to the Nunes memo which says "Outgoing FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”

I'll take things that two minutes worth of research would have revealed for $800, Alex.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oy vey, the article is about and links to the Nunes memo which says "Outgoing FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”

I'll take things that two minutes worth of research would have revealed for $800, Alex.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised there are still people naive enough to think the Nunes memo has any legitimacy whatsoever.

I mean, even Nunes himself admitted he didn't see the intelligence he claimed to base his memo on.

LOL

(shaking my head)
 
Where in that article is the McCabe quote, as stated by himself and not simply paraphrased in the Nunes memo? I read the article twice, but I’m on my phone and can’t keyword search so maybe I missed it.
 
Last edited:
River said:
No. McCabe made the statement in a hearing. Search engines are your friend. Here is one source. (first hit on google for that line)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/16/politics/mccabe-republicans-trump-dossier/index.html
Click to expand...

You should probably read articles before posting them:

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview.
Click to expand...

Note that this is mutually exclusive with the claim, “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”
 
The Big Dog said:
Amazeballs! A Rule of So and a tu quoque fallacy and a full serving of ridiculously ironic patronizing.Oh mercy, that was almost a Grand Salami!

Any comment about the article I linked or the Grand Jury investigation of McCabe?
Click to expand...

You get that "The Rule Of So" is a figment of your imagination, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom