• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

All things Trump + Russia Part 4

shuttlt said:
Your quote says the investigation was "initially justified". Then they lied on multiply FISA applications after they were informed he was a CIA source and fabricated a statement from the CIA to cover this up. Your source doesn't say that he lied.
Click to expand...
Crikey. We're solidly in Hymie-the-Robot realm here. (see sig) For the youngsters, that is a realm based on hyper literalism.

While "my source" -- aka the official report released by the GOP controlled senate after an investigation -- didn't use the word lie, they made it perfectly clear, at least to non-Hymie adherents.
 
varwoche said:
Crikey. We're solidly in Hymie-the-Robot realm here. (see sig) For the youngsters, that is a realm based on hyper literalism.

While "my source" -- aka the official report released by the GOP controlled senate after an investigation -- didn't use the word lie, they made it perfectly clear, at least to non-Hymie adherents.
Click to expand...
OK. So are we agreed about the "initial justification" thing going out the window once they were told he was a CIA source and the FBI began misleading the FISA court and fabricating evidence?

I'm happy to agree that he stonewalled the FBI. Maybe he'd gotten it into his head that they didn't like Trump very much, and was concerned they were on a fishing expedition to get to him? Maybe he didn't want to discuss what he'd been doing with the CIA? Maybe he was up to no good?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...rt-on-trump-and-russia-is-a-triumph-for-truth

The Senate Report on the connections between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia makes it clear that everyone who claims that this was just a Hoax is a motivated lair.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf


For all intents and purposes, Manafort was working for Russia, and Trump jr. and Roger Stone where seeking aid from Russia to get dirt on HRC.
Also, Trump was aware that Putin was using the Trump Tower Moscow as leverage.
Trump lied to Mueller about his knowledge about upcoming WikiLeaks.

Trump voters must think it's great that he get Russian support.

Fox is going into overdrive, never quoting the Report but only what Trump Toadies say about it.
Click to expand...

And, to be clear, the committee was bipartisan, and lead by Republican Marco Rubio.
 
shuttlt said:
Your quote says the investigation was "initially justified". Then they lied on multiply FISA applications after they were informed he was a CIA source and fabricated a statement from the CIA to cover this up. "Initially justified" doesn't contradict the idea that they didn't have a justification by the time they got to the FISA applications. Your source doesn't say that he lied.
Click to expand...

So I called the police on my ex-wife claiming that she stole money from me. The police believed me and searched her house. They found dead corpses of children that she'd killed over the last decade but released her because they didn't find the money she'd stolen from me.......and that's ok in your world...
 
thaiboxerken said:
So I called the police on my ex-wife claiming that she stole money from me. The police believed me and searched her house. They found dead corpses of children that she'd killed over the last decade but released her because they didn't find the money she'd stolen from me.......and that's ok in your world...
Click to expand...
The problem with your hypothetical comparison is that the police can't be held responsible for a lie told to them by you; if they used the information provided to them to obtain a warrant and did so in good faith, whatever evidence they find while executing that warrant would be admissible. On the other hand, if the police knowingly lied to get the warrant, any evidence they found (including the dead children) would be inadmissible (against your hypothetical ex-wife at least) because the proverbial tree was poisoned.
 
Babbylonian said:
On the other hand, if the police knowingly lied to get the warrant, any evidence they found (including the dead children) would be inadmissible (against your hypothetical ex-wife at least) because the proverbial tree was poisoned.
Click to expand...
It's only a problem for getting a conviction, not for ascertaining whether your ex-wife is a serial killer or not.

In my world it's not 'OK' for a serial killer to get off on a technicality.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
It's only a problem for getting a conviction, not for ascertaining whether your ex-wife is a serial killer or not.

In my world it's not 'OK' for a serial killer to get off on a technicality.
Click to expand...


The thing is, it only seems to be a (Booo!!!) "technicality"(/Booo!!!) when someone is found not guilty that you (generic you) believe should have been convicted.

If the situation is reversed those technicalities are seen as the valuable core of our system of justice. You know, the "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent ..." part.

Evidentiary limits developed specifically because evidence collection and presentation practices had been so horribly and even corruptly abused for so long. It wasn't some sort of lily-livered Leebral thinking that formed them. It was a sober and painfully drawn-out development of solutions to a critical need.

It doesn't hurt to remember that when one of those "ten guilty" goes free. It's a price we pay, but not all that large in the greater scheme of things.

Unless, of course, you are of the "Oh well. Collateral damage. Can't make an omelet ..." persuasion when it comes to justice.
 
Last edited:
The Trump Campaign Manager, hired by Trump, was directly working with Kremlin agents.

What extra justification, exactly, do you need to keep investigating the campaign?
How would it not a huge risk to National Security NOT to further investigate?
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
It's only a problem for getting a conviction, not for ascertaining whether your ex-wife is a serial killer or not.

In my world it's not 'OK' for a serial killer to get off on a technicality.
Click to expand...
In my world, Quadraginta said it well above.

The general contempt for "legal technicalities" is, mainly, a result of police officers (both real and on TV) whining that they have to know too much law to do their jobs and, as a corollary, that they should be able to cut a few corners to catch criminals if they know they're guilty.

Seriously, what's the point of a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure if there aren't defined limits on the government's ability to conduct search and seizure? The government should not profit from a search warrant based on a lie, especially one told by a law enforcement officer. That seems pretty straightforward and acceptable to me, even if the application of the rule results in some undesirable outcomes.
 
quadraginta said:
The thing is, it only seems to be a (Booo!!!) "technicality"(/Booo!!!) when someone is found not guilty that you (generic you) believe should have been convicted.
Click to expand...
Yes. If the crime was committed then someone should have been convicted.

If the situation is reversed those technicalities are seen as the valuable core of our system of justice. You know, the "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent ..." part.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. An innocent person shouldn't need technicalities to 'get off' a conviction. Even worse, it can make a person technically guilty of a crime they didn't intentionally commit.

Evidentiary limits developed specifically because evidence collection and presentation practices had been so horribly and even corruptly abused for so long.
Click to expand...
The proper answer to that is to eliminate the corruption and abuse, not make true justice even harder to achieve.

It doesn't hurt to remember that when one of those "ten guilty" goes free. It's a price we pay, but not all that large in the greater scheme of things.
Click to expand...
It's a price we shouldn't have to pay, and it's much larger than you think. It actually results in greater miscarriage of justice. Not only do more of the guilty get off, but more innocents get wrongly convicted because the police have to work with less reliable evidence.

Unless, of course, you are of the "Oh well. Collateral damage. Can't make an omelet ..." persuasion when it comes to justice.
Click to expand...
No, you are the one advocating breaking eggs (letting criminals run free) to make an omelet (get justice for innocents).
 
*sigh*

DOJ in '17 secretly curtailed FBI counterintel investigation of Trump financial/personal ties to Russia. DOJ concealed this from FBI at time, leaving FBI w/ impression Mueller would do it. But Mueller ultimately didn't.
Click to expand...
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I'd love some more details on this, but it would explain a lot.
Click to expand...

Like this: NYT: Justice Dept. Never Fully Examined Trump’s Ties to Russia, Ex-Officials Say
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department secretly took steps in 2017 to narrow the investigation into Russian election interference and any links to the Trump campaign, according to former law enforcement officials, keeping investigators from completing an examination of President Trump’s decades-long personal and business ties to Russia.

The special counsel who finished the investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, secured three dozen indictments and convictions of some top Trump advisers, and he produced a report that outlined Russia’s wide-ranging operations to help get Mr. Trump elected and the president’s efforts to impede the inquiry.

But law enforcement officials never fully investigated Mr. Trump’s own relationship with Russia, even though some career F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators thought his ties posed such a national security threat that they took the extraordinary step of opening an inquiry into them. Within days, the former deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein curtailed the investigation without telling the bureau, all but ensuring it would go nowhere....
Click to expand...


Sigh....
 
Yeah, in his Report, Mueller did seem to leave a lot of breadcrumbs to follow up on, and in his testimony he did hammer home the fact that they were only looking at crimes and left the other stuff tot he FBI.

But that means that currently, the FBI is sitting on a trove of evidence against Trump, which might explain why Wray gets away with giving Trump so little public support.
 
Donald Trump casts doubt on Navalny poisoning, saying US 'hasn't had any proof'

US president says media should be asking about China rather than Russia despite global condemnation of attack

President Donald Trump said the United States must look “very seriously” into the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, but that his administration had not yet seen any proof.

“I think we have to look at it very seriously, if it’s the case,” he said, before talking at length about his diplomatic efforts in North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation in Russia. “I don’t know exactly what happened. It’s tragic. It’s terrible, it shouldn’t happen. We haven’t had any proof yet, but I will take a look.

“It is interesting that everybody’s always mentioning Russia … but I think probably China at this point is a nation that you should be talking about much more so than Russia.”
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Putin's puppet strikes again.
 
President Donald Trump has refused to condemn Russia over the poisoning of opposition figure Alexei Navalny, saying he had not seen proof.

He said the case was "tragic" but urged reporters to focus instead on China, which he said was a bigger threat to the world than Russia.

Speaking at a press event on Friday, he said he had yet to see evidence of poisoning in the case.
"So I don't know exactly what happened. I think it's tragic, it's terrible, it shouldn't happen. We haven't had any proof yet but I will take a look," he said.

He also stopped short of criticising Mr Putin and said Beijing posed a greater threat.

"It is interesting that everybody's always mentioning Russia and I don't mind you mentioning Russia but I think probably China at this point is a nation that you should be talking about much more so," he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54039710
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom