Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

Anastasis' over-arching problem here is his utter disdain for surveillance activities.  There is absolutely nothing in his mind that would justify law enforcement surveillance of a private citizen, and so to argue these points with him is a fruitless endeavor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anastasis' over-arching problem here is his utter disdain for surveillance activities.  There is absolutely nothing in his mind that would justify law enforcement surveillance of a private citizen, and so to argue these points with him is a fruitless endeavor.

This.  The FBI could have caught someone who murdered his mother, but if they did it using not exactly the spot on, correct protocol he would waive it away.  Right Anastasis?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  The FBI could have caught someone who murdered his mother, but if they did it using not exactly the spot on, correct protocol he would waive it away.  Right Anastasis?

what if the murderer and his buddies broke the law 50x covering it up?

nothing to see here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anastasis' over-arching problem here is his utter disdain for surveillance activities.  There is absolutely nothing in his mind that would justify law enforcement surveillance of a private citizen, and so to argue these points with him is a fruitless endeavor.

 

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  The FBI could have caught someone who murdered his mother, but if they did it using not exactly the spot on, correct protocol he would waive it away.  Right Anastasis?

Well, it is true that I don't like it when people shit on the 4th Amendment.  I am able however to draw some distinction between specific instances of domestic crimes such as matricide and large scale mass domestic data collection and intrusive targeted surveillance activities undertaken on the basis of secret ex parte court orders.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, henrygandorf said:

what if the murderer and his buddies broke the law 50x covering it up?

nothing to see here?

For the record, I have stated that Trump should be impeached and removed from office on the basis of the obstruction evidence. Just so we are clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

For the record, I have stated that Trump should be impeached and removed from office on the basis of the obstruction evidence. Just so we are clear. 

You should probably just make that a post sig at this point 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I don't have any issue with political opposition research.  All part of the game.  It's a different matter though when that material gets inserted into the surveillance apparatus and used to justify surveillance operations against US persons.

This is about Trump.  The issue is accepting goods from a foreign power to influence an election.  You can pay for oppo research at a fair market price - even if the services provided are from outside the US.  

Trump was briefed during the campaign that Russia was attacking our election.  During that time there were greater than 100 personal contacts with Russians all of which were initially denied and lied about by Trump and others.  Russian cutout Wikileaks timed the release of stolen emails to maximize effect on American voters, and evidence Mueller has shows Trump campaign officials communicated about instructing Roger Stone to reach out to Wikileaks about how to further the benefit.

What was the fair market priceTrump campaign paid for all of that ? 

Initial payment was, within hours of being sworn in, Trump stampeding to lift sanctions on Russia.  

Everything Trump says about this, including last week with George Steph, is pure gaslighting.  100% deception and lying to cover up his illegal acts.  He is compromised.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Trump was briefed during the campaign that Russia was attacking our election.  During that time there were greater than 100 personal contacts with Russians all of which were initially denied and lied about by Trump and others.  Russian cutout Wikileaks timed the release of stolen emails to maximize effect on American voters, and evidence Mueller has shows Trump campaign officials communicated about instructing Roger Stone to reach out to Wikileaks about how to further the benefit.

This right here, by itself, should be enough to bury this president.  These are facts.  And yet here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

This is about Trump.  The issue is accepting goods from a foreign power to influence an election.  You can pay for oppo research at a fair market price - even if the services provided are from outside the US.  

Trump was briefed during the campaign that Russia was attacking our election.  During that time there were greater than 100 personal contacts with Russians all of which were initially denied and lied about by Trump and others.  Russian cutout Wikileaks timed the release of stolen emails to maximize effect on American voters, and evidence Mueller has shows Trump campaign officials communicated about instructing Roger Stone to reach out to Wikileaks about how to further the benefit.

What was the fair market priceTrump campaign paid for all of that ? 

Initial payment was, within hours of being sworn in, Trump stampeding to lift sanctions on Russia.  

Everything Trump says about this, including last week with George Steph, is pure gaslighting.  100% deception and lying to cover up his illegal acts.  He is compromised.

And yet, for some of us, the idea that the answer could be so plain and out in the open is impossible to accept. The truth must be something deeper, more nuanced -- something only our clever minds could perceive.

Yeah, this is gonna go right over his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:


A US political party hires a foreign spy, who pays off Russian intelligence operatives for information. Those Russian sources provide him with pivotal pieces of disinformation forming a narrative of sophisticated coordination and collusion between Russia and a Presidential campaign, which the foreign spy combines with other streams of information collected from media, google, and other sources. This work product is inserted into the FBI through a process outside the normal SOPs via the law firm representing the political party, by individuals in the media, and via state department intermediaries. This material is ultimately used by the FBI to bolster applications for the most aggressive and intrusive forms of US surveillance against an American person, allowing them to capture not only the communications of an individual associated with the campaign of a candidate for president, but also 2-3 degrees of separation. This information continues to be used even after the FBI assesses that the Russian sources were unreliable. The FBI includes a few footnotes with vague descriptions describing the provenance of the material, so it's all above board. This material is further deployed by individuals associated with the US intelligence community to spin up public perception around the legitimacy of the election of that candidate.

 

But that's all totally cool and legal cause a FMV assessment was conducted when the US political party hired the spy through their legal representation. What a world.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Delusion was believing that the Trump campaign had the capability of sophisticated coordination amongst themselves, much less the capability of coordinating a sophisticated and multifaceted international conspiracy related to brokerage rights and organization of on the ground operations and funding of Russian hacking activities.

No it isn't. It's the same stale drama queen playbook insinuating something nefarious is occurring due to Mueller not being able to tack a 38th indictment in addition to his extraordinary 37 indictments on a C list actor who's surrounded by people indicted or going to prison.

Edited by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Cool. I'm good with 50/50 as long as all in the justice system who viewed the breadth of evidence vetted it to justify an investigation and subsequent warrants. My assumption is that it was all above board. 

Yeah, so I ain't good with 50/50. Totally not good with a coin flip on the probable cause being met to initiate intrusive surveillance against even a lower level individual associated with a candidate for President. Which given the hop rules gives them capability to surveil communications of individuals at the top of the campaign if not the candidate themselves. The potential for abuse is just far too high. And while I appreciate that you are willing to make an exception for Trump in this situation, I really don't think that you are good with that standard either.  If this would have occurred under the Bush administration, targeting Obama for ties to "radicals" and "foreign influence" drummed up by the RNC during an election campaign, for example, most of the people here calling me names would have been losing their minds. In fact, many of them were speaking out consistently against far less significant IC abuses under Bush. So was I. As far as the assumption that all was above board, yeah, I've heard that one a lot here, between the name calling. We'll see. A few different reports incoming. I'll be here to take my lumps if my wingnuts are showing. We'll see how many of the posters who have told me that everything was 100% by the book are, if it shakes out otherwise.  If recent history is indication, there are few who will have the integrity to stand up and own their nonsense. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, so I ain't good with 50/50. Totally not good with a coin flip on the probable cause being met to initiate intrusive surveillance against even a lower level individual associated with a candidate for President. Which given the hop rules gives them capability to surveil communications of individuals at the top of the campaign if not the candidate themselves. The potential for abuse is just far too high. And while I appreciate that you are willing to make an exception for Trump in this situation, I really don't think that you are good with that standard either.  If this would have occurred under the Bush administration, targeting Obama for ties to "radicals" and "foreign influence" drummed up by the RNC during an election campaign, for example, most of the people here calling me names would have been losing their minds. In fact, many of them were speaking out consistently against far less significant IC abuses under Bush. So was I. As far as the assumption that all was above board, yeah, I've heard that one a lot here, between the name calling. We'll see. A few different reports incoming. I'll be here to take my lumps if my wingnuts are showing. We'll see how many of the posters who have told me that everything was 100% by the book are, if it shakes out otherwise.  If recent history is indication, there are few who will have the integrity to stand up and own their nonsense. 

If an outgoing President discusses an effort by a hostile power with incoming candidates, and those candidates don't do everything to be transparent to the authorities of any and all communications with said hostile power....let alone publicly advocating for that hostile power to assist them by breaking a law.....expect an investigation. And it would be fully warranted. You are filling the non-public knowledge gaps of this timeline with conspiracy and nefarious intent by a whole group of individuals and organizations. Your assumption would be much harder to pull off without a whistleblower than the more conservative assumption of the process acting mostly as intended with the crazy situation at hand. 

Do you content that Manafort didn't provide polling data to Russia? That Trump didn't publicly request assistance(even jokingly)? That his son didn't go after a meeting to talk about help? That individuals in his campaign didn't have connections with Russia? All things neglected to be provided to the authorities whenever told of the actions of Russia. Trump acted in his own self interest, over the countries security, and that made all eyes be on him. An investigation rightly ensued. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

39 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

An investigation rightly ensued.

I don't have a problem with the investigation that ensued post election. As I said at the time it was initiated back on the scat site. I think that a full investigation that examined all efforts to influence the 2016 election campaign was warranted, and that the results of that investigation and all underlying supporting evidence should be fully disclosed to the American people in unclassified form. If gallows were warranted based on the findings, we should set them up in front of the capitol. 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? Are you also good with that same standard when the American citizen is associated with a political campaign, or when politically motivated but unverified intelligence work product is used to push the application beyond the coin flip standard?

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I don't have a problem with the investigation that ensued post election. As I said at the time it was initiated back on the scat site. I think that a full investigation that examined all efforts to influence the 2016 election campaign was warranted, and that the results of that investigation and all underlying supporting evidence should be fully disclosed to the American people in unclassified form. If gallows were warranted based on the findings, we should set them up in front of the capitol. 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? Are you also good with that same standard when the American citizen is associated with a political campaign, or when politically motivated but unverified intelligence work product is used to push the application beyond the coin flip standard?

What have you done to lobby your elected representatives to change the FISA procedures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? 

There's a one in two chance surveillance will be warranted to apply for FISA measures? 

 

I'm going go with yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the right answer to the 50-50 odds. Thinking out loud, the bar should be pretty low for eyebrows being raised when a candidate becomes entangled with a foreign power. I think we all agree the the bulk of the smarts was on the Russian side in this arrangement, while Trump/Manafort/Stone/Cohen certainly knew how to be scumbags and play in the gray area. If a candidate receives foreign help and is elected, it's very difficult for him/her to be removed, as we're experiencing now.

Maybe FISA applications for candidates should undergo a different examination with more eyeballs on the approval process? It's sad that this would need to be codified.

Whatever the end result, the FBI director or similar doesn't need to be holding ham-handed press conferences to 'clear' certain candidates while staying mum on others. That can't happen ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Maybe presidents should be able to pass a background check for manning a silo 

If the USA survives his play time in the WH, I'm sure that will be on a long list of rules that actually have to be written into law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You defined the idiotic 50-50 standard.

 

What's yours?

Actually, Sally Moyers in House testimony said that the application was 50/50 in terms of probability of meeting the PC standard.  I think wires are getting crossed in the translation of what that actually means. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

I don't have a problem with the investigation that ensued post election. As I said at the time it was initiated back on the scat site. I think that a full investigation that examined all efforts to influence the 2016 election campaign was warranted, and that the results of that investigation and all underlying supporting evidence should be fully disclosed to the American people in unclassified form. If gallows were warranted based on the findings, we should set them up in front of the capitol. 

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute? Are you also good with that same standard when the American citizen is associated with a political campaign, or when politically motivated but unverified intelligence work product is used to push the application beyond the coin flip standard?

1. We are using this coin flip standard based on one person's understanding of the situation

2. I don't think there is a playbook for the situation that happened. It is completely plausible corners were cut or protocol broken but within good intent to protect the country. Now that has a lot of grey area, I get that. But, you are wanting to assume towards the most nefarious of the grey. 

And when you needle these types of issues during a time where the president is the most immediate risk to our nation, your argument seems disingenuous. 

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Now back to surveillance of US citizens and probable cause for a moment, if we can. 

Are you good or not good with a coin flip probable cause standard to initiate intrusive surveillance against an American citizen, with a few degrees of separation rolled in, under the FISA statute?

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, @Anastasis isn't accurately representing what Sally Moyer said.  Funny how that works.

She said for HER it was 51/49 or 50/50 without the dossier.  She also admitted other officials felt the warrant was justified without the dossier, and that with the dossier, she felt the warrant was more than sufficient.

So, what we have here is someone cherry-picking statements from a single official to try to sway the argument, with full knowledge that this particular officials' perspective wasn't necessarily widespread.  Like a Trumpkin would do.

Foxy lady

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Actually, Sally Moyers in House testimony said that the application was 50/50 in terms of probability of meeting the PC standard.  I think wires are getting crossed in the translation of what that actually means. 

Well.....

 

Sounds Super Scandalous! Waaaay more scandalous than anything else going on right now...

 

I dunno... I'm bored.... maybe we should look in to this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun day on the thread guys.  We've seen a consensus reached that no longer is probable cause the standard for engaging invasive surveillance; we've reduced it to being ok with a 50/50 coin flip that probable cause was established.  Good evening gentlemen. 

tenor.gif?itemid=4268615

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

Fun day on the thread guys.  We've seen a consensus reached that no longer is probable cause the standard for engaging invasive surveillance; we've reduced it to being ok with a 50/50 coin flip that probable cause was established.  Good evening gentlemen. 

You could actually try the truth.  I mean, you're getting virtually everything wrong, and most of it you're getting wrong on purpose.  We call that "gaslighting".  It puts you in really shitty company.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Fun day on the thread guys.  We've seen a consensus reached that no longer is probable cause the standard for engaging invasive surveillance; we've reduced it to being ok with a 50/50 coin flip that probable cause was established.  Good evening gentlemen. 

tenor.gif?itemid=4268615

Nope. Probable cause is the standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That said, @Anastasis isn't accurately representing what Sally Moyer said.  Funny how that works.

She said for HER it was 51/49 or 50/50 without the dossier.  She also admitted other officials felt the warrant was justified without the dossier, and that with the dossier, she felt the warrant was more than sufficient.

 So, what we have here is someone cherry-picking statements from a single official to try to sway the argument, with full knowledge that this particular officials' perspective wasn't necessarily widespread.  Like a Trumpkin would do.

 Foxy lady

I quoted her testimony up thread. I followed up by characterizing her testimony as "according to Sally Moyer, the probable cause was a 50/50 51/49 proposition without the material, in her assessment." Which resulted in the response "Cool. I'm good with 50/50 as long as all in the justice system who viewed the breadth of evidence vetted it to justify an investigation and subsequent warrants. My assumption is that it was all above board." As far as the wide spread nature of her view, I will note that Baker has refused to characterize his assessment of the probable cause without the dossier material during congressional testimony, as well as in public events. We'll see how it all shakes out soon enough.  Looks like OIG report will be delayed from the May/June time frame previously reported.  Taking a little longer than expected to write up that executive summary concluding that everything was 100% by the book. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...