What's new
By:
Filters

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
Harambe said:
Change my mind. I JUST, minutes ago, eyeballed the wiki's for it. No, that's not enough, so I clicked a bunch of the links at the bottom, too. Many were not from a biased source.

Help me see it your way.
Click to expand...
You said they were only investigating a couple of suspect texts. They are looking at the FISA warrant applications and hearings to determine how the decision was made to spy on American citizens. They are looking at the dossier to determine its origins. They are investigating what weight the dossier was given in the FISA court and whether the fact that the author of the dossier admitted that it was unverified information in advance of the application was communicated to the judge. They are asking why the dossier was marked as verified once the warrant was issued even though we are unaware that it ever was. They are looking into the claim that the investigation originated as an "insurance policy." They are undoubtedly looking at numerous other curious things about the origin and history of the investigation as well.
 
One Brow said:
Actually, he misread one of his keys. His system predicted a popular vote win for Clinton (which happened, just like his system predicted the popular vote for Gore in 2000).

He describes his prediction here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rrectly/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b0837d28140

Note the sixth key is dependent on Johnson getting over 5% of the vote. Johnson actually got 3.27% of the vote.
Click to expand...
I can't see the article through the paywall though the title seems to suggest that he predicted a Trump win. Other articles also say he predicted a Trump win. Your claim seems odd because he is not correcting people who claim that he correctly predicted a Trump win, but whatever.
 
The Thriller said:
Wow. Does even Hannity believe this? How can you say this with a straight face?

Click to expand...


Hannity is right on the trail of the crooked Dems. He has been spot on for the last couple years about this whole Russia scandal. Why would you doubt him now?

Its weird that no matter how many times your peeps are wrong you still believe them, and no matter how many time the people you dont like get it right you continue to doubt them? Doesnt it get old being wrong. Cmon join the good guys already.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I think it's impossible to judge Trump by a normal person's standards. He is not normal at all. And I get that you would not make the same sorts of decisions he has (neither would I) but it is pretty crazy to categorize him as stupid. If you didn't hate him so much I think you could see that he's been incredibly successful in a wide variety of different endeavors.
Click to expand...
Donald Trump would be TWICE as wealthy had he dumped all of his money into a mutual fund in the late 70s. He has substantially underperformed the market. Any fool with a 401k has made a significantly better business decision than Trump ever has, and those fools wouldn't be supplementing their wealth by being a reality TV star.

Get a ****ing clue. Trump isn't smart, he hasn't made very good business decisions, he doesn't have good ideas, he doesn't surround himself with the smartest people. He is afraid of smart people. He makes decisions that feed his ego. He's a rich frat boy who never grew up.

To idolize a person like him says a lot about the people who do.

We've all worked with blowhard assholes. We've all wondered how the hell they got where they are. Telling their obviously fake self-aggrandizing stories, belittling good people, boasting and bleating about the most mundane of accomplishments.

Well, apparently around 40% of Americans find those behaviours to be impressive and indicative of intelligence and accomplishment. That's how those idiots got where they are. One more mystery solved.
 
One Brow said:
Literally no one is claiming that. No one thinks that Trump's tweets/speeches interfered with Mueller's investigation/count as obstruction. Do you really have no idea of what Trump actually did?
Click to expand...
Would it be impossible for you to go back and look at the context of this discussion, or is it that important to you to try to misinterpret the meaning of everything?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I can't see the article through the paywall though the title seems to suggest that he predicted a Trump win. Other articles also say he predicted a Trump win. Your claim seems odd because he is not correcting people who claim that he correctly predicted a Trump win, but whatever.
Click to expand...

If you were really interested, you could probably find other articles. It would not be unknown for a person to take an undeserved win. I suppose it doesn't really matter.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Would it be impossible for you to go back and look at the context of this discussion, or is it that important to you to try to misinterpret the meaning of everything?
Click to expand...

You mean, the context where you refer to Democrats making tweets and speeches as being interference, and claim they said the same thing about Trump? Some other context?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You said they were only investigating a couple of suspect texts. They are looking at the FISA warrant applications and hearings to determine how the decision was made to spy on American citizens. They are looking at the dossier to determine its origins. They are investigating what weight the dossier was given in the FISA court and whether the fact that the author of the dossier admitted that it was unverified information in advance of the application was communicated to the judge. They are asking why the dossier was marked as verified once the warrant was issued even though we are unaware that it ever was. They are looking into the claim that the investigation originated as an "insurance policy." They are undoubtedly looking at numerous other curious things about the origin and history of the investigation as well.
Click to expand...

First, "They".. they who? Nothing's changed since crying on twitter came out, and there's not real concern from Democrats, Independents, or moderate Republicans.

The best information available about the judge signing FISA warrants is that the first request was denied, the second request once drawn more narrowly, was approved. This is pretty standard practice. This was approved, and arguably spying. But if it was "spying", all data currently supports it being legal; the DoJ went by the book. The Steele dossier wasn't the only piece of information the judge had. Even if it was, Christopher Steele headed up MI-6's Russia desk for three years. While not an expert in Donald Trump, he has extensive experience dealing with Russia, and finding someone better OR more experienced is a very tall order. Even now, some of it's been corroborated, much of it is still uncorroborated, and only one point is something we could rule out.

It feels like the heart of the argument "they" are looking into revolves around the judge. So lets follow that road.

  1. Does any actual evidence exist that we should question the FISA judge?
  2. That we should question this judge's motives?
  3. Has this judge previously displayed an inability to set aside any prejudice they have to follow the law?
  4. Anything that supports "someone else" directed this judge to sign off on it?
 
Bulletproof said:
Donald Trump would be TWICE as wealthy had he dumped all of his money into a mutual fund in the late 70s. He has substantially underperformed the market. Any fool with a 401k has made a significantly better business decision than Trump ever has, and those fools wouldn't be supplementing their wealth by being a reality TV star.

Get a ****ing clue. Trump isn't smart, he hasn't made very good business decisions, he doesn't have good ideas, he doesn't surround himself with the smartest people. He is afraid of smart people. He makes decisions that feed his ego. He's a rich frat boy who never grew up.

To idolize a person like him says a lot about the people who do.

We've all worked with blowhard assholes. We've all wondered how the hell they got where they are. Telling their obviously fake self-aggrandizing stories, belittling good people, boasting and bleating about the most mundane of accomplishments.

Well, apparently around 40% of Americans find those behaviours to be impressive and indicative of intelligence and accomplishment. That's how those idiots got where they are. One more mystery solved.
Click to expand...
Trump has not achieved my version of success, but I think it's pretty obvious he has achieved his. I get that you don't like him, but to suggest that he's not intelligent or has not been successful is flat out silly. On a side note, based on your financial advice I'm guessing you are now rolling in dough these days. Congrats on that!
 
Harambe said:
First, "They".. they who? Nothing's changed since crying on twitter came out, and there's not real concern from Democrats, Independents, or moderate Republicans.

The best information available about the judge signing FISA warrants is that the first request was denied, the second request once drawn more narrowly, was approved. This is pretty standard practice. This was approved, and arguably spying. But if it was "spying", all data currently supports it being legal; the DoJ went by the book. The Steele dossier wasn't the only piece of information the judge had. Even if it was, Christopher Steele headed up MI-6's Russia desk for three years. While not an expert in Donald Trump, he has extensive experience dealing with Russia, and finding someone better OR more experienced is a very tall order. Even now, some of it's been corroborated, much of it is still uncorroborated, and only one point is something we could rule out.

It feels like the heart of the argument "they" are looking into revolves around the judge. So lets follow that road.

  1. Does any actual evidence exist that we should question the FISA judge?
  2. That we should question this judge's motives?
  3. Has this judge previously displayed an inability to set aside any prejudice they have to follow the law?
  4. Anything that supports "someone else" directed this judge to sign off on it?
Click to expand...
I guess you're going to have to wait for their report to come out to find out the answers to your questions.
 
Harambe said:
  1. Does any actual evidence exist that we should question the FISA judge?
  2. That we should question this judge's motives?
  3. Has this judge previously displayed an inability to set aside any prejudice they have to follow the law?
  4. Anything that supports "someone else" directed this judge to sign off on it?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is only one judge involved. This from Wikipedia:

When the court was founded, it was composed of seven federal districtjudges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, each serving a seven-year term, with one judge being appointed each year. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the court from seven to eleven judges, and required that at least three of the Court's judges live within twenty miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia. No judge may be appointed to this court more than once, and no judge may be appointed to both the Court of Review and the FISA court.

Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed all of the current judges.[40]

Edit:
Guess this comment requires a correction:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works

"Applications under FISA are heard by a single FISC judge, and by statute and rule the government may not ask a second judge to consider an application for electronic surveillance or a physical search after one FISC judge has denied it. Instead, if a judge denies such an application, the government’s only statutory remedy is to take an appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review."

(FISA is also known as FISC)
 
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I think it's impossible to judge Trump by a normal person's standards. He is not normal at all. And I get that you would not make the same sorts of decisions he has (neither would I) but it is pretty crazy to categorize him as stupid. If you didn't hate him so much I think you could see that he's been incredibly successful in a wide variety of different endeavors.
Click to expand...

So were Al Capone, Whitey Bulger, and Neil Sedaka.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Red said:
I don't think there is only one judge involved. This from Wikipedia:

When the court was founded, it was composed of seven federal districtjudges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, each serving a seven-year term, with one judge being appointed each year. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the court from seven to eleven judges, and required that at least three of the Court's judges live within twenty miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia. No judge may be appointed to this court more than once, and no judge may be appointed to both the Court of Review and the FISA court.

Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed all of the current judges.[40]

Edit:
Guess this comment requires a correction:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works

"Applications under FISA are heard by a single FISC judge, and by statute and rule the government may not ask a second judge to consider an application for electronic surveillance or a physical search after one FISC judge has denied it. Instead, if a judge denies such an application, the government’s only statutory remedy is to take an appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review."

(FISA is also known as FISC)
Click to expand...
I almost mentioned this when I responded to Harambe's post. I haven't heard anyone questioning the ethics of the judges. I have heard people suggest that exculpatory evidence (such as info about Christopher Steele, his motivations and the veracity of his report) may have been withheld. I have heard that the judge may have been told that the dossier was verified when it was not, etc. I do think we should be very concerned about how this court works and its tremendous powers. I think that if any of us discovered that the FBI had done to us what they apparently did to Carter Page we would be more than a little bit freaked out.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I guess you're going to have to wait for their report to come out to find out the answers to your questions.
Click to expand...

This is what we're trying to get away from. The distinction has to be made on why investigate. In Donalds collusion case, there's clear motive, opportunity, a clear action, proven guilty supporting staff, and now money changing hands. In the case of the judge, all that's been brought up seems to be "Why did they make that decision" and "I bet 'bama did it!"

Bring me something besides perceived motive and I'll be for a proper investigation.

Red said:
I don't think there is only one judge involved. This from Wikipedia:

When the court was founded, it was composed of seven federal districtjudges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, each serving a seven-year term, with one judge being appointed each year. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the court from seven to eleven judges, and required that at least three of the Court's judges live within twenty miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia. No judge may be appointed to this court more than once, and no judge may be appointed to both the Court of Review and the FISA court.

Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed all of the current judges.[40]

Edit:
Guess this comment requires a correction:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works

"Applications under FISA are heard by a single FISC judge, and by statute and rule the government may not ask a second judge to consider an application for electronic surveillance or a physical search after one FISC judge has denied it. Instead, if a judge denies such an application, the government’s only statutory remedy is to take an appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review."

(FISA is also known as FISC)
Click to expand...

This is more helpful. Thank you. I think this PDF has the approved warrant.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...isa-documents-foia-release/full/optimized.pdf

There's a lot of information there, and a ton of it redacted, but it's dated 2017. I can't find copies of the warrants requested in 2016. To your credit, although only one judged signs a document, different judges have signed different approvals.
 
Harambe said:
This is what we're trying to get away from. The distinction has to be made on why investigate. In Donalds collusion case, there's clear motive, opportunity, a clear action, proven guilty supporting staff, and now money changing hands. In the case of the judge, all that's been brought up seems to be "Why did they make that decision" and "I bet 'bama did it!"

Bring me something besides perceived motive and I'll be for a proper investigation.
Click to expand...
You don't see anything because you don't want to see anything. There are plenty of questions that need answers. For instance: why did our government seek and obtain a search warrant on Carter Page, but then not charge him with a crime? I know that does not look troubling to you, but it does to a lot of people.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You don't see anything because you don't want to see anything. There are plenty of questions that need answers. For instance: why did our government seek and obtain a search warrant on Carter Page, but then not charge him with a crime? I know that does not look troubling to you, but it does to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Your saying it would be more comforting if every person who was the recipient of a search warrant was charged with a crime?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You don't see anything because you don't want to see anything. There are plenty of questions that need answers. For instance: why did our government seek and obtain a search warrant on Carter Page, but then not charge him with a crime? I know that does not look troubling to you, but it does to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I might not want to, which is why I'm asking you to change my mind.

A plausible answer to your question is simple; After monitoring Carter Page, although they had reason to do so, they couldn't find anything concrete enough to charge him. Is it really that impossible to believe?
 
Today I learned every single warrant issued must end in arrest and criminal charges. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top