Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

nm (oh ****, sorry JeffB!)

 

What could go wrong?

 

No idea who this reporter is, but shes confirming what everyone suspected. that the false dossier was used to wiretap trump's team

This was kind of the last piece of the puzzle (if true). The FBI used false/unverified information funded by the Clinton campaign to wiretap Trump's team. I guess another big question would be what did they tell the FISA court? did they lie to them?

If the OIG report says the same thing then GR owes money to the tip jar.

 

Maybe you missed the "?" at the end of her headline?

 

lol, "The final piece of the puzzle"

 

Maybe you missed the quotes from her sources. Again, I dont know her so no idea how good she is, but shes definitely trying to confirm here.

 

Unfortunately sources aren't worth much.

All of those sources could be the conservative shills who have already tried to sell this BS narrative.

 

could be. that's why i said 'if true'. why do you believe other sources over her's?

Just to be clear. we know Clinton and the DNC funded the false dossier. We know the dossier has lots of false/unverified information (Comey testified so). we know trump's team was wiretapped. last piece missing was this to put it all together.

 

I don't know... Sinclair Broadcasting? Gee, wasn't a reporter from TrumpTV available?

 

Are you forgetting that the Senate statement from Fusion GPS said that the reason the FBI took the dossier seriously is because it corroborated information they already had from inside the Trump campaign?

 

I believe the DiFi released transcripts of congressional testimony that the Dossier corroborated info they already had, which (if true), basically makes this entire thing a non story.

Why do you believe unnamed sources over, under oath testimony, by those directly involved?

And what reason, do you suppose, did the Republicans not want to release the transcripts of that testimony?

 

I just hope he's getting a commission from somewhere every time he uses the black/white hat metaphor.

 

Folks are missing the point that even if Christopher Steele's call to the FBI along with his investigation notes given the Fusion GPS(was is referred to as "The Dossier") along with our Australian friends calling the FBI, is the only evidence that led to the FBI, the DOJ, and the NSA under Obama surveying Trump officials through a court approved FISA warrant, that doesn't necessarily mean that they SHOULDN'T have done so.

Its being made into this huge conspiracy that HOW DARE Susan Rice, Comey, etc. survey Trump officials.

I'm just going to say that.... OF COURSE they should have been. With all the contacts that has been made public, the Russian money that just came to Kushner, Trump publicly asking Putin to attack our country and hack emails, etc. etc etc. should very well warrant investigation any given day of the week. If TWO of our allies coming to our FBI along with whatever is being publicly show as alarm sounding, isn't enough to launch an FBI probe.... WHAT IS?

.................

Also- two years from now, I guarantee you, that the GOP will have the FBI launch a probe into WHOEVER is running for the Dem nomination NO MATTER WHAT. Oprah will be under investigation. Bernie Sanders already is. Kamala Harris.... Under investigation. Spied on.... you name it. All you idiots who want to cry foul for investigations and spying... come back in two years when you are all over Kamala Harris' investigation (launched by Trump officials) and crying for her to be locked up for whatever conspiracy theory FoxNews conjures up.

Fact is-

The Steele intelligence is enough to launch a probe. The Australians calling the FBI (what happened first) is enough to launch a probe.

Your conspiracy theory isn't even that entertaining. At least involve Jay Z and the Illuminati.

 

the Fusion GPS CEO refused to testify under oath.

I'm guessing Grassley might release the whole thing un-redacted very soon. Unless he is waitign for Monday's report.

 

we all know that

• during the Republican primary the Conservative group, Washington Beacon, funded Fusion GPS to coduct op research on Trump during the Republican primary
• during the Presidential campaign, the RNC funded Fusion GPS

ur wrong, Comey didn't testify on the Steele dossier.

Also, after Trump has claimed that he was wiretapped by the Obama admin, there was an investigation by his intelligence team, which had concluded that Orange Duce was not wiretapped

 

I don't see any final piece here. It looks like more of what we already knew. What she's saying is that:

* The FBI used the dossier as evidence in getting a warrant.
* They also used "other evidence" (Aussie intel?).
* No indication on how much weight the FISC put in the dossier vs the "other evidence" when granting the warrant.
* Useless assertions of how unsubstantiated the claims in the dossier are. No effort to enumerate the parts of the dossier that have been verified, have not been verified, and that have been proven false.

Isn't the point of the warrant to get permission to investigate the claims and see if they're true? The standard is probable cause and the court does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt until much later in the process. On FISC warrant abuse, I imagine it is the same as with any court, which give plenty of rope to prosecutors and investigators to build cases. When the target is a Muslim radical or a black gangster, nobody cries about the abuse of the warrant system. Now there is a problem when warrants are granted against a target of a different demographic?

In total, I still don't see that any problem with this warrant has been established. They came with evidence from multiple sources (robustness) to get permission to investigate. Once they investigated, their suspicions were borne out, as shown by the fact that they have produced a couple of guilty pleas and multiple indictments. Would you prefer that the crimes uncovered and pled guilty to had not been discovered at all because it is so unreasonable to surveil a presidential candidate?

I eagerly await your report on the OIG report. Maybe that will have something genuinely new.

 

Lying to congress is a crime. Under oath doesn't matter. If he lied to Congress, he will face the same purgery charges Paps & Flynn are facing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/penalty-for-lying-to-congress/index.html

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...acious-and-unverified-we-knew-media-was-about

in written testimony: 'Salacious and unverified'

Just out of curiosity, what FISA applications do you think Nunes was looking at Friday?

 

Per your link, he calls it unverified and doesn't say any of it is false. That seems like an important distinction. A false report should not be used to obtain a warrant. An unverified report, maybe. Especially considering other independent evidence that is thematically aligned is also submitted.