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

I'd prefer unverified (FBI director said so) and false information not be used to wiretap any american, even less a presidential candidate. I also prefer the false information not come from the opposing political party. radical. i know.

If this isn't new then I eagerly await GladitorRowdy paying to the tipjar.

 

never said otherwise. The false aspects of it were confirmed almost immediately by reporters.

you are ****ing insane.

 

You do know that the terms 'unverified' and 'false' are paradoxical here right?

If it's false, that means it's verified false.

Oh I get it .You are reffering to your wishful thinking.

 

This article from the conservative site Red State seems to disagree...

Did Comey Really Testify That The Entire Steele Dossier Was Unverified?

https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/01/02/comey-really-testify-entire-steele-dossier-unverified/

 

some of it is proven false some of it is just unverified. The dossier isn't one claim. this isn't complicated.

 

NO that article says his verbal testimony didn't jive with his written testimony. It confirms his written testimony calls it unverified.

 

meanwhile, Steve Bannon lawyers up. I suspect some interesting testimony will ensue...

Bannon hires a lawyer for House Russia probe

https://www.politico.com/story/2018...ires-lawyer-house-russia-investigation-336498

 

So besides two trivial errors, one of incorrect spelling of Alfa Bank and an incorrect location of a single meeting in Prague, what has been 'verified' to be false.

Please do tell.

The Dossier has held up with corroborating evidence. Nothing has been 'verified' false besides some spelling mistakes and one misallocation.

 

Here's the part of the written testimony. is it clear he is talking specifically of the "dossier" or about all of the information/material that was pulled together? Seems somewhat vague.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3860401-Os-Jcomey-060817.html

 

I'm not satisfied with assertions that dossier is shown false. If a reporter is going to say that, there had better be a few paragraphs in the article about what claims were false and how they were shown false. Likewise for the articles that claim that parts of the dossier have since been verified. If you're going to say that, you must go on to explain what was verified, how, and what remains unverified. If you don't do that as a reporter, you're spreading propaganda.

It anyway does not matter to the FISC warrant. The FBI came with the dossier (which at that time at least was probably wholly unverified) and with other evidence (including probably the communication from Australia that Paps willingly confessed to what sounded like a crime) that together painted a robust picture that should give any court sufficient reason to authorize more investigation. And they have since been vindicated in that decision because crimes really did occur. If this was a drug lord, not even the defense attorney would stake his reputation arguing that the warrant wasn't justified.

 

Bannon must not want to talk to Mueller.

 

Hell no. He is key to the framework of the "Collusion" angle... meaning as the campaign manager during the Wikileaks dump, he would be key in knowing how the Trump campaign was potentially coordinating those releases. No way in hell they would keep him in the dark on that. It was his job at the time.

However.... as far as criminal liability goes, he's not there at the right time for that. The CRIME is Conspiracy to commit crimes against the US. The "Crime" will have to be related to the hacking of the DNC, and any financial exchanges in relation. Here the arrow seems to point pretty heavily towards Kushner, and possibly the Trump family. What exchanged hands back in the summer of 2016?? Thats the crime that needs to be answered or absolved of by the end of Muellers investigation.

Bannon's role in "Collusion" is more suited for a political Congressional investigation. Pretty much a Congressional statement of "Do NOT do this when you are working on a political campaign". If we had a non-partisan Congressional investigation now, we'd already be able to put together a pretty compelling report out with potential campaign law reforms from Congress just by what we already know now about the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

... and clearly trump doesn't want Bannon to talk either...

 

What that mean?

 

It means trump is trying to invoke "Executive Privilege" on any conversation he had with Steve Bannon. Wonder why?

 

Several theories emerging here.

One theory is that since he’s a “witness” in the Mueller probe (which is odd because he’s the only senior trump official called as a witness to the grand jury and not just voluntarily interviewed), his invoking of Executive Priviledge could be to protect his testimony with Mueller if he’s a key witness or actively cooperating.

What makes some sense here is the insistence from Republicans on the committee including Nunes to subpoena him to answer questions today. If he’s a serious witness in that case there is no way Mueller, or Bannons attorney would want to let him in the room with Devin Nunes where he could be led to disclose what he’s willing to tell Mueller that could burn down the White House.

Or the other theory is that he’s just being an a$$ to protect Trump even if it means being in contemp for not answering questions.

 

Look for Trump to prep the executive Medieval suite at Gitmo for Honored Mastermind Steve Bannon in case he's seen associating himself with lying insurrectionist Michael Wolf.