• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

RussiaGate

For example, here, what if Trump refused to turn over what's demanded? I'm talking about a court order specifically.

Who would do what?

Would a judge issue a warrant for his arrest? Who would carry out that arrest?

This is what I have been thinking about.... If not the Secret Service themselves, then no one. A clear message may need to be sent to the SS that the best way to keep the indicted / guilty of high crimes / guilty of contempt / president would be to put him safely in a jail where he can be kept safe.

I am wondering how a citizens arrest would go. Talking 10,000 people descending on him and his handful of palace guards. Literally a mini-revolution.

I can also see States warning the president that they intend to assist the Federal courts and that if his plane lands in their state he will be arrested by local police... no sanctuary in this state for you... no fuel for your jet to leave.

Something I am afraid of is that Don the Con might strike a deal with the special counsel where he simply resigns under the claim that it is just best for the country because of the hateful media and unhelpful democrats, but really as an exchange for not getting indicted for Money Laundering, Treason, etc... I am afraid of that because I rather he spend another year in office and then spend the rest of his life in prison than leave now with no lasting repricussions.

A strong message need be sent to our future politicians.... zero tolerance. you are in it for the country, or you are an enemy of all humanity and will be treated as such.

Does Trump own a white Bronco he can use?

The only thing I'd trade for Trump ending up in jail is to wake up one morning to find out he'd left the White House in the middle of then night and was seeking asylum in Russia. His white Bronco would be whatever plane got him there.

Then he could live out his miserable fucking life as the biggest joke in American political history, and the ghost of Benedict Arnold would be able to finally rest.
 
Well the memo is out. That's a link to my google drive if you'd like to read it in all it's incredible damning glory. Or, as I see it, a big huge nothing burger. It's pretty much what we thought - a GOP authored memo. It's skewed for sure, and really provides a whole lot of nada. It bitches a lot about the Steele dossier, but in the last paragraph it quietly admits the Steele dossier wasn't even the start of the investigation. Sad, really. Very much like Nunes first "hair on fire" run to the White House. Much to do about nothing. Of course, because FOX news and other right leaning sources have built this thing up more than the next Marvel movie, they're trying to act like this is a big deal. People really shouldn't play politics with things like ths. John McCain, whom occasionally shows some clarity of thought, summed it up pretty well.

John McCain
"Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the warped lens of politics and manufacturing partisan sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.”
 
Meanwhile, Trump says the memo vindicates him and that this proves no collusion.

Which is something this memo doesn't even say. It tries to allude that any evidence from the Carter Page warrant would be inadmissible in court.

I keep visualizing a cartoon wherein Trump is drowning in quicksand, and someone hands him a memo saying "you're saved!"

This week's Big Reveal was quite a flop. This soap opera needs new writers.
 
Former FBI Agent lays out why the memo may have done the opposite of what was intended:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/04/devin-nunes-tried-to-discredit-the-fbi-instead-he-proved-its-onto-something/?utm_term=.6d8418da0ae8


In a brief 3½ pages, Nunes managed to confirm that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible ties with Russia has a very solid basis and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III must keep looking into the case.

...

To initiate surveillance on former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page in October 2016, the government would have had to demonstrate that Page was “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of” Russia. ...the FISA application would probably have outlined the bureau’s efforts going all the way back to 2013, when Page was approached by the FBI, which warned him, based on recordings of Russian intelligence officers, that he was being targeted for recruitment as a Russian spy.

...

That means that three years before the FISA surveillance on him began, Page was on notice regarding exactly whom and what he was dealing with when it came to the Russians. For the FBI to get a warrant to listen to his communications later, the bureau would have had evidence that Page remained in contact with individuals he knew were affiliated with Russian intelligence. And the FBI would have had to demonstrate to the FISA court that Page was engaging in behavior that appeared to be facilitating Russia’s intelligence activities.

...

Nunes’s memo also discloses that the government obtained three renewals of the FISA warrant, which occurred every 90 days after the initial authorization. In order for a judge to allow the surveillance to continue, the government has to demonstrate that the intercepted communications are, in fact, providing foreign intelligence. In Page’s case, the order would have been initially authorized based on the premise that monitoring his communications was necessary to understand what, exactly, Russian intelligence was doing and how Page played a role in those activities. If, 90 days later, the government had not obtained any new information about Page’s contacts and activities and the surveillance had ceased, that would show that Page probably was not working as a spy and that the evidence that had seemed to point in that direction was wrong. Instead, the continued renewals underscore that the government was able to persuade the court that Page continued his contacts and activities.

If Nunes was trying to cast doubt on the basis and motives for the FBI’s interest in Page and in his campaign, he failed miserably. Far from demonstrating that the FBI was out to get Trump, the memo suggests that the Trump campaign could have had an active Russian spy working as a foreign policy adviser.

...

Even worse for Nunes, he managed to showcase concrete proof that the FBI was looking into Trump’s Russian connections before they heard from Steele. The memo confirms that Australian intelligence was aware of possible ties between George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, and Russian intelligence, and that the Australians were alarmed enough to alert the FBI, which opened an investigation in July 2016.


Lots of ingredients in this nothing burger.
 
Meanwhile, Trump says the memo vindicates him and that this proves no collusion.

Which is something this memo doesn't even say. It tries to allude that any evidence from the Carter Page warrant would be inadmissible in court.

Yeah. And that's so odd (besides almost certainly being untrue). But say for a minute that rather than a case being dismissed for utter lack of evidence, that it was instead dismissed on Exclusionary Rule grounds.

It would be a government screwup, not an exoneration of any kind. And rarely is a screwup so bad that it utterly defeats a prosecutor's case. There's also what's called the independent source rule where if the same information can be had from source different than was in the warrant, such evidence is admissible.

Anyway, I guess they expect Trump fans to find it acceptable that yes, Page was a Russian shill, but evidence was gathered in a marginal way, so... Trump MAGA!

It's difficult, in reading that "memo", that anyone with any kind of legal background would've allowed them to release it. Every member of Trump's White House counsel should've been screaming at him to not do it, and instead act with some dignity for once and let the investigation play out.

But hey, what do any of us know? Trump's approval rating has slithered into the 40s these days. It's actually gone up the last few weeks.
 
Meanwhile, Trump says the memo vindicates him and that this proves no collusion.

Which is something this memo doesn't even say. It tries to allude that any evidence from the Carter Page warrant would be inadmissible in court.

Yeah. And that's so odd (besides almost certainly being untrue). But say for a minute that rather than a case being dismissed for utter lack of evidence, that it was instead dismissed on Exclusionary Rule grounds.

It would be a government screwup, not an exoneration of any kind. And rarely is a screwup so bad that it utterly defeats a prosecutor's case. There's also what's called the independent source rule where if the same information can be had from source different than was in the warrant, such evidence is admissible.

Anyway, I guess they expect Trump fans to find it acceptable that yes, Page was a Russian shill, but evidence was gathered in a marginal way, so... Trump MAGA!

It's difficult, in reading that "memo", that anyone with any kind of legal background would've allowed them to release it. Every member of Trump's White House counsel should've been screaming at him to not do it, and instead act with some dignity for once and let the investigation play out.

But hey, what do any of us know? Trump's approval rating has slithered into the 40s these days. It's actually gone up the last few weeks.

This should keep the Leaker in Chief's poll numbers rising:

"President Donald Trump accused the House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat Monday of criminally leaking sensitive information.
Trump's tweet comes as Democrats push to release a memo expected to rebut a Republican document of alleged FBI surveillance abuses."


The irony runs thick here...
Who here thinks that Trump will allow the release of the Dem exposé of his clown Nunes' Big Memo?
Isn't it possible for the Dems to produce a rebuttal that isn't classified?
 
Isn't it possible for the Dems to produce a rebuttal that isn't classified?
Not effectively.
They can SAY "that's not what the source document really says," but it's unconvincing unless they can also quote it to say "It actually says ...." And for that, someone needs to declassify the original, or portions of the original.
 
Isn't it possible for the Dems to produce a rebuttal that isn't classified?
Not effectively.
They can SAY "that's not what the source document really says," but it's unconvincing unless they can also quote it to say "It actually says ...." And for that, someone needs to declassify the original, or portions of the original.
Correct. While a rebutting memo that stated “The Nunes memo is bullshit” would be accurate, without evidence available to present why it is bullshit, it isn’t all too convincing.
 
So let me get this straight. Republicans were fine voting for USA PATRIOT Act and used to hate Russia. But when one of their own is spying for the Russians, then the Deep State. Deep State! Then it's wrong for the govt to use its national security powers to track down the criminals using FISA amendments that came with the Patriot Act.
 
They even just voted to reauthorize fisa.
 
FBI made a mistake when they put pee-pee tape research in their FISA application.
They should have known better.
 
FBI made a mistake when they put pee-pee tape research in their FISA application.
They should have known better.

The right-wing claims right now are that the FISA warrant is invalid because they did NOT mention the dossier in the application. They obviously used other, more reliable intelligence to get the warrant. Concluding that invalidates the warrant takes a special type of thinking of which I, fortunately, seem incapable.
 
FBI made a mistake when they put pee-pee tape research in their FISA application.
They should have known better.

The right-wing claims right now are that the FISA warrant is invalid because they did NOT mention the dossier in the application. They obviously used other, more reliable intelligence to get the warrant. Concluding that invalidates the warrant takes a special type of thinking of which I, fortunately, seem incapable.
The tape would not be applicable to Carter Page.
 
FBI made a mistake when they put pee-pee tape research in their FISA application.
They should have known better.

The right-wing claims right now are that the FISA warrant is invalid because they did NOT mention the dossier in the application. They obviously used other, more reliable intelligence to get the warrant. Concluding that invalidates the warrant takes a special type of thinking of which I, fortunately, seem incapable.
The tape would not be applicable to Carter Page.

Do I have my GOP talking points confused? Was the Steele dossier (with the "pee-pee" tape) used to get any FISA warrant?
 
Do I have my GOP talking points confused? Was the Steele dossier (with the "pee-pee" tape) used to get any FISA warrant?
It was included in the third application for a renewal of the warrant for surveillance of Carter Page. So the reason it was not mentioned at the first application was because it had nothing to do with their initial reasons for conducting surveillance.

The White House narrative was that the dossier, and the money behind it, tainted the warrant, and all intelligence gained through it. But that was the fourth application.
So now, the LACK of the dossier tainted the first three applications...
Except for, you know, facts...
 
Back
Top Bottom