Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,544,511 Views | 49287 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by aggiehawg
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can't go after the media with the law for being deceitful or biased or corrupt. They are protected by the first Amendment and rightfully so. We have the same rights they do to publish information with or without validity so long as it isn't libel or a specific threat of violence.

All you can do is ignore or protest their garbage, be vocal about your distaste to their supporters and enablers and business associates and cease consuming their output. Keep in mind that since we have so many choices and we all tend to be susceptible to confirmation bias, almost any information source will may have a fairly loyal audience that, if large enough, may make it economically less vulnerable.
GCP12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
hawk1689 said:

Again, what I've read points to this whole investigation being a farce. That being said, unverified does not mean untrue.
LOL gotcha.

When'd you stop beating your wife?
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
hawk1689 said:

Again, what I've read points to this whole investigation being a farce. That being said, unverified does not mean untrue.



Well I gave you some untrue stuff. You just ignore it.
GCP12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
backintexas2013 said:

hawk1689 said:

Again, what I've read points to this whole investigation being a farce. That being said, unverified does not mean untrue.
Well I gave you some untrue stuff. You just ignore it.
He also seems to believe "unverified" is the appropriate threshold to get a FISA warrant. Seems like we've got a new "moderate" on our hands.
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He might be a sock for our other person who trumpets that line all the time.
RoscoePColtrane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hawk1689 said:

Again, what I've read points to this whole investigation being a farce. That being said, unverified does not mean untrue.
And ONCE AGAIN, the crime is using this "unverified" "unsubstantiated" call it whatever the hell you want, But it was used to spy on American Citizens via the FISA Court.

REGARDLESS of how the veracity of the oppo garbage ends up, at the time they presented it to a FISC Judge to obtain a Title 1 warrant to spy on an American Citizen, they broke the damn law. The DOJ swore under oath the the evidense they presented to the FISC was true and substantiated. And for that you go to prison period.

If they told the Judge it was "unverified" or "unsubstantiated" and the judge granted the warrant anyway, then they will have a judge as a cellmate.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
RoscoePColtrane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
backintexas2013 said:

He might be a sock for our other person who trumpets that line all the time.
Bingo.... nice catch
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GCP12 said:

backintexas2013 said:

hawk1689 said:

Again, what I've read points to this whole investigation being a farce. That being said, unverified does not mean untrue.
Well I gave you some untrue stuff. You just ignore it.
He also seems to believe "unverified" is the appropriate threshold to get a FISA warrant. Seems like we've got a new "moderate" on our hands.
Particularly for a Title I FISA warrant which requires the assertion that Carter Page was an active Russian spy.
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You have to admit I do like this new narrative that unless it's proven untrue it's not untrue just unverified and can't be dismissed.

Let's look at this as it relates to the past

"Obama used foreign student aide in college." Never seen that proven false.

"The 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted contained tons of classified info she was trying to hide." Never proven false.


"Seth Rich was the leaker and was killed to shut him up." His killer has never been caught so no was this can be proven untrue yet.



The possibilities are endless.
oysterbayAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So far, after a year of investigations and several millions spent clogging up the Court System, the great all important Mueller Special Council Team has indicted Tax Cheats, Liars and Too Bit Russian Trolls !
hawk1689
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
93MarineHorn said:

Hawk- I think the more important thing to take away from this is not whether elements of the dossier are true or not.
I couldn't disagree more. The important thing is to identify which party is committing treason. I couldn't care less about some procedural infraction if it leads to the exposure of a corrupt official. The methods of the dossier only become a big deal if it becomes clear that they were falsified by high ranking government officials to undermine the presidency (which is looking more and more likely).
GCP12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I couldn't care less about some procedural infraction
GCP12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

GCP12 said:

backintexas2013 said:

hawk1689 said:

Again, what I've read points to this whole investigation being a farce. That being said, unverified does not mean untrue.
Well I gave you some untrue stuff. You just ignore it.
He also seems to believe "unverified" is the appropriate threshold to get a FISA warrant. Seems like we've got a new "moderate" on our hands.
Particularly for a Title I FISA warrant which requires the assertion that Carter Page was an active Russian spy.
Yup. I don't know if you were able to read the unrolled thread on Page, but it seems that he was literally the exact opposite. He was an FBI/CIA asset who helped them catch Russian spies.
GCP12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
backintexas2013 said:

He might be a sock for our other person who trumpets that line all the time.
Account created in 2004. If true...

stetson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GCP12 said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/22/mccain-associate-takes-fifth-on-trump-dossier-questions.html
Quote:

McCain associate takes Fifth on Trump dossier questions

A former State Department official and associate of Sen. John McCain has invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify in connection with questions from the House Intelligence Committee about the anti-Trump dossier's Russian sources, according to a law enforcement source.

David J. Kramer, who is a central player in how the unverified Trump dossier made its way to the FBI in late 2016, testified before the committee in December in a closed-door session, indicating he had information about the dossier's sources. A subpoena was issued for mid-January, as first reported by The Washington Examiner.

The law enforcement source confirmed, however, that Kramer did not appear and has exercised his Fifth Amendment rights.

Yet Kramer gave a videotaped deposition last December in separate civil litigation against BuzzFeed about the dossier and his contact with the former British spy who compiled it, Christopher Steele. Steele was hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS to write and research the dossier, with funding from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

According to British court records obtained by Fox News as part of its ongoing investigation of the Trump dossier, Kramer was personally briefed in late November 2016 by Steele in Surrey, England. After that briefing, Steele told the British court that an arrangement was made so that Fusion GPS -- co-founded by Glenn Simpson would provide hard copies of the dossier to McCain via Kramer. Shortly afterward, the dossier was given to the FBI, which already had its own copy from Steele.
Eat **** McCain
Dude's going to go out like Joe Paterno.
stetson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agnzona said:

Why are they filling tax fraud charges? Half of Obamas cabinet didn't pay taxes and all they got was a penalty free loan.
Leverage.
drcrinum
How long do you want to ignore this user?


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/966813495869124608.html

Quote:

1. This is ALL about Manafort, Podesta & the Clintons. You can take that to the bank in Cyprus. And it confirm to me that Mueller is on the right track.

2. Again, if it turns out that ANYONE on Trump has been up to no good, they deserve justice. No one is above the law. But this indictment is nothing to do with Trump at all.

3. It's quite simple. If Trump or his inner circle knew about Manafort & Gates Yanukovych work and/or money laundering and/or link to Tony Podesta, they deserve to be implicated. So did Trump or anyone on his team know? Of course they didn't. The idea is ludicrous.

4. So what the hell were these two crooked clowns doing infiltrating themselves into Team Trump? To me, it's as plain as day. Convinced that Clinton was going to win, they were trying to spy on Trump's people and also participate in a scheme to frame him.

5. So was that ambitious little bling-bling barn king, Papadopoulos. That little worm was being instructed by none other than Sergei Millian , who was engaged by Fusion GPS.

6. These a***oles were spying on Team Trump and also tasked with setting up meetings with Russians. Meetings that would corroborate the main charge in the dodgy dossier - Trump & Putin working together.

7. These Manafort/ Gates indictments are about illegal lobbying & a huge money laundering scam. But they're ALSO about the link between Beavis Manafort/ Butthead Gates & the Podesta/Clinton gang. That's where this investigation is heading.

8. Slowly the dots between indictments are connecting. For example, take the Zwaan indictment. There's no way Mueller wouldn't have seen the links between the Skadden Arps partners (Craig & Sloan), the Manafort /Gates Yanukovych work - and the Clintons.

A short thread by Rex.


fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
scottimus said:

That letter is messed up on so many levels.

But from what we are learning about the upper echelons of the FBI and DOJ, should anyone be surprised?

I am not.
This is kind of a call back to a comment you made this morning because that work thing got in my way of responding earlier, but why is the letter "messed up"? I'm not saying it's not, I just don't know why.
Bird93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I couldn't care less about some procedural infraction if it leads to the exposure of a corrupt official.

Well, that's exactly what's going on, but unfortunately for you, the people being exposed are not the ones you were hoping for.
drcrinum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GCP12 said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/22/mccain-associate-takes-fifth-on-trump-dossier-questions.html
Quote:

McCain associate takes Fifth on Trump dossier questions

A former State Department official and associate of Sen. John McCain has invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify in connection with questions from the House Intelligence Committee about the anti-Trump dossier's Russian sources, according to a law enforcement source.

David J. Kramer, who is a central player in how the unverified Trump dossier made its way to the FBI in late 2016, testified before the committee in December in a closed-door session, indicating he had information about the dossier's sources. A subpoena was issued for mid-January, as first reported by The Washington Examiner.

The law enforcement source confirmed, however, that Kramer did not appear and has exercised his Fifth Amendment rights.

Yet Kramer gave a videotaped deposition last December in separate civil litigation against BuzzFeed about the dossier and his contact with the former British spy who compiled it, Christopher Steele. Steele was hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS to write and research the dossier, with funding from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

According to British court records obtained by Fox News as part of its ongoing investigation of the Trump dossier, Kramer was personally briefed in late November 2016 by Steele in Surrey, England. After that briefing, Steele told the British court that an arrangement was made so that Fusion GPS -- co-founded by Glenn Simpson would provide hard copies of the dossier to McCain via Kramer. Shortly afterward, the dossier was given to the FBI, which already had its own copy from Steele.
Eat **** McCain


Yup.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Interesting comparison. Joe Paterno. It could well have an epilogue like that --- from great stature or general recognition to reputation ignominiously collapsing near the end because of what comes out how had used a position.
drcrinum
How long do you want to ignore this user?


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/paul-manafort-american-hustler/550925/


(Paul Manafort (left), Roger Stone (center), and Lee A****er (right) in 1985. Their efforts helped transform how Washington works.)


(Manafort with the Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole at the 1996 GOP convention, which Manafort managed.)


(Manafort's Hamptons estate includes a putting green and a basketball court. He believed only "suckers stay out of debt," a former colleague says.)


(Ferdinand Marcos (left), Viktor Yanukovych (center), and Jonas Savimbi (right) are among the many strongmen whom Manafort has advised and assisted.)

I must admit that I knew very little about Paul Manafort before I read this detailed semi-biography (about a 30 minute read) published in The Atlantic. Definitely a master manipulator and under-the-table wheeler & dealer, and it is easy to see from the story how he would be easy prey for Mueller. He lived a lavish lifestyle for many years, engaging in shady dealings with major world figures. He obtained his start with Roger Stone in the Ronald Reagan Campaign and went on to become a major Washington lobbyist & eventually an advisor for the rich & powerful. The major economic downtown of 2008 was a turning point in his life as was the political downfall of Yanukovych in the Ukraine and his sour business dealings with Oleg Deripaska. The article also goes into how he managed to convince Trump to hire him, a time when Manafort was nearing the bottom of the barrel in both his personal and financial life.

Edit: I don't know why a certain political figure's name is ***; I'll put a hyphen in it. His name is Lee At-water.
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I remember ole Lee.

He was kind of our Blumenthal, but not quite that slimy. He was mean as hell, though!
drcrinum
How long do you want to ignore this user?



Quote:

...For his part, Kramer was interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee on Dec. 19. The new subpoena stems from statements Kramer made in that interview.

In the session, Kramer told House investigators that he knew the identities of the Russian sources for the allegations in Steele's dossier. But when investigators pressed Kramer to reveal those names, he declined to do so.

Now, he is under subpoena. The subpoena, issued Wednesday afternoon, directs Kramer to appear again before House investigators on Jan. 11....


This December 2017 article lists the apparent reason Kramer was subpoenaed by the HPSIC. The names of Steele's Russian sources would be a major revelation...perhaps some even may not be Russian. I wonder if the HPSIC will proceed to bring a motion for contempt.

Edit: Kramer was just discussed on Hannity. Gregg Jarrett reiterated the above about the Russian sources and then suggested that perhaps Kramer may have lied about knowing the sources, and that is the reason he doesn't want to testify. Sara Carter said that Kramer may have leaked the dossier to BuzzFeed and that is the reason he doesn't want to testify. Interesting.
RoscoePColtrane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've said all along Manafort is no choir boy. He's been around a LONG time and done a lot. I have a feeling that the original indictments are on shaky ground so Mueller is latching onto these tax charges to try and get something solid on him.

When they were first after him for money laundering it sounded like a reach, and the FARA charges are a complete joke. FARA is a talking point when they want to point fingers but they never follow up on it. Can anyone think of anyone being actually convicted of failing to register under FARA? I'm not talking charged I'm saying convicted of it. They blow smoke with FARA charges but never follow through. To many of their own political allies are violating the FARA act and do it all the time. They don't have the prison beds available to lock all the FARA violators up.

DOJ issued a report back in 2016 that tallied all the prosecutions under FARA since 1966a total of seven. Only one of the individuals charged was convicted at trial; according to the report, two pleaded guilty to FARA charges, two were convicted on non-FARA charges and two saw their cases dismissed.

https://oig.justice.gov/press/2016/2016-09-07.pdf

An important reason for this lack of enforcement is that there are virtually no enforcers. The FARA team at DOJ is small, poorly funded and relies on voluntary compliance. So, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the only reason that Manafort got busted was because a special counsel was appointed after the firing of Comey to look into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia. Manafort has been under investigation since 2014, but if the DOJ's track record is any indicator, it's quite likely that had he not been Trump's campaign manager, Manafort would be kicking back and enjoying his allegedly laundered cash at this very moment. This entire thing is a farce. Manafort knows it that's why he's not folding, because he knows they'll never go after him on just FARA. These tax charges are garbage compared to big picture.

Remember the Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, (the Russian attorney who met with Donald Trump Jr. in the summer of 2016), she was supposedly in the country to represent Russian oligarch Denis Katsyv, who was a DOJ target under the Magnitsky Act. Earlier this year, a group of companies owned by Katsyv, who was represented by Veselnitskaya , agreed to pay nearly $6 million to settle allegations that the firms laundered proceeds of a $230 million tax fraud. That's not a bad margin...

And here's another trick that's even better, and it's not just used by Russia. Let's say a government wants a lobbyist or someone else to do some work for them in Washington. Maybe it's lobbying and maybe it's not exactly lobbying. The country simply has a major American law firm hire the lobbyist or PR executive, and now you're not lobbying for Russia, you're providing litigation support for a certified American law firm. And it's 100 percent legal and outside the purview of the ever more meaningless FARA statute. Sound familiar, Perkins Coie is a huge player in this business of buffering the foreign relationship directly and make huge fees for doing so.

Mueller is dragging wide nets to find anything he can make stick and justify his existence. And in turn justify his fees and all his firm buddies.

Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
hawk1689
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I appreciate your effort to link to stories related to the dossier, however, I have two issues with the articles that you linked to with regards to the statements I made:

1) Neither article addresses the substance of the dossier as being erroneous. One of them states that Comey said it was unverified and the other states that McCabe couldn't verify the information at a committee meeting.

2) I've never heard of the Washington Examiner. They don't have a whole lot listed on their Wikipedia page and they apparently used to distribute free papers around DC. Doesn't exactly sound like 60 minutes reporting standards.

There appears to be a little confirmation bias in the way some of you view these alternative news sources.

Edit: I meant to reply to GC12 on this.
stetson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

You have a higher standard for message board posters than the FBI.

Boom!
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hawk1689 said:

I appreciate your effort to link to stories related to the dossier, however, I have two issues with the articles that you linked to with regards to the statements I made:

1) Neither article addresses the substance of the dossier as being erroneous. One of them states that Comey said it was unverified and the other states that McCabe couldn't verify the information at a committee meeting.

2) I've never heard of the Washington Examiner. They don't have a whole lot listed on their Wikipedia page and they apparently used to distribute free papers around DC. Doesn't exactly sound like 60 minutes reporting standards.

There appears to be a little confirmation bias in the way some of you view these alternative news sources.

Edit: I meant to reply to GC12 on this.
It's always good to question sources and articles. But, if you've never heard of the Examiner, that kinds says a lot.

I didn't write the story, so I can't verify the accuracy, but I'd bet a lot it's correct, and accurate.
drcrinum
How long do you want to ignore this user?

hawk1689
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't ask for anybody to prove anything. I asked if there was proof that the information in the Steele dossier was false. So far, I have not seen definitive evidence of that presented.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
hawk1689 said:

I didn't ask for anybody to prove anything. I asked if there was proof that the information in the Steele dossier was false. So far, I have not seen definitive evidence of that presented.
wrong standard. The problem isn't whether it is demonstrably false. The problem is that the FBI asserted that it was true to a federal court without any support for the assertion.
Javelina
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So the onus is on the people that question the veracity of the dossier to prove it false, not on the people who wrote and peddled it to the courts to prove it true?

Is that what you are saying?
RoscoePColtrane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#65e71dc36867

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116

https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/the-trump-dossiers-credibility-is-collapsing/

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/5/16845704/steele-dossier-russia-trump

Pretty certain none of these sources could be considered right wing media like Breitbart....
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
drcrinum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is a list of the current civil lawsuits over false claims made in the dossier:

1. Russian tech tycoon Aleksej Gubarev is suing the British-based Steele's company Orbis Business Intelligence because the dossier claimed Gubarev's companies, including XBT Holdings and Webzilla, used "botnets and port traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs and steal data."

Gubarev also is suing BuzzFeed for libel in a Florida court over claims in the dossier about him and his companies.

2. Three executives with Alfa Bank, a private commercial Russian bank, have filed against Fusion GPS and its founder, Glenn Simpson, filed against BuzzFeed, and filed against Steele.

3. Michael Cohen, longtime attorney for President Donald Trump, has filed defamation lawsuits against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed.

4. Carter Page has filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Manhattan against Yahoo News and HuffPost.

5. BuzzFeed is suing the DNC over the dossier.
GCP12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
drcrinum said:



I think I posted this when the letter was first sent. Maybe it was posted by someone else or maybe I saw it elsewhere, but people caught this when it was originally sent. Quite the coincidence
First Page Last Page
Page 193 of 1409
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.