RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Or they likely had his bank transactions during the campaign/transition time frame. WSJ didn't pull it out of thin air, You can bet they were two hopping off of Carter Page on everyone in Trump Tower.

---

I've thought this since we figured out that Carter Page was subject of a FISA warrant. Basically, they ran a massive data collection grab for as long as they could on as many people as they could and figured they would analyze and play cards as needed as the Trump presidency progressed.

blindey said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Or they likely had his bank transactions during the campaign/transition time frame. WSJ didn't pull it out of thin air, You can bet they were two hopping off of Carter Page on everyone in Trump Tower.

---

I've thought this since we figured out that Carter Page was subject of a FISA warrant. Basically, they ran a massive data collection grab for as long as they could on as many people as they could and figured they would analyze and play cards as needed as the Trump presidency progressed.

---

I'm not even sure they waited on the warrant on Page, at this point. Think they got the warrant later as part of the insurance policy. Spy immediately, justify later.

Exactly

Bootstrap it after the fact

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Exactly

Bootstrap it after the fact

---

So if we are correct in our speculation, anyone connected to Trump named in the Steele Dossier would be a likely subject. That includes Cohen and the misidentified trip to Prague.

BIngo

I wonder if the "wrong Cohen" is one of the slip ups that lead to all of this spilling out to the trump administration and ultimately to the public.

blindey said:

---

I wonder if the "wrong Cohen" is one of the slip ups that lead to all of this spilling out to the trump administration and ultimately to the public.

---

I never bought the "incidental capture" in a 702 theory. Seems to me like a MI6 screw up.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Exactly

Bootstrap it after the fact

---

Yep

By '16, Page was basically viewed the same way as the looney tune Linda Litzke character in "Burn After Reading". Nobody viewed him as a threat to American security by then.

His name being used is just a guise. Just like the dossier was a guise.

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey said:

---

I wonder if the "wrong Cohen" is one of the slip ups that lead to all of this spilling out to the trump administration and ultimately to the public.

---

I never bought the "incidental capture" in a 702 theory. Seems to me like a MI6 screw up.

---

We talked about this back on Page 46. The Last Refuge/Conservative Treehouse made this connection back in January based upon Cohen being associated with the Trump Campaign and the subcontractors (Fusion GPS) running the unauthorized 702 Queries before Adm. Rogers shut it down.

I think MI6 would have been more careful and checked the EU Visa records to verify it was the correct Michael Cohen that visited Prague.

The Cohen Prague snafu is a perfect encapsulation of the entire dossier, when Comey said "unverified" it was one of the few times he wasn't lying.

I'm just wondering why Trump was getting that much scrutiny that early in the primaries and by the FBI? CIA?

Poppy Bush called in favors?

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey said:

---

I wonder if the "wrong Cohen" is one of the slip ups that lead to all of this spilling out to the trump administration and ultimately to the public.

---

I never bought the "incidental capture" in a 702 theory. Seems to me like a MI6 screw up.

---

We talked about this back on Page 46. The Last Refuge/Conservative Treehouse made this connection back in January based upon Cohen being associated with the Trump Campaign and the subcontractors (Fusion GPS) running the unauthorized 702 Queries before Adm. Rogers shut it down.

I think MI6 would have been more careful and checked the EU Visa records to verify it was the correct Michael Cohen that visited Prague.

---

I need to amend my comment/reference. Cohen's alleged trip to Prague occurred in July 2016, that being after Rogers had shut off the subcontractors' access to 702 Queries at the FBI (April 2016). It was at that point that Nellie Ohr was hired by Fusion GPS, and she was able to conduct the Queries via her husband's access at DOJ-NSD (which Yates previously had ruled off limits to the OIG). You can read about it here:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/09/sketchy-business-chairman-nunes-reveals-fusion-gps-connection-to-obama-white-house/

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Looks like Mueller is going to try to use Stormy to bring down Trump by accusing them campaign finance law violation. If true, it proves beyond any doubt that Russia, Russia, Russia, is dead and buried.

---

Where are you seeing that?

---

Nap was talking about it on Fox earlier.

---

Nap will throw enough guesses that something will eventually stick

Don't think they can get trump on the NDA because he never signed it.

Can say his lawyer did it without his knowledge?

GCP12 said:

---

---

Hannity is going to interview the FBI informant, William Campbell, on his show Wednesday evening.

Quote:

---

I need to amend my comment/reference. Cohen's alleged trip to Prague occurred in July 2016, that being after Rogers had shut off the subcontractors' access to 702 Queries at the FBI (April 2016). It was at that point that Nellie Ohr was hired by Fusion GPS, and she was able to conduct the Queries via her husband's access at DOJ-NSD (which Yates previously had ruled off limits to the OIG).

---

Aaahh! Okay, I'm on the same page, now. Circular feeding of information.

MI6 fits nicely in the short blanks before "contractors"

They tried to bait out a signed version if it existed by saying it wasn't valid unless signed, to see if one would materialize. Nice Try.

drcrinum said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

---

Hannity is going to interview the FBI informant, William Campbell, on his show Wednesday evening.

---

Hope it isn't the second live on-air assassination. I still remember this one.

I believe I've asked some form of this question before, but when someone is subpoenaed and it's ignored, is that the end of it?

I'm asking because I believe the 1.2 million docs were subpoenaed before by Congress, and the FBI just gave Congress a metaphorical finger. Bernie Goldberg said Republican's were "wimps", which I agree, but people just can't ignore subpoenas at their pleasure, can they?

I know Goodlatte sent one recently to the FBI, but I'm wondering how long they can take before someone does something?

Congressional subpoenas only are enforceable by a contempt of Congress citation, by themselves. Largely ceremonial. Holder was held in Contempt of Congress, for instance, and nothing happened as a result.

But Congress can then make a criminal referral to DOJ. (Up to DOJ whether to act on said referrals.) That's where it gets tricky since the FBI Director is under DOJ. Still, if there is some dispute about classified materials or other concerns then a judge can see the materials and rule on the objections to production. Again, that's if DOJ decides to cooperate with Congress.

Checks and balances aren't always perfect. Disputes between the legislative branch and the Executive branch are ultimately resolved by the judiciary, like in Watergate.

Now if Joe/Jane Blow are duly served with a subpoena by a grand jury or a Court and ignore it, they will be held in contempt of court and thrown in jail. If the subpoena was for materials, their door will be broken down and the FBI will just come in and get the documents pursuant to a search warrant.

So you are saying our ruling overlords are above the law in practice.

Can someone explain to me what the deal is with FBI director Wray? It's like he's not even there. After all he was Trumps choice.

Rockdoc said:

---

Can someone explain to me what the deal is with FBI director Wray? It's like he's not even there. After all he was Trumps choice.

---

Probably spending most of his time doing internal reviews and figuring out how to clean up everything.

Agnzona said:

---

So you are saying our ruling overlords are above the law in practice.

---

Initially. Wheels of justice turn slow. Many times it is a waiting game. That alone is one of the main reasons militating against the political wisdom of a President going after his/her predecessor. Takes too long, consuming most of the first term and harming the agenda. That is unless there is a sizeable portion of the population clamoring for it.

Main reason the OIG report is viewed as such a big deal. If the machinations of the FBI and DOJ on the Hillary email investigation, plus the FISA abuse are enough to shock the conscience of about 45% of the voting population, that will grow as more and more comes out. That's when Lady Justice gets a swift kick in the pants to accelerate things along. (Also affects the Mueller investigation.)

RyanAg08 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Can someone explain to me what the deal is with FBI director Wray? It's like he's not even there. After all he was Trumps choice.

---

Probably spending most of his time doing internal reviews and figuring out how to clean up everything.

---

This. There are so many internal rules and procedures to be followed. The assumption is that Wray is in the loop between Horowitz and the prosecutor (as it applies to his personnel) and then Wray kicks it over to Office of Professional Responsibility. My fervent hope is that OPR has been very, very busy and will continue to be very busy weeding out the chaff and the deadwood.

ETA: Comey was the most visible FBI Director we had, post Hoover. Normally, people see the FBI Director standing behind the Attorney General during announcements of big prosecutions and that's about it. Comey loved the limelight.

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm just wondering why Trump was getting that much scrutiny that early in the primaries and by the FBI? CIA?

Poppy Bush called in favors?

---

One of the things very clearly exposed by the DNC email leaks was that not only was Hillary rigging the D nomination for herself, she was using their media contacts to heavily influence the GOP primaries towards the more "fringe" candidates that they believed they could easily beat. Trump was their #1 choice to run against and by March/April it already looked like he was the most likely to win.

ScottH_01 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm just wondering why Trump was getting that much scrutiny that early in the primaries and by the FBI? CIA?

Poppy Bush called in favors?

---

One of the things very clearly exposed by the DNC email leaks was that not only was Hillary rigging the D nomination for herself, she was using their media contacts to heavily influence the GOP primaries towards the more "fringe" candidates that they believed they could easily beat. Trump was their #1 choice to run against and by March/April it already looked like he was the most likely to win.

---

I don't quite buy that. Sure, Hillary may have thought she wanted Trump to be the GOP nominee but Trump wouldn't have been garnering such large crowds if he hadn't tapped into that broad swath of voters who were just frustrated with the same old politicians.

Even the Dems experienced the same with the Bernie phenomenon. Had the DNC not had the superdelegate system that can Hillary the power of the purse* over many of those superdelegates, Bernie would have gotten the nomination or come damn close to it.

In the overall scheme of things, Obama was not only bad for the country he was a disaster for the Democratic Party. Even his own voters didn't like the "hope and change" that he wrought. Hillary ran on Obama's third term, after all. Wasn't enough.

*Obama did little to shore up the DNC's coffers. The party was essentially broke going into the 2018 election cycle. She was able to funnel money into the party and the DNCCC that provided campaign funds for Dem Congress Critters, a/k/a superdelegates.

At what point does close coordination with media regarding campaign information distributions and releases effectively become donated air time and advertising? It comes awfully close when there are planned information releases and carefully rehearsed and scripted interviews. That's a lot of $$ value.

ScottH_01 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm just wondering why Trump was getting that much scrutiny that early in the primaries and by the FBI? CIA?

Poppy Bush called in favors?

---

One of the things very clearly exposed by the DNC email leaks was that not only was Hillary rigging the D nomination for herself, she was using their media contacts to heavily influence the GOP primaries towards the more "fringe" candidates that they believed they could easily beat. Trump was their #1 choice to run against and by March/April it already looked like he was the most likely to win.

---

^THIS

The media itself was promoting Trump and all the news on him was how well he was doing, how surprising it was, but also no negative stories yet. they were saving those.

If you look at the media reports it all changed as soon as he clinched the nomination for GOP.

then it started with the rumors and leaks and salacious stories, lawsuits, metoo stuff, etc., even the Dossier which they had long before was saved until 1 week before the election.

they had ALL of that before the nomination but buried it until he was the candidate.

It was a fix from the beginning. Ironically they probably promoted the one person that could beat Hillary because he didn't just take what the media was dishing out, he fought back. He did not apologize but he threw it right back at them and her and played dirty.

aggiehawg said:

---

ScottH_01 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm just wondering why Trump was getting that much scrutiny that early in the primaries and by the FBI? CIA?

Poppy Bush called in favors?

---

One of the things very clearly exposed by the DNC email leaks was that not only was Hillary rigging the D nomination for herself, she was using their media contacts to heavily influence the GOP primaries towards the more "fringe" candidates that they believed they could easily beat. Trump was their #1 choice to run against and by March/April it already looked like he was the most likely to win.

---

I don't quite buy that. Sure, Hillary may have thought she wanted Trump to be the GOP nominee but Trump wouldn't have been garnering such large crowds if he hadn't tapped into that broad swath of voters who were just frustrated with the same old politicians.

Even the Dems experienced the same with the Bernie phenomenon. Had the DNC not had the superdelegate system that can Hillary the power of the purse* over many of those superdelegates, Bernie would have gotten the nomination or come damn close to it.

In the overall scheme of things, Obama was not only bad for the country he was a disaster for the Democratic Party. Even his own voters didn't like the "hope and change" that he wrought. Hillary ran on Obama's third term, after all. Wasn't enough.

*Obama did little to shore up the DNC's coffers. The party was essentially broke going into the 2018 election cycle. She was able to funnel money into the party and the DNCCC that provided campaign funds for Dem Congress Critters, a/k/a superdelegates.

---

Let's not overlook Hillary's 'Pied Piper' strategy:

Quote:

---

At what point does close coordination with media regarding campaign information distributions and releases effectively become donated air time and advertising? It comes awfully close when there are planned information releases and carefully rehearsed and scripted interviews. That's a lot of $$ value.

---

If it were me, I'd be inclined to say never, under existing precedents. The First Amendment forbids outlawing any speech or any act that has a chilling effect. Making media coverage into a campaign finance violation would run afoul of that, IMHO. Any attempt to codify such a result would likely be viewed as a prior restraint and struck down for the same reason.

So you basically call your campaign support organizations "media", and you have an unlimited campaign budget with no enforceable donation caps or funding sources. Foreign money? They're just "investors" in a "media business". Sure, you have to make all the proper filings, but it seems like it would be a super easy path to derail the FEC limitations without having to resort to "not" coordinating with PAC and other special interests to do your campaigning for you.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So you basically call your campaign support organizations "media", and you have an unlimited campaign budget with no enforceable donation caps or funding sources.

---

That essentially is what is happening now. It is an allowed campaign expense for them to have buses, even planes and bring the press along with them for campaign stops. Outlawing that practice might be worth a legislative looksie.