US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

[TheLoveBandit]

I question why it isn't all shared to Mueller, unless it is historical events not relevant to Mueller's line of questions (ie Russian collusion).

It then sounds like a set up for a tell all book on Cohen's part, with manipulation of media to hype it up. AND a following graveyard full of skeletons for Trump to face, but not ones relevant to his presidency necessarily.

 

[cduggles]

^ What about attorney-client privilege?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Excellent question. idunno.... I mean, Stormy signed, and was paid, for a NDA and that doesn't seem to carry any weight. Why should this, when it comes to Trump?

 

[tathra]

I question why it isn't all shared to Mueller, unless it is historical events not relevant to Mueller's line of questions (ie Russian collusion).

It then sounds like a set up for a tell all book on Cohen's part, with manipulation of media to hype it up. AND a following graveyard full of skeletons for Trump to face, but not ones relevant to his presidency necessarily.

it likely is all shared to mueller, and he cant make it all public yet since the investigation is still ongoing

 

[cduggles]

Admittedly, I was intrigued...

NDA wasn't signed and Trump stated he wasn't contesting it anyway, thus avoiding being deposed, and it aligns with his claim that he had nothing to do with the NDA. Trump later contradicted this claim. I think.

Apparently, this situation is covered either way. This excerpt is from an ancient text published in April when Cohen's life was raided by the FBI and Trump was claiming attorney-client privilege was dead, but the law is very clear on exceptions to attorney-client privilege. I'm guessing both as detailed below are applicable:

First, for the attorney-client privilege to exist, there must actually be an attorney-client relationship regarding a specific matter. I, for instance, have to hire you to help me resolve a tax dispute with the IRS. The representation is limited to that matter and so is the privilege. Other things I may have told you in passing (for example, about the fight I am having with my wife and how I beat her—this is a hypothetical!) are outside the scope of the representation and are not privileged. The law is clear that as a general matter a person cannot claim to have an attorney for “all matters” that might arise. (As an aside, one reason for this rule is that it would frustrate legitimate investigation—as was the case when John Gotti, the famous Mafia don, suggested that his attorney, Bruce Cutler, represented him in everything—thereby attempting to make it unlawful for the government to wiretap or use an undercover agent to speak to him about new matters.) Indeed, the cases are legion for the proposition that representation of a defendant in connection with one criminal matter does not encompass representation in connection with a separate (and even arguably related) criminal matter. (For one example, see Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 299 (1990), which says a defendant charged with aggravated battery may be contacted undercover in a murder investigation.)

Why is this relevant? Because President Trump has said quite publicly that he did not know what Cohen was doing with respect to the alleged payments to the actress known as Stormy Daniels—payments that appear to be at the core of the Southern District of New York's investigation. He has said that he was unaware of the payments and did not know why they were made (and suggested that the press had to “ask Michael” about them). If this is true, then it seems that Trump could not have had an attorney-client relationship with Cohen regarding the Daniels payment in the first instance—one hallmark of an attorney-client relationship is agreement as to its scope and the attorney’s obligation to keep the client advised as to all significant material matters (of which settlement would surely be one). By his own testimony, it seems that the Daniels matter is outside the scope of matters in which Cohen has represented Trump—and thus there is no attorney-client privilege in the first instance.

But let’s assume the contrary. Let's assume that Trump and Cohen did have an agreement (and that Trump is not being candid about what he knew—which is another kettle of fish altogether). If that is the case then clearly the discussions between Trump and Cohen would fall within the attorney-client privilege. Trump might have told Cohen about his version of what really happened; might have asked Cohen to make sure his wife did not find out; and might have promised to pay Cohen back for the settlement funds. All of these hypotheticals (again, we don’t really know) are the sorts of confidential communications that are presumptively protected by the privilege. And the privilege applies whether these communications happened orally or in writing.

What then could be the basis for the Southern District of New York search and review of these materials? Materials that, at least facially, would be protected.

That question brings us to something known as the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. It is, if you will, an exception to an exception that allows the government to read, review, compel production of and compel testimony of an attorney and his or her records. It arises if, and only if, the client uses the attorney’s services to commit a crime. (So, to be clear, it does not apply retrospectively, as when I tell you about a crime I have already committed.) An easy example of this would be if I use an attorney to help me draft an affidavit that I am going to submit to a court, and the affidavit is false. I have used the attorney’s help to commit a crime. The lawyer may not know that the crime is afoot (indeed usually does not—since, notwithstanding the public derision, most attorneys would not knowingly assist a client in committing a crime) and may be completely ignorant. But if the government can show a court that there is a basis for thinking that the crime has occurred (in my example, that the affidavit is a lie) then the attorney can and will be required to testify as to the nature of his interaction with the client. “What did the client tell you?” is a completely impermissible question generally—but it is a lawful question when there is reason to think that the answer is “X happened,” and the lawyer took that answer and put it in an affidavit that was submitted to a court and it turns out that the statement that “X happened” is a bald-faced lie.

You can readily imagine other examples of when and how a lawyer’s services might be used to commit a crime. The lawyer helps set up a shell corporation (perfectly legal generally) and the corporation is used to foster a Ponzi scheme. The lawyer is asked about how to secure insurance, and the insurance is used to collect on an insurance fraud. And so on. In other words, the crime-fraud exception applies when an attorney’s advice is used to further the crime. Or, as the Supreme Court put it in Clark v. United States(1933), “A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told.”

And that, one suspects, is where the rubber meets the road. It may well be that President Trump sought Cohen’s legal advice regarding the Daniels affair for an illegal purpose (e.g., to avoid federal campaign-finance laws or to conceal the true source of the funds with which she was paid or to threaten her). In that circumstance, it seems clear that the crime-fraud exception might apply—and it appears highly likely that the FBI and the lawyers in New York have made that showing to a federal magistrate. Or, as one observer put it: “Michael Cohen is in serious legal jeopardy.” President Trump may be as well.

Source: https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-cohen-attorney-client-privilege-and-crime-fraud-exception

In other words, I'm guessing Cohen was around for a lot of conversations that weren't privileged and a certain amount of planning of illegal activities, if his testimony is truthful. (Unlike some, I think Cohen told some of the truth because he found out that the FBI knew a lot more than he had believed they did and therefore spilled. Also, to accuse Cohen of lying, which he was accused of doing, there must have been corroborating evidence for what was true and what wasn't.

I think Cohen can publicly talk about things he heard that he wasn't paid to deal with, although I'm not sure if he can address his testimony. After three years in prison, I'm guessing he'll be careful about breaking privilege. Maybe?

Another good layperson's article on attorney-client privilege from the time of the raid:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/10/6011...-cohen-mean-attorney-client-privilege-is-dead

 

[aihfl]

A judge gave Flynn the option of being sentenced today, or after Mueller's done with him. Guess which one he took?

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday postponed the sentencing of Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s first national security adviser, after warning Mr. Flynn that he could face prison for lying to federal investigators about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition and hiding his role lobbying for Turkey. At Mr. Flynn’s sentencing hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan called Mr. Flynn’s crimes “a very serious offense” and said he was not hiding his “disgust” at what Mr. Flynn had done.

“All along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser,” the judge told Mr. Flynn. “Arguably that undermines everything that this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out.” Later in the hearing, the judge corrected himself, noting that Mr. Flynn’s work on behalf of Turkey had ended in mid-November of 2016, before Mr. Flynn became national security adviser. The judge acknowledged that he had made a mistake and said, “I feel terrible about that.”

But Judge Sullivan gave Mr. Flynn the option of delaying the sentencing until he had completed his cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors. “I cannot assure that if you proceed today you will not receive a sentence of incarceration,” Judge Sullivan told Mr. Flynn. After a short recess, Mr. Flynn returned to the courtroom to take the judge up on his offer.

Mr. Flynn faces up to six months in prison, but federal prosecutors have recommended a lenient sentence, including the possibility of probation, because Mr. Flynn has provided “substantial help” with multiple criminal inquiries. During the sentencing hearing, Judge Sullivan questioned Mr. Flynn and his lawyer about their earlier suggestion that F.B.I. agents might have tricked Mr. Flynn by failing to inform him before they interviewed him nearly two years ago that lying to them would constitute a federal crime. Mr. Flynn told the court that he was not challenging the circumstances of the interview and that he knew lying to the F.B.I. was a crime. In doing so, Mr. Flynn distanced himself from Mr. Trump’s efforts to suggest misconduct by the F.B.I. in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Earlier, Mr. Trump had wished Mr. Flynn “good luck” in a Twitter post.

Mr. Flynn is the highest-ranking aide to Mr. Trump to face sentencing in the special counsel’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign. His case has marked an extraordinary fall from grace for a retired three-star general who once headed one of the nation’s most important military intelligence operations, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Prosecutors have refused to disclose publicly the details of how Mr. Flynn, 59, helped them during 19 interviews over the past year, redacting paragraph after paragraph of their sentencing memo to the judge. His lawyer, Robert K. Kelner, said in court on Tuesday that Mr. Flynn’s cooperation was “very largely complete” but that Mr. Flynn wanted to make sure he got full credit for further assistance to prosecutors before being sentenced. Judge Sullivan made abundantly clear throughout the proceedings that he viewed the crimes admitted to by Mr. Flynn as extraordinarily serious and a betrayal of the trust placed in him as a high-ranking White House official. At one point he even asked prosecutors if Mr. Flynn might have committed treason. (The prosecutor in the case, Brandon L. Van Grack, said no.)

The special counsel’s office is investigating whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice, including by asking James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director at the time, to end the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early 2017. It is unclear whether Mr. Flynn knew about the president’s reported attempt to intervene on his behalf. On Monday, federal prosecutors in Virginia unsealed an indictment accusing two of Mr. Flynn’s former business associates of violating foreign lobbying rules. Prosecutors said the two men conspired with Turkey in 2016 to pressure the United States to expel a rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Prosecutors said Tuesday that Mr. Flynn aided them in the case. In arguing for probation, Mr. Flynn’s lawyers had cited his lengthy military service, his cooperation with prosecutors and his contrition.

But they also had criticized F.B.I. agents for failing to advise him before the interview on Jan. 24, 2017, that lying to them would constitute a federal crime. They claimed that the agents deliberately did not warn Mr. Flynn so he would not be on his guard — an accusation that appeared intended to draw the attention of Judge Sullivan, who has taken other prosecutors to task for misconduct.Defense lawyers also raised the idea that Mr. Flynn’s bearing during questioning was potential evidence that he did not lie to investigators. One of the agents who interviewed Mr. Flynn later told the special counsel that Mr. Flynn had a very sure demeanor and did not reveal any “indicators of deception.”

The move by Mr. Flynn’s legal team to raise questions about the F.B.I.’s conduct might have been a play for a pardon from the president, whose former lawyer had discussed the idea last year with a lawyer for Mr. Flynn. Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that Mr. Flynn was treated poorly. Prosecutors dismissed the claims that Mr. Flynn had been tricked as a poor excuse, saying that as a high-ranking White House official and the former director of an intelligence agency, he was well aware that misleading federal authorities was a felony offense.

“The seriousness of the defendant’s offense cannot be called into question, and the court should reject his attempt to minimize it,” prosecutors wrote last week after Mr. Flynn’s legal team made the assertion. In an account of Mr. Flynn’s F.B.I. interview filed in court late Monday, agents described in detail how he falsely answered their questions.His sentencing hearing came amid a flurry of activity in criminal cases that have involved the Trump campaign, the White House and the president himself.
Last week, Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, was sentenced to three years in prison for crimes including organizing hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to cover up potential sex scandals that threatened Mr. Trump’s presidential bid. Prosecutors have said Mr. Cohen acted at Mr. Trump’s direction, implicating the president in felony violations of campaign finance laws. Mr. Flynn, who led Trump supporters in chants of “lock her up” against Hillary Clinton at campaign rallies, was interviewed by F.B.I. agents only four days after Mr. Trump’s inauguration. He pleaded guilty a year ago to misleading them about a series of discussions he had with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. Prosecutors have said Mr. Flynn’s deceptions impeded the F.B.I.’s open investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow’s covert effort to tip the presidential election in Mr. Trump’s favor. Mr. Trump has said he fired Mr. Flynn because he had also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Mr. Flynn has now admitted that after the outgoing Obama administration imposed sanctions against Russia for its interference in the 2016 presidential race, he requested that Russia not escalate tensions between the two countries. Mr. Kislyak later told him that Russia had agreed not to retaliate, an unusual decision that Mr. Trump himself praised. But in his interview with the F.B.I., Mr. Flynn claimed that he did not remember ever asking Mr. Kislyak that Russia hold back, according to the agents. He told them that he did not even know about the Obama administration’s decision to expel dozens of Russian diplomats and to seize two Russian-owned estates because at that time he was on vacation in the Dominican Republic, without access to television or to his government-issued BlackBerry phone. Mr. Flynn has also acknowledged that he lied to the F.B.I. about his discussions with Mr. Kislyak and officials from other countries about an impending vote on a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The agents said Mr. Flynn told them that he asked Mr. Kislyak about Russia’s views but did not advocate Russia take any particular position on the resolution. He “stated the conversations were along the lines of where do you stand, and what’s your position,” the agents wrote. In fact, Mr. Flynn asked that Russia either delay or oppose the resolution.

Finally, he has admitted lying about his lobbying work for Turkey in documents he filed with the Justice Department after he was forced out as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser amid controversy over his conversations with the Russian ambassador. He held that post for just 24 days, the shortest tenure ever.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

[cduggles]

These past few weeks have been nuts with the Russia investigation.

4 takeaways from the weekend's bombshell reports about Trump and Russia
​

There are days when it seems impossible to write about the presidency of Donald Trump. Doing so requires contemplating facts and scenarios that, not so long ago, would have sounded like the worst sort of Alex Jones conspiracy-mongering. For example, we learned from The New York Times[Cover the weekend that the FBI once opened an investigation into the president of the United States for possibly being an agent of Russia.

Really?
Really.

Obviously, this is not a complete surprise. Hillary Clinton warned usduring the campaign that Trump was a puppet of Russia's Vladimir Putin. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating apparent links between Trump's campaign and the Russian officials who were working for Clinton's defeat. Then there was that crazy press conference with Putin just a few months ago. So, this weekend's report about the FBI investigation rated only as a minor bombshell.

Still, the news serves as a great opportunity to step back, take a deep breath, and consider a Trump presidency that, increasingly, reads like the plot of a lesser Tom Clancy novel.

Here are four things to consider as we continue to scrutinize Trump's relationship with Russia:

First, he might be innocent. Allegations and investigations are not the same as hard evidence, and it's possible that Trump is being smeared with some of the worst charges that you can aim at a president of the United States. Even if that's so, that doesn't necessarily make Trump a sympathetic figure ? remember that he rose to political prominence on the strength of the false, racist "birther" theories meant to undermine President Barack Obama. Live by ugly conspiracy-mongering, and you can die by it, too.

Still, the best-case scenario for this president is that he's getting his just deserts. That should be alarming.

Second, maybe he's not innocent. We don't need to live by a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard with the American presidency, and Trump long ago entered "walks like a duck" territory, as far as Russia is concerned. Just this weekend, The Washington Post reported that the president has been hiding the details of his meetings with Putin from even his closest aides. Combine that with the Times report, and even Fox News' Jeanine Pirro was forced on Saturday to ask the president an almost unthinkable question: "Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?"

Trump didn't directly answer. Uh-oh. Alarm bells should be ringing.

Third, the damage could be catastrophic. If Mueller or Congress can reasonably prove a determination that Trump is a witting or unwitting agent of Russia, that taints every bit of governance that has occurred during the last two years ? every treaty broken, every regulation scrapped, every judgeship filled and Cabinet appointment made, up to and including Vice President Mike Pence. How to undo that damage?

In all honesty, we probably can't ? we can only rebuild. There might be pressure on Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to resign their lifetime appointments, if only to keep the consequences of a tainted presidency from lasting for a generation. Short of impeachment, though, it seems unlikely that anybody will readily give up the power they have attained during this administration. The main thing Democrats can do is try to win elections, and to reconstruct laws, diplomatic relationships, and institutions from there.

Fourth and finally, the governance of the United States is in need of revamping. That's clear no matter how this ends. As currently constructed, it cannot protect us from the likes of Trump and the chaos he has spread. My colleague Ryan Cooper last week noted how the Constitution's design led almost inevitably to the current government shutdown. It's obvious now that our methods for vetting presidential candidates are also inadequate.

A requirement that presidential candidates publicly disclose their tax returns would be a good start, but it's possible we should go further: Before an individual publicly declares their candidacy, they should be required to undergo the same kind of formal, nonpartisan vetting and background check required of any other public official with a high-level security clearance. They should be able to do this privately ? and there should be an appeal process if they disagree with the findings of that vetting. The bottom-line results of that vetting, pass or fail, should be made public when the candidate files for office.

There are problems with this approach: You don't want to give the intelligence community veto power over America's democratic choices. Right now, though, Americans can be forgiven for suspecting the president is less than fully committed to the country he leads. Without that confidence ? in Trump and in his successors ? we're doomed to endless crisis.

 

[alasdairm]

roger stone - trump's self-confessed 'dirty trickster' - indicted today.

quick summary:

trump foreign policy adviser george papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the fbl.

trump campaign chairman paul manafort was found guilty of fraud charges unrelated to the campaign and later pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the united states and conspiracy to obstruct justice. he entered into a deal with the special counsel and was subsequently accused of violating the terms of the deal by repeated lying.

trump campaign aide rick gates was indicted on a number of counts for a series of alleged crimes related to lobbying for a pro-russia government in ukraine.

trump national security adviser michael flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about his contact with russian ambassador sergey kislyak.

trump personal lawyer michael cohen pleaded guilty to tax fraud, bank fraud and campaign finance violations, and asserted the illegal payments made to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal — to silence them on their alleged affairs with trump — were directed by trump himself, implicating the president in a federal crime.

lobbyist w. samuel patten pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered foreign agent while working for a ukrainian politician and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. he also admitted to illegally funneling ukrainian money into trump’s inaugural committee.

trump advisor roger stone was charged with seven counts, including witness tampering, making false statements and obstruction of an official proceeding.

This has nothing to do with the president...

sure. nothing.

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

From cduggle's article:

There are days when it seems impossible to write about the presidency of Donald Trump. Doing so requires contemplating facts and scenarios that, not so long ago, would have sounded like the worst sort of Alex Jones conspiracy-mongering.

This made me laugh so hard because it's true. The accusations against Trump are just that, conspiracy theories.

trump foreign policy adviser george papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the fbl.

2 weeks jail and is out. No charges related to Russian collusion or election interference (remember when that was the point of this investigation?)

trump campaign chairman paul manafort was found guilty of fraud charges unrelated to the campaign and later pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the united states and conspiracy to obstruct justice. he entered into a deal with the special counsel and was subsequently accused of violating the terms of the deal by repeated lying.

Manafort's crimes happened a decade ago. Nothing to do with Trump.

trump national security adviser michael flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about his contact with russian ambassador sergey kislyak.

Pretty sure official government sources claimed that Flynn did not consciously deceive FBI investigators, but he chose to plead guilty anyway. Either way, he lied about a legal phone call. Such a serious charge, I guess that means election interference.

trump personal lawyer michael cohen pleaded guilty to tax fraud, bank fraud and campaign finance violations, and asserted the illegal payments made to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal ? to silence them on their alleged affairs with trump ? were directed by trump himself, implicating the president in a federal crime.

Trump gave Cohen directions which were legal. Cohen proceeded to complete those tasks via illegal means. The president is absolved because he did not direct Cohen to do anything illegal, and if he did then Cohen would have the tapes and would've taken down Trump to free himself.

lobbyist w. samuel patten pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered foreign agent while working for a ukrainian politician and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. he also admitted to illegally funneling ukrainian money into trump?s inaugural committee.

I wouldn't mind seeing a source for illegal ukrainian money to Trump's inaugural committee.

trump advisor roger stone was charged with seven counts, including witness tampering, making false statements and obstruction of an official proceeding.

Roger Stone was the missing link in Mueller's plan to take down the entire administration! Stone was the one who was the liaison between Trump and Putin. Putin told Stone to bribe the electoral college for Trump and voila! Impeachment? Nah, Convictions are imminent!!!!

 

[JGrimez]

This is a must-watch. Dan Bongino (ex-Secret Service under Obama) summarizes everything that has happened so far with the FISAgate scandal, which was the Obama administration illegally wiretapping the Trump administration (and they still found zero evidence of Russian collusion).
http://https://www.facebook.com/davepmcdonald/posts/2072348962823669

Bongino also goes into some facts about actual Russian collusion, like Russians donating money to Hillary Clinton for seeming bribes, while Robert Mueller was Director of the FBI under Obama.

 

[cduggles]

Manafort Intentionally Lied To Special Counsel, Judge Says

Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at U.S. District Court on June 15, 2018, in Washington, D.C. A judge said Wednesday he intentionally lied to the special counsel's office.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

A federal judge says former Trump 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort intentionally lied to special counsel Robert Mueller's office. The ruling also concludes that prosecutors are no longer bound by their plea deal with Manafort.

Manafort agreed to plead guilty only days before a trial last year in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors agreed to consider recommending leniency for Manafort based on his cooperation. Now Judge Amy Jackson has found Manafort intentionally lied about payments to a law firm and his interactions with a business associate the FBI has linked to Russian intelligence services. Manafort now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison. He will be sentenced March 13.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Anyone notice the incredible coverage of CNN for the arrest of Stone? It's uncanny how they were at his house an hour before the FBI, almost like they had ESP or something.

Btw, this is NOT fact. It's a reconstruction by someone after the event based on the timing of documents, basically built from the paper trail. But what IS fact, is that the FBI didn't tip CNN off. The federal indictment was sealed at the time. Nobody outside of the Office of Special Counsel would have a copy. Not FBI, not media, certainly not the public. So, how did they know to be there then?

Assuming the timeline is correct, it means CNN had a copy at least FOUR hours before the clerk unsealed the document. And we know they had it as they called Stone's lawyer for comment at 6am. Dumbasses even sent a draft copy to the counsel.


Thank GOD Mueller's team doesn't leak things, amirite?


Btw, anyone watch the video of the raid? Seems the FBI sweep of the house missed one camera showing the FBI fully armed and CNN just monkeying along.

[video]https://youtu.be/rYs_qEOWyQ0[/video]

 

[JessFR]

This is a must-watch. Dan Bongino (ex-Secret Service under Obama) summarizes everything that has happened so far with the FISAgate scandal, which was the Obama administration illegally wiretapping the Trump administration (and they still found zero evidence of Russian collusion).
http://https://www.facebook.com/davepmcdonald/posts/2072348962823669

Bongino also goes into some facts about actual Russian collusion, like Russians donating money to Hillary Clinton for seeming bribes, while Robert Mueller was Director of the FBI under Obama.

Have you ever tried creating a thread for fisagate?

Again, as I keep saying over and over. This "oh but x did y" is all irrelivent. The existence of worse behavior than trumps doesn't just make trumps stop existing.

 

[JGrimez]

^This thread is actually for FISAgate. Because the Mueller investigation is simply a distraction from the FISA abuse. There is no observable crime that launched the Mueller investigation, it was based on NOTHING.

Remember, Mueller investigation = FISA abuse coverup..

and yea, CNN being at Stone's house was ridiculous. Not surprised though, there have been steady leaks out of the government for the past 2 years (as long as the news is potentially detrimental to Trump).

I wonder what they're going to get Roger Stone for... maybe they can also get him for lying to the FBI and put him away for THREE weeks!

 

[cduggles]

Please stay on topic. Thanks!

Creating thread for FISAgate is a great idea, or the 'alternative' theory thread is also a possibility.

https://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/651658-ALTERNATIVE-THEORIES-V-The-Build-a-bear-Workshop

 

[JessFR]

This thread is NOT for "fisagate". I don't consider fisagate a real thing. I think it's a laughable conspiracy theory. But regardless, you think muellers investigation is a fake news distraction for fisagate, and I think fisagate is a fake news distraction for mueller.

The solution is not to discuss both together, that's just gonna make a huge mess of pointless back and forth.

 

[JGrimez]

Wowww....ok lol
So the FISA abuse with a ton of evidence is a "conspiracy theory", but the whole Trump/Putin collusion/election interference is a legitimate scandal that actually happened, even though you've got no evidence.

I actually expected you to take the FISA stuff more seriously, Jess. The fact that you call it a "conspiracy theory" severely hurts your credibility.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

JG - This is about the investigation into Trump. There should be, and now is, a separate place to discuss gov't corruption for things like FISAgate. I'm sure that will all come out as well, at some point (I hope), but it would be after, and separate from, Mueller's investigation into Trump. Let's stick to Mueller's investigation of Trump in this thread, please.

 

[JessFR]

Wowww....ok lol
So the FISA abuse with a ton of evidence is a "conspiracy theory", but the whole Trump/Putin collusion/election interference is a legitimate scandal that actually happened, even though you've got no evidence.

I actually expected you to take the FISA stuff more seriously, Jess. The fact that you call it a "conspiracy theory" severely hurts your credibility.

Well it's either hurt my credibility, or lie about my belief, so I guess it's credibility that's gotta go.

And just to be clear again, I didn't say I believe the trump collusion theory either. What I said was that I think fisagate is an attempt to distract from the investigation and isn't supported by good evidence.

I don't really have an opinion about conspiracy between Russia and the trump campaign. I'm happy waiting to see how the investigation plays out. If it finds evidence, chances are I'll believe it, if it doesn't, I'll likely remain with no opinion. I'm just not much into taking positions on open investigations. I'm in no rush to form an opinion when all the facts haven't come in yet.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I don't really have an opinion about conspiracy between Russia and the trump campaign. I'm happy waiting to see how the investigation plays out. If it finds evidence, chances are I'll believe it, if it doesn't, I'll likely remain with no opinion. I'm just not much into taking positions on open investigations. I'm in no rush to form an opinion when all the facts haven't come in yet.

Evidence of why you will never succeed as a MSM journalist. Opinions first, facts later - fabricated if necessary, or ignored if required.