Mueller Report Imminent

[Velo Vol]

More partisan fabrication.

 

[DC_Vol]

So you agree with Trump and disagree with the entire US intelligence community?

I agree with the revered and esteemed Robert Mueller’s conclusion that there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians.

I believe the evidence used to open the investigation was bogus (Steele Dossier), and I believe that many people involved knew it was not reliable information.

 

[RockyTop85]

Yawn.

You're making **** up again. You're wounded. I get it. You'll be OK.

Without going back and looking, I’m pretty sure that’s 8 or more straight responses trying to make the issue about me and at least 6 since the last one where you even attempted to support your QAnonsense

Can you make it to 10?

 

[ajvol01]

I’ve omitted some redundancies but the basic gist is you’re saying they lied and failed to disclose information that was exculpatory in the warrant application. Tell me if I’m wrong.

Search warrant applications, including this one, are effectively the affiant swearing that he has information that he believes establishes probable cause. Some of the information that this affiant had was hearsay. Therefore, he/she had two pertinent options to reach probable cause:
1. Bolster the reliability of the CI, generally. This is usually done, as it was done here, by demonstrating a past relationship with the CI. CIs are often criminals, so it doesn’t mean that everything they’ve said ever is true, and it doesn’t even mean that everything they’ve said about this case is 100% accurate.
2. Corroborate material facts with other observations.

This warrant was based on both.

I’m not aware of any rule that says that the police have to include exculpatory evidence in a warrant application. I’m familiar with a number of analogous legal principles that suggest that this is not something that any court is considering adopting.

Even if they, the FBI, outright lied, which I don’t think is established, guess what? Still a reasonable search, unless the lie was necessary to probable cause. So the corroboration of necessary facts for the warrant in the Mueller report is in fact relevant, despite your baseless protestations. The use of the word “legal” was probably an imprecise characterization of the validity of the search/investigation. There could still be consequences for the officer, but there never are.

Unless there’s some deviation that I didn’t catch, in this specific warrant application or some differences in the FISA laws that I’m not aware of, that’s my understanding of how the law would apply here.

(These are my personal opinions and should not be considered legal advice.)



lol at “making” reasons. You know who made the reasons? “Conservative” lawmakers and judges of the last half-century who wanted to appease their “conservative” constituents. You know, the people who thought punishing crack heads was more important than maintaining reasonable restraints on government?

So, yeah, I’m not “making” anything, I’m telling you what the law is. I’m not a Jedi knight. It’s not the force. It’s publicly available. You’re welcome to go look it up yourself. I suggest starting with Franks v. Delaware. I’ve posted case law in this forum during other iterations of this conversation, but go look it up for yourself and come tell me I’m wrong.

The fact that you haven’t already done this smells like the outrage of somebody who probably supported those same policies when they were being decided, even though people like me were saying “this is not right, what happens when it’s used against you?” Of course, that was met with a holy chorus of “I never do anything wrong, so I’ve got nothing to worry about.” How’s your singing voice?


I don’t think that idiom means what you think it means.

Admittedly, I’ve not posted here for very long, but I’ve spent my whole professional career fighting against the creep of government power and spent my whole adult life, since the passage of the patriot act, complaining about it. Just like the law doesn’t support your arguments about warrants, reality doesn’t support your accusations about me and, frankly, just further confirms that you’re willing to talk out your ass about stuff you don’t understand.

LMGTFY

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/woods.pdf

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fbi082903.pdf

 

[ajvol01]

What do you know the FBI did that Wray is unaware of?

You missed his point entirely.

Wray danced around the question. Didn't answer it.

He can't comment on OIG investigations, so it could be notable.

 

[RockyTop85]

LMGTFY

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/woods.pdf

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fbi082903.pdf

My argument is that the legal remedy you guys are expecting does not exist on a federal level.

These links are not statements of law. They are internal policies.

They don’t really seem to be very closely related to what I’m saying. Based on their age vis-a-vis the creation of FISC, I doubt there was any case law cited, that I overlooked.

These simply show that there can be professional or legal consequences for the parties involved. I acknowledged this later in the discussion, maybe in the post that you quoted.

 

[RockyTop85]

LMGTFY

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/woods.pdf

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fbi082903.pdf

You’ve read these procedures? Does the fact that they’re this expansive and the warrant has gone before a neutral and detached federal judge, who likely had significant experience before his or her appointment, not make you stop and think this is just another pizzagate?

How many people career law enforcement professionals had to be in on this conspiracy to pull this off?

They investigate crimes for a living and this theory that you have is the best plot they could come up with?

Then they risked incarceration and professional ruin by knowingly lying about it to a judge?

That seems more plausible to you than Jim Baker’s explanation? That they followed the rules the same way they do in every other case?

 

[ajvol01]

You’ve read these procedures? Does the fact that they’re this expansive and the warrant has gone before a neutral and detached federal judge, who likely had significant experience before his or her appointment, not make you stop and think this is just another pizzagate?

How many people career law enforcement professionals had to be in on this conspiracy to pull this off?

They investigate crimes for a living and this theory that you have is the best plot they could come up with?

Then they risked incarceration and professional ruin by knowingly lying about it to a judge?

That seems more plausible to you than Jim Baker’s explanation? That they followed the rules the same way they do in every other case?

Welcome to the show.

Grab some

 

[RockyTop85]

Welcome to the show.

Grab some

I’ll pass, thanks.

 

[Weezer]

The narrative pushed by Trump and his supporters --that investigating Russian interference to help Trump was partisan and fabricated-- is dangerous and is undermining our democracy. It was neither.

That's wrong. The investigation into Russian interference was fair. The investigation trying to link Trump to Russian interference is what was partisan. Stop trying to undermine our democracy.

 

[BigOrangeD]

You’ve read these procedures? Does the fact that they’re this expansive and the warrant has gone before a neutral and detached federal judge, who likely had significant experience before his or her appointment, not make you stop and think this is just another pizzagate?

How many people career law enforcement professionals had to be in on this conspiracy to pull this off?

They investigate crimes for a living and this theory that you have is the best plot they could come up with?

Then they risked incarceration and professional ruin by knowingly lying about it to a judge?

That seems more plausible to you than Jim Baker’s explanation? That they followed the rules the same way they do in every other case?

They never thought she would lose.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Without going back and looking, I’m pretty sure that’s 8 or more straight responses trying to make the issue about me and at least 6 since the last one where you even attempted to support your QAnonsense

Can you make it to 10?

You should go back and look.

Every response was about the issues I have with the situation with sprinkles of why I'm not using you as my legal expert on the matter. Just as you're doing now, you began ignoring my points while claiming that I am not making points and singularly attacking you.

I've pointed this out on several occasions, yet you continue to either lie or expose your lack of comprehension.

Now, I laid out my problems with the situation, answered your thoughts as to why I'm not considering you my preferred legal counsel on the matter, asked if you understand, and you responded with a thumbs up. I thought we were straight in the matter until you necromanced me.

Now, considering your constant whining, thinking that I'm attacking you, consider the fact that you've continually made stupid assumptions about me and completely invented supposed facts about me. I've pointed this out. You've continued to do it.

It's obvious you're still smarting about the whole thing and can't get over it. All I can do is tell you to grow up and put your big boy pants on.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I wanted Bush and crew strung up for the Patriot Act. Look me up around here. I detest Bush, Chaney, etc. The difference between you and I is that I'm not on here right now looking for reasons to say this is legal because I don't like the guy in office.

The 3-letter agencies created reasons to spy on a presidential campaign. They used that spying to illegally unmask Trump campaign to try to alter an election. They used that spying to try to cripple the duly elected president for two years. They've used that spying to push for removal of a duly elected president. Coming up empty, they've tried to manufacture process chatges to remove him.

It was political election tampering and a soft coup.

Carry the water, counselor. It's a great full body workout.

Lol! Still all about me and no support for your conclusions. Guess you know what you’ll find. Maybe next time you should do a little looking on the front end and you won’t have to resort to making crap up and personal attacks.

Oh, I'm content to wait and see how it plays out. If you're right and it's all legal with nothing to be done, at worst it should get enough indignation to get the Patriot Act shut down. And it may be enough to out the corupt parties in question and turn the national support against them, thus ending careers.

I'll be at least happy about that.

But I've read enough on the front end to see legal scholars beside yourself opining on it. You'll pardon me for not dipping out of the water you're carrying when your best defense of the soft coup is that it was most likely technically legal.



And you should take a good look in the mirror if you want to chastise anyone about making stuff up and personal attacks, when your last retort ignored my points, claiming that it is "all about you", and hinged on trying to make me a Bush supporter and Patriot Act defender when that's EXACTLY what I'm railing against. (You saw what I was railing against, no? When you claimed the reply was "all about you", and you were a footnote at best?) ...

...counselor.

So, if that's how you want to paint it, let's just go down that road. I'm not surprised in the least to see an attorney defending our 3-letter agencies purposefully misleading the court that exists to protect our civil liberties, as an insurance policy against a duly elected president.

I'm not surprised, seeing how, if you are an attorney, you were trained for years to argue a side of debate on technicalities, ignoring the ethics of the side you're defending.

That clear enough how I view you?

If nothing changes it’s not because I’m right, it’s because enough mindless drones think the law, as written, is sufficient and refuse to acknowledge how ****ed up it is because it would mean relinquishing some pipe dream of salvaging the presidency of their favorite con artist. Things should change because I’m right.

And given the quality of your other opinions, I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, but I appreciate the entertainment value of being lectured on ethics and technicalities by a trump apologist in a thread about the mueller report.

If you'd care to look or ask, I didn't vote for Trump and won't vote for him if he runs again. My conscience wouldn't, and won't, let me "call evil good and good evil", as I interpret the scriptural basis of my ethics. So, as far as I can tell, you're batting .000 by your own standard and accusation of making **** up and ignoring people's arguments.

My opinions come from defense of our representative system, not some blowhard supposed-billionaire politician.

Given the spectacular nature by which you fail to comprehend my opinions, I'll rest OK with the thought that you don't appreciate them. And given the verbiage you've dedicated to them, I can consider it a bald faced lie when you claim not to care in the least about them.

Cool?

Here's the middle and conclusion of our exchanges, and you'll note that I repeatedly made it about my issues with the process and actors. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may be correct about legalities, but still listed my problems with the ethics, corruption and implications it has on the system.

You've constantly invented **** about me, made it about me and ignored the points I was making, retreating to the fiction that all I am doing is attacking you, which is obvious bull****.

Now, what I recommend you do is grow up, put on your pullups and stop dragging me into your tantrum.

 

[hog88]

More partisan fabrication.

I have a feeling Russia will be the go to excuse from now on.

 

[luthervol]

I have a feeling Russia will be the go to excuse from now on.

I don't view it so much as an excuse but more as the catch all phrase for propaganda and misinformation efforts. Russia is just happy to play along in any opacity.

 

[RockyTop85]

10!!! You made it!

I didn’t care enough to go to the trouble of pulling quotes, but since you obviously did:

I wanted Bush and crew strung up for the Patriot Act. Look me up around here. I detest Bush, Chaney, etc. The difference between you and I is that I'm not on here right now looking for reasons to say this is legal because I don't like the guy in office.

Hissy fit about you and me.

The 3-letter agencies created reasons to spy on a presidential campaign. They used that spying to illegally unmask Trump campaign to try to alter an election. They used that spying to try to cripple the duly elected president for two years. They've used that spying to push for removal of a duly elected president. Coming up empty, they've tried to manufacture process chatges to remove him.

It was political election tampering and a soft coup.

Unsupported, counter-factual conclusion

Carry the water, counselor. It's a great full body workout.

About me.

Oh, I'm content to wait and see how it plays out. If you're right and it's all legal with nothing to be done, at worst it should get enough indignation to get the Patriot Act shut down. And it may be enough to out the corupt parties in question and turn the national support against them, thus ending careers.

I'll be at least happy about that.

Concession

But I've read enough on the front end to see legal scholars beside yourself opining on it. You'll pardon me for not dipping out of the water you're carrying when your best defense of the soft coup is that it was most likely technically legal.

Unsupported statement, I posted my sources. Also about me.

And you should take a good look in the mirror if you want to chastise anyone about making stuff up and personal attacks, when your last retort ignored my points, claiming that it is "all about you", and hinged on trying to make me a Bush supporter and Patriot Act defender when that's EXACTLY what I'm railing against. (You saw what I was railing against, no? When you claimed the reply was "all about you", and you were a footnote at best?) ...

...counselor.

About me.

So, if that's how you want to paint it, let's just go down that road. I'm not surprised in the least to see an attorney defending our 3-letter agencies purposefully misleading the court that exists to protect our civil liberties, as an insurance policy against a duly elected president.

I'm not surprised, seeing how, if you are an attorney, you were trained for years to argue a side of debate on technicalities, ignoring the ethics of the side you're defending.

That clear enough how I view you?

About me. Unsupported conclusion. About me. About me. Hissy fit.

If you'd care to look or ask, I didn't vote for Trump and won't vote for him if he runs again. My conscience wouldn't, and won't, let me "call evil good and good evil", as I interpret the scriptural basis of my ethics. So, as far as I can tell, you're batting .000 by your own standard and accusation of making **** up and ignoring people's arguments.

About you. About me. Hissy fit.

My opinions come from defense of our representative system, not some blowhard supposed-billionaire politician.

unsupported, counterfactual statement about you.

Given the spectacular nature by which you fail to comprehend my opinions, I'll rest OK with the thought that you don't appreciate them. And given the verbiage you've dedicated to them, I can consider it a bald faced lie when you claim not to care in the least about them.

Cool?

Hissy fit. About me. About me. About me.

You're showing that you don't really want to deal with arguments, just name-call in defense of any perceived threat to Obama and Hillary Trump

About somebody else... but also about you.

Yeah I made unsupported statements about you. The difference is I did it because because I (apparently, correctly) figured if you were doing it it must be something that gets under your skin. You did are doing it to try to distract from your inability to provide even a single concrete fact to support your QAnonsense theories.



Thanks for doing the leg work to start my day off on an entertaining note.

 

[Orange_Crush]

10!!! You made it!

I didn’t care enough to go to the trouble of pulling quotes, but since you obviously did:


Hissy fit about you and me.



Unsupported, counter-factual conclusion



About me.


Concession


Unsupported statement, I posted my sources. Also about me.


About me.



About me. Unsupported conclusion. About me. About me. Hissy fit.

About you. About me. Hissy fit.

unsupported, counterfactual statement about you.



Hissy fit. About me. About me. About me.



About somebody else... but also about you.

Yeah I made unsupported statements about you. The difference is I did it because because I (apparently, correctly) figured if you were doing it it must be something that gets under your skin. You did are doing it to try to distract from your inability to provide even a single concrete fact to support your QAnonsense theories.



Thanks for doing the leg work to start my day off on an entertaining note.

So, we're in agreement that you were full of **** when you claimed I merely attacked you without making any points?

If you're going to piss yourself, put your diaper on. The fact that you're an admitted troll, posting just to annoy and get under skin, tells me I wasted too much time on you. I should have recognized it sooner.

 

[RockyTop85]

If you're going to piss yourself, put your diaper on. The fact that you're an admitted troll, posting just to annoy and get under skin, tells me I wasted too much time on you. I should have recognized it sooner.

Unsupported, counterfactual* statement about me. Projection. About me.

11!

*- I might actually piss myself from laughing so hard at your lack of self awareness.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Without going back and looking, I’m pretty sure that’s 8 or more straight responses trying to make the issue about me and at least 6 since the last one where you even attempted to support your QAnonsense

Can you make it to 10?

My quote mining showed this to be untrue. It showed that I repeaterdly argued the issues I have with process.

10!!! You made it!

I didn’t care enough to go to the trouble of pulling quotes, but since you obviously did:


Hissy fit about you and me.



Unsupported, counter-factual conclusion



About me.


Concession


Unsupported statement, I posted my sources. Also about me.


About me.



About me. Unsupported conclusion. About me. About me. Hissy fit.

About you. About me. Hissy fit.

unsupported, counterfactual statement about you.



Hissy fit. About me. About me. About me.



About somebody else... but also about you.

Yeah I made unsupported statements about you. The difference is I did it because because I (apparently, correctly) figured if you were doing it it must be something that gets under your skin. You did are doing it to try to distract from your inability to provide even a single concrete fact to support your QAnonsense theories.



Thanks for doing the leg work to start my day off on an entertaining note.

You poo poo my argument while claiming I'm not making one. When this is pointed out, you continued your tantrum as an attack. That's cool. At least you admitted that you're posting to annoy. I get it.

It's juvenile, but I get it.

I'll just say again what I've already said. I'm content to wait this out. We'll see what's said and done. Who sees legal woes and who doesn't. I predict Trump will leave office of natural causes after his second term, and I suspect the people that conspired to spy on his campaign and spied on his presidency will feel the burn before he does. I also predict that the political blowback from this (as well as the impeach screeches) will guarantee his second term and give him a republican House and Senate.

It'll be fun to see how it plays out.

I genuinely hope you have a nice day.

 

[82_VOL_83]

If nothing changes it’s not because I’m right, it’s because enough mindless drones think the law, as written, is sufficient and refuse to acknowledge how ****ed up it is because it would mean relinquishing some pipe dream of salvaging the presidency of their favorite con artist. Things should change because I’m right.

And given the quality of your other opinions, I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, but I appreciate the entertainment value of being lectured on ethics and technicalities by a trump apologist in a thread about the mueller report.

 

[RockyTop85]

My quote mining showed this to be untrue. It showed that I repeaterdly argued the issues I have with process.



You poo poo my argument while claiming I'm not making one. When this is pointed out, you continued your tantrum as an attack. That's cool. At least you admitted that you're posting to annoy. I get it.

It's juvenile, but I get it.

I'll just say again what I've already said. I'm content to wait this out. We'll see what's said and done. Who sees legal woes and who doesn't. I predict Trump will leave office of natural causes after his second term, and I suspect the people that conspired to spy on his campaign and spied on his presidency will feel the burn before he does. I also predict that the political blowback from this (as well as the impeach screeches) will guarantee his second term and give him a republican House and Senate.

It'll be fun to see how it plays out.

I genuinely hope you have a nice day.

What I admitted to was posting to annoy you as an in-kind response. I assumed if you thought that would get under my skin, it was projection, and doing the same in return would get under yours. Maybe you feel my response was disproportionate, but IMO calling me juvenile or a troll for responding in-kind is a self-own on your part.

I find the civil disagreements I have here entertaining. The hateful ones are usually equally enjoyable. Don’t see anything wrong with that. I try not to goad people into hateful disagreements unwillingly, but I’m happy to trade barbs and can remember laughing out loud at a few of the things somebody, probably @NorthDallas40 , said about one of my arguments.

Your ultimate conclusions seem reasonable as far as prognostication goes, I have no idea how things will play out and won’t speculate on it.

But you’re just stating conclusions. I say Im skeptical of the theories on how it played out. Then I say it’s because of the reasons I posed to AJ. Also, I don’t think Carter Page even worked for Trump when the warrant was issued, but I can’t swear to that and there may be some rationalization for that somewhere in this theory.

If you’re just saying “no I don’t believe you. you’re carrying water” that post wasn’t about supporting your argument, that post was about distracting from your argument with comments about me. Which, as I say, is fine, but don’t act victimized when I’m a dick about it.

My main issue is really not with any of that, it’s my high level of confidence that it’s political grift that, unlike Jakob Wohl, touches on an issue I care about.

 

[RockyTop85]

.

I got what you were talking about the first time.

Now put that in context with the rest of the conversation or I’m going to have to go all John Grisham on your ass.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I got what you were talking about the first time.

Now put that in context with the rest of the conversation or I’m going to have to go all John Grisham on your ass.

I don't read Grisham soooooo........you can imagine me reading yours......

 

[RockyTop85]

I don't read Grisham soooooo........you can imagine me reading yours......

Not sure what you want from this discussion. You’re right, the post was intentionally condescending and rude, but you’re taking the part you keep bringing up out of context to give it extra rudeness and condescension.

Thanks? I guess.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What I admitted to was posting to annoy you as an in-kind response. I assumed if you thought that would get under my skin, it was projection, and doing the same in return would get under yours. Maybe you feel my response was disproportionate, but IMO calling me juvenile or a troll for responding in-kind is a self-own on your part.

I find the civil disagreements I have here entertaining. The hateful ones are usually equally enjoyable. Don’t see anything wrong with that. I try not to goad people into hateful disagreements unwillingly, but I’m happy to trade barbs and can remember laughing out loud at a few of the things somebody, probably @NorthDallas40 , said about one of my arguments.

Your ultimate conclusions seem reasonable as far as prognostication goes, I have no idea how things will play out and won’t speculate on it.

Im skeptical of the theories on how it played out because of the reasons I posed to AJ. I don’t think Carter Page even worked for Trump when the warrant was issued, but I can’t swear to that and there may be some rationalization for that somewhere in this theory.

My main issue is really not with any of that, it’s my high level of confidence that it’s political grift that, unlike Jakob Wohl, touches on an issue I care about.

Nothing I posted was meant to get under your skin, so again you invented and attributed, which seems to be your MO. I accused you of carrying water. When you began setting yourself up as the legal opinion of record, and belittling the sources I've used to establish my opinion, while claiming that I wasn't making an argument and accusing me of singularly attacking you, I said, "OK... If that's the way you want to paint it, I'll go down that road. Here's why I don't trust you as the source of my truth..."

None of it was meant to troll you. None of it was projection. Every bit of it was with purpose and honesty, and as a response to you.

You, however, admittedly posted to troll. Own it. I'll know better what you're about the next time we interact. And for the record, it is juvenile and trolling to post for the purpose of "getting under someone's skin", as you put it. That wasn't an attack either. It was just a response to your admission.

To respond once again to your accusation that I haven't proven my assertions, you never gave any indications that my assertions per lying, withholding pertinent information, spying on the campaign, spying on the presidency, handcuffing the administration, and calling for impeachment were in question. You just argued that it's legal. You also mis-attributed to me the argument that the investigation should be void due to the above factors, which I never made.

I stand by those assertions. I stand by the argument that they are corrupt, unethical, political, most likely illegal; that the perpetrators will most likely see legal problems from it, that Trump will be untouched and given a political boost in the eyes of America, that the Democrats will take a beating from it, that Obama's legacy will take another hit if it's proven that he knew/coordinated it, and that they're all corrupt, power-hungry abominations to the Republic.

Have a nice day, counselor.