Mueller Report Imminent

#7,026
#7,026
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought we kissed and made up 🤷‍♂️😥
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and BigOrangeD
#7,029
#7,029
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Regarding Page, the warrant was for surveillance of his communications and saved emails, so it may be moot whether or not he was working for Trump at the time of the issuance of the warrant. Either way, the warrant from the FISC was issued in October, 2016 after the Government began investigating Page in September, 2016 and news about reported links between Page and the Russian Government was made public. The FISC warrant was issued after Page stepped down from his position with the Trump campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#7,030
#7,030
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I’d known it meant enough to you for you to lie about it, I would have let it go. Sorry.

And yes, I realize we didn’t have that conversation. I misinterpreted your prognostication as an effort at a grown up discussion. Won’t happen again.
 
#7,032
#7,032
37L1 said:
Regarding Page, the warrant was for surveillance of his communications and saved emails, so it may be moot whether or not he was working for Trump at the time of the issuance of the warrant. Either way, the warrant from the FISC was issued in October, 2016 after the Government began investigating Page in September, 2016 and news about reported links between Page and the Russian Government was made public. The FISC warrant was issued after Page stepped down from his position with the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It was just an example of supporting a conclusion, but I appreciate the info.

I understand saved emails would necessarily infringe on the campaign in a limited way, but it would also be one of the best places to find the evidence that they were looking for, so seems reasonable under both theories.
 
#7,034
#7,034
afb051319dAPR20190513054507.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, TN-POSSUM, hjeagle1vol and 2 others
#7,036
#7,036
37L1 said:
Regarding Page, the warrant was for surveillance of his communications and saved emails, so it may be moot whether or not he was working for Trump at the time of the issuance of the warrant. Either way, the warrant from the FISC was issued in October, 2016 after the Government began investigating Page in September, 2016 and news about reported links between Page and the Russian Government was made public. The FISC warrant was issued after Page stepped down from his position with the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
FISA warrants are retroactive.

If you're not familiar you also need to look up the FISA 2-hop rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#7,037
#7,037
Velo Vol said:
Bad idea. I doubt there's bombshells in the redactions anyway. Focus on getting witnesses in front of Congress who aren't covered by executive privilege.
Click to expand...

Those witness I presume would be the same witnesses interviewd by the muell's team? Think they'll change their story?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#7,038
#7,038
ajvol01 said:
FISA warrants are retroactive.

If you're not familiar you also need to look up the FISA 2-hop rule.
Click to expand...
Very interesting.

In the case of a subject like Carter Page, that means investigators who obtain a warrant in October 2016 can hunt through his communications going back several years before that date—and can use their “license to hop” to probe the first and second order of correspondents linked to him at any point during that period in the same fashion. (analysts working national-security surveillance without a targeted warrant can routinely go back for an 18-month haul.) Links from the past can then be exploited going forward.

What this means in practice is that, under a single warrant, anyone Page had a text or phone call with in the Trump campaign during the brief months of his association with it in 2016, was fair game, as a direct connection, all the way through the end of the last warrant-extension period on Page in October 2017. The second-hop connections of those initial contacts—meaning everyone that those people had contact with—are also fair game. In other words, it’s likely that almost everyone on the Trump campaign staff was included in the universe of first- and second-order contacts of Carter Page. The entirety of their correspondence is therefore also covered by the initial warrant, regardless of whether or not they ever met or corresponded with Carter Page, or whether that correspondence referred to him in any way, directly or indirectly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#7,039
#7,039
37L1 said:
Very interesting.

In the case of a subject like Carter Page, that means investigators who obtain a warrant in October 2016 can hunt through his communications going back several years before that date—and can use their “license to hop” to probe the first and second order of correspondents linked to him at any point during that period in the same fashion. (analysts working national-security surveillance without a targeted warrant can routinely go back for an 18-month haul.) Links from the past can then be exploited going forward.

What this means in practice is that, under a single warrant, anyone Page had a text or phone call with in the Trump campaign during the brief months of his association with it in 2016, was fair game, as a direct connection, all the way through the end of the last warrant-extension period on Page in October 2017. The second-hop connections of those initial contacts—meaning everyone that those people had contact with—are also fair game. In other words, it’s likely that almost everyone on the Trump campaign staff was included in the universe of first- and second-order contacts of Carter Page. The entirety of their correspondence is therefore also covered by the initial warrant, regardless of whether or not they ever met or corresponded with Carter Page, or whether that correspondence referred to him in any way, directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...
This is what they're hiding.

DECLAS is coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed and BigOrangeD
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top