TrumPutinGate

#17,876
#17,876
evillawyer said:
Not following that one. One is expressing an irrelevant opinion (since he has no say in when Mueller ends the investigation, much less knowledge as to what Mueller has uncovered), while the other (an incredibly well-known and well-regarded investigative journalist), is simply purporting to report actual conversations about Trump from those in his administration. How are those comparable?
Click to expand...

Trying to claim a false dichotomy. Ok better than the usual “whataboutism” reply I guess. I’m pointing to straight up confirmation bias plain and simple. You want to believe Woodard and prop him up so you do. Langone makes the same argument we have been and he’s ridiculed. Convenient no?

And did you even read the damn article before you ridiculed it?! The whole dialog began within the context of Cavuto questioning Langone about the Woodward claims. (Hit reply before I put that in there)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#17,877
#17,877
NorthDallas40 said:
Trying to claim a false dichotomy. Ok better than the usual “whataboutism” I’m pointing to straight up confirmation bias plain and simple. You want to believe Woodard and prop him up so you do. Laguone (sic?) makes the same argument we have been and he’s ridiculed. Convenient no?
Click to expand...

Really, this is the argument you want to hang you hat on?

“We live in the greatest country on Earth, and the American people spoke loud and clear,” said Langone. “The establishment is shocked that Donald Trump won. But he won. He won fair and square. I don’t — this Mueller investigation, come on, let’s end it. Let’s decide. Come out and say what you got. There’s a notion here that this guy should not be President of the United States. I beg your pardon. He won fair and square. He won 307 electoral votes. He is our president. Respect the office of the presidency.”

Basically, the argument is this:

(1) Mueller is investigating the legitimacy of Trump's victory
(2) Mueller has not completed his investigation nor disclosed evidence of collusion, if any, that he's discovered, but
(3) Trump won fair and square (i.e., the victory was legitimate)
Therefore, Mueller must end his investigation and say what he's found.

Doesn't (3) seem a bit question-begging given (1) and (2)?
 
#17,878
#17,878
evillawyer said:
Really, this is the argument you want to hang you hat on?

“We live in the greatest country on Earth, and the American people spoke loud and clear,” said Langone. “The establishment is shocked that Donald Trump won. But he won. He won fair and square. I don’t — this Mueller investigation, come on, let’s end it. Let’s decide. Come out and say what you got. There’s a notion here that this guy should not be President of the United States. I beg your pardon. He won fair and square. He won 307 electoral votes. He is our president. Respect the office of the presidency.”

Basically, the argument is this:

(1) Mueller is investigating the legitimacy of Trump's victory
(2) Mueller has not completed his investigation nor disclosed evidence of collusion, if any, that he's discovered, but
(3) Trump won fair and square (i.e., the victory was legitimate)
Therefore, Mueller must end his investigation and say what he's found.

Doesn't (3) seem a bit question-begging given (1) and (2)?
Click to expand...

Just declass all the docs. Tick Tock
 
#17,879
#17,879
I reject premise 1. Mueller has never been investigating “Trumps legitimatacy as President”. Mueller is just trying to find a way to oust him legitimate or not.

All of the back and forth about Woodward is confirmation bias. Except the ones saying “prove it” can actually point to a source(s) saying Woodward’s wrong. Yes yes I know. This is how Woodward MUST do this...🙄
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#17,881
#17,881
evillawyer said:
Sheesh. "Media leak strategy" referred to the doj's efforts to CURB media leaks. Horwitz, your former hero (until he left you with a bad case of blue balls), had these texts. Not an issue for him because he knew what was being discussed was not a strategy on how to leak but a strategy for preventing those leaks.
Click to expand...

It may have referred to that; it may be what R's have alleged. We don't know.

As for Horwitz I don't know why I have to keep reminding people of this but his report was focused on the HRC investigation. The Strzok/Page stuff was included since they were part of that and at question was whether or not they abandoned it (Horwitz says yes).

Currently underway is Horwitz' investigation of the Trump investigation including the FISA issues. In effect he has not yet reported on wrongdoing or right doing by the FBI or folks in the FBI with regard to the Trump investigation.

The good news is that even if the House changes hands and the Dems shut down any further inquiry into potential wrong doing; Horwitz will be continuing his work.
 
#17,882
#17,882
volinbham said:
It may have referred to that; it may be what R's have alleged. We don't know.

As for Horwitz I don't know why I have to keep reminding people of this but his report was focused on the HRC investigation. The Strzok/Page stuff was included since they were part of that and at question was whether or not they abandoned it (Horwitz says yes).

Currently underway is Horwitz' investigation of the Trump investigation including the FISA issues. In effect he has not yet reported on wrongdoing or right doing by the FBI or folks in the FBI with regard to the Trump investigation.

The good news is that even if the House changes hands and the Dems shut down any further inquiry into potential wrong doing; Horwitz will be continuing his work.
Click to expand...

The leak strategy narrative is utter nonsense.

Strzok Text Messages Shed Light On FBI Interactions With The Media

STRZOK TEXT MESSAGES SHED LIGHT ON FBI INTERACTIONS WITH THE MEDIA
1:17 PM 09/13/2018
Chuck Ross | Reporter
18
  • Peter Strzok sent a text message revealing that The New York Times was angry with the FBI over a scoop published by The Washington Post regarding spy warrants against Carter Page.
  • President Donald Trump and his supporters have said the text message and others released this week show the FBI strategically leaked damaging stories to the media.
  • An attorney for Strzok has accused Trump of “peddling unfounded conspiracy theories.”
A series of revealed text messages have generated debate about FBI contacts with the media regarding bombshell stories about the Trump-Russia probe.
The messages, which were exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, show the embattled former FBI officials discussing the FBI’s contacts with the press regarding stories related to the bureau’s collusion investigation. President Donald Trump and his allies say the messages show the FBI planted stories that were damaging to the president and members of his campaign. Trump critics, as well as Strzok’s attorney, have pushed back on that assessment.
“The President and his enablers are once again peddling unfounded conspiracy theories to mislead the American People,” Aitan Goelman, an attorney for Strzok, said in a statement Tuesday in response to a report that Strzok sent a text message referring to a “media leak strategy.” (RELATED: FBI Officials Discussed ‘Media Leak Strategy’ Ahead Of Major Trump-Russia Revelation)
The latest message, reported by Fox News contributor Sara Carter, shows Strzok, the former deputy assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI, discussing interactions with The New York Times regarding a bombshell report about surveillance activity against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
“Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,” Strzok wrote to then-FBI attorney Lisa Page, his mistress, on April 14, 2017.
Schmidt is a likely reference to Times reporter Michael Schmidt. Mike is believed to be Michael Kortan, the former assistant director for public affairs at the FBI, according to Sara Carter, citing “several U.S. officials.” Andy is believed to be former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. (RELATED: Strzok: ‘We’ll Stop’ Trump Presidency)
“The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday,” Strzok added in the text message, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
A day before the Strzok-Page exchange, The Guardian reported that British spy agencies played an early role in alerting American authorities to contacts between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives.
Two days earlier, on April 11, 2017, The Washington Post broke the story that the FBI had obtained multiple FISA warrants against Carter Page. The story was attributed to “law enforcement and other U.S. officials.”
TheNYT confirmed the story the next day in an article sourced to “a government official.”
The stories do not state whether the unnamed officials worked for the FBI, the Justice Department or in Congress. Both articles have been corrected since their publication to note an error on the timing of the first FISA warrant against Page. Both newspapers initially reported the first FISA was granted in during summer 2016. Instead, the warrant was granted Oct. 21, 2016.
It is unclear why TheNYT would have grounds to be upset with the FBI about WaPo’s scoop.
Other text messages show that Strzok and Page discussed the Carter Page bombshell before WaPo published its article.
“I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go,” Strzok wrote to Page on April 10, 2017.
North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows flagged the text message in a letter he sent Monday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The Republican said the exchange “raises grave concerns regarding an apparent systemic culture of media leaking by high-ranking officials at the FBI and DOJ.”
Goelman, the Strzok lawyer, pushed back on that assessment in a statement to reporters.
“The term ‘media leak strategy’ in Mr. Strzok’s text refers to a Department-wide initiative to detect and stop leaks to the media,” he said.
Goelman did not respond to requests for comment about the text messages referring to TheNYT and WaPo.
Other text messages show that Strzok was aware that other government officials were leaking sensitive information to the media.
“Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried, and political, they’re kicking into overdrive,” Strzok wrote to Page on Dec. 15, 2016, Fox News reported.
The text messages do not refer to a specific news story, but on the same day, NBC News reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in Russia’s campaign-related attacks.
The text message has generated speculation about what Strzok meant by “sisters.” Some observers have theorized that he was referring to the CIA while others say he was talking about the Justice Department.
The NBC article cites anonymous “senior U.S. intelligence officials” as sources.
Follow Chuck on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


TAGS : CARTER PAGE DONALD TRUMP PETER STRZOK
18TWEET THISSHARESHOW COMMENTS
Click to expand...
 
#17,887
#17,887
volinbham said:
I don't recall but clearly he would have to. Not only is he a witness, he's a participant.

Any comments on my post correcting the Horwitz investigations?
Click to expand...

You're right that Horowitz's report only looked at the pre-election actions, but he found no evidence to suggest that bias motivated any of those actions. I would think if he had all of this post-election evidence suggesting that Strzok's bias spilled over into action in 2017 he would not have arrived at the conclusions he reached in the report for fear of having egg on his face when the later report is issued. Also, have you read the house Dems rebuttal of meadows? Provides the necessary context to explain the texts that meadows is relying on.

 
#17,888
#17,888
evillawyer said:
You're right that Horowitz's report only looked at the pre-election actions, but he found no evidence to suggest that bias motivated any of those actions. I would think if he had all of this post-election evidence suggesting that Strzok's bias spilled over into action in 2017 he would not have arrived at the conclusions he reached in the report for fear of having egg on his face when the later report is issued. Also, have you read the house Dems rebuttal of meadows? Provides the necessary context to explain the texts that meadows is relying on.
Click to expand...

Correction, Horwitz' investigation wasn't based on "pre-election" "post-election". The report that came out dealt with the investigation into HRC. The Strzok/Page emails were relevant because both had involvement on the HRC investigation.

2nd correction: Horwitz did say bias was present in the decision by Strzok to essentially pull resources from the HRC investigation and move them to the Trump one (or something along those lines - I'd have to reread the report but Horwitz did cite a specific conclusion of bias against Trump impacting a decision by Strzok in the HRC investigation.).

Finally, you made a statement that it Leak Strategy refers attempts to stop leaking and used Horwitz as evidence to support your claim. Horwitz has not reported on those emails yet since they are part of his current investigation.

So as I've said several times - it could be about S and P leaking or it could be what you claim. At this point we don't know and not only has Horwitz not weighed in, his investigation into the Trump investigation is still ongoing so he would not include leaking about Trump as part of his HRC investigation report.
 
#17,889
#17,889
For reference:

As Justice Dept. inspector general moves from Clinton email to Russia and Trump, he risks becoming a political weapon

In the coming weeks, Horowitz is expected to release a nearly 500-page report criticizing the Justice Department and FBI for their handling of the Clinton email investigation, people familiar with the matter said. They, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about matters they are not authorized to discuss publicly. Meanwhile, he has intensified his review of the Russia investigation, interviewing the FBI agent who once led the case and inviting him back for a second conversation, one of these people said.

It is topics, not timeframes that define the scope of his investigations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#17,890
#17,890
more

Justice Department watchdog says probes ongoing into disclosure of Comey memos, FBI leaks

One of Horowitz's most notable assertions was that his office, based on a referral from the FBI, was reviewing the handling of Comey's memos detailing what the former FBI director viewed as troubling interactions with Trump. Horowitz said he planned to issue a report on the matter, as well as another one on leaks from the FBI.

to the point I made about him citing bias

Horowitz conceded bias might have affected one FBI agent's decision to prioritize the Russia case over the Clinton email probe

and what the general bias conclusion referred to

The report blasted senior FBI officials for having shown a "willingness to take official action" to hurt Donald Trump's chances of becoming president, though it determined political bias did not ultimately impact the decision not to charge Clinton with a crime.
 
#17,891
#17,891
volinbham said:
more

Justice Department watchdog says probes ongoing into disclosure of Comey memos, FBI leaks

One of Horowitz's most notable assertions was that his office, based on a referral from the FBI, was reviewing the handling of Comey's memos detailing what the former FBI director viewed as troubling interactions with Trump. Horowitz said he planned to issue a report on the matter, as well as another one on leaks from the FBI.

to the point I made about him citing bias

Horowitz conceded bias might have affected one FBI agent's decision to prioritize the Russia case over the Clinton email probe

and what the general bias conclusion referred to

The report blasted senior FBI officials for having shown a "willingness to take official action" to hurt Donald Trump's chances of becoming president, though it determined political bias did not ultimately impact the decision not to charge Clinton with a crime.
Click to expand...

Don't forget about this - Sessions is going after all the leakers - criminal charges will ultimately be filed.

Sessions planning to announce leak investigations: report

Sessions to announce investigations into intelligence leaks: source

Leak Investigations Triple Under Trump, Sessions Says
 
#17,892
#17,892
evillawyer said:
Click to expand...


the interesting thing about the D response is that it is as weak as the R. They are simply making claims about what the texts likely referred to just as R's have done. Hell, they even use the term "appears to refer to". Neither is making a particularly convincing case.
 
#17,893
#17,893
volinbham said:
the interesting thing about the D response is that it is as weak as the R. They are simply making claims about what the texts likely referred to just as R's have done. Hell, they even use the term "appears to refer to". Neither is making a particularly convincing case.
Click to expand...

Meadows has the "article is out" and "well done" comments referring to an article published 10 days earlier. Page and Strzok texted each other prolifically. In that context of rapid fire texting about everything they're working on and involved with, "article is out" would be referring to something published nearly contemporaneously with the text itself (like the NY Times Comey story) not something big published 10 days earlier. If they had conspired to leak--and texted tens if not hundreds of times a day--they would have made reference to it much sooner. Now admittedly this is speculative, but doesn't this explanation fit the facts much better than Meadows' explanation, especially when we know the "media leak strategy" texts--which is Meadows' only (superficially) bad sounding piece of evidence--in fact refer to the anti-leaking initiative the DOJ was working on?
 
#17,894
#17,894
evillawyer said:
Meadows has the "article is out" and "well done" comments referring to an article published 10 days earlier. Page and Strzok texted each other prolifically. In that context of rapid fire texting about everything they're working on and involved with, "article is out" would be referring to something published nearly contemporaneously with the text itself (like the NY Times Comey story) not something big published 10 days earlier. If they had conspired to leak--and texted tens if not hundreds of times a day--they would have made reference to it much sooner. Now admittedly this is speculative, but doesn't this explanation fit the facts much better than Meadows' explanation, especially when we know the "media leak strategy" texts--which is Meadows' only (superficially) bad sounding piece of evidence--in fact refer to the anti-leaking initiative the DOJ was working on?
Click to expand...

You are seeing something I'm not - how have you determined "media leak strategy" means what you and the D's claim given what is posted (the three comments in your piece). It could just as easily be DOJ is getting tight on leakers (which in fact we know they were doing), we need to talk including McCabe (already busted for leaking) and Comey (also a leaker) so we get our story straight (which McCabe clearly didn't do).

People are seeing what they want to see here. I'll wait until more info comes out before I believe either has proven anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy
#17,895
#17,895
evillawyer said:
Meadows has the "article is out" and "well done" comments referring to an article published 10 days earlier. Page and Strzok texted each other prolifically. In that context of rapid fire texting about everything they're working on and involved with, "article is out" would be referring to something published nearly contemporaneously with the text itself (like the NY Times Comey story) not something big published 10 days earlier. If they had conspired to leak--and texted tens if not hundreds of times a day--they would have made reference to it much sooner. Now admittedly this is speculative, but doesn't this explanation fit the facts much better than Meadows' explanation, especially when we know the "media leak strategy" texts--which is Meadows' only (superficially) bad sounding piece of evidence--in fact refer to the anti-leaking initiative the DOJ was working on?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's that simple. You know that a high-level person like Strzok would know the weaknesses and potential loopholes in what the DOJ was doing to combat the leaks.

Here's the text: "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go."

Could they have been discussing the anti-leaking initiative in an attempt to bypass it? So that they could leak anyway without being detected? Hmmm.
 
#17,896
#17,896
And DEMs said it could not happen. Now Congress has to cut spending. The Santa Clause Congress must stop.

Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes Through August; Still Run $898B Deficit

The federal government collected a record $1,521,589,000,000 in individual income taxes through the first eleven months of fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through August 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

However, the federal government also ran a deficit of $898,112,000,000 for those eleven months, according to the statement.

Prior to this year, the record federal individual income tax collections for the first eleven months of the fiscal year occurred last year, when the Treasury collected $1,460,379,260,000 in individual income taxes in constant August 2018 dollars (adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).
Click to expand...
 
#17,898
#17,898
More good news. Why on earth would anyone support Trump?
Weekly Jobless Claims Fall to 49 Year Low (The Trump Economy Continues)
 
#17,899
#17,899
evillawyer said:
So another stage in the evolution of Team Trump's ever-retreating defenses. Now Pirro is claiming he was "framed." Usually, when someone is framed you acknowledge the crime took place but try to pin it on someone who wasn't responsible for it. So is she admitting that collusion took place but you shouldn't pin it on Donny?

Fox’s Jeanine Pirro: Trump was 'framed'
Click to expand...
You are a lawyer. Does an accusation of framed have to be an admission of a crime. Or could she be saying that collusion is not a crime, yet the accusation of it has been used to harm Trump and his campaign, so they tried to sucker him into doing something that isn't a crime but has been used for political expediency?

Is that possible, counselor?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top