TrumPutinGate

#21,703
#21,703
Is it plausible that the nation is being prepared for a bomb to drop on the Presidency. Just stop and think for a moment. The nations leading federal LE agency found it necessary to investigate the possibility that our President is compromised and working for an enemy state. Absolutely nothing like this has ever happened. I don't think for a moment that the FBI did this without consulting other intelligence sources about their suspicions and getting the nod to go. This is of course speculation but there sure seems to be a stench of corruption emanating from 1400 Pennsylvania Ave.

BTW just because the Right media and other Trump minions have been selling the idea that the FBI is corrupt and biased does not make it true. Discrediting them has just been an avenue to distract from Trump's ongoing problems. The FBI and our IC are dedicated loyal people who have been protecting our country for a very long time and are very good at what they do. They did not take this investigation up haphazardly.
 
#21,704
#21,704
#21,705
#21,705
Hunerwadel said:
Is it plausible that the nation is being prepared for a bomb to drop on the Presidency. Just stop and think for a moment. The nations leading federal LE agency found it necessary to investigate the possibility that our President is compromised and working for an enemy state. Absolutely nothing like this has ever happened. I don't think for a moment that the FBI did this without consulting other intelligence sources about their suspicions and getting the nod to go. This is of course speculation but there sure seems to be a stench of corruption emanating from 1400 Pennsylvania Ave.

BTW just because the Right media and other Trump minions have been selling the idea that the FBI is corrupt and biased does not make it true. Discrediting them has just been an avenue to distract from Trump's ongoing problems. The FBI and our IC are dedicated loyal people who have been protecting our country for a very long time and are very good at what they do. They did not take this investigation up haphazardly.
Click to expand...

Other than want to build hotels and golf courses in Moscow, what, exactly, has Trump done to indicate he's under Putin's thumb and taking his orders directly from the Kremlin?

As someone who didn't vote for Trump (and never will), I find the Moscow conspiracy more than a little tiring. The democrats did very similar things after the 2000 election and repeatedly found new and different ways to not work with W, but it always came back to the Florida recount and the mythical "collusion" on the part of SCOTUS and Florida officials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and volfanhill
#21,707
#21,707
MG1968 said:
Other than want to build hotels and golf courses in Moscow, what, exactly, has Trump done to indicate he's under Putin's thumb and taking his orders directly from the Kremlin?

As someone who didn't vote for Trump (and never will), I find the Moscow conspiracy more than a little tiring. The democrats did very similar things after the 2000 election and repeatedly found new and different ways to not work with W, but it always came back to the Florida recount and the mythical "collusion" on the part of SCOTUS and Florida officials.
Click to expand...

IMO that's not what they would be investigating him for. Unless they were going to allow him to build in exchange for political favors. I would hope even the orange dotard isn't that dumb. But it's for sure something caught their attention.
 
#21,708
#21,708
At some point Russian interests came to trump's aid during his various bankruptcies. This could create some expectation of collusion.

Redirect Notice

His policies also seem to be uniformly designed to degrade us standing in the world. He's gone against China, Europe. And Mexico at this point. There are certainly good reasons to suspect.
 
#21,711
#21,711
NorthDallas40 said:
Reporter who broke news of Steele dossier used to surveil ex-Trump aide calls its claims largely 'false'
Click to expand...


“We reverse, and we hold that, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request.” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

In that case, the police officer completely fabricated evidence to get a warrant. The Delaware Supreme Court was somehow ok with that, but the US Supreme Court held as quoted above. While the Court’s decision was limited to whether or not you could have a hearing, it’s been more or less taken for granted that that showing would also defeat the warrant.

There are two points of flexion in that holding (bolded above by me):
1. The culpability of the officer, and
2. The existence of other evidence that could lead to probable cause.

(I think I’ve brought up both of these, earlier in this discussion.)

I’m not aware of the Supreme Court elaborating on either of those issues, directly, but I’m confident that a review of state courts and district courts will show that they’ve been interpreted as follows:

1. The inclusion of false statements of third parties do not defeat a warrant unless the officer/affiant had knowledge that the statement was false. (Police find a body outside an apartment, woman tells police she heard neighbor Joe having an argument the night before. Police get a warrant for Joe’s apartment. Warrant is still good even if Joe’s attorney somehow proves the woman didn’t hear a scuffle, The police had no idea she was lying.)

2. One materially false statement, knowingly made, does not negate a warrant unless there’s insufficient other evidence to establish probable cause. (Police find out that the woman was at a bar the night before but find a knife at the crime scene with Joe’s fingerprints on it. Use both the knife and the woman’s statement to get a warrant. Warrant is still good.)

The best you’ve got is that the dossier hasn’t been proven or disproven, as far as you can tell based solely on publicly available information. If the affiant only knew as much as you did, the first prong is not met. That’s in a vacuum, without considering any corroborating evidence like the Popadopolous stuff. With respect to the second point: the application I glanced at was about 10 pages of material and 402 pages of redactions, so unless they failed to make probable cause anywhere else in that 412 pages, your argument fails.

There’s also a third issue from U.S v. Leon, a 1984 Supreme Court case, which is that evidence obtained from a faulty search warrant (where the magistrate/judge has mistakenly approved a bad warrant) is admissible as long as they relied on it in good faith, which the Court went on to say basically means that a reasonable law enforcement officer would believe that probable cause existed. This is significant in the context of what I labeled “2.” because it’s basically saying that other evidence that merely comes close to probable cause is good enough to save a warrant that contains these flaws.

My feelings about Donald Trump aside, I 100% do not understand how you guys laugh off anonymously sourced WaPo articles, but consider these whacky legal theories beyond reproach. To my knowledge, not a single motion has been filed to challenge this warrant. That alone ought to convince you that this idea that it’s a silver bullet is total ******** and make you question the credibility of whatever source you’re hearing it from.

Even if you’re not saying the investigation is fatally flawed, just saying it’s evidence that Donald Trump is being treated unfairly because he’s a Republican or not “establishment,” the existence of a Supreme Court case dealing with the exact same issue shows that his treatment of suspects is not unique. I’d even go further and say that it’s not only not unique but not even uncommon, in my experience.

So if you’ve got a legitimate problem with this, and it’s not just a matter of having a convenient argument to defend Trump, you have a problem with the system and the way we catch criminals. So that begs the question: why are you cheering for and hoping Trump will appoint of a bunch of Clarence Thomas clones to the Court? It seems pretty inconsistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#21,712
#21,712
#21,714
#21,714
Hunerwadel said:
Is it plausible that the nation is being prepared for a bomb to drop on the Presidency. Just stop and think for a moment. The nations leading federal LE agency found it necessary to investigate the possibility that our President is compromised and working for an enemy state. Absolutely nothing like this has ever happened. I don't think for a moment that the FBI did this without consulting other intelligence sources about their suspicions and getting the nod to go. This is of course speculation but there sure seems to be a stench of corruption emanating from 1400 Pennsylvania Ave.

BTW just because the Right media and other Trump minions have been selling the idea that the FBI is corrupt and biased does not make it true. Discrediting them has just been an avenue to distract from Trump's ongoing problems. The FBI and our IC are dedicated loyal people who have been protecting our country for a very long time and are very good at what they do. They did not take this investigation up haphazardly.
Click to expand...

It is more than likely corrupt folks in the FBI that didn’t get their way. And they decided to do what corrupt folks do. Based on the FBI leadership that has been on display, your scenario is not as believable.
 
#21,715
#21,715
RockyTop85 said:
“We reverse, and we hold that, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request.” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

In that case, the police officer completely fabricated evidence to get a warrant. The Delaware Supreme Court was somehow ok with that, but the US Supreme Court held as quoted above. While the Court’s decision was limited to whether or not you could have a hearing, it’s been more or less taken for granted that that showing would also defeat the warrant.

There are two points of flexion in that holding (bolded above by me):
1. The culpability of the officer, and
2. The existence of other evidence that could lead to probable cause.

(I think I’ve brought up both of these, earlier in this discussion.)

I’m not aware of the Supreme Court elaborating on either of those issues, directly, but I’m confident that a review of state courts and district courts will show that they’ve been interpreted as follows:

1. The inclusion of false statements of third parties do not defeat a warrant unless the officer/affiant had knowledge that the statement was false. (Police find a body outside an apartment, woman tells police she heard neighbor Joe having an argument the night before. Police get a warrant for Joe’s apartment. Warrant is still good even if Joe’s attorney somehow proves the woman didn’t hear a scuffle, The police had no idea she was lying.)

2. One materially false statement, knowingly made, does not negate a warrant unless there’s insufficient other evidence to establish probable cause. (Police find out that the woman was at a bar the night before but find a knife at the crime scene with Joe’s fingerprints on it. Use both the knife and the woman’s statement to get a warrant. Warrant is still good.)

The best you’ve got is that the dossier hasn’t been proven or disproven, as far as you can tell based solely on publicly available information. If the affiant only knew as much as you did, the first prong is not met. That’s in a vacuum, without considering any corroborating evidence like the Popadopolous stuff. With respect to the second point: the application I glanced at was about 10 pages of material and 402 pages of redactions, so unless they failed to make probable cause anywhere else in that 412 pages, your argument fails.

There’s also a third issue from U.S v. Leon, a 1984 Supreme Court case, which is that evidence obtained from a faulty search warrant (where the magistrate/judge has mistakenly approved a bad warrant) is admissible as long as they relied on it in good faith, which the Court went on to say basically means that a reasonable law enforcement officer would believe that probable cause existed. This is significant in the context of what I labeled “2.” because it’s basically saying that other evidence that merely comes close to probable cause is good enough to save a warrant that contains these flaws.

My feelings about Donald Trump aside, I 100% do not understand how you guys laugh off anonymously sourced WaPo articles, but consider these whacky legal theories beyond reproach. To my knowledge, not a single motion has been filed to challenge this warrant. That alone ought to convince you that this idea that it’s a silver bullet is total ******** and make you question the credibility of whatever source you’re hearing it from.

Even if you’re not saying the investigation is fatally flawed, just saying it’s evidence that Donald Trump is being treated unfairly because he’s a Republican or not “establishment,” the existence of a Supreme Court case dealing with the exact same issue shows that his treatment of suspects is not unique. I’d even go further and say that it’s not only not unique but not even uncommon, in my experience.

So if you’ve got a legitimate problem with this, and it’s not just a matter of having a convenient argument to defend Trump, you have a problem with the system and the way we catch criminals. So that begs the question: why are you cheering for and hoping Trump will appoint of a bunch of Clarence Thomas clones to the Court? It seems pretty inconsistent.
Click to expand...
So I actually need to get some work done this morning thus not a lot of time to reply.

But in short do you really think your post would provide any basis for me to change my mind?

And the best I’ve got isn’t that the dossier was unproven, it’s the whole nature of its generation, the parties involved in its generation specifically a competitor candidate with extreme butthurt, and the overt animus for which there is plenty of information showing said animus of the LE team executing the warrant. The whole thing stinks, plain and simple.

I do appreciate the write up, however my main take away from that is our legal system seems totally jacked if the instances you provided are considered common.

And finally with regard to SCOTUS appointees. If you want do some searching I’ve posted in this forum that Merrick Garland was an excellent appointee and was robbed of an honest look due to politics. He was near down the middle. And Kavanaugh isn’t that far right of Garland frankly. But look at the ridiculous character assassination he went thru. Some of us red hats are on record with what happened with Garland not being correct. Welcome to the current state of DC politics, and that isn’t my fault 😬. Cheers and back to work.
 
#21,723
#21,723
Do yall realize the FBI tried investigated a sitting President for what is essentially treason with no evidence to back it up other than Comey, one of their own, being fired?

Let that sink in for a minute.

Insane times we live in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#21,724
#21,724
Jxn Vol said:
It is more than likely corrupt folks in the FBI that didn’t get their way. And they decided to do what corrupt folks do. Based on the FBI leadership that has been on display, your scenario is not as believable.
Click to expand...

The FBI are not corrupt. The bunch in the WH now and Fox News want you to believe they are though. Some individuals no doubt, are. But the Agency.....no. And certainly not enough to get together and get an investigation of the President going without cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#21,725
#21,725
Hunerwadel said:
The FBI are not corrupt. The bunch in the WH now and Fox News want you to believe they are though. Some individuals no doubt, are. But the Agency.....no. And certainly not enough to get together and get an investigation of the President going without cause.
Click to expand...

They as a whole certainly aren't corrupt. No reasonable human being has tried to insinuate that.

Just the few at the top of the ladder in 2016-2017 like the McCabes, Comeys, Strzok's, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top