What if it was not the Russians?

Some Andrew McCarthy on the released docs --

“I think that a FISA warrant was issued on the basis of unverified, uncorroborated information.”
​

He thinks the released FISA docs are astonishing –

"it’s as if they took the dossier, slapped on a district court caption, and gave it to the judge – which is exactly what I told people would never happen"​

For the record, at the outset of this FISA matter first hitting the news, I wrote several long posts in here explaining that the likely reason the Obama people went to the FISA court on this was to avoid the requirement of probable cause. They knew they lacked the necessary probable cause required by the 4th Amendment to obtain a warrant in the District Court. So they went to the secret court - which allows for secret warrants to be handed out by judges who sleep well thinking their work product is not subject to appeal and will never see the light of day. The Obama people went to a judge they knew personally and got what they wanted, abusing the system and process along the way. The whole FISC system needs to be shut down and the political hacks who ran it have to be run off (or sent to prison). Those posts are searchable if you have any doubts.

 

It may seem that way, but 9 times out of 10, they do not take the server. Only if they believe there is a danger it will be destroyed - see Westlake HS Silk Road founder.

 

Here, Clapper admits all roads eventually point back to Obama himself

 

Have any leading Democrats admitted that they were dead wrong for mocking Romney about Russia during the 2012 Presidential race? The outrage from the Democrats is just way too hypocritical to take serious without a major mea culpa.

 

So now we know:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23...mation-to-secure-wiretaps-on-trump-associate/

Some highlights:

"As members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committee previously reported, a salacious and unverified dossier was essential to the government’s case for spying on Page. The information from the dossier is presented to the court as if it’s believable.

For instance, the application states, “the FBI has learned that Page met with at least two Russian officials during this trip.” The only way it learned that was through the dossier. Steele’s claim that Page had a “secret meeting with Igor Sechin, who is the President of Rosneft [a Russian energy company] and a close associate to Russian President Putin” to lift sanctions is included.

Another secret meeting with Igor Nikolayevich Divyekin to discuss releasing dirt on “Candidate #2” to “Candidate #1’s campaign” is mentioned. Also, while Page had left the campaign by the time the wiretap was sought, it is clear that the FBI believed its wiretap would find information on the Trump campaign, stating that the “Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated” with the Trump campaign."

***

"As senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) wrote earlier this year, “The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier as well.”

As the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reported, “The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.”

These reports are accurate — the Yahoo News story sourced to Steele is cited extensively and repeatedly. Even worse, the FBI repeatedly claimed Steele is not the source of the article. Isikoff has confirmed Steele was of course his source."

***

Again, the dossier was essential to the wiretap applications, and its credibility was sourced not to the veracity of its claims, but to its author. So Steele’s lies were a problem. How did the FBI and DOJ handle this? Not well.

The FISA applications cited Isikoff’s September 23 Yahoo News article, which you would have to be an idiot to not realize was sourced to Steele. Take this paragraph, for example:

But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian’s leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News.

A well-placed Western intelligence source? You don’t say! What an obvious way to describe the non-American researcher who is the sole source of the claim! But note how the FBI reported the inclusion of this Yahoo News article in the dossier:

Footnote 18, application: “Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI. REDACTED The FBI does not believe that Source #1 directly provided this information to the press.”
Footnote 19, first renewal: “Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI. REDACTED The FBI does not believe that Source #1 directly provided this information to the identified news organization that published the September 23rd News Article.”
Footnote 20, second renewal: “Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI. REDACTED The FBI does not believe that Source #1 directly provided this information to the identified news organization that published the September 23rd News Article.”
Footnote 22, third renewal: “”Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI. REDACTED The FBI does not believe that Source #1 directly provided this information to the identified news organization that published the September 23rd News Article.”

As Sens. Graham and Grassley wrote earlier this year:

In Steele’s sworn court filings in litigation in London, he admitted that he ‘gave off the record briefings to a small number of journalists about the pre-election memoranda [i.e., the dossier] in late summer/autumn 2016.’ In another sworn filing in that case, Mr. Steele further stated that journalists from ‘the New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker, and CNN’ were ‘briefed at the end of September 2016 by [Steele] and Fusion at Fusion’s instruction.’ The filing further states that Mr. Steele ‘subsequently participated in further meetings at Fusion’s instruction with Fusion and the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News, which took place mid-October 2016.’…

The first of these filings was publicly reported in the U.S. media in April of 2017, yet the FBI did not subsequently disclose to the FISC this evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI. Instead the application still relied primarily on his credibility prior to the October media incident.

Anyone should have doubted the credibility of a man who claimed he wasn’t Isikoff’s source. But to do so after his sworn court filings admitting to any number of press briefings during the campaign is downright scandalous.

 

Guess who met secretly with the Putin?
But it's OK since there are different rules for Democrats
From June 2014 --

The former US Secretary of State said that she was able to get the Russian President to shed his tough guy image by appealing to the animal lover inside of him.

He took her to his private office and gave her a lengthy lecture and even invited her husband Bill to tag polar bears in the wilderness with him​

 

But what if it was not the Russians?

 

Cohen is going to testify under oath that Don and Don Jr colluded with Russia to receive stolen data from a foreign government. And repeatedly lied about it.

Trump defense is whataboutHillary and Cohen is a known liar?

Bulletproof.

 

Nice LH but the only bullet proof in today’s American politic is Bill, Hillary, and cronies.

 

We were repeatedly promised she was getting locked up when Trump was elected and the GOP controlled our government. What happened?

 

LH?
Who promised to lock her up?

 

Now that Cohen is flipping on Trump, I do wonder if he's going to suddenly be taken seriously.

 

So it’s illegal to take a meeting? One that was likely set up by fusion gps? One where nothing happened so there was no point of telling the FBI about it? What if the Trump play was to leak to the media that Russia had compromat (emails) on Hillary (reverse Russian dossier)? How is that out of bounds?

please step away from the TDS ledge.

 

“And I’ll tell you what. I didn’t think I’d say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it. But if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor.” - Trump Oct 9 debate

"This corruption and collusion is just one more reason why I will ask my attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor,” and later adding, “She has to go to jail.” -Trump Oct 12 FL rally

 

LH,
Point out where he Promised.
Maybe you use a different definition of the word?

 

You caught me in a lie. Well played, sir. Well played.

 

LH
I would not say that was a lie.
It was stretching what was said, that He was going to have a special prosecutor look into her lies into a promise to jail her. For me it was wishful thinking.

And if he'd appointed Mueller we all know nothing would have happened to her.

 

Why hasn't it happened? He can ask for one, right?

 

Cohen is only credible if his story can be corroborated. Of course, there's ample evidence that Sr. and Jr. aren't credible on this topic. Don Jr. who speaks with his father often testified that he didn't know whether bis father uses a "blocked" number though he repeatedly made and received calls from a locked number.

Cohen is dirty and out to save his own skin. That puts hime squarely in the same position as our POTUS.

Mr D- Check out Sth Abramson's Twitter breakdown of this topic on Saturday. Would be interested in your opinion.

 

There is no one with any credibility in this entire story. Without clear evidence of a quid pro quo then this entire collusion story has no legs at all. All the accusations are just noise at this point.

 

We know there was a desire to collude. If DJT is caught lying about knowledge of the meeting and its purpose that corroborates Cohens side of the story. Don Jr. has already changed his story multiple times, starting with an outright denial.

It's curious that 2 days before that meeting Trump proclaimed upcoming "dirt" on HRC yet never delivered. Who promised "dirt" in email?

 

A few pundits and advisers have. However, I haven't heard Hillary do it, nor have I heard Obama do it. And he was the guy who made the "1980s called" comment that the ball-lickers in the media cheered on and laughed at like it was the latter-day "you're no Jack Kennedy." If anyone should admit he was full of ****, it's Obama himself.

And that's why their outrage rings so hollow. Until Russia screwed with the Democratic Party, they were pretty soft on Russia. In fact, Democrats have really been soft on Russia since George McGovern became their nominee back in 1972.

 

That's exactly where I am right now. The entire Russia collusion scandal reeks of sour grapes and a desperate attempt to politically weaken a new administration. Now if they ever come up with some real evidence, then I would be open to it. So far all I have heard is Trump Jr trying to make himself relevant by taking a meeting with a Russian lawyer with hopes of getting dirt on a political rival. Big collective yawn.

 

I read it. What he's trying to do is establish a circumstantial case that Trump knew about the meeting between Jr. and the Russian lawyer before it happened based largely on the fact that Trump often eavesdrops on conversations, micromanages, and announced that he expected something dirty about Clinton a few days earlier.

Abramson could be right. However, the reason we caution against drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence is that other conrradicting inferences could also be drawn from the same evidence. Furthermore, when we look at it, sometimes it's easy to distort context. For example, was that meeting so important that Trump would spend his valuable time on it? Maybe so, but there was a heck of a lot going on at the time that certainly should have been more important than that meeting. As for his prediction of dirt, I don't put much in that. He predicted stuff like that routinely. That's part of his rap. If I was writing Trump's epitaph, it would be, "he said a lot of ****."

Having said all that, do I think Trump knew about the meeting? If I had to bet my right arm, I'd bet that he did. Not because I assume he listened in but because I think Jr. probably mentioned it to him at least in passing.

 

Well, as I mentioned above, there is a circumstantial case that Trump knew about this meeting. If that's the case, then he has been caught in a lie. That certainly looks bad, but of course, the same people who are ready to bust a nut about that yawned and rolled their eyes when it was discovered that Hillary lied about Benghazi, which was a far more consequential lie.

And of course, let's keep our eye on the ball. The real crime here was the hacking of the DNC. To really get Trump, Mueller would have to prove Trump's involvement with that, and of course the meeting at issue had nothing to do with that.

 

Lordy, I hope there are tapes....

I also think that Mueller knows what the blocked number is.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you hope for tapes pitching guilt? As a patriotic American, I hope there wasn't any sort of collusion with Russia. You sound like these people who are praying for a recession.

 

I sincerely hope that there is not evidence of collusion but my confidence in that outcome is waning. The more Guiliani talks, the more Trump tried to discredit Mueller all the while learning that Trump hasn't been truthful on more items it appears there is something to hide. It's up to Mueller to determine if he is hiding anything of consequence.

It's the evolving stories from the Trump admin that this meme highlights that are shifting my prognostication.

 

Facebook claims to have found more attempts at misinformation campaigns for the midterm elections. They haven't determined the "who" yet but did find evidence of at least 1 of the fake accounts temporarily setup with an admin that was linked to Russia's Internet Research Agency previously.