poll says americans want to investigate actions of Obama’s DOJ

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well the FBI probably knows almost as much as you do, and they listed the Steele first among supporting documents for the latest FISA warrants.

Page was targeted because of his known Russian contacts and that Russia had tried to recruit him in the past. The Dossier just added fuel to the fire as Steele was a trusted source known by the FBI.

We know that Devin Nunes blatantly lied when he tried to claim the FISA application hide the fact that the Dossier could be political, in fact an entire page of the application made it crystal clear. We also know know with the Mueller report that much of the Dossier was either correct or close to correct.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Page was targeted because of his known Russian contacts and that Russia had tried to recruit him in the past. The Dossier just added fuel to the fire as Steele was a trusted source known by the FBI.

We know that Devin Nunes blatantly lied when he tried to claim the FISA application hide the fact that the Dossier could be political, in fact an entire page of the application made it crystal clear. We also know know with the Mueller report that much of the Dossier was either correct or close to correct.

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from. Then they leaked his name to the media who were happy to call him a Russian agent. And he's never been charged with anything.

It's going to be investigated by people Trump assigns to the investigation. Hope you enjoy that as much as I will. I cannot wait. How about you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from.

Jim, this isn't true.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, this isn't true.

To you, there is one truth,

democrat=good, republican=bad. No exceptions, not ever.

Let's do an honest and thorough investigation. If the smoke is all fabricated by Sean Hannity, that will come out.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To you, there is one truth,

democrat=good, republican=bad. No exceptions, not ever.

No, there's the actual FISA application a judge ruled on. It's online, go read it and report back what it says.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, there's the actual FISA application a judge ruled on. It's online, go read it and report back what it says.

i’m not reading 400 pages. if you can refer me to the section which says “the accusations against Mr Page are based on a dossier paid for by the Hilary Clinton campaign”, i’d appreciate it. similarly, if you can point me to the section which says “the justice department officials
seeking this warrant, have a deep, deep animosity for the candidate Mr Page is working for”, I’d appreciate that too.

I suppose Alan Dershowitz is part of the vast right wing conspiracy now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not reading 400 pages.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you skip the redacted sections, it's only about 6

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not reading 400 pages, i'm too busy trying to own libs on the internet.

I suppose Alan Dershowitz is part of the vast right wing conspiracy now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed the first part for you, you could try the executive summaries. I put a link and the page numbers in an earlier thread.

As far as Dershowitz goes he's certainly a Trumplican.
If you can find a lawyer other than Rudy who agrees with his theory on Flynn not lying because the FBI already knew the answer and therefore it was not material under section 1001, he probably went to a worse law school than Michael Cohen. Dershowitz doesn't have that excuse.

Here is a little case law for you to explain it, feel free to look up the cases if you need further enlightenment, they are all in casetext.com

United States v. Mercedes, 401 F. App’x 619, 620 (2d Cir. 2010)
(rejecting argument that false statement about citizenship could not have been material because interviewing agent had already “ruled out the possibility of relying on the statement”)

United States v. Moore, 708 F.3d 639, 649 (5th Cir. 2013)
(“A statement can be material even if the agency already knew the answers given by the defendant and even if the receiving agent knows they are false.”)

United States v. LeMaster, 54 F.3d 1224, 1230–31 (6th Cir. 1995)
“It is irrelevant what the agent who heard the statement knew at the time the statement was made. A false statement can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.” (“The fact that the FBI already knew that LeMaster received $6,000 in cash from Spurrier did not affect the materiality of his false statement to the FBI. A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)

United States v. Whitaker, 848 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1988)
(“A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)

United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 820 (9th Cir. 1976)
(“Darrell Goldfine contends, however, that since the Compliance Investigators knew the answer and were not misled by the falsity, the statement was not materially false. . . . [T]he statement here was clearly material.”)

United States v. Henderson, 893 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018)
(“Indeed, a false statement can be material even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.”)

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from. Then they leaked his name to the media who were happy to call him a Russian agent. And he's never been charged with anything.

It's going to be investigated by people Trump assigns to the investigation. Hope you enjoy that as much as I will. I cannot wait. How about you?

Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...pplication.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mak...a-applications

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, this isn't true.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...pplication.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mak...a-applications

Haven't you 2 answered the same question a few times already? Why don't you just put them in an external doc. that you can just cut and paste instead of typing them each time?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Haven't you 2 answered the same question a few times already? Why don't you just put them in an external doc. that you can just cut and paste instead of typing them each time?

Then Barr's investigation can't turn up anything, so you have nothing to worry about.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then Barr's investigation can't turn up anything, so you have nothing to worry about.

I'm not worried but I think you are are missing something as you keep bringing up the steele dosier w/o reading how the FISA application was filed and what the app. said about the dosier.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Old fake news from the Trumplicans, brought back recently with a new spin.

You can read the footnotes yourself in the FISA app on pages 15 and 16, lawyers read footnotes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...pplication.pdf

Here is an explanation of the circumstances regarding this FISA application
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mak...a-applications

I read the footnotes on p. 15 and p.16. Even though I'm not a lawyer, I didn't see anywhere in there, that the FBI revealed that the dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Could you point that part out to me, please?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I read the footnotes on p. 15 and p.16. Even though I'm not a lawyer, I didn't see anywhere in there, that the FBI revealed that the dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Could you point that part out to me, please?

Why do you think that is important, the sentence reads that the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign. Do you think it would have been somehow different if it was Ted Cruz or his wife?

You seem to think it is good when Candidate #1 calls out for help in public from Russia, accepts and appreciates that help, but exhibit concern when others look at his relationship with Russia.
Just what did he really talk about in his last telecon with Putin? Didn't have time in an hour and a half to tell him not to interfere in US elections? Or didn't have the balls?

As usual
Trump=good, but I don't really like him that much
Anyone who questions Trump=bad

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just what did he really talk about in his last telecon with Putin? Didn't have time in an hour and a half to tell him not to interfere in US elections? Or didn't have the balls?

If you read (and believe) the Russian notes from the call it sounds like Putin was giving Trump his marching orders for the next 12 months.

And why would Trump warn Putin off. Trump encourages Russian interference.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I read the footnotes on p. 15 and p.16. Even though I'm not a lawyer, I didn't see anywhere in there, that the FBI revealed that the dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Could you point that part out to me, please?

They clearly lay out that the material could be political in nature and intended to hurt Candidate #1's campaign. They're not going to name the Clinton campaign by name, it's not how the application process works.

This is after dozens of redacted pages that outline secret information to justify the warrant.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

They clearly lay out that the material could be political in nature and intended to hurt Candidate #1's campaign. They're not going to name the Clinton campaign by name, it's not how the application process works.

This is after dozens of redacted pages that outline secret information to justify the warrant.

Candidate #1 is Trump.

I thought about just letting you go on and on and let you spin why Candidate 1 was the victim....would have been interesting to say the least

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Candidate #1 is Trump.

I thought about just letting you go on and on and let you spin why Candidate 1 was the victim....would have been interesting to say the least

I didn’t say candidate #1 was clinton. Two separate statements.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Page was targeted because

and he's yet to get even a traffic ticket...weird

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

We also know know with the Mueller report

.

just can't admit that you were wrong huh?