What’s Putin’s Puppet hiding?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Transcript out. Not looking good.

it’s not good that trump
asked them to look into possible corruption? but it was great when Biden explicitly threatened to withhold money unless they cracked down on corruption?

so it’s noble to insist that ukraine get tough on corruption, unless doing so makes democrats look bad. is that about right?

i guess your side realizes the prospects of winning the next election aren’t great, so they’re obsessing with undoing the results of the previous one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s not good that trump
asked them to look into possible corruption? but it was great when Biden explicitly threatened to withhold money unless they cracked down on corruption?

I can't believe you just said that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I can't believe you just said that.

i take that as a compliment.

Spence, i’m not saying that trump
didn’t have self serving, political reasons for asking ukraine to investigate biden. obviously he did.

but if the goal is to reduce corruption in ukraine, i’m sorry to tell you that only hard-core liberal zealots ( and you have to admit you qualify), would conclude that the Biden - Ukraine connection doesn’t look fishy.

look, selfishly i hope that impeachment proceedings proceed, because i believe they’ll
hurt democrats. Flame on!

And Biden is toast. You asked why i said that, i said it because (1) that party isn’t going to nominate an 85 year old, rich white guy, and (2) he’s tanking in the polls. the nominee will likely be from the progressive wing.

if the dems were rational, they’d go with Harris, or at least with someone who can get blacks to come out in the numbers Obama did. Reduced black support hurt Hilary. I don’t see blacks, especially black women, rallying behind Princess Lies Through Her Teeth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i take that as a compliment.

Spence, i’m not saying that trump
didn’t have self serving, political reasons for asking ukraine to investigate biden. obviously he did.



Trump: A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's.something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

Trump: We do a lot for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy: We are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Here's the quid pro co


Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though.

Trump: I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike.…

The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do…

I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on the whole situation ..

but if the goal is to reduce corruption in ukraine, i’m sorry to tell you that only hard-core liberal zealots ( and you have to admit you qualify), would conclude that the Biden - Ukraine connection doesn’t look fishy.

Just when did Trump's goal become the ending of corruption? There was no mention of it in this memo or any other time prior to the other day.

Asking Ukraine to go after Biden/Trump's political opponents is NEARLY THE ONLY THING TRUMP TALKED ABOUT IN THE PHONE CALL (after he got done saying how much the US government does for Ukraine).

look, selfishly i hope that impeachment proceedings proceed, because i believe they’ll
hurt democrats. Flame on!

And Biden is toast. You asked why i said that, i said it because (1) that party isn’t going to nominate an 85 year old, rich white guy, and (2) he’s tanking in the polls. the nominee will likely be from the progressive wing.

if the dems were rational, they’d go with Harris, or at least with someone who can get blacks to come out in the numbers Obama did. Reduced black support hurt Hilary. I don’t see blacks, especially black women, rallying behind Princess Lies Through Her Teeth against the most honest President ever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump used US taxpayers’ money to try to gather dirt on his electoral opponent.

REMINDER: The whistleblower complaint reportedly is NOT just about the Ukraine phone call - there are additional bad (possibly criminal) things Trump and Bill Barr did. That's why Trump and Barr are still fighting to cover it up.

House Dems can now subpoena Giuliani and his phone records, because Giuliani held up his cell on Fox News and said it contained evidence that the State Department told him to solicit Ukrainian meddling in our election for Trump

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump used US taxpayers’ money to try to gather dirt on his electoral opponent.

REMINDER: The whistleblower complaint reportedly is NOT just about the Ukraine phone call - there are additional bad (possibly criminal) things Trump and Bill Barr did. That's why Trump and Barr are still fighting to cover it up.

House Dems can now subpoena Giuliani and his phone records, because Giuliani held up his cell on Fox News and said it contained evidence that the State Department told him to solicit Ukrainian meddling in our election for Trump

wow, a lot to digest. you’re opposed to using taxpayer
money to get dirt on a political opponent. how about using political dirt in an opponent, get get a FISA warrant to spy on an american citizen, how does that sit with you?

the democrats are probably getting ready to step on another rake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wow, a lot to digest. you’re opposed to using taxpayer
money to get dirt on a political opponent. how about using political dirt in an opponent, get get a FISA warrant to spy on an american citizen, how does that sit with you?

the democrats are probably getting ready to step on another rake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is what happens when you are suspected of doing something illegal, I'd find interesting what they found in their investigation to continue it, even after Page left the campaign. That is why the request grows each time and is renewed.

If you take the time to read this perhaps you'll understand what a FISA warrant is and is not.

One of the two concrete findings from the Mueller report made public thus far, in a letter by Attorney General William Barr, is that Mueller’s “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Presumably that extends to Page, who briefly served as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign. On face, that would seem to imply that the evidence before Mueller was insufficient to demonstrate that Page was an “agent of a foreign power,” as the FBI had asserted to the FISA court in seeking its surveillance order.

If that’s true, it wouldn’t necessarily mean the FBI acted improperly in obtaining that initial order. Sometimes intelligence agencies follow leads based on information from sources they assess to be reliable, and that information turns out to be wrong. We know, for example, that only a very tiny fraction of the “assessments” the FBI opens each year blossom into full-blown investigations, but it’s impossible to know how many of those full-blown investigations similarly come up empty. FISA orders, unlike criminal wiretap warrants, are designed to gather intelligence, and not intended to lead to criminal prosecution in most cases. Even when they do, the government is typically reluctant to introduce FISA intercepts in court if they can make a case with other evidence. That means there’s no good way to evaluate the success of intelligence investigations by looking at prosecution statistics. Moreover, the public statistics on FISA orders, do not distinguish between new orders and extensions, which means there’s no good way to even approximately gauge how commonly FISA wiretaps are abandoned as dead ends.

Yet in Carter Page’s case, the FBI clearly did not believe they had hit a dead end. A FISA warrant targeting a United States person must be renewed every 90 days, as Page’s was on three separate occasions, by three different FISA Court judges. Those renewal applications would not merely have recited the evidence supporting the initial order: They would have been expected to describe the fruits of previous surveillance, and justify continued monitoring by showing that useful intelligence was being gathered—or, at the very least, that there was good reason to expect some in the future.

Though almost all of the new information added to the renewal applications remains redacted, the length of the applications increased substantially over time: The initial submission the the FISC totaled 66 pages, while the final renewal application had grown to 101 pages. While presumably not all of the additional 35 pages concerned the information gleaned from wiretapping Page, some significant portion must have. So what was the FBI telling the FISC to justify continuing surveillance? And how do we square that with Mueller’s inability to establish coordination between Trump associates and Russia? It is unfortunate, but probably inevitable, that the government will sometimes target people for surveillance and discover that their suspicions were mistaken. If, however, the government conducts nine months of intrusive electronic surveillance, persuades a court that their suspicions have been confirmed, and still proves to have been wrong, that is at least a prima facie indication of something wrong with the system.

The trouble for those wedded to the idea of an anti-Trump Deep State conspiracy is, precisely, that it suggests something wrong with the system. A vendetta against Trump does little to explain why investigators would continue spying on Page well into 2017, long after he’d left the campaign and Trump had been sworn in as president, nor why Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein would sign off on that final renewal application. If Page had never been a foreign agent after all, then the fact that Republican officials signed off on those applications, and FISC judges—all chosen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts—approved them, would instead raise troubling questions about the larger process designed to oversee and check intelligence wiretaps. Yet relatively few of the Republican lawmakers expressing concern about potential FISA abuse have shown any interest in reforming the broader framework of intelligence surveillance—preferring to focus on the purported misconduct of a handful of supposed bad apples.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That is what happens when you are suspected of doing something illegal, I'd find interesting what they found in their investigation to continue it, even after Page left the campaign. That is why the request grows each time and is renewed.

If you take the time to read this perhaps you'll understand what a FISA warrant is and is not.

One of the two concrete findings from the Mueller report made public thus far, in a letter by Attorney General William Barr, is that Mueller’s “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Presumably that extends to Page, who briefly served as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign. On face, that would seem to imply that the evidence before Mueller was insufficient to demonstrate that Page was an “agent of a foreign power,” as the FBI had asserted to the FISA court in seeking its surveillance order.

If that’s true, it wouldn’t necessarily mean the FBI acted improperly in obtaining that initial order. Sometimes intelligence agencies follow leads based on information from sources they assess to be reliable, and that information turns out to be wrong. We know, for example, that only a very tiny fraction of the “assessments” the FBI opens each year blossom into full-blown investigations, but it’s impossible to know how many of those full-blown investigations similarly come up empty. FISA orders, unlike criminal wiretap warrants, are designed to gather intelligence, and not intended to lead to criminal prosecution in most cases. Even when they do, the government is typically reluctant to introduce FISA intercepts in court if they can make a case with other evidence. That means there’s no good way to evaluate the success of intelligence investigations by looking at prosecution statistics. Moreover, the public statistics on FISA orders, do not distinguish between new orders and extensions, which means there’s no good way to even approximately gauge how commonly FISA wiretaps are abandoned as dead ends.

Yet in Carter Page’s case, the FBI clearly did not believe they had hit a dead end. A FISA warrant targeting a United States person must be renewed every 90 days, as Page’s was on three separate occasions, by three different FISA Court judges. Those renewal applications would not merely have recited the evidence supporting the initial order: They would have been expected to describe the fruits of previous surveillance, and justify continued monitoring by showing that useful intelligence was being gathered—or, at the very least, that there was good reason to expect some in the future.

Though almost all of the new information added to the renewal applications remains redacted, the length of the applications increased substantially over time: The initial submission the the FISC totaled 66 pages, while the final renewal application had grown to 101 pages. While presumably not all of the additional 35 pages concerned the information gleaned from wiretapping Page, some significant portion must have. So what was the FBI telling the FISC to justify continuing surveillance? And how do we square that with Mueller’s inability to establish coordination between Trump associates and Russia? It is unfortunate, but probably inevitable, that the government will sometimes target people for surveillance and discover that their suspicions were mistaken. If, however, the government conducts nine months of intrusive electronic surveillance, persuades a court that their suspicions have been confirmed, and still proves to have been wrong, that is at least a prima facie indication of something wrong with the system.

The trouble for those wedded to the idea of an anti-Trump Deep State conspiracy is, precisely, that it suggests something wrong with the system. A vendetta against Trump does little to explain why investigators would continue spying on Page well into 2017, long after he’d left the campaign and Trump had been sworn in as president, nor why Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein would sign off on that final renewal application. If Page had never been a foreign agent after all, then the fact that Republican officials signed off on those applications, and FISC judges—all chosen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts—approved them, would instead raise troubling questions about the larger process designed to oversee and check intelligence wiretaps. Yet relatively few of the Republican lawmakers expressing concern about potential FISA abuse have shown any interest in reforming the broader framework of intelligence surveillance—preferring to focus on the purported misconduct of a handful of supposed bad apples.

requests to violate the privacy of citizens, should be based on accurate reasonable suspicion. not fabricated political dirt. you disagree?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s not good that trump
asked them to look into possible corruption? but it was great when Biden explicitly threatened to withhold money unless they cracked down on corruption?

so it’s noble to insist that ukraine get tough on corruption, unless doing so makes democrats look bad. is that about right?

i guess your side realizes the prospects of winning the next election aren’t great, so they’re obsessing with undoing the results of the previous one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As John Gotti would say: "You know that thing with Mikey, yeah he's a good kid, but it might be a good idea if , you know, if he has a drink with Vinny, you remember Vinny, yeah, & that thing you were worried about will go away forever you know what I mean"