Did the American KGB place a mole in the Trump campaign?
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
I see where you are headed with this. She lost two races to be president and a regular person like me would think that she is just a fucking loser. But you are pointing out that she is actually a winner who is "electorally challenged."
Very progressive on your part.
Donald Trump will meet with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the White House on Monday.
UPDATE: After the meeting, the White House said the Justice Department Inspector General has officially been asked to expand his probe into the FBI’s counterintelligence operation against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
A statement reads: “Based on the meeting with the President, the Department of Justice has asked the Inspector General to expand its current investigation to include any irregularities with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s or the Department of Justice’s tactics concerning the Trump Campaign. It was also agreed that White House Chief of Staff Kelly will immediately set up a meeting with the FBI, DOJ, and DNI together with Congressional Leaders to review highly classified and other information they have requested.”
UPDATE: After the meeting, the White House said the Justice Department Inspector General has officially been asked to expand his probe into the FBI’s counterintelligence operation against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
A statement reads: “Based on the meeting with the President, the Department of Justice has asked the Inspector General to expand its current investigation to include any irregularities with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s or the Department of Justice’s tactics concerning the Trump Campaign. It was also agreed that White House Chief of Staff Kelly will immediately set up a meeting with the FBI, DOJ, and DNI together with Congressional Leaders to review highly classified and other information they have requested.”
I thought Rosenstein was a witness or probably a suspect on all this...
He is. He is the epi-center of all things swamp but trump just outmaneuvered him.
Rosenstein got meuller appointed and then got sessions to recuse. So Rosenstein had both Trump and Sessions in a box where they can't get involved in any investigations because they would pay political or legal price for interfering.
The problem for Rosenswamp with this scenario is that Trump and the Intel Committee are framing this as a potential FBI interference in the election investigation- not a russian investigation- although Mueller is free to look at that if he wants. So Trump and Sessions are not recused or legally bound to stay out of it.
Note that even though Rosenswamp is going to or was at the meeting, Trump is not begging or asking for his approval or negotiation. He already ordered the DOJ to do it. BOOM!
The other thing that helps to provide cover or support for Trump is that he is ordering the release of documents that Congress has already been requesting so it is not as though his outrage over the mole (purposely using the word mole, so that the tards can correct it) is not the only driver nor is abuse of power.
Yup. Rough summer for Rod shaping up. He knows he is going to take hits from Horowitz, and also knows that Horowitz's report cannot be final/final because a pantload of documents will be rolling in for months/years which will still create additional issues. And now on top of all of that Trump is ordering an investigation where he/Rosenswamp most likely had a role or knowledge, and further it is an area where trump and sessions are not recused.
Plus, the more people mueller prosecutes, the defense attorneys have the right to discovery and expose many things that the FBI does not want exposed.
Good thing Rod does not need to worry about his hair falling out.
Let's suppose that some of the findings in the Steele report were found to be correct and backed up by further investigation. Would the fact that the DNC funded a part of that report make those findings wrong? Would it make independent verification by the FBI inadmissible in court?
The issue at hand in these types of surveillances/investigations are two-fold at a minimum- based on the fact that we have a constitution which disallows certain things/many things unless legally approached.
So, for example, the dossier issue is not only two-fold, it is at least threefold.
1) Upon what circumstances did the fbi undertake/initiate further surveillance.
2) And even if lawfully launched, are the findings true or not true.
3) And what is the propriety and lawfulness of a federal spy agency working in partnership with a targets political opponent.
We see the same issue- not just with the dossier- but the trump mole/informant scenario. There is the issue of what is true and not true in regard to both the findings of the surveillance but in regard to what type of contact was undertaken. That determination remains to be seen but will come out over time. BUT IN ADDITION, the fundamental question legally is to establish the circumstances upon which the surveillance was undertaken and by whom. That will also come out because the FBI has committees and procedures for approving that so the record is there and if it is not, well that would not be pretty if there is no record because that makes it a coverup from the get-go.
So, you are getting at the issue of whether something is still wrong -as a matter of truthyness- if it is proven to be true- even though improperly initiated through lack of warrant, improper collusion between the state intel and political operatives etc. Well, of course you can find things that could be true, but in a legal proceeding where you discover something that is true but is the "fruit of a poisonous tree" ie, a deficient legal process, then it is not admissable. And yes, you can launch a process without sufficient basis and find things that are true but that is what is commonly called a WITCH-HUNT." You are identifying a person first and then going off to find a crime.
That is why- not only in the dossier thing- but real-time, right as we speak, many congressmen are saying "I dont really care who did what and found what on this trump mole thing, I want to see the documents that approved and set the whole thing in motion. That is the proper thing to do, regardless of party affiliation.
The fisa thing has been overdiscussed or least there nothing productive for me to discuss until the IG's report or cross-examination by a defendent reveals the fisa warrant and how it was supported. If the government has good things to say for itself, it is all set. If not, then they are not, AND YES IT WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR ANY EVIDENCE OR THINGS THAT ARE ALLEGEDLY TRUE IF THE WARRANT IS FLAWED. A jury and/or judge will not even consider what is true or not true about any evidence that flowed from it.
And several of the defendants/targets- Trump included- want to defend themselves legally by arguing that their surveillance was set in motion for political purposes or upon evidence developed by a political opponent which would be evidence of FBI corruption and collusion. Particularly when all the mccabe, comey, strzok, page, ohr actions and comments are mixed in. For the fbi to be accepting "evidence" and buying more from a politic operative also being funded by the Clinton Campaign is very, very, very dicey.
Note that I am not at this pre-IG report stage up for recycling arguments about whether those are true or not. I am satisfied that they are inevitably before the courts now and in the future and the IG will get into the a bit but not completely because he is not doing a criminal investigation. I am merely replying back to your question as to whether it makes a difference about whether XYZ did not or did not happen as long as the facts are true. And I am saying again, YOU BETCHA if you are planning to use something that is allegedly true as evidence.
Heh, you know, maybe it is just me because I am sort of a deplorable.......but that guy on the right looks a lot like Barack Obama to me.
