Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

Maybe, but I my understanding is that witnesses in court, including FBI agents, are obligated to speak the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

The FBI clearly violated that standard.

That's completely unreasonable. The statement was truthful. They aren't obligated to argue against their own evidence. 

Perhaps in an adversarial proceeding where two sides are represented.

However, in this case the FISA court hearing was an ex parte proceeding where only one side appeared -- the government lawyers seeking the warrant. In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer is obligated to present

all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html

Beyond this, I don't see any basis to believe that the FBI was truthful when it said it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Trump -- when it knew that he was hired by the Hillary campaign to do just that.

you're slicing the baloney awful thin here.

ml1 said:

you're slicing the baloney awful thin here.

That assumes that a FISA court should be a Kangaroo court.

Edited to Add: Do you really believe the FBI "was speculating" about Glen Simpson's objective?

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

you're slicing the baloney awful thin here.

That assumes that a FISA court should be a Kangaroo court.


Edited to Add: Do you really believe the FBI "was speculating" about Glen Simpson's objective?

your argument is inherently contradictory.  On the one hand, you say it's self-evident that the objective of a political opponent would be to dig up dirt on Trump.  But on the other you are arguing that a judge would be deceived of that supposedly self-evident point by the use of the word "speculating."

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 Among the all-star line-up was Carter Page (the man himself!) sounding very "Surovellian" with his effusive endorsement of Sean.

Not a big deal, but I'm getting worried about you.

Oh, please don't worry.  I don't actually watch that junk.  I sometimes look at the transcript to see what arguments you're going to come up with next.

By way of example, the following is a post from yesterday:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

I guess I should just ask directly -- do you think the Democratic memo is a lie and the Nunes memo is truthful?  Because that would be the only explanation for what you are asserting.

The FBI quote that I cited is an excerpt from the transcript of the FISA warrant, quoted in the Dem memo to rebut the allegation in the Republican memo that the FBI misled the FISA court.

I am asserting that the FBI lied when it said it was "speculating" that Glen Simpson was "likely" looking for information to discredit Trump.  The FBI knew that Simpson was paid to get information to discredit Trump.

The Dem memo itself is a rebuttal, not a lie, IMO.

And this is Hannity the night before:

Here's what this Schiff memo corroborates. Just like the Nunes memo in the House, the Grassley-Graham memo in the Senate, they lay out the FBI, the DOJ did in fact lie and mislead a FISA judge about the fact that Hillary Clinton and the DNC that she controlled actually paid for the Russian dossier full of lies. Schiff, he actually quotes a section of the FISA application in his memo. It reads that the DOJ disclosed that Christopher Steele was approached by an identified U.S. person who has indicated a source one, Steele, that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding candidate number one's ties to Russia, Trump.

The identified U.S. person and source number one have long-standing business relationship. The identified U.S. person hired source number one to conduct the research. The identified U.S. person never advised source number one as to the motivation behind the research into candidate one's, Trump's, ties to Russia. The FBI speculates the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit candidate number one's campaign.

Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign, the DNC -- here's the shock -- they are never mentioned. In other words, they are outright lying by omission. Slowly. In other words, it is an indisputable fact that the FBI, DOJ, lied to the FISA judge in order to get a warrant to spy on Trump campaign associate. He will join us later, Carter Page.

They purposefully and maliciously hid all ties to Clinton and the DNC because there is no way on this green earth that any FISA judge would ever have approved the application if in fact the judge knew that Clinton and the DNC paid over $12 million for a dossier to influence the election.

And that last sentence about the FBI speculating about the purpose of the dossier, that's especially important, because that indicates that the FBI and the DOJ, they knew about the political motivations behind the Russian paid for dossier and they used it any way. Sounds like a deep state?

Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.

nohero said:


Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.

It's a pretty humorous argument actually.  As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG!  Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump?  I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump.  It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"

It's astounding that Paul can't accept that oppo research can contain information that could impact our national security.  

ml1 said:

nohero said:


Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.

It's a pretty humorous argument actually.  As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG!  Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump?  I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump.  It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"

Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.

nohero said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:


Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.

It's a pretty humorous argument actually.  As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG!  Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump?  I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump.  It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"

Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.

this is true.

Not sure it makes the information any more or less reliable if it was revealed to be collected at the request of the Hillary Clinton campaign and not a business rival, or a foreign spy, or a spurned lover.  

jamie said:

It's astounding that Paul can't accept that oppo research can contain information that could impact our national security.  

The issue today is that the FBI lied about its knowledge of the purpose of the document. The fact that the FBI had not verified the content of the document (which on its face is absurd) is another matter.

paulsurovell said:

The issue today is that the FBI lied about its knowledge of the purpose of the document. 

I do hope you've contacted the judges given how much more you know about these things than they do.

nohero said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 Among the all-star line-up was Carter Page (the man himself!) sounding very "Surovellian" with his effusive endorsement of Sean.

Not a big deal, but I'm getting worried about you.

Oh, please don't worry.  I don't actually watch that junk.  I sometimes look at the transcript to see what arguments you're going to come up with next.

By way of example, the following is a post from yesterday:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

I guess I should just ask directly -- do you think the Democratic memo is a lie and the Nunes memo is truthful?  Because that would be the only explanation for what you are asserting.

The FBI quote that I cited is an excerpt from the transcript of the FISA warrant, quoted in the Dem memo to rebut the allegation in the Republican memo that the FBI misled the FISA court.

I am asserting that the FBI lied when it said it was "speculating" that Glen Simpson was "likely" looking for information to discredit Trump.  The FBI knew that Simpson was paid to get information to discredit Trump.

The Dem memo itself is a rebuttal, not a lie, IMO.

And this is Hannity the night before:

Here's what this Schiff memo corroborates. Just like the Nunes memo in the House, the Grassley-Graham memo in the Senate, they lay out the FBI, the DOJ did in fact lie and mislead a FISA judge about the fact that Hillary Clinton and the DNC that she controlled actually paid for the Russian dossier full of lies. Schiff, he actually quotes a section of the FISA application in his memo. It reads that the DOJ disclosed that Christopher Steele was approached by an identified U.S. person who has indicated a source one, Steele, that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding candidate number one's ties to Russia, Trump.

The identified U.S. person and source number one have long-standing business relationship. The identified U.S. person hired source number one to conduct the research. The identified U.S. person never advised source number one as to the motivation behind the research into candidate one's, Trump's, ties to Russia. The FBI speculates the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit candidate number one's campaign.

Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign, the DNC -- here's the shock -- they are never mentioned. In other words, they are outright lying by omission. Slowly. In other words, it is an indisputable fact that the FBI, DOJ, lied to the FISA judge in order to get a warrant to spy on Trump campaign associate. He will join us later, Carter Page.

They purposefully and maliciously hid all ties to Clinton and the DNC because there is no way on this green earth that any FISA judge would ever have approved the application if in fact the judge knew that Clinton and the DNC paid over $12 million for a dossier to influence the election.

And that last sentence about the FBI speculating about the purpose of the dossier, that's especially important, because that indicates that the FBI and the DOJ, they knew about the political motivations behind the Russian paid for dossier and they used it any way. Sounds like a deep state?

Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.

The point I made about the dishonesty of the FBI claim it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Trump was made in articles by article by Byron York on February 24th and by Andrew McCarthy on February 25th.

I posted links to both articles on February 25th.

Hannity's comments (which you posted) were made on February 26th.

Nohero, the obsessed Joe McCarthy wannabe fails again.

And while we're looking at your false attributions against me, when are you going to provide the source of your statement:

Mr. Surovell was calling for the Mueller to be "off the case", and Rosenstein with him

paulsurovell said:

The point I made about the dishonesty of the FBI claim it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Trump was made in articles by article by Byron York on February 24th and by Andrew McCarthy on February 25th.

I posted links to both articles on February 25th.

Hannity's comments (which you posted) were made on February 26th.

Nohero, the obsessed Joe McCarthy wannabe fails again.

And while we're looking at your false attributions against me, when are you going to provide the source of your statement:

Mr. Surovell was calling for the Mueller to be "off the case", and Rosenstein with him

Actually, the charge of dishonesty and actual lying isn't in the Byron York or McCarthy pieces.  You have to go to Hannity to find someone taking it that far.

The "source" is your obvious opposition to the investigation and repeated charges of lying, as well as accepting the original version of the "facts" in the GOP memo, that was used to attack both men.  On one of these threads, Mr. Cramer shared excerpts from Twitter where journalist Marcy Wheeler responded to your repeating of Mueller smears, and properly labeled you as the "McCarthyist".  I don't think there's any need to discuss whether you have an opinion on whether Mueller should stay on the job or not.

ml1 said:

nohero said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:


Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.

It's a pretty humorous argument actually.  As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG!  Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump?  I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump.  It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"

Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.

this is true.

Not sure it makes the information any more or less reliable if it was revealed to be collected at the request of the Hillary Clinton campaign and not a business rival, or a foreign spy, or a spurned lover.  

What you do not understand is that the Right thinks the FBI should have identified Clinton by name, that name being "Crooked Hillary". Then any Judge would have said "How can I rely on anything coming from a person whose very name is "Crooked"?

Can you tell me again where the word "speculates" with regards to the FBI and the Page FISA Application? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the FBI had disclosed the dossier had been submitted as political research, but did not state on the form exactly whom had paid for it?

have we decided yet how many angels dance on the head of a pin? Or will that take another 89 pages?

let's just cut to the chase -- is it Paul's contention and that of the GOP than information gathered by a paid investigator looking for compromising info is NEVER to be used in gaining a warrant?  Is there no credible evidence that can be obtained in that manner?

because that seems to be the message -- someone paid for oppo research, so it therefore cannot be credible.  I'm not seeing any other argument against Steele's credibility.

drummerboy said:

Yeah. You didn't answer my simple question.




Nor did you respond to my earlier comments for that matter.

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

Let me ask you this - if Hillary had used a state.gov account instead of her personal system, would she have been in the clear?

In the first place, she didn't use the State server and she had top secrets on the server she used, 2 years after she was supposed to have turned them in. She also never turned in a required, signed, separation order because to have done so would have been a felony.


Second, when she claimed the e-mails were not marked she was showing either she was ignorant of 'born classified' or she was intentionally misleading the public,  the vast majority of whom were unaware that not being marked had nothing to do with their classification status and she was in fact dealing with top secret information on hr own server.

Your simple question was exactly that --- simple.

It is obvious that had she done every thing by the book she would not be the subject of an IG investigation today. It is also quite obvious that she violated a number of directives and could easily have been indicted for committing crimes.

Strzok's correction of Comey's description of her handling of classified material was an attempt to prevent that.

I assumed you knew all that. Was I wrong?

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

Glory Days.

this is more interesting than Paul's discourse.

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

you still didn't answer the question. I guess you don't know the answer, or know why it's pertinent. Mr. Email Expert.

What about that percentage of classified emails that happened to pass through Hillary's server? Do you think that's significant? Or are you a zero tolerance kind of guy?

And bringing up Strzok is just an example of why you're just a hack on this issue. Strzok's wording (which Comey of course did not have to accept) was still over the top, and did Hillary no favors.

Did you know he wrote the first draft of the October letter that finally did Hillary in? Some supporter he is.

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

Yeah. You didn't answer my simple question.




Nor did you respond to my earlier comments for that matter.

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

Let me ask you this - if Hillary had used a state.gov account instead of her personal system, would she have been in the clear?

In the first place, she didn't use the State server and she had top secrets on the server she used, 2 years after she was supposed to have turned them in. She also never turned in a required, signed, separation order because to have done so would have been a felony.


Second, when she claimed the e-mails were not marked she was showing either she was ignorant of 'born classified' or she was intentionally misleading the public,  the vast majority of whom were unaware that not being marked had nothing to do with their classification status and she was in fact dealing with top secret information on hr own server.

Your simple question was exactly that --- simple.

It is obvious that had she done every thing by the book she would not be the subject of an IG investigation today. It is also quite obvious that she violated a number of directives and could easily have been indicted for committing crimes.

Strzok's correction of Comey's description of her handling of classified material was an attempt to prevent that.


I assumed you knew all that. Was I wrong?

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

If this is aimed at me let me point out that IG Horowitz may or may not be a mystical power but his investigation is going on right now. You may be back in 2016 but the world has moved ahead. Try to keep up

The rest of us are waiting to see his report.

I suppose.  If you like a version of Groundhog Day without the funny stuff.

drummerboy said:

this is more interesting than Paul's discourse.

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

I think ml1 is referring to our devolution into Hillary's emails.

BCC said:

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

If this is aimed at me let me point out that IG Horowitz may or may not be a mystical power but his investigation is going on right now. You may be back in 2016 but the world has moved ahead. Try to keep up

The rest of us are waiting to see his report.

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

I would be happy to find out that the last 16 months was just a bad dream.

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

Yeah, I had a couple of hibernation and coma jokes at hand, but decided to have a drink of water instead.

And over and over, the same people still insist that it's better that Trump win instead of Hillary.

ml1 said:

I suppose.  If you like a version of Groundhog Day without the funny stuff.

drummerboy said:

this is more interesting than Paul's discourse.

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

dave23 said:

ml1 said:

it's funny.  I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.

Yeah, I had a couple of hibernation and coma jokes at hand, but decided to have a drink of water instead.

or you could have been held hostage for the past 5 years.

The recently freed Taliban captive initially didn't believe Donald Trump was president

drummerboy said:

you still didn't answer the question. I guess you don't know the answer, or know why it's pertinent. Mr. Email Expert.

What about that percentage of classified emails that happened to pass through Hillary's server? Do you think that's significant? Or are you a zero tolerance kind of guy?




And bringing up Strzok is just an example of why you're just a hack on this issue. Strzok's wording (which Comey of course did not have to accept) was still over the top, and did Hillary no favors.


Did you know he wrote the first draft of the October letter that finally did Hillary in? Some supporter he is.

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

Yeah. You didn't answer my simple question.




Nor did you respond to my earlier comments for that matter.

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

Let me ask you this - if Hillary had used a state.gov account instead of her personal system, would she have been in the clear?

In the first place, she didn't use the State server and she had top secrets on the server she used, 2 years after she was supposed to have turned them in. She also never turned in a required, signed, separation order because to have done so would have been a felony.


Second, when she claimed the e-mails were not marked she was showing either she was ignorant of 'born classified' or she was intentionally misleading the public,  the vast majority of whom were unaware that not being marked had nothing to do with their classification status and she was in fact dealing with top secret information on hr own server.

Your simple question was exactly that --- simple.

It is obvious that had she done every thing by the book she would not be the subject of an IG investigation today. It is also quite obvious that she violated a number of directives and could easily have been indicted for committing crimes.

Strzok's correction of Comey's description of her handling of classified material was an attempt to prevent that.


I assumed you knew all that. Was I wrong?

You are so anxious to be insulting you missed this

'It is obvious that had she done every thing by the book she would not be the subject of an IG investigation today' I think that's a pretty clear answer to your question.

What about? What about having top secret documents on a private server two years after you were required to return them to the State department? What about the mishandling of classified documents?

Are you aware (obviously you are not) that the language used by Comey is the exact language that can put some one in jail and the language of Strzok is not?

Are you also aware that I wrote that Comey had indeed fukced her over.

Before you start insulting me you might at least get your facts straight.