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

it's not obvious. Or even true for that matter


Jamie I will call u later to discuss killing it.


Thx



bub said:

I agree that both memos are shilling.  The memo war should never have happened at all and Nunes is to blame for that.

Also agree that the National Review is commendably disputatious.  People should read it. 

I'm very reluctant, and really not even competent, to offer all encompassing judgments on the "mainstream media," especially in this environment of assault on the media by the "fake news" shouter.   As a general matter, I think it is healthy for there to be intelligent, informed and respectful debate about subjects.  No journalist or online commentator (hint hint) should rigidly shill for or against the Russiagate investigation or anything else.   

I agree, and I'm willing to compare the accuracy of any example of what you imply is "rigid shilling" on my part with the arguments against them (which in my view are "rigid shilling" for the official narrative).



sbenois said:

Jamie I will call u later to discuss killing it.

Thx

Off topic.



paulsurovell said:



bub said:

. . . and for the sake of completeness, the ABA rules are just model rules.  Each jurisdiction has it own ethics rules, which may borrow from the ABA model rules in whole or in part or not at all.   

Do they have relevance for Federal courts?

Yes. Lawyers are licensed by the State and subject to the Ethics rules of the State in which they are licensed. There is no separate Federal licensing. In fact generally once a lawyer is admitted to the Bar of a State she is automatically admitted to the Federal Court in that State. So when a person licensed to practice in NJ appears in US District Court she is practicing law subject to the Ethics Rules of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

By the way you or anyone can make an ethics complaint simply by writing a letter to the appropriate authority. Perhaps you should do so.


paulsurovell said:



There are legal experts on both sides, it's not a matter of expertise.

It's a matter of common sense and it's obvious that the FBI lied when it said it "is speculating" about the motivation of Fusion GPS head Glen Simpson. It knew that Simpson was hired to discredit Trump, but hid that from the court.

It's absolutely a question that lends itself to legal expertise. To me that is an essential point.


paulsurovell said:



sbenois said:

Jamie,

Shut this idiotic thread down. 

Thank you.

I think he's joking.

I sincerely doubt it.


if people stopped replying to the troller in chief - the thread may go away.



nohero said:

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.

Exactly WHO has insisted that it was better that Trump win instead of Hillary?  Not on MOL.  Why do you continue to smear people?  I expect better from you.  Disappointing.


ok, this thread has run it's course - we're taking a break from it. 



paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Once again, this is what they said - Steele "was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 (Steele) that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

And you keep giving a false view of the facts.  The FBI identified its source ("Source #1") and how its source was hired.  
I hope for your clients' sake that you don't "identify" sources of information or witnesses in court the way the FBI did on this application.

That assumes you follow the ABA code of professional conduct. Do you?

I am not familiar with how sources are to be referred to, in a FISA application.  If "Source #1" is an appropriate way to refer to Steele, then you can't argue that it violates a code of conduct to "identify sources of information" in that way.  Steele was the source of the information, and he was identified.

The application also contains a description of who hired Steele - a "identified U.S.Person".  Again, if this is an appropriate way to refer to Simpson, the person who hired Steele, in the FISA application, then you can't argue that it violates a code of conduct.

As you know, Simpson is not a "source", he's the person who hired Steele/"Source #1".  Simpson did not go to the FBI, Steele did.  The FBI could not identify him as a "source", and it would have been a fraud on the court to say that Simpson was a second person who was a "source".

If the judges on the FISA court did not think that either "Source #1" or "identified U.S. Person" were appropriate ways to identify those men, then they would have addressed that issue.  We can assume that, if the application was granted with the language that it contains, that the identification was accepted by the judges.

According to the application, the "identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia."  In case you need a translation, that means that Steele told the FBI that Simpson did not tell Steele what the "motivation" was for doing the investigation.  It would have been a fraud on the court if the FBI said anything other than what they were told by Steele a.k.a. "Source #1".  On their own, based on what they were told and could surmise from facts outside of what was in the material Steele gave them, "The F.B.I. speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

So, to sum up.  The FBI identified the source (Steele) in a manner appropriate to the FISA application.  They described the "U.S. Person" (Simpson) who hired Steele.  They described what Steele had told them about what Simpson had told him about the engagement.  They then stated what they had surmised about the purpose of Steele's engagement.

I know this was a long response.  However, just because you're able to toss off a deceptive accusation (combined with a personal insult) doesn't mean that a short response is all that's necessary.  I will surmise that if you were in the court, and accused the FBI of not identifying its source, the judges would tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.  

Okay, now we can kill the thread.

[Edited 3/1/18 to add]  I recommend for further reading, this article which came out today, one day after this thread was put out of its misery.  It has the same conclusion as my post, but is better than my explanation, because it's better written, and this guy is an actual expert on the subject.  

https://www.lawfareblog.com/irony-nunes-memo

The FISA applications did not mention the “DNC” or the “Clinton campaign” by name, but they did recount how Steele was approached and then hired by “an identified U.S. Person,” Glen Simpson, who explained to Steele that he in turn had been hired by a “U.S.-based law firm,” Perkins Coie, “to conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia.” (The use of generic identifiers in the FISA applications is consistent with standard practice, as Nunes is ; the minority memo provides the names for each identifier.) The FISA applications also advised the court: “The FBI speculates that [Simpson] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.”

That amply satisfies the . As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications, and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes. The government’s disclosures enabled the court to take Steele’s information with a grain of salt. They allowed the court to decide, based on all of the information presented, whether there was “” that Carter Page “” engaged in “” for Russia that involve, may involve, or are about to involve “.” It’s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent.



4 months later and it appears that we don't have much more information.  Merely speculation.  We need to wait for the Mueller report.

@LOST @nan @nohero @ml1 @ridski @Klinker @bub @drummerboy

This thread is in it's own forum due to the wave of complaints from it being top and center of the main discussions list every 5 minutes of the course of 2,700+ posts.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/subforum/trump-collusion-subforum 


Trump delivering a very direct rebuke to the European Union on Russian influences and oil deals.  You might dislike his style, but his delivery leaves no doubt about the issue.  The EU ministers sat quietly and had no alternative but to take the thumping.

http://foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-nato-head-have-testy-exchange-at-summit.html


alex4855 said:
Trump delivering a very direct rebuke to the European Union on Russian influences and oil deals.  You might dislike his style, but his delivery leaves no doubt about the issue.  The EU ministers sat quietly and had no alternative but to take the thumping.
http://foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-nato-head-have-testy-exchange-at-summit.html

I like Trump's style.  It's kind of like beating your wife and telling her she has to take because she has no alternatives.


alex4855 said:
Trump delivering a very direct rebuke to the European Union on Russian influences and oil deals.  You might dislike his style, but his delivery leaves no doubt about the issue.  The EU ministers sat quietly and had no alternative but to take the thumping.
http://foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-nato-head-have-testy-exchange-at-summit.html

 It was a NATO meeting, not an EU meeting. 


alex4855 said:
Trump delivering a very direct rebuke to the European Union on Russian influences and oil deals.  You might dislike his style, but his delivery leaves no doubt about the issue.  The EU ministers sat quietly and had no alternative but to take the thumping.
http://foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-nato-head-have-testy-exchange-at-summit.html

 One thing I learned very well is when dealing with the demented, such as Alzheimer's, is let them babble on. To not even argue.


Why is Trump asking Germany to pay?  Germany needs our financial support.  He is really cruel. 


This thread will be disappearing from the main discussions list into the collusion subforum. 


brealer said:
Why is Trump asking Germany to pay?  Germany needs our financial support. He is really cruel.

 I would agree that NATO members should meet the 2% spending target.  However, to hear Trump and state television (FOX), you would think that we established NATO and funded the Marshall Plan just because we cared about Western Europe.

In reality, the Marshall Plan was a good example of enlightened self-interest harking back to the days when our leaders understood that strong as we might be, we needed allies.


tom said:


alex4855 said:
Trump delivering a very direct rebuke to the European Union on Russian influences and oil deals.  You might dislike his style, but his delivery leaves no doubt about the issue.  The EU ministers sat quietly and had no alternative but to take the thumping.
http://foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-nato-head-have-testy-exchange-at-summit.html
 It was a NATO meeting, not an EU meeting. 

 Details details.


tjohn said:


brealer said:
Why is Trump asking Germany to pay?  Germany needs our financial support. He is really cruel.
 I would agree that NATO members should meet the 2% spending target.  

 Which I believe they are required to do by 2024.


tom said:


alex4855 said:
Trump delivering a very direct rebuke to the European Union on Russian influences and oil deals.  You might dislike his style, but his delivery leaves no doubt about the issue.  The EU ministers sat quietly and had no alternative but to take the thumping.
http://foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-nato-head-have-testy-exchange-at-summit.html
 It was a NATO meeting, not an EU meeting. 

 Correct. Thanks.


tjohn said:


brealer said:
Why is Trump asking Germany to pay?  Germany needs our financial support. He is really cruel.
 I would agree that NATO members should meet the 2% spending target.  However, to hear Trump and state television (FOX), you would think that we established NATO and funded the Marshall Plan just because we cared about Western Europe.
In reality, the Marshall Plan was a good example of enlightened self-interest harking back to the days when our leaders understood that strong as we might be, we needed allies.

 And, don't forget with fought alongside Russia to obliterate Germany.



dave23 said:


tjohn said:

brealer said:
Why is Trump asking Germany to pay?  Germany needs our financial support. He is really cruel.
 I would agree that NATO members should meet the 2% spending target.  
 Which I believe they are required to do by 2024.

Required? And what happens if they don't? We'll pull out? Its like an agreement. Trump has shown us how much agreements mean.

The Germans might just say "good, don't let the door smack you on your āss." Get your troops out of our country. The bases you're sitting in are ours.

Countries were still nervous when NATO was set up. Even though at the time the German politicians were anti-militaristic. A concern was German rearmament. Alleviated by, there is no need to heavily rearm, the US NATO umbrella will protect.

Why 2%? What will 2% do that 1 1/2 or 5 won't?

I do realize the Germans have had an easy ride under our global protection umbrella. We spend on military, they spend on universal healthcare and infrastructure.


At least the administration is coordinated and communicating a clear message.

Pompeo:

.@NATO is the most successful alliance in history. All #NATO allies have committed to extending this success through increased defense spending, deterrence and defense, and fighting terrorism. Weakness provokes; strength and cohesion protects. This remains our bedrock belief.



Naturally, our Dotard lied, again:

"Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they were getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline."

The fact is about 20% of German energy is gas. Russia is responsible for 50 to 75% of German gas imports. That makes Germany's Russian energy dependence about 10%. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44794688


Germany had a front row seat at the might-makes-right displays that Russia has recently put on in Europe. I'm sure that Germany appreciates NATO's value. Germany is rich. Germany should pay.


BG9 said:
Naturally, our Dotard lied, again:


"Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they were getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline."
The fact is about 20% of German energy is gas. Russia is responsible for 50 to 75% of German gas imports. That makes Germany's Russian energy dependence about 10%. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44794688

That makes Germany a coal burning, gas guzzling, climate change hypocrite.  While portraying themselves an international pioneer and righteous leader in climate protection, Trump exposes the  agendas that run deep and the Russian influences that truly exist.   


BG9 said:
Required? And what happens if they don't? We'll pull out? Its like an agreement. Trump has shown us how much agreements mean.
The Germans might just say "good, don't let the door smack you on your āss." Get your troops out of our country. The bases you're sitting in are ours.

They are starting to lean that way:

Now, in a rather stunning poll, 42 percent of Germans say they want U.S. troops out of the country, compared with 37 percent who want the approximately 35,000 U.S. military personnel to stay.

As Trump rattles Germans say get U.S. troops out of our country


Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.

A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:

"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4580876-USA-v-Manafort-Opposition-to-Motions-in-Limine.html


paulsurovell said:
Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.

A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:

"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4580876-USA-v-Manafort-Opposition-to-Motions-in-Limine.html

Because the charges are about bank fraud and conspiracy. Good luck!


dave23 said:


paulsurovell said:
Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.

A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:

"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4580876-USA-v-Manafort-Opposition-to-Motions-in-Limine.html
Because the charges are about bank fraud and conspiracy. Good luck!

 Yes. Keep that in mind when you hear that Manafort's indictment is evidence of Russia collusion. (like Rep. Jackson-Lee just said in the Strzok hearing)

Prediction: Mueller's statement cited above:

The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government

will never be reported by the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC or any other Russiagate media.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.