Republican FISA Memo

dct112685 · February 2018

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/372022-read-the-controversial-memo-just-released-by-republicans

The memo has been released and is very telling. It is no secret why the DOJ and FBI were fighting so hard against its release. I do not see how any national security is in jeopardy because of the memo's release. Instead, it appears that the heads of very high officials at DOJ and FBI are going to roll because of it.

The Russia Investigation should end NOW. It is clear this has all been a political ploy to destroy Donald Trump with no basis in reality or merit or even authenticity.

I hope that Justice is duly served to the people behind this. They should be ashamed for weaponizing the DOJ and FBI in order for their own political ambitions and desires to be advanced.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
The memo has been released and is very telling. It is no secret why the DOJ and FBI were fighting so hard against its release. I do not see how any national security is in jeopardy because of the memo's release. Instead, it appears that the heads of very high officials at DOJ and FBI are going to roll because of it.

The Russia Investigation should end NOW. It is clear this has all been a political ploy to destroy Donald Trump with no basis in reality or merit or even authenticity.

I hope that Justice is duly served to the people behind this. They should be ashamed for weaponizing the DOJ and FBI in order for their own political ambitions and desires to be advanced.

The memo is declassified, incomplete, and inconsequential insinuation. I don't understand what the fuss about it was since it offers almost nothing consequential to the debate about the FBI probe or the FISA process it and the broader DOJ used as part of its investigation, and certainly absolutely nothing about the Mueller investigation.

I don't know what material facts the FBI or House Intel Democrats will cite because the GOP memo fails to take them into consideration, but I don't think I have to. (Though it's worth remembering that a second memo - from "the other side" - is coming. If you believe there are two sides to every story, then you will want to read that memo and its footnotes before reaching final conclusions about the validity of today's release) Here are a couple of observations I make about the GOP memo, not having seen the corrections Democrats, and possibly, the FBI and DOJ, will propose:

Amidst all the smoke in the memo, there is no suggestion, let alone proof, that any of the information that led to the FISA court's approval of FISA warrants and extensions was materially false or intentionally misleading.
There is no reminder in the memo that the FISA court, not applicants to the court, decides whether to issue FISA warrants. Whatever information applicants presented to the court convinced its members of the need for the warrants.
There is no mention in the memo that FISA warrant applications are 40, 50, 60 pages or more, and NEVER rely on a single source (such as the Steele dossier). The memo gives no mention, let alone review, of the probative value of the OTHER information the FISA court used as basis for its decisions to approve warrants and their extensions.
The memo mentions the two FBI agents whose affair and political leanings for many on the right raise doubts about their objectivity in the Clinton email investigation. The memo fails to mention that one of those two agents - Peter Strzok - supported re-opening that Clinton investigation when emails were found on Anthony Weiner's computer, and co-wrote the first draft of the letter that announced that re-opening. Further, Strzok opposed going public just a few days before the election with word that a review of the new emails had found nothing. Those are not the actions of an agent whose politics colored his professional actions.

Those are observations off the top of my head. People far more knowledgeable than I will no doubt demonstrate the memo's core emptiness in the hours and days ahead.

This memo says NOTHING about the integrity of Bob Mueller or his team of prosecutors. It says nothing about the guilty pleas of Michael Flynn and George Papdopoulous, or that each has been cooperating with investigators. It says nothing about the possibility that Rick Gates may now be seeking to cooperate with Mueller, given that Gates' previous attorneys have asked to be removed from the case immediately, and that another attorney for Gates has been seen entering Mueller's offices. Nor does it say anything about the integrity of the dozens, probably hundreds of FBI agents and DOJ career professionals who have contributed to the Mueller probe. Your suggestion that said investigation is "a political ploy to destroy Donald Trump with no basis in reality or merit or even authenticity," David, is, itself, a political ploy with no basis in fact, at least if the GOP memo is your "evidence."

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
The memo has been released and is very telling. It is no secret why the DOJ and FBI were fighting so hard against its release. I do not see how any national security is in jeopardy because of the memo's release. Instead, it appears that the heads of very high officials at DOJ and FBI are going to roll because of it.

The Russia Investigation should end NOW. It is clear this has all been a political ploy to destroy Donald Trump with no basis in reality or merit or even authenticity.

I hope that Justice is duly served to the people behind this. They should be ashamed for weaponizing the DOJ and FBI in order for their own political ambitions and desires to be advanced.

The memo is declassified, incomplete, and inconsequential insinuation. I don't understand what the fuss about it was since it offers almost nothing consequential to the debate about the FBI probe or the FISA process it and the broader DOJ used as part of its investigation, and certainly absolutely nothing about the Mueller investigation.

I don't know what material facts the FBI or House Intel Democrats will cite because the GOP memo fails to take them into consideration, but I don't think I have to. (Though it's worth remembering that a second memo - from "the other side" - is coming. If you believe there are two sides to every story, then you will want to read that memo and its footnotes before reaching final conclusions about the validity of today's release) Here are a couple of observations I make about the GOP memo, not having seen the corrections Democrats, and possibly, the FBI and DOJ, will propose:

Amidst all the smoke in the memo, there is no suggestion, let alone proof, that any of the information that led to the FISA court's approval of FISA warrants and extensions was materially false or intentionally misleading.

There is no reminder in the memo that the FISA court, not applicants to the court, decides whether to issue FISA warrants. Whatever information applicants presented to the court convinced its members of the need for the warrants.

There is no mention in the memo that FISA warrant applications are 40, 50, 60 pages or more, and NEVER rely on a single source (such as the Steele dossier). The memo gives no mention, let alone review, of the probative value of the OTHER information the FISA court used as basis for its decisions to approve warrants and their extensions.

The memo mentions the two FBI agents whose affair and political leanings for many on the right raise doubts about their objectivity in the Clinton email investigation. The memo fails to mention that one of those two agents - Peter Strzok - supported re-opening that Clinton investigation when emails were found on Anthony Weiner's computer, and co-wrote the first draft of the letter that announced that re-opening. Further, Strzok opposed going public just a few days before the election with word that a review of the new emails had found nothing. Those are not the actions of an agent whose politics colored his professional actions.

Those are observations off the top of my head. People far more knowledgeable than I will no doubt demonstrate the memo's core emptiness in the hours and days ahead.

This memo says NOTHING about the integrity of Bob Mueller or his team of prosecutors. It says nothing about the guilty pleas of Michael Flynn and George Papdopoulous, or that each has been cooperating with investigators. It says nothing about the possibility that Rick Gates may now be seeking to cooperate with Mueller, given that Gates' previous attorneys have asked to be removed from the case immediately, and that another attorney for Gates has been seen entering Mueller's offices. Nor does it say anything about the integrity of the dozens, probably hundreds of FBI agents and DOJ career professionals who have contributed to the Mueller probe. Your suggestion that said investigation is "a political ploy to destroy Donald Trump with no basis in reality or merit or even authenticity," David, is, itself, a political ploy with no basis in fact, at least if the GOP memo is your "evidence."

The only real evidence necessary is that the collusion investigation has gone on for well over a year now and there has not been one shred of evidence that collusion occured. This is wasting taxpayer money. This is absurd, ridiculous, unfounded, uncredible, and just needs to be stopped. There is nothing there. They have had plenty of time to find something.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
The only real evidence necessary is that the collusion investigation has gone on for well over a year now and there has not been one shred of evidence that collusion occured. This is wasting taxpayer money. This is absurd, ridiculous, unfounded, uncredible, and just needs to be stopped. There is nothing there. They have had plenty of time to find something.

You and I don't know what Mueller has found because he and his team don't leak. Neither of us knew that Papadopolous was going to plead guilty. My goodness, I bet neither of us had ever heard of Papadopolous before his guilty plea! That was the case because Mueller and company didn't (and don't) leak. We don't know what he has. In my view, all indications are that he has a lot (just count the number of Trump campaign representatives who met, then mysteriously forgot they met, with Russians!)

I predict there will be several more indictments - of high ranking people, for serious crimes. I also predict that the president will get himself in a heap of trouble when he meets with Mueller - either voluntarily or by the compulsion of a subpoena - principally because history shows he is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for more than a couple of minutes at a time.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
The only real evidence necessary is that the collusion investigation has gone on for well over a year now and there has not been one shred of evidence that collusion occured. This is wasting taxpayer money. This is absurd, ridiculous, unfounded, uncredible, and just needs to be stopped. There is nothing there. They have had plenty of time to find something.

You and I don't know what Mueller has found because he and his team don't leak. Neither of us knew that Papadopolous was going to plead guilty. My goodness, I bet neither of us had ever heard of Papadopolous before his guilty plea! That was the case because Mueller and company didn't (and don't) leak. We don't know what he has. In my view, all indications are that he has a lot (just count the number of Trump campaign representatives who met, then mysteriously forgot they met, with Russians!)

Papadopolous, good grief. I've read the indictment. There is nothing earth-shattering there and definitely nothing that amounts to collusion. Red herring as usual.

I predict there will be several more indictments - of high ranking people, for serious crimes. I also predict that the president will get himself in a heap of trouble when he meets with Mueller - either voluntarily or by the compulsion of a subpoena - principally because history shows he is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for more than a couple of minutes at a time.

For serious crimes such as? There has been no evidence of collusion, there won't be because it didn't happen.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
Papadopolous, good grief. I've read the indictment. There is nothing earth-shattering there and definitely nothing that amounts to collusion. Red herring as usual.

You follow this stuff closely, David, so you know about plea deals. The Papdopolous indictment is for FAR LESS than he could have been charged with. And that happened because he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Since you read the indictment, you know that Mueller's team refers to him as a "proactive cooperator," which means he'd been helping for three months before his plea was announced. Prosecutors grant plea deals in cases like this only when the one offered the deal can give them something they can use against somebody higher in the food chain. I think that's what's happened with him, with Michael Flynn (who said he has a story to tell), and Rick Gates... at least. We don't know who else Mueller has flipped.

For serious crimes such as? There has been no evidence of collusion, there won't be because it didn't happen.

I respect, even admire, your confidence in the face of all the publicly available evidence (who knows how much Mueller has that hasn't leaked!) No collusion... in spite of the fact that SO MANY Trump campaign officials met with Russians, then had to be reminded that they met with Russians. No collusion... in spite of Don Jr's email chain in which he expressed his love for an offer of Russian government dirt on Hillary Clinton that was to come to him in a meeting about whose purpose he and his dad ultimately concocted a knowingly false/misleading public statement.

I do admire your confidence.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
Papadopolous, good grief. I've read the indictment. There is nothing earth-shattering there and definitely nothing that amounts to collusion. Red herring as usual.

You follow this stuff closely, David, so you know about plea deals. The Papdopolous indictment is for FAR LESS than he could have been charged with. And that happened because he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Since you read the indictment, you know that Mueller's team refers to him as a "proactive cooperator," which means he'd been helping for three months before his plea was announced. Prosecutors grant plea deals in cases like this only when the one offered the deal can give them something they can use against somebody higher in the food chain. I think that's what's happened with him, with Michael Flynn (who said he has a story to tell), and Rick Gates... at least. We don't know who else Mueller has flipped.

For serious crimes such as? There has been no evidence of collusion, there won't be because it didn't happen.

I respect, even admire, your confidence in the face of all the publicly available evidence (who knows how much Mueller has that hasn't leaked!) No collusion... in spite of the fact that SO MANY Trump campaign officials met with Russians, then had to be reminded that they met with Russians. No collusion... in spite of Don Jr's email chain in which he expressed his love for an offer of Russian government dirt on Hillary Clinton that was to come to him in a meeting about whose purpose he and his dad ultimately concocted a knowingly false/misleading public statement.

I do admire your confidence.

Oh by the way, regarding high crimes, you do know collusion isn't a crime right?

GaoLu · February 2018

I smell burnt marshwiggle. Phewwwww! A whole swampful of them. Part of me almost feels sorry for the Democrats. Owell. "With...Justice for all," as the pledge says.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

For what it's worth, initial reaction from people experienced in law enforcement and the intelligence community is, as I figured it would be, quite damning of the Nunes memo, the consensus being that it's even less consequential than most critics predicted it would be.

Trey Gowdy, a very conservative voice, says the memo raises concerns about the FISA process, but casts no shadow on the vast majority of DOJ professionals and none at all on the Mueller probe. In consecutive tweets, he writes...

"While this memo raises serious concerns with the FISA process, I have been and remain confident in the overwhelming majority of the men and women serving at the FBI and DOJ."

and

"As I have said repeatedly, I also remain 100 percent confident in Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The contents of this memo do not - in any way - discredit his investigation."

Of course, the fringe right is exploding in rage over Gowdy's sane, measured reaction to the memo, but I predict that the majority of Americans will come to see the memo as a political stunt from the man who last year tried to tell us that he went to the White House to deliver devastating intelligence, only to discover that a) the intelligence wasn't devastating, and b) he actually had received the intelligence from the White House the night before.

And when the Democratic response memo comes out, with facts and footnotes to correct the record, the Nunes memo will become just another failed ploy by a flailing party that's headed for disaster in the midterms.

If I didn't feel so encouraged about the arc of history right now, and so convinced of the electoral result we need in the fall to correct the hell our nation has been through in the last year, I think I'd feel sorry for Nunes, all the GOP members of the House Intel committee who voted to release it, and all the minions out in the country who hoped this memo would turn things around, but will soon realize it won't.

NOTE: Sean Hannity last night predicted "the greatest scandal in American history," once this memo released. I almost feel pity for him... NOT!!!

GaoLu · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
For what it's worth...the consensus being that it's even less consequential than most critics predicted it would be.

I actually read the memo.

If there is any justice left in America, and I think there is, your assessment will soon be proven ridiculous. David's assessment is far more likely, "The heads of very high officials at DOJ and FBI are going to roll because of it."

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@GaoLu said:
I actually read the memo.

If there is any justice left in America, and I think there is, your assessment will soon be proven ridiculous. David's assessment is far more likely, "The heads of very high officials at DOJ and FBI are going to roll because of it."

I actually read the memo, too, and gave my initial reactions to it in my first post in this thread, all of which I stand by, by the way, here five hours after I posted them. I hope you'll also "actually read" the Democrats' footnoted memo when it's released, probably next week. Perhaps you'll have assertions of fact about that memo which you'll be willing to post and then later stand by.

I think we'll know soon whose "assessment" of the Nunes memo will be "proven ridiculous," mine or yours and David's.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@GaoLu said:
I actually read the memo.

If there is any justice left in America, and I think there is, your assessment will soon be proven ridiculous. David's assessment is far more likely, "The heads of very high officials at DOJ and FBI are going to roll because of it."

I actually read the memo, too, and gave my initial reactions to it in my first post in this thread, all of which I stand by, by the way, here five hours after I posted them. I hope you'll also "actually read" the Democrats' footnoted memo when it's released, probably next week. Perhaps you'll have assertions of fact about that memo which you'll be willing to post and then later stand by.

I think we'll know soon whose "assessment" of the Nunes memo will be "proven ridiculous," mine or yours and David's.

I do actually look forward to reading the Dem's memo as well.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

I do admire your confidence.

@davidtaylorjr said:

Oh by the way, regarding high crimes, you do know collusion isn't a crime right?

I'm well aware that collusion is not a crime. My discussion of it in this thread was a response to your raising it this way, as a question about my prediction that indictments for serious crimes would result from the Mueller probe....

For serious crimes such as? There has been no evidence of collusion, there won't be because it didn't happen."

Your question seemed to cite collusion as an example of a "serious crime." My response, in which I gave examples of possible collusion, could have corrected that citation, but did not. My bad.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@Bill_Coley said:

I do admire your confidence.

@davidtaylorjr said:

Oh by the way, regarding high crimes, you do know collusion isn't a crime right?

I'm well aware that collusion is not a crime. My discussion of it in this thread was a response to your raising it this way, as a question about my prediction that indictments for serious crimes would result from the Mueller probe....

For serious crimes such as? There has been no evidence of collusion, there won't be because it didn't happen."

Your question seemed to cite collusion as an example of a "serious crime." My response, in which I gave examples of possible collusion, could have corrected that citation, but did not. My bad.

Fair enough That does make me wonder what types of serious crimes you think may have been committed?

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Bill_Coley said:
Your question seemed to cite collusion as an example of a "serious crime." My response, in which I gave examples of possible collusion, could have corrected that citation, but did not. My bad.

Fair enough That does make me wonder what types of serious crimes you think may have been committed?

First, and most important, I don't KNOW. No one KNOWS, because no one knows what Mueller and his team have uncovered. I don't KNOW that additional indictments will come, and you don't KNOW that further additional indictments will not come. The reason none of us knows is that the Mueller investigators don't leak - which is how it should be.

My informed speculation on the matter is this:

Trump has displayed what in the law is called a "consciousness of guilt" by firing the FBI director who was leading a criminal probe into his campaign, and then telling the world in a national TV interview that he fired Comey to end the Russia investigation. According to multiple reports - including Trump-friendly FoxNews - he also ordered the firing of Bob Mueller last summer, but was talked out of the action by the White House counsel. Innocent people don't try to get rid of the people investigating them.
The existence of plea agreements with Papadopolous and Flynn suggests they have information about the actions of their superiors that special counsel Mueller believes is valuable. Plea agreements aren't handed out as gifts; they're offered as incentives for the full-throated cooperation of witnesses who have something of value against people up the food chain.
In November 2017, six months into the investigation, Mueller hired a highly respected cybercrime prosecutor, wherein the speculation immediately turned to money laundering. Steve Bannon told Michael Wolff for his infamous book "Fire and Fury" that the case is all about money laundering. We'll see, of course, but the old adage in criminal cases that involve politicians is "follow the money." Mueller is doing that, having subpoenaed Deutche Bank records.
All of that is the foundation for my belief that the core crimes for which someone might be charged going forward are a) money-related - money laundering or some other kind of connection, I'm thinking in Russia, given that Trump insults and bad mouths Americans, allies, and some foreign leaders at will, but NEVER Vladimir Putin; b) conspiracy to commit whatever - collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is. There are enough people with stories to tell of enough other people allegedly involved in the story at some level that a conspiracy charge against Trump underlings is quite feasible, in my view (Don Jr comes immediately to mind) c) obstruction of justice - it might once again be that "it's not the crime, it's the coverup." The Comey firing and the attempted Mueller firing mean the case for an obstruction charge is very strong now, and will probably strengthen as the evidence gathers. Because it's unlikely that Mueller would try to indict Trump while in office, the obstruction case would move to the House as an impeachment issue.

Those are my informed speculations, David. Notice, please, that I base the speculations on facts. I hope you will share your informed speculations about what is to come, and identify the facts upon which you base your speculations.

GaoLu · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

First, and most important, I don't KNOW. No one KNOWS, because no one knows what Mueller and his team have uncovered. I don't KNOW that additional indictments will come, and you don't KNOW that further additional indictments will not come.

Now that is a good answer!

[Wild and dubious speculation on vaporous facts is worth a nickel]

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Bill_Coley said:
Your question seemed to cite collusion as an example of a "serious crime." My response, in which I gave examples of possible collusion, could have corrected that citation, but did not. My bad.

Fair enough That does make me wonder what types of serious crimes you think may have been committed?

First, and most important, I don't KNOW. No one KNOWS, because no one knows what Mueller and his team have uncovered. I don't KNOW that additional indictments will come, and you don't KNOW that further additional indictments will not come. The reason none of us knows is that the Mueller investigators don't leak - which is how it should be.

My informed speculation on the matter is this:

Trump has displayed what in the law is called a "consciousness of guilt" by firing the FBI director who was leading a criminal probe into his campaign, and then telling the world in a national TV interview that he fired Comey to end the Russia investigation. According to multiple reports - including Trump-friendly FoxNews - he also ordered the firing of Bob Mueller last summer, but was talked out of the action by the White House counsel. Innocent people don't try to get rid of the people investigating them.

The existence of plea agreements with Papadopolous and Flynn suggests they have information about the actions of their superiors that special counsel Mueller believes is valuable. Plea agreements aren't handed out as gifts; they're offered as incentives for the full-throated cooperation of witnesses who have something of value against people up the food chain.

In November 2017, six months into the investigation, Mueller hired a highly respected cybercrime prosecutor, wherein the speculation immediately turned to money laundering. Steve Bannon told Michael Wolff for his infamous book "Fire and Fury" that the case is all about money laundering. We'll see, of course, but the old adage in criminal cases that involve politicians is "follow the money." Mueller is doing that, having subpoenaed Deutche Bank records.

All of that is the foundation for my belief that the core crimes for which someone might be charged going forward are a) money-related - money laundering or some other kind of connection, I'm thinking in Russia, given that Trump insults and bad mouths Americans, allies, and some foreign leaders at will, but NEVER Vladimir Putin; b) conspiracy to commit whatever - collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is. There are enough people with stories to tell of enough other people allegedly involved in the story at some level that a conspiracy charge against Trump underlings is quite feasible, in my view (Don Jr comes immediately to mind) c) obstruction of justice - it might once again be that "it's not the crime, it's the coverup." The Comey firing and the attempted Mueller firing mean the case for an obstruction charge is very strong now, and will probably strengthen as the evidence gathers. Because it's unlikely that Mueller would try to indict Trump while in office, the obstruction case would move to the House as an impeachment issue.

Those are my informed speculations, David. Notice, please, that I base the speculations on facts. I hope you will share your informed speculations about what is to come, and identify the facts upon which you base your speculations.

On the Comey firing, I had not heard Trump say it was to end the Russia investigation, I heard quite the opposite. Could you cite something?

Even still, it is well within Trump's right to fire the FBI director and it would have hardly stopped the investigation.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

On the Comey firing, I had not heard Trump say it was to end the Russia investigation, I heard quite the opposite. Could you cite something?

Trump fired Comey in May 2017. You may well remember that the false story White House spokespeople gave was that the firing was the president's reaction to a memo of recommendation written by Rod Rosenstein, deputy AG - that in fact, the president wasn't even thinking about firing Comey until that memo arrived. But then in an interview with NBC News, the president said he had made up his mind to fire Comey before that memo, that the memo hadn't factored into his decision. AND he said that when he decided to fire Comey, he was thinking about the "made up story," the "excuse" for the Democrat's election loss, called the Russia investigation. The critical portion of the interview begins at about the 0:18 mark of [THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO] "THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO") and last for a minute to 90 seconds.

Does the president's answer mean he fired Comey to end the Russia probe? No, but that's not the president's problem. His problem is that by telling us that he was thinking about the Russia probe when he fired Comey, he opens himself to a charge of obstructing justice. Not ending the probe! Obstructing the probe. Pair that with the multiple-source verified story (including FoxNews) that last summer Trump ordered the firing of Bob Mueller (talked out of it by the White House counsel) and you have a pattern of obstructing behavior.

Even still, it is well within Trump's right to fire the FBI director and it would have hardly stopped the investigation.

The president had a right to fire Comey, but not for an improper/illegal purpose. If his purpose was to obstruct the Russia investigation, that was an improper/illegal purpose.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:

On the Comey firing, I had not heard Trump say it was to end the Russia investigation, I heard quite the opposite. Could you cite something?

Trump fired Comey in May 2017. You may well remember that the false story White House spokespeople gave was that the firing was the president's reaction to a memo of recommendation written by Rod Rosenstein, deputy AG - that in fact, the president wasn't even thinking about firing Comey until that memo arrived. But then in an interview with NBC News, the president said he had made up his mind to fire Comey before that memo, that the memo hadn't factored into his decision. AND he said that when he decided to fire Comey, he was thinking about the "made up story," the "excuse" for the Democrat's election loss, called the Russia investigation. The critical portion of the interview begins at about the 0:18 mark of [THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO] "THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO") and last for a minute to 90 seconds.

Interesting, the President did not say that he fired Comey in relation to Russia. Nor did he actually say Russia had anything to do with Comey's firing.

Does the president's answer mean he fired Comey to end the Russia probe? No, but that's not the president's problem. His problem is that by telling us that he was thinking about the Russia probe when he fired Comey, he opens himself to a charge of obstructing justice. Not ending the probe! Obstructing the probe. Pair that with the multiple-source verified story (including FoxNews) that last summer Trump ordered the firing of Bob Mueller (talked out of it by the White House counsel) and you have a pattern of obstructing behavior.

This is absurd Bill. Nothing in what the President said amounts to even thinking about obstruction of justice. Comey wasn't doing the actual investigation so you can't possibly consider that as obstruction.

That being said, Comey had mishandled the Clinton investigation, big time, and was also showing signs of politicizing his office. It was more than appropriate for him to be fired. If the tables had been turned and Clinton fired him, would you consider that obstruction of justice?

Even still, it is well within Trump's right to fire the FBI director and it would have hardly stopped the investigation.

The president had a right to fire Comey, but not for an improper/illegal purpose. If his purpose was to obstruct the Russia investigation, that was an improper/illegal purpose.

It's a good thing that wasn't his purpose and he never even said anything close to that.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
Interesting, the President did not say that he fired Comey in relation to Russia. Nor did he actually say Russia had anything to do with Comey's firing.

He said that when he decided to fire Comey, he thought about the Russia investigation, how it was a "made up story" and a "fake excuse" for the Democrats' loss. HE told us that when he decided to fire Comey, he was thinking about the Russia probe. If the two events were unrelated, why did he tell us - unprompted, by the way - that when he thought about one, he thought about the other?

This is absurd Bill. Nothing in what the President said amounts to even thinking about obstruction of justice. Comey wasn't doing the actual investigation so you can't possibly consider that as obstruction.

When you revisit the history of those days, David, you'll be reminded that on March 20, 2017, Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible ties with Russia. His announcement, which was made with the consent of the Justice Department, was the first public notice of any such probe. The FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign was still ongoing when Trump fired Comey on May 9.

Was Comey HIMSELF doing the investigating? Of course not. FBI directors don't have time to do investigations; that's what field agents et al are for. But was Comey involved in the FBI ongoing probe of Trump and Russia? Absolutely.

That being said, Comey had mishandled the Clinton investigation, big time, and was also showing signs of politicizing his office. It was more than appropriate for him to be fired. If the tables had been turned and Clinton fired him, would you consider that obstruction of justice?

In your revisit of the history of Comey's firing, David, you'll also be reminded that BEFORE receiving a memo from deputy AG Rosenstein that focused on the Clinton investigation, Trump had drafted a letter announcing Comey's firing, a letter that so alarmed the White House counsel that he had to persuade Trump not to use it, and then involve Rosenstein as another source of possible reasons for Comey's dismissal. [The Wikipedia article will also remind you of the other explanations Trump and his minions gave for the Comey firing, and that Comey testified under oath that Trump asked him to "let go" of the Bureau's investigation of Michael Flynn.]

In the same circumstances - Clinton as president, her campaign under FBI investigation - I hope to high heaven that I would say AT THE VERY LEAST that firing the FBI director could EASILY BE INTERPRETED as a moved designed to impede/obstruct the probe. I know I would also call it a bat s**t crazy move that she NEVER should have taken.

It's a good thing that wasn't his purpose and he never even said anything close to that.

We disagree.

Twice previously in our exchange I have noted that in addition to firing the director of the FBI which was investigating his campaign's ties with Russia, last summer Trump ALSO ordered the firing of special counsel Bob Mueller, a move White House counsel Don McGahn had to stop by threatening to resign. In neither of your posts since my first mention of that action have you responded to it. So I'll ask you directly: If not to impede, disrupt, or obstruct Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, then why did Trump order Mueller's firing? If it was for a reason unrelated to the Russia probe - as you claim Comey's firing was unrelated to Russia - then why didn't Trump follow through with the firing? Why did McGahn threaten to resign? And finally, when you pair Comey's firing in May 2017 with the order to fire Mueller in the summer of the same year, how is it unreasonable to see a pattern of intent to disrupt, impede, or obstruct Trump-Russia investigations?

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
Interesting, the President did not say that he fired Comey in relation to Russia. Nor did he actually say Russia had anything to do with Comey's firing.

He said that when he decided to fire Comey, he thought about the Russia investigation, how it was a "made up story" and a "fake excuse" for the Democrats' loss. HE told us that when he decided to fire Comey, he was thinking about the Russia probe. If the two events were unrelated, why did he tell us - unprompted, by the way - that when he thought about one, he thought about the other?

This is absurd Bill. Nothing in what the President said amounts to even thinking about obstruction of justice. Comey wasn't doing the actual investigation so you can't possibly consider that as obstruction.

When you revisit the history of those days, David, you'll be reminded that on March 20, 2017, Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible ties with Russia. His announcement, which was made with the consent of the Justice Department, was the first public notice of any such probe. The FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign was still ongoing when Trump fired Comey on May 9.

Which has nothing to do with the Comey firing. You keep trying to tie in things that aren't there.

Was Comey HIMSELF doing the investigating? Of course not. FBI directors don't have time to do investigations; that's what field agents et al are for. But was Comey involved in the FBI ongoing probe of Trump and Russia? Absolutely.

But fired for an unrelated matter and in no way impeded the investigation.

That being said, Comey had mishandled the Clinton investigation, big time, and was also showing signs of politicizing his office. It was more than appropriate for him to be fired. If the tables had been turned and Clinton fired him, would you consider that obstruction of justice?

In your revisit of the history of Comey's firing, David, you'll also be reminded that BEFORE receiving a memo from deputy AG Rosenstein that focused on the Clinton investigation, Trump had drafted a letter announcing Comey's firing, a letter that so alarmed the White House counsel that he had to persuade Trump not to use it, and then involve Rosenstein as another source of possible reasons for Comey's dismissal. [The Wikipedia article will also remind you of the other explanations Trump and his minions gave for the Comey firing, and that Comey testified under oath that Trump asked him to "let go" of the Bureau's investigation of Michael Flynn.]

In the same circumstances - Clinton as president, her campaign under FBI investigation - I hope to high heaven that I would say AT THE VERY LEAST that firing the FBI director could EASILY BE INTERPRETED as a moved designed to impede/obstruct the probe. I know I would also call it a bat s**t crazy move that she NEVER should have taken.

It's a good thing that wasn't his purpose and he never even said anything close to that.

We disagree.

Twice previously in our exchange I have noted that in addition to firing the director of the FBI which was investigating his campaign's ties with Russia, last summer Trump ALSO ordered the firing of special counsel Bob Mueller, a move White House counsel Don McGahn had to stop by threatening to resign. In neither of your posts since my first mention of that action have you responded to it. So I'll ask you directly: If not to impede, disrupt, or obstruct Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, then why did Trump order Mueller's firing? If it was for a reason unrelated to the Russia probe - as you claim Comey's firing was unrelated to Russia - then why didn't Trump follow through with the firing? Why did McGahn threaten to resign? And finally, when you pair Comey's firing in May 2017 with the order to fire Mueller in the summer of the same year, how is it unreasonable to see a pattern of intent to disrupt, impede, or obstruct Trump-Russia investigations?

Firing Bob Mueller, if it were indeed an order Mueller would not be there today. However, he is, so obviously Trump did not fire him.

I'll ask YOU, if Trump fired Mueller, why is Mueller still working? Hmmmm.....

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

When you revisit the history of those days, David, you'll be reminded that on March 20, 2017, Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible ties with Russia. His announcement, which was made with the consent of the Justice Department, was the first public notice of any such probe. The FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign was still ongoing when Trump fired Comey on May 9.

Which has nothing to do with the Comey firing. You keep trying to tie in things that aren't there.

You claimed that... (emphasis added)

Nothing in what the President said amounts to even thinking about obstruction of justice. Comey wasn't doing the actual investigation so you can't possibly consider that as obstruction.

I then reminded you that though Comey himself wasn't on the front lines, conducting the Russia probe, the FBI of which he was the director WAS investigating Trumpo-Russia ties.

Football teams fire coaches when seasons produce few wins, even though the coaches don't actually play the games. Presidents fire agency heads and directors when they don't like what those agencies are doing, even though the directors don't actually do most of the work of their agencies.

Was Comey HIMSELF doing the investigating? Of course not. FBI directors don't have time to do investigations; that's what field agents et al are for. But was Comey involved in the FBI ongoing probe of Trump and Russia? Absolutely.

But fired for an unrelated matter and in no way impeded the investigation.

Please specify the "unrelated matter" for which Comey was fired, David, and be prepared to support your answer when I document the OTHER explanations Trump and his spokespeople gave for the firing.

In your revisit of the history of Comey's firing, David, you'll also be reminded that BEFORE receiving a memo from deputy AG Rosenstein that focused on the Clinton investigation, Trump had drafted a letter announcing Comey's firing, a letter that so alarmed the White House counsel that he had to persuade Trump not to use it, and then involve Rosenstein as another source of possible reasons for Comey's dismissal. [The Wikipedia article will also remind you of the other explanations Trump and his minions gave for the Comey firing, and that Comey testified under oath that Trump asked him to "let go" of the Bureau's investigation of Michael Flynn.]

In the same circumstances - Clinton as president, her campaign under FBI investigation - I hope to high heaven that I would say AT THE VERY LEAST that firing the FBI director could EASILY BE INTERPRETED as a moved designed to impede/obstruct the probe. I know I would also call it a bat s**t crazy move that she NEVER should have taken.

It's a good thing that wasn't his purpose and he never even said anything close to that.

WHO "never even said anything close to" WHAT? I don't know what you're referring to.

Twice previously in our exchange I have noted that in addition to firing the director of the FBI which was investigating his campaign's ties with Russia, last summer Trump ALSO ordered the firing of special counsel Bob Mueller, a move White House counsel Don McGahn had to stop by threatening to resign. In neither of your posts since my first mention of that action have you responded to it. So I'll ask you directly: If not to impede, disrupt, or obstruct Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, then why did Trump order Mueller's firing? If it was for a reason unrelated to the Russia probe - as you claim Comey's firing was unrelated to Russia - then why didn't Trump follow through with the firing? Why did McGahn threaten to resign? And finally, when you pair Comey's firing in May 2017 with the order to fire Mueller in the summer of the same year, how is it unreasonable to see a pattern of intent to disrupt, impede, or obstruct Trump-Russia investigations?

Firing Bob Mueller, if it were indeed an order Mueller would not be there today. However, he is, so obviously Trump did not fire him.
I'll ask YOU, if Trump fired Mueller, why is Mueller still working? Hmmmm.....

When you revisit the history of the Mueller "firing," as well as the content of my recent posts that reported on the matter, you'll be reminded that according multiple media sources, including FoxNews, Trump ordered Mueller to be fired, but then rescinded the order when White House counsel, Don McGahn, threatened to quit if Mueller was fired. You'll also be reminded that I never contended that Mueller had been fired. I contended only that according to multiple reports, Trump had ordered Mueller's firing...before rescinding the order. Here my first mention of the matter in this thread... (emphasis added)

"Trump has displayed what in the law is called a "consciousness of guilt" by firing the FBI director who was leading a criminal probe into his campaign, and then telling the world in a national TV interview that he fired Comey to end the Russia investigation. According to multiple reports - including Trump-friendly FoxNews - he also ordered the firing of Bob Mueller last summer, but was talked out of the action by the White House counsel. Innocent people don't try to get rid of the people investigating them."

In light of that corrected record, I ask you again: If not to impede, disrupt, or obstruct Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, then why did Trump order Mueller's firing? If it was for a reason unrelated to the Russia probe - as you claim Comey's firing was unrelated to Russia - then why didn't Trump follow through with the firing? Why did McGahn threaten to resign? And finally, when you pair Comey's firing in May 2017 with the order to fire Mueller in the summer of the same year, how is it unreasonable to see a pattern of intent to disrupt, impede, or obstruct Trump-Russia investigations?

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

When you revisit the history of those days, David, you'll be reminded that on March 20, 2017, Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible ties with Russia. His announcement, which was made with the consent of the Justice Department, was the first public notice of any such probe. The FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign was still ongoing when Trump fired Comey on May 9.

Which has nothing to do with the Comey firing. You keep trying to tie in things that aren't there.

You claimed that... (emphasis added)

Nothing in what the President said amounts to even thinking about obstruction of justice. Comey wasn't doing the actual investigation so you can't possibly consider that as obstruction.

I then reminded you that though Comey himself wasn't on the front lines, conducting the Russia probe, the FBI of which he was the director WAS investigating Trumpo-Russia ties.

With that logic that means the President could not remove anyone at the FBI for any reason while the probe is going.

Football teams fire coaches when seasons produce few wins, even though the coaches don't actually play the games. Presidents fire agency heads and directors when they don't like what those agencies are doing, even though the directors don't actually do most of the work of their agencies.

Comey had already messed up his job. Are you arguing he did not deserve to be sacked?

Was Comey HIMSELF doing the investigating? Of course not. FBI directors don't have time to do investigations; that's what field agents et al are for. But was Comey involved in the FBI ongoing probe of Trump and Russia? Absolutely.

But fired for an unrelated matter and in no way impeded the investigation.

Please specify the "unrelated matter" for which Comey was fired, David, and be prepared to support your answer when I document the OTHER explanations Trump and his spokespeople gave for the firing.

In your revisit of the history of Comey's firing, David, you'll also be reminded that BEFORE receiving a memo from deputy AG Rosenstein that focused on the Clinton investigation, Trump had drafted a letter announcing Comey's firing, a letter that so alarmed the White House counsel that he had to persuade Trump not to use it, and then involve Rosenstein as another source of possible reasons for Comey's dismissal. [The Wikipedia article will also remind you of the other explanations Trump and his minions gave for the Comey firing, and that Comey testified under oath that Trump asked him to "let go" of the Bureau's investigation of Michael Flynn.]

In the same circumstances - Clinton as president, her campaign under FBI investigation - I hope to high heaven that I would say AT THE VERY LEAST that firing the FBI director could EASILY BE INTERPRETED as a moved designed to impede/obstruct the probe. I know I would also call it a bat s**t crazy move that she NEVER should have taken.

It's a good thing that wasn't his purpose and he never even said anything close to that.

WHO "never even said anything close to" WHAT? I don't know what you're referring to.

Twice previously in our exchange I have noted that in addition to firing the director of the FBI which was investigating his campaign's ties with Russia, last summer Trump ALSO ordered the firing of special counsel Bob Mueller, a move White House counsel Don McGahn had to stop by threatening to resign. In neither of your posts since my first mention of that action have you responded to it. So I'll ask you directly: If not to impede, disrupt, or obstruct Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, then why did Trump order Mueller's firing? If it was for a reason unrelated to the Russia probe - as you claim Comey's firing was unrelated to Russia - then why didn't Trump follow through with the firing? Why did McGahn threaten to resign? And finally, when you pair Comey's firing in May 2017 with the order to fire Mueller in the summer of the same year, how is it unreasonable to see a pattern of intent to disrupt, impede, or obstruct Trump-Russia investigations?

Firing Bob Mueller, if it were indeed an order Mueller would not be there today. However, he is, so obviously Trump did not fire him.
I'll ask YOU, if Trump fired Mueller, why is Mueller still working? Hmmmm.....

When you revisit the history of the Mueller "firing," as well as the content of my recent posts that reported on the matter, you'll be reminded that according multiple media sources, including FoxNews, Trump ordered Mueller to be fired, but then rescinded the order when White House counsel, Don McGahn, threatened to quit if Mueller was fired. You'll also be reminded that I never contended that Mueller had been fired. I contended only that according to multiple reports, Trump had ordered Mueller's firing...before rescinding the order. Here my first mention of the matter in this thread... (emphasis added)

"Trump has displayed what in the law is called a "consciousness of guilt" by firing the FBI director who was leading a criminal probe into his campaign, and then telling the world in a national TV interview that he fired Comey to end the Russia investigation. According to multiple reports - including Trump-friendly FoxNews - he also ordered the firing of Bob Mueller last summer, but was talked out of the action by the White House counsel. Innocent people don't try to get rid of the people investigating them."

In light of that corrected record, I ask you again: If not to impede, disrupt, or obstruct Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, then why did Trump order Mueller's firing? If it was for a reason unrelated to the Russia probe - as you claim Comey's firing was unrelated to Russia - then why didn't Trump follow through with the firing? Why did McGahn threaten to resign? And finally, when you pair Comey's firing in May 2017 with the order to fire Mueller in the summer of the same year, how is it unreasonable to see a pattern of intent to disrupt, impede, or obstruct Trump-Russia investigations?

If I were President, honestly I would have shut down the investigation ages ago. It is a waste of time and taxpayer money and it is political in nature and really is just sour grapes from the Democrat party.

Not to mention, they have well gone outside of their reasonable course of probe in the investigation going after things that happened WELL before the campaign.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

Here's an article from PC Roberts about the matter ....
Will The Conspiracy Against Trump and American Democracy Go Unpunished?

The article has a lot further information and details about the timeline of events associated with the attempted coup against Trump and the American people by DNC, Hillary campaign, FBI and DOJ other officials, etc ...

GaoLu · February 2018

The DNC is paying a severe and fair price for its folly. They are more divided than ever without any vision and are flat out going broke. The rats are leaving the ship.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2018/02/05/dems-dead-broke-gop-cashing-in-as-elections-near

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
With that logic that means the President could not remove anyone at the FBI for any reason while the probe is going.

No. It means that when a president fires the FBI director while that director's bureau conducts a criminal investigation into said president's campaign's connections with a foreign adversary, the firing DOES IN FACT, to use your words, amount to at least the appearance of his "thinking about obstruction of justice," ESPECIALLY when added to said president's request of that director to "let go" of his bureau's criminal investigation of his former national security advisor (being investigated for ties with Russia), AND said president's order to fire the special counsel investigating him and his campaign (for ties with Russia).

Obstruction of justice is often not a single event, but rather a pattern of events. My argument, which you have not addressed, is that the combination of the request about Flynn, the Comey firing, and the order to fire Mueller creates a pattern of conduct that raises the obstruction issue... in the same way that the large number of people connected with the Trump campaign who met with Russians during the campaign raises the question of the campaign's connections to Russia.

Comey had already messed up his job. Are you arguing he did not deserve to be sacked?

The issue is not whether Comey deserved to be fired per se, but rather whether Comey deserved to be fired at the time he was fired and for the reason he was fired. My answer to that question is no.

But fired for an unrelated matter and in no way impeded the investigation.

Please specify the "unrelated matter" for which Comey was fired, David, and be prepared to support your answer when I document the OTHER explanations Trump and his spokespeople gave for the firing.

I asked you to specify the "unrelated matter" for which Comey was fired, David, and to be prepared to support your answer when I document the OTHER explanations Trump and his spokespeople gave for the firing. I don't see an answer to my question, so I'll ask it again.

In the same circumstances - Clinton as president, her campaign under FBI investigation - I hope to high heaven that I would say AT THE VERY LEAST that firing the FBI director could EASILY BE INTERPRETED as a moved designed to impede/obstruct the probe. I know I would also call it a bat s**t crazy move that she NEVER should have taken.

It's a good thing that wasn't his purpose and he never even said anything close to that.

WHO "never even said anything close to" WHAT? I don't know what you're referring to.

I asked you for clarification as to whom and what you're referred to by one of your assertions. I don't see an answer to my question, so I'll ask it again.

In light of that corrected record, I ask you again: If not to impede, disrupt, or obstruct Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, then why did Trump order Mueller's firing? If it was for a reason unrelated to the Russia probe - as you claim Comey's firing was unrelated to Russia - then why didn't Trump follow through with the firing? Why did McGahn threaten to resign? And finally, when you pair Comey's firing in May 2017 with the order to fire Mueller in the summer of the same year, how is it unreasonable to see a pattern of intent to disrupt, impede, or obstruct Trump-Russia investigations?

If I were President, honestly I would have shut down the investigation ages ago. It is a waste of time and taxpayer money and it is political in nature and really is just sour grapes from the Democrat party.

Presidents don't have the political freedom to "shut down" criminal investigations of which they are a principal subject/target. Revisit the gory details of Richard Nixon's infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" for a reminder as to how well that works out for presidents who try.

I asked you why the president didn't follow through with his order to fire Mueller if, as you say was the case with Comey's firing, it had nothing to do with Russia. I also asked why White House counsel McGahn threatened to resign if the president fired Mueller. I don't see an answer to those questions, so I ask them again.

Republican FISA Memo

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0