Did Trump try to fire Mueller?

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2018, 08:30 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I'm kind of disappointed that the Dems even put up that much of a fight. To anyone with a shred of objectivity this memo is a big nothingburger and Nunes and Trump look all the worse for it. Between Trump's own DOJ and FBI nominees being against it, paired with the backlash from GOP congressmen, Dems should just laugh at this sideshow being put on.

I guess I just don't see how this makes Trump look worse. He has said nothing about it of merit, simply allowed it to be released.

Now I going to go out on a very big limb here, but: If Trump would have decided not to release it, some may have questioned why.

I realize most in this forum would have understood he was just being pragmatic, but believe it or not; there would have been those that said it makes him look worse.  

[GMDino]

(02-02-2018, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess I just don't see how this makes Trump look worse. He has said nothing about it of merit, simply allowed it to be released.

The top Leadership and Investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans - something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. Rank & File are great people!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2018

"nothing about it of merit"

(02-02-2018, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now I going to go out on a very big limb here, but: If Trump would have decided not to release it, some may have questioned why.

I realize most in this forum would have understood he was just being pragmatic, but believe it or not; there would have been those that said it makes him look worse.  

Certainly. There are some who said this memo was bigger than Watergate. Trump NOT releasing it would have been in his best interests...except Trump thinks it helps show their is a "witch hunt" against him so he doesn't understand what his best interests really are. IMHO.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2018, 03:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Was the FISA application they speak of the first, or subsequent ones? This is about 4 total applications, so I'd like to know which one(s) supposedly omitted the information they are claiming.

Did you actually read the actual memo?  

Because it states that McCabe testified no warrant would have been sought without the Dossier.  It further states that neither the initial application, "nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele.."

Technically, the lead paragraph says the govt had "at least four opportunities before the FISC ....[but] as described below, material and relevant information was omitted."

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2018, 09:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They don’t put up that much of a fight unless there is something to all this....  please release the whole lot.   I want to see it all.

They really did put up quite the stink and show....while most everyone else is saying "what was the big deal?"

Other than Carter Page getting railroaded (which, incidentally SHOULD be a huge deal, but anything related to Trump causes people to become drooling idiots)...yeah, it's actually bad for Trump because that investigation started before/independently of Carter Page.


While the Dems are saying Repubs are trying to get ahead of this, I think it's actually the other way around.  There are apparently more memos to come, and sounding like we may be heading toward another Special Prosecutor.....there are some swamp rats running for cover.

Personally, I think this will ultimately shut Mueller down.  However, the Dems are trying to delay that as long as possible because everyone knows if Mueller gets to fishing the finances it's over for Trump.

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2018, 11:14 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Did you actually read the actual memo?  

Because it states that McCabe testified no warrant would have been sought without the Dossier.  It further states that neither the initial application, "nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele.."

Technically, the lead paragraph says the govt had "at least four opportunities before the FISC ....[but] as described below, material and relevant information was omitted."

Here in lies the problem with the memo. It's the Republicans' retelling of nonpublic information. They voted along party lines to refuse to let the Democrats release their side. So we're just taking their word that their characterization of his testimony is accurate, because the actual line is "dossier information", not "dossier", which has completely different implications in what exactly he might have said. 

[BmorePat87]

Also it seems like everyone has picked up on the fact that Nunes slips up by admitting that the initial investigation into all of this was triggered by Papadopoulus, months before the dossier.

So they get to Carter from Papadopoulos and the dossier, whose claims about Carter end up being independently verified months later, possibly serves as the last piece of evidence they added to the FISA application.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2018, 11:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Here in lies the problem with the memo. It's the Republicans' retelling of nonpublic information. They voted along party lines to refuse to let the Democrats release their side. So we're just taking their word that their characterization of his testimony is accurate, because the actual line is "dossier information", not "dossier", which has completely different implications in what exactly he might have said. 

oh C'MON!   You're accusing them of fraud and lying, cover-up and whatever other sensational spin is coming out of the left these days.  Dems didn't want to release anything, and now they're saying they had no input (again, their word against the Repubs). But they didn't want to release anything, period.... So that excuse just doesn't carry water. Now, of course, they want to release their own memo because they are in damage control.

Second, none of this is really new to those of us who have been paying attention and thinking this didn't smell right from the beginning.  I think as a public statement of record out of an investigatory committee it's safe to assume this is factual and accurate.   "Oh but they're cherry picking" - the statements in that memo are simple and unambiguous....and damning.

Like I said, it's a shame people are turning this into politics and thinking it's about Trump.  THIS memo outlines issues with the FISA process, which HAD been a bipartisan concern in Washington and the media.  But, again, Trump<=>drooling idiots.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-02-2018, 11:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So they get to Carter from Papadopoulos and the dossier, whose claims about Carter end up being independently verified months later, possibly serves as the last piece of evidence they added to the FISA application.

I don't think you guys read the memo very carefully. LOL at parsing "dossier" and "dossier information".

The line was "no warrant would have been SOUGHT without the Dossier".  Now maybe he's playing with words so as not to incriminate himself.    And I don't imagine anyone other than the judge could say if they get the warrant without the Dossier.....But McCabe is saying they would not have sought one without it, which would either mean no cause or just nothing else they had interesting enough to pursue.

That Dossier is your Niger yellow cake....

[JustWinBaby]

And, oh yeah, "this is a Republican spin job to discredit Mueller"....and then "Nunes screwed up disclosing the investigation started before Carter Page". A carefully crafted spin, but oh my he accidentally really screwed the pooch. From "don't release anything" to "it's lies and now they won't let us tell the truth". This is how you know they are lying and scrambling in damage control. Seriously, look at Adam Schiff - dude LOOKS like a weasel.

It's not a mistake, it's intended to give the memo the credibility it deserves. Then it's "oh, they cherry picked". No, it doesn't get more simple and clear than "without the Dossier we don't seek a warrant". The memo is very straightforward, and it basically sandboxes FISA abuses around Carter Page - nothing more, nothing less. There's no reason for anyone to have issue with that memo, aside from the FBI guys who may have committed a crime.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-03-2018, 12:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And, oh yeah, "this is a Republican spin job to discredit Mueller"....and then "Nunes screwed up disclosing the investigation started before Carter Page".  A carefully crafted spin, but oh my he accidentally really screwed the pooch.  From "don't release anything" to "it's lies and now they won't let us tell the truth".   This is how you know they are lying and scrambling in damage control.  Seriously, look at Adam Schiff - dude LOOKS like a weasel.

It's not a mistake, it's intended to give the memo the credibility it deserves.  Then it's "oh, they cherry picked".  No, it doesn't get more simple and clear than "without the Dossier we don't seek a warrant".  The memo is very straightforward, and it basically sandboxes FISA abuses around Carter Page - nothing more, nothing less.  There's no reason for anyone to have issue with that memo, aside from the FBI guys who may have committed a crime.

Do innocent people usually go through so much trouble to stop an investigation?

I remember back when no one on Trumps campaign team had contact with Russians... Now Trump and his propaganda outlets are in an all out misinformation campaign to villify the FBI. 

I would laugh if it wasnt so scary and sad. 

You should sign up for some classes at Trump U. They offer some great courses that really teach you how to spot the bullshit.

[*bfine32*]

Quick question, you can chose to answer honestly or not:

Who would have slurred Trump if he would have decided not to release the memo to the public?

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2018, 11:14 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Did you actually read the actual memo?  

Because it states that McCabe testified no warrant would have been sought without the Dossier.  It further states that neither the initial application, "nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele.."

Technically, the lead paragraph says the govt had "at least four opportunities before the FISC ....[but] as described below, material and relevant information was omitted."

(02-03-2018, 12:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think you guys read the memo very carefully. LOL at parsing "dossier" and "dossier information".

The line was "no warrant would have been SOUGHT without the Dossier".  Now maybe he's playing with words so as not to incriminate himself.    And I don't imagine anyone other than the judge could say if they get the warrant without the Dossier.....But McCabe is saying they would not have sought one without it, which would either mean no cause or just nothing else they had interesting enough to pursue.

That Dossier is your Niger yellow cake....

So, a few things on your commentary.

First, the McCabe testimony is disputed. There is disagreement over him saying that.

Second, everyone who has actually read the source material (which does not include Devin Nunes) has disputed the claims in the memo.

Third, with the renewal requests the DOJ/FBI must prove that their previous warrant has obtained information that substantiated their concerns with the initial request.

Lastly, almost every single one of the people involved in the process: the FBI officials, the FISA judges, and when Trump was in office the DOJ officials, was Republican appointed and a Republican party member.

If we want to have a conversation about the process for obtaining FISA warrants, then let's have that conversation in the public sphere. However, given that all of these people complaining about this just recently voted to renew the very laws used to obtain these warrants in such a way, this isn't the conversation being had. This is just the most ridiculous attempt to make a mountain out of what isn't even a mole hill.

I'm going to treat this conversation as what it is, an attempt to claim that there was an effort to undermine Trump. That argument falls flat on its face when the FBI handed Trump the election by disclosing Clinton's investigation and not the one into Trump's campaign, which was begun because of Papadopolous. It falls flat when you realize how many right-wing partisan actors are involved. And it falls flat when you realize that these warrants were all obtained after Page was no longer a part of the campaign. So the idea that Steele's partisan leanings should have been disclosed really is asinine when you realize that at the point this all happened Page was not associated with Trump. They actually waited until after he was gone from the campaign even though they had known of Page's dealings for years.

[GMDino]

(02-03-2018, 01:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question, you can chose to answer honestly or not:

Who would have slurred Trump if he would have decided not to release the memo to the public?

Not me.  That would have been the most presidential thing he could do.

[BmorePat87]

(02-03-2018, 12:13 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: oh C'MON!   You're accusing them of fraud and lying, cover-up and whatever other sensational spin is coming out of the left these days.  Dems didn't want to release anything, and now they're saying they had no input (again, their word against the Repubs).  But they didn't want to release anything, period.... So that excuse just doesn't carry water.  Now, of course, they want to release their own memo because they are in damage control.

Second, none of this is really new to those of us who have been paying attention and thinking this didn't smell right from the beginning.  I think as a public statement of record out of an investigatory committee it's safe to assume this is factual and accurate.   "Oh but they're cherry picking" - the statements in that memo are simple and unambiguous....and damning.

Like I said, it's a shame people are turning this into politics and thinking it's about Trump.  THIS memo outlines issues with the FISA process, which HAD been a bipartisan concern in Washington and the media.  But, again, Trump<=>drooling idiots.

(02-03-2018, 12:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think you guys read the memo very carefully.  LOL at parsing "dossier" and "dossier information".

The line was "no warrant would have been SOUGHT without the Dossier".  Now maybe he's playing with words so as not to incriminate himself.    And I don't imagine anyone other than the judge could say if they get the warrant without the Dossier.....But McCabe is saying they would not have sought one without it, which would either mean no cause or just nothing else they had interesting enough to pursue.

That Dossier is your Niger yellow cake....

(02-03-2018, 12:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And, oh yeah, "this is a Republican spin job to discredit Mueller"....and then "Nunes screwed up disclosing the investigation started before Carter Page".  A carefully crafted spin, but oh my he accidentally really screwed the pooch.  From "don't release anything" to "it's lies and now they won't let us tell the truth".   This is how you know they are lying and scrambling in damage control.  Seriously, look at Adam Schiff - dude LOOKS like a weasel.

It's not a mistake, it's intended to give the memo the credibility it deserves.  Then it's "oh, they cherry picked".  No, it doesn't get more simple and clear than "without the Dossier we don't seek a warrant".  The memo is very straightforward, and it basically sandboxes FISA abuses around Carter Page - nothing more, nothing less.  There's no reason for anyone to have issue with that memo, aside from the FBI guys who may have committed a crime.

I'm not accusing them of any of those things. I am accusing them of presenting their own spin and commentary on information that cannot be fact checked. Nothing about this is straightforward. It's a partisan commentary on information that will not be made public for a long time. You're attributing quotes to statements that are not directly in the memo and you're also suggesting that paraphrasing of the testimony is directly quoted from that testimony, which it is not. What you're doing is making your own interpretation of the information relayed in the memo, information that is merely commentary. As Matt pointed out, much of this is being disputed as misleading and partial information. It's not just Democrats. The outcry at the FBI and DOJ is bipartisan. 

If there is nothing misleading about their own memo, the Republicans would have released the Schiff memo too. Simply saying he looks like a weasel is a pretty poor rebuttal. Almost as poor as just writing off bipartisan criticism as people drooling over Trump.

[BmorePat87]

(02-03-2018, 01:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question, you can chose to answer honestly or not:

Who would have slurred Trump if he would have decided not to release the memo to the public?

My issue was him wanting to release it before even reviewing it. Seems like a poor decision from the chief executive regarding a sensitive issue that pertains to national security.

Had he not released it, I think it would have been the right move. I trust the leadership at the FBI and DOJ when they agree despite party affiliation. 

[StLucieBengal]

(02-05-2018, 12:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: My issue was him wanting to release it before even reviewing it. Seems like a poor decision from the chief executive regarding a sensitive issue that pertains to national security.

Had he not released it, I think it would have been the right move.[b[ I trust the leadership at the FBI and DOJ when they agree despite party affiliation. [/b]

There needs to be a washout of a lot of people in both. Too many career people in leadership need to go as well.

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2018, 02:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There needs to be a washout of a lot of people in both. Too many career people in leadership need to go as well.

Yes, because what we need more of is people who don't know what they are doing running our government.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-03-2018, 12:13 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: oh C'MON!   You're accusing them of fraud and lying, cover-up and whatever other sensational spin is coming out of the left these days.  Dems didn't want to release anything, and now they're saying they had no input (again, their word against the Repubs).  But they didn't want to release anything, period.... So that excuse just doesn't carry water.  Now, of course, they want to release their own memo because they are in damage control.

Second, none of this is really new to those of us who have been paying attention and thinking this didn't smell right from the beginning.  I think as a public statement of record out of an investigatory committee it's safe to assume this is factual and accurate.   "Oh but they're cherry picking" - the statements in that memo are simple and unambiguous....and damning.

Like I said, it's a shame people are turning this into politics and thinking it's about Trump.  THIS memo outlines issues with the FISA process, which HAD been a bipartisan concern in Washington and the media.  But, again, Trump<=>drooling idiots.

Lolz. A day later and Trump was making it about Trump. 

Trump = drooling idiot

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2018, 03:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Lolz. A day later and Trump was making it about Trump. 

Trump = drooling idiot

Not just Trump. pretty much everyone who is actually putting stock in the memo is making ti out to be about Trump. There are some notable exceptions, but like I said, it's hard to claim that this is intended to be a discussion about FISA abuses when the very folks that released this memo voted to continue the programs recently.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-03-2018, 01:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question, you can chose to answer honestly or not:

Who would have slurred Trump if he would have decided not to release the memo to the public?

IDK little bfine. I probably would have slurred him either way. 

I would love to respect my president. But the fact he lies to America constantly and calls people names like he is on an elementary school playground i just cant.