According to people briefed on the conversation, the website hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in October 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.That sounds clear (if cagey): The dossier is traced to the Democrats.
In April 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee also retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia. Working for them, Fusion GPS retained a respected former British spy named Christopher Steele.
He went on to produce a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos, which became known as the “Steele dossier,” also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, as well as real estate deals that were intended as bribes.
The "major donor" is Paul Singer, who is (presumably) the name Trump was talking about yesterday when he said "I think I would know... but let's find out who it was... If I were to guess, I would have one name in mind."
পোস্টগুলি
২৩৭টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 237 এর 201 – থেকে 237If all of the investigation is based on lies (Steele dossier) then how could any evidence that followed from those lies be admissible?
Yes, Virginia, that tree is poisoned.
Birkel: I think it would matter on if the FBI reasonably believed they weren't lies.
I'm more curious: If any of the FISA warrants developed from one of the unmasking requests that were now allegedly made by a mysterious person pretending to be Powers -- is that admissible?
Matthew Sablan,
If the FISC was presented the Steele dossier as proof of foreign entanglements to get warrants, then you should rethink your position. Good faith belief, my ass, if they knew or should have known is was candidate funded opposition research.
Mueller can indict but it is my strong belief the evidence gets quashed.
That's my read on it too. There is no way if the dossier is their only evidence that they don't know it was tainted.
Challenging the validity of warrants is pro forma and I hope it there are indictments that those facing criminal jeopardy have the wherewithal to press back. The government uses its deep pockets in these sorts of prosecutions.
And not every defendant has $145,000,000 of Russian money to pay for legal counsel.
"There is no way if the dossier is their only evidence that they don't know it was tainted."
For those of us who've followed the moves of the Mueller investigation, this focus of yours on the Steele dossier seems misplaced. Mueller has been focusing on Manafort, Flynn, the Comey firing, Don Jr's meeting, and possible obstruction of justice around those last two events. There's been little to no interest as of yet in the Steele dossier.
this focus of yours on the Steele dossier seems misplaced.
Yes yes yes. "These are not the droids you are looking for." Sure. There was no collusion by the Democrats! And, BTW, Don Jr is going to be arrested for "attempted collusion."
A lot depends on Mueller's sense of self preservation.
He doesn't look to me like a guy who will go down with the DNC ship without a try for a life preserver.
You can use information derived from a FISA warrant in a criminal proceeding, but it is tricky. First, and foremost, the purpose of the FISA warrant must be counter-intelligence or counter-espionage, and not criminal (that is not directly tied to those purposes). And, similarly, the discovery of the illegal acts just be a essentially inadvertent. Cannot be the goal of the warrant. Part of this is because the 4th and 5th Amdts still apply. And if the goal of a warrant is to detect criminality, then the warrant must be obtained under the Wiretap Act, or at least through a regular district court, instead of the specialized FISA court. Oh, and any unmasking must have been done for that sort of purpose, and not to detect crimes.
But, yes, if I were the attorney defending a "US Person" whose illegalities were disclosed through a FISA warrant, I would try attacking the warrant itself. In the case of the FISA warrant issued a year ago to go after the Trump team, I would look into whether or not it used the Trump Dossier as justification, and if it did, challenge it as illegitimate. The prosecution doesn't want to give out that formation? Fine, with what I'd known about the dossier in the news, I think that you could keep anything discovered out of evidence.
That is not to say that the Feds can't use some information derived pursuant to a FISA warrant as justification for a regular warrant, once probable cause of criminality has been found. That said, I expect that if there are indictments unveiled Monday by the Mueller team, that FISA played a minimal, if any role, in building the underlying cases. Rather, I expect that it was, instead, just regular police work.
"Mueller has been focusing on Manafort, Flynn, the Comey firing-"
Of those, Manafort was under investigation before Mueller came on board, the Flynn thing, as far as I can tell, is a giant nothingburger, and the Comey firing was confirmed by Comey and McCabe to not be obstruction of justice. As for "Don Jr's meeting," he met with a lawyer that Obama's administration used to lobby Congress about several Russia related issues and ended the meeting early.
If that's enough for an indictment, then all of Clinton world will be coming down. And soon.
Not only that, the entirety of the "Trump=Russia collusion story" is *solely* based on the dossier. As far as I know, no other document or evidence existed to jump start this besides this dossier that Clinton paid for about a year ago.
Tell me: Without the allegations in this dossier, what makes you think there was Trump collusion with Russia?
For example, all the overhearing of Manafort in the FISA taps were based on allegations that pre-existed the Comey/Mueller investigation into Trump. But everything since then has been based on this dossier.
So, you've got two sets of investigations. Things that we already knew that happened long before Trump was an issue, and things that happened after the dossier was revealed to the FBI.
"Of those, Manafort was under investigation before Mueller came on board, the Flynn thing, as far as I can tell, is a giant nothingburger, and the Comey firing was confirmed by Comey and McCabe to not be obstruction of justice. As for "Don Jr's meeting," he met with a lawyer that Obama's administration used to lobby Congress about several Russia related issues and ended the meeting early."
So...
What does the Manafort investigation beginning before Mueller have to do with anything?
The Flynn thing may be a nothingburger
to you, but it was enough to get Flynn fired, enough to get him begging for immunity, enough to pique the interest of the Mueller probe.
When did Comey and McCabe confirm his firing wasn't obstruction? And why would that even be their place to do so? That would be for a jury to decide.
Emails confirm that Don Jr. took the meeting under the explicit promise of damaging information against a political opponent, info given by an agent of the Russian government. Don Sr. later attempted to cover that up with his ridiculous statement written in a panic on Air Force One that the meeting was only about adoptions. It has been reported that Mueller is very, very interested in the drafting of that false statement.
Note - Trump firing Comey couldn't have been obstruction of justice. That is because the ability to investigate and prosecute is derived from his inherent Executive power. When Comey and Lynch decided not to prosecute Crooked Hillary, they were exercising President Obama's Executive power. Using his delegated discretion. The DoJ, FBI, Mueller, etc have no power, no discretion, etc, that isn't delegated by the sitting President. None. He could stop the Mueller investigation today with a phone call or by signing an order. Nothing legally that Mueller, Crooked Hillary, the Dems, etc could legally do about it. He doesn't do it because of the political costs, and that ties into the one thing that can be done to a sitting President, and that is impeachment, which is the sole legal remedy to a corrupt or overreaching President.
Bruce Hayden,
I believe the tree poisonous. I would drag Mueller and his team through the mud. I would go after their reputations and actions.
After all, this is not a criminal investigation so much as warfare.
Every Democrat for a year: THE DOSSIER! THE DOSSIER! THE DOSSIER!
Hey, did you hear? Hillary paid a foreign agent to work with Putin's pals to create a fake document to help iverturn the results if an election......
Every Democrat for the last 48 hours: Gosh, why do you guys keep talking about this Dossier. It was just oppo research. Let's just "move on" okay?
"Note - Trump firing Comey couldn't have been obstruction of justice. That is because the ability to investigate and prosecute is derived from his inherent Executive power. "
-- Just because Trump held the right to fire Comey doesn't mean he was allowed to commit a crime in the course of doing so. If Comey's department was investigating the Russia connections, and Trump felt it was getting too close to him and fired Comey in response, that's obstruction. Trump basically admitted as much to Lester Holt.
"He doesn't do it because of the political costs, and that ties into the one thing that can be done to a sitting President, and that is impeachment, which is the sole legal remedy to a corrupt or overreaching President. "
-- The jury is out on that one (pardon the pun). Separate prosecutorial indictments against Nixon were considered and proposed, but ultimately dropped for other reasons. Various legal scholars, including Ken Starr, have made the claim that a sitting president can definitely be indicted by a prosecutor. It is an area that we have not tested out and likely needs a USSC ruling, but it is hardly as settled as you stated.
Yes Perry but the indictment was ultimately dismissed same for Patton.they went after Lynn, because he stuck up for FBI agent fritz, a incomplete foreign registration doesn't count.
So now we have internet legal expert opining on how a Constitutional Officer can be prosecuted for exercising the powers the Constitution gives the office.
#82 should be selling his vast legal knowledge for hundreds an hour instead of giving it away free.
"So now we have internet legal expert opining on how a Constitutional Officer can be prosecuted for exercising the powers the Constitution gives the office."
-- Aren't you the internet legal expert who calls the Mueller investigation nothing but "warfare", who wrote "I would drag Mueller and his team through the mud. I would go after their reputations and actions." Rod Rosenstein appointed him to perform this investigation, dude. You know, exercising his Constitutional powers and all.
Rod Rothstein has powers mentioned in the Constitution?
Sorry. I didn't know you are stupid. Unfair of me to know things in your presence.
"Rod Rothstein has powers mentioned in the Constitution?"
Powers vested to him by the executive power you keep fellating, yes.
Good grief you people must be desperate to spin these stories.
Princess Sky Screamer wrote that.
Without a hint of irony or self-awareness.
"Emails confirm that Don Jr. took the meeting under the explicit promise of damaging information against a political opponent, info given by an agent of the Russian government. Don Sr. later attempted to cover that up with his ridiculous statement written in a panic on Air Force One that the meeting was only about adoptions. It has been reported that Mueller is very, very interested in the drafting of that false statement. "
None of which is a crime.
However. Using campaign money to finance a bogus dossier without reporting such expenditure is a criminal act.
I understand you desperately want Trump to be guilty of something that will remove him from office.
What is interesting to me is that your concern for the rule of law only applies to a narrow group.
Whatever happens Hillary will never be president of the United States.
narciso said...
They say steel was the headof the Russia desk but he was burned to tomlimson, their Phillip see in 1999, when he revealed steels tenure back in 1990.
10/27/17, 9:30 PM
Hey narciso,you say interesting things sometimes, but if you could write better, type better, and provide sources, it would be a big help.
"None of which is a crime."
- Knowingly accepting the direct aid of a foreign power in a political campaign is illegal.
"What is interesting to me is that your concern for the rule of law only applies to a narrow group."
- I suggest taking a long, long look in the mirror on that one, friend.
"Whatever happens Hillary will never be president of the United States."
- Could you let Corey Lewandowski know? He keeps referring to the current "Clinton Administration"?
@Arturo - sorry. I don’t buy it. Coney admitted that Trump had th3 power to remove him. Who is going to prosecute the President? Where does the Constitution grant anyone other than the President the power to prosecute, or not prosecute, people for crimes? And where are there limits on his Pardon Power that would presumably let him pardon himself for whatever he wanted?
Note that the argument by Ken Starr may have been a bit differently, because he was operating under an Independent Counsel statute that was supposed to immunize independent prosecutors from Presidential control. His argument would have been that delegation of the power to prosecute was statutory, duly enacted by both houses of Congress and signed into law by a President, and that trumps and limits the President’s inherent Article II Executive Power. But that statute expired, legally, and that argument is now moot. Under the current law, the special counsel (and all his subordinate attys) is no different than any other DoJ atty, in terms of his power to prosecute, to not prosecute, and to be fired. He works for the President, and, thus, the President can tell him what he can do, can’t do, and can fire him for cause or any other reason.
But keep on dreaming.
“- Knowingly accepting the direct aid of a foreign power in a political campaign is illegal.”
Hello Crooked Hillary.
Blogger Arturo Ui said...
"Rod Rothstein has powers mentioned in the Constitution?"
Powers vested to him by the executive power you keep fellating, yes.
Self-refuting arguments are my favorite kind. You are a dim, partisan bulb.
"You are a dim, partisan bulb."
And you are a paragon of impartiality and nuance.
This is who I was referring to:
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-making-of-a-traitor-1093352.html
He released the names of dozens of operatives including stsele, with the nitation, Moscow 1990
Blogger Arturo Ui said...
"None of which is a crime."
'- Knowingly accepting the direct aid of a foreign power in a political campaign is illegal."
But Trump didn't. Hillary did.
"What is interesting to me is that your concern for the rule of law only applies to a narrow group."
'"- I suggest taking a long, long look in the mirror on that one, friend."
Why? I'm not the one denying Clintons complicity.
"Whatever happens Hillary will never be president of the United States."
-" Could you let Corey Lewandowski know? He keeps referring to the current "Clinton Administration"?"
No. Not interested.
"- Knowingly accepting the direct aid of a foreign power in a political campaign is illegal."
-- So you agree Obama should have been jailed for when Germany gave him access to give a campaign speech on their soil, spending millions on security and setting up the video/photo shoot?
Sure. Why don't you focus on obtaining a special counsel to prosecute the former president, and I'll focus on the Monday indictment. You know, the one that exists on Planet Earth.
Rigelson,
Many thanks for the clarifications. There's so much fairy dust and bullshit flying around that it's a real treat to read a straight up analysis.
Michael K,
Great points, but you left off cover for each other
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html?referer=https://t.co/9d5zCAok9h?amp=1
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন