Barr opens an investigation into the FBI Trump Russia investigation without the results of the TR investigation even being publiclally known...

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Fair enough. Will revisit when / if indictments do happen. What would you say then?

Actually let me take one more stab at this.
If it turns out the FISAs were not appropriate in an objective sense, that would be bad and someone should be held accountable. Of course.
Now about the counterintelligence intel that has been produced as a consequence of that misdeed. Should that intel go in the bin?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Pcgeek, here’s your airtight case for obstruction. Yes, there are tapes:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-court-unseals-documents-flynn-case

Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.

“The defendant even provided a voicemail recording of one such communication.In some of those instances, the SCO was unaware of the outreach until being alerted to it by the defendant,” the document continues.
Flynn also provided information to prosecutors about discussions within President Trump’s campaign about WikiLeaks, the organization that released hacked Democratic emails tied to a Russian plot to interfere in the 2016 election, according to the new filing.

Based on what’s in the Mueller report, the voicemail likely lines up with this description:
28eb81dd7ffa0cc30c4c1403fc123f26.jpg


Want to read the unredacted Mueller report sections concerning Flynn’s testimony and hear the voicemail? A judge just ordered that they be released.

Just read about that as well. Lordy there be tapes. Obstruction. Too bad obstruction is not a thing anymore.

If you all just comes to term with the fact that your new King is a experiment gone wrong, a retarded clone of Master Putin. I think it would be easier to get on with your new lives... or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
No this is not better. You have provided no justification for your position, and you refuse to reconcile it with the underlying evidence provided. I am truly wanting to understand if there is any actual argument to be had in support of Trump, but it seems you are just burying your head in the sand.

As to your criticism of Democrats, fine, but I don't see it as a partisan issue. The evidence exists for all to see. The reason why Democrats have not acted is because Republicans refuse to examine the actual evidence. I don't think that should stop them, but your criticism still amounts to throwing stones from a very fragile glass house.

I hope he will answer my question but I suspect he will not.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
Pcgeek, here’s your airtight case for obstruction. Yes, there are tapes:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-court-unseals-documents-flynn-case

Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.

“The defendant even provided a voicemail recording of one such communication.In some of those instances, the SCO was unaware of the outreach until being alerted to it by the defendant,” the document continues.
Flynn also provided information to prosecutors about discussions within President Trump’s campaign about WikiLeaks, the organization that released hacked Democratic emails tied to a Russian plot to interfere in the 2016 election, according to the new filing.

Based on what’s in the Mueller report, the voicemail likely lines up with this description:
28eb81dd7ffa0cc30c4c1403fc123f26.jpg


Want to read the unredacted Mueller report sections concerning Flynn’s testimony and hear the voicemail? A judge just ordered that they be released.



Yeah...Michael Flynn was singing like a bird and testified that:

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation," says the newly-revealed section of a sentencing memo originally filed in December."

So, not only did Trump's administration, but some unnamed member of Congress directly obstructed the investigation. And he has the voicemails to prove it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...d-obstruct-probe-n1006666?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Yeah...Michael Flynn was singing like a bird and testified that:

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation," says the newly-revealed section of a sentencing memo originally filed in December."

So, not only did Trump's administration, but some unnamed member of Congress directly obstructed the investigation. And he has the voicemails to prove it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...d-obstruct-probe-n1006666?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Uhm ... Is that lawyer not super screwed right now?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Many Dems have said they already have all they need...

They are saying in essence that we should have everything we need, we are missing one very important thing, a reasonable Senate. The Mueller report was extremely damming. It shows clear evidence of obstruction of justice, and rather strongly implies that the only reason the Mueller was not able to prove collusion was because of that obstruction. Any other President would have already resigned or be hauled, in chains if necessary, in front of Congress to explain himself. Trump tweets 'No Collusion!' and the Senate basically said, 'well, that is good enough for us, the man said in 128 characters or less that he didn't do it.'

So there is one more thing we need, a Senate that is not colluding with the criminal that they are protecting.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
Yeah...Michael Flynn was singing like a bird and testified that:

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation," says the newly-revealed section of a sentencing memo originally filed in December."

So, not only did Trump's administration, but some unnamed member of Congress directly obstructed the investigation. And he has the voicemails to prove it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...d-obstruct-probe-n1006666?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Lordy. There's tapes.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
So there is one more thing we need, a Senate that is not colluding with the criminal that they are protecting.

Our founding fathers built a system, but they didn't plan for a completely complicit and spineless senate that ignores their duty to country over party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
You guys are pissing in the wind trying to convince a Trump supporter otherwise, that thinks Trump didn't obstruct justice. I see them in our repair shop daily. They think that if he didn't successfully obstruct or that even though the report shows obstruction, but they didn't indict him , then he didn't obstruct, even though he did his best to obstruct. Hundreds of former DOJ prosecuters have said he would have been indicted if he were not the President and his actions, tweets and directions to others say otherwise.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
I have not seen any High Crimes or Misdemeanors proven yet. Lots of suspicion but not solid.

you have seen countless pieces of evidence (if you were actually curious to read these documents--which you aren't).

I know you aren't really interested in "proof," or that the preponderance of evidence, in any investigation, is literally what amounts to "proof," but you will simply change the definition as you please because it will make you too uncomfortable to accept that your bias has been torn asunder. You really have no interest in understanding what proof actually means, how we get there, or even the simple understanding of when absolute proof is required and when it isn't.

We get it. I don't even know why you bother. At this point, we all understand that you will literally demand a standard of proof for this investigation that goes beyond what currently exists for the Natural Law of Gravity--which really hasn't been "proven," but I'm sure you don't care to understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
LOL. What are you a wanna be lawyer.

"I'll keep asking the same questions in a different format to see if I can trip you up."

This is what I believe:

Trump is not a politician.
Trump is not the most moral person either.
Trump exaggerates and isn't always the most truthful.
Trump tweets way too much and it makes me cringe.
I do not believe for an instant he colluded or conspired with Russians.
I do not believe he attempted to obstruct the investigation. Maybe to defend himself, but not obstruct.

Most of the career politicians in DC were out to get Trump from the very beginning if not before. Such as the FBI spying, surveillance or whatever you would like to call it. He probably should have and could have done things very differently but didn't involving this Russian farce investigation. There is some very shady things that took place by the DOJ during the campaign and after the election. Smells a lot like fish. I do think he is honestly trying to accomplish what he promised to the American people when he was elected.

That is what I think.

Better?

Waits for confirmation that you also believe that Nixon did not obstruct justice. Because you literally would have to believe that, in comparison to the known evidence against Trump. ...Assuming you have the least interest in consistency.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
you have seen countless pieces of evidence (if you were actually curious to read these documents--which you aren't).

I know you aren't really interested in "proof," or that the preponderance of evidence, in any investigation, is literally what amounts to "proof," but you will simply change the definition as you please because it will make you too uncomfortable to accept that your bias has been torn asunder. You really have no interest in understanding what proof actually means, how we get there, or even the simple understanding of when absolute proof is required and when it isn't.

We get it. I don't even know why you bother. At this point, we all understand that you will literally demand a standard of proof for this investigation that goes beyond what currently exists for the Natural Law of Gravity--which really hasn't been "proven," but I'm sure you don't care to understand that.

When someone says they don't believe something and then is unwilling or unable to say what evidence would change their mind that kind of gives the game away right there.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,938
5,561
136
Actually let me take one more stab at this.
If it turns out the FISAs were not appropriate in an objective sense, that would be bad and someone should be held accountable. Of course.
Now about the counterintelligence intel that has been produced as a consequence of that misdeed. Should that intel go in the bin?
Illegally obtained evidence isn't admissible in court. So from a criminal trial prospective it's worthless, from an impeachment prospective it matters depending on which side you're on.

I'd like to know the roots of the Trump Russia collusion investigation. That information is all in court and FBI records, the investigation should be a matter of a few days as there is a complete paper trail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,519
136
Illegally obtained evidence isn't admissible in court. So from a criminal trial prospective it's worthless, from an impeachment prospective it matters depending on which side you're on.

I'd like to know the roots of the Trump Russia collusion investigation. That information is all in court and FBI records, the investigation should be a matter of a few days as there is a complete paper trail.
Plus the fact that this has already been investigated at least twice already, and both of those investigations found there was no foul play.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
Illegally obtained evidence isn't admissible in court. So from a criminal trial prospective it's worthless, from an impeachment prospective it matters depending on which side you're on.

I'd like to know the roots of the Trump Russia collusion investigation. That information is all in court and FBI records, the investigation should be a matter of a few days as there is a complete paper trail.

One of the earliest known origins is that Papadapolous taint boasting off about how he was working with Russia to aid the Trump campaign, while at a bar, where he was overheard by some Ausie intelligence agents, that then informed the FBI and CIA.

That, and the GOP that initially funded the investigation into the Trump campaign and were the first to hire Steele, I believe. ....so what is known for now, anyway, is that it all started because the GOP didn't trust Trump, and because allied intelligence agencies recognized a credible security threat in Donald F Trump.

But this knowledge has been publicly known for at least 2 years now. Why were you unaware of this? I agree that there is probably quite a bit more, but the known origins are already rather damning.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Illegally obtained evidence isn't admissible in court. So from a criminal trial prospective it's worthless, from an impeachment prospective it matters depending on which side you're on.

I'd like to know the roots of the Trump Russia collusion investigation. That information is all in court and FBI records, the investigation should be a matter of a few days as there is a complete paper trail.

We already know the roots of that investigation and have for quite a long time. Trump campaign member George Papadopulous revealed to an Australian diplomat that he had inside information about Russia's attempts to intervene in our election. This has been public information for about a year and a half. The problem for conservatives with this is that the FBI would have been absolutely insane NOT to open an investigation into the Trump campaign after that.

There have been two separate investigations into the beginnings of the investigation and they have all turned up nothing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/...-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html

This is turning into another Benghazi where when conservatives investigate something and don't get the answer they want they don't accept reality, they decide that just means they need another investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawp

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,938
5,561
136
Our founding fathers built a system, but they didn't plan for a completely complicit and spineless senate that ignores their duty to country over party.
The senate hasn't been given the opportunity to do anything. Impeachment happens in congress, I don't believe the senate can hold a trial until congress impeaches.
My hunch is that congress want's to wait until 2020 to start the process, that would allow them to trash Trump right before the election and hamstring his campaign at the same time. That's serious political capital that needs to be spent wisely for maximum effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
One of the earliest known origins is that Papadapolous taint boasting off about how he was working with Russia to aid the Trump campaign, while at a bar, where he was overheard by some Ausie intelligence agents, that then informed the FBI and CIA.

That, and the GOP that initially funded the investigation into the Trump campaign and were the first to hire Steele, I believe. ....so what is known for now, anyway, is that it all started because the GOP didn't trust Trump, and because allied intelligence agencies recognized a credible security threat in Donald F Trump.

But this knowledge has been publicly known for at least 2 years now. Why were you unaware of this? I agree that there is probably quite a bit more, but the known origins are already rather damning.

It's amazing to see the effects of conservative propaganda and messaging on what people believe.

I mean we had an allied diplomat go to our counterintelligence services and tell them 'Trump's campaign is employing people who knew about the Russian hacks and release of the DNC emails well ahead of time'. That's a giant flashing alarm that Trump's campaign is either wittingly or unwittingly involved in espionage activity by a hostile foreign government. Everyone in the FBI should have been fired if they DIDN'T open an investigation into Trump's campaign. There is no mystery here and so I'm not sure why people are pretending there is.

This should be entirely uncontroversial but because Trump keeps insisting he was 'spied on' in order to try and delegitimize the damning Mueller report Republicans have decided to once again put party over country and attack federal law enforcement instead of holding Trump accountable.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,938
5,561
136
We already know the roots of that investigation and have for quite a long time. Trump campaign member George Papadopulous revealed to an Australian diplomat that he had inside information about Russia's attempts to intervene in our election. This has been public information for about a year and a half. The problem for conservatives with this is that the FBI would have been absolutely insane NOT to open an investigation into the Trump campaign after that.

There have been two separate investigations into the beginnings of the investigation and they have all turned up nothing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/...-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html

This is turning into another Benghazi where when conservatives investigate something and don't get the answer they want they don't accept reality, they decide that just means they need another investigation.
Good article, connects a lot of dots. I still have no issue at all with an investigation into it's beginnings. There will be a paper trail, there will be court documents, it should be very easy to gather those up and say "it's all good". We've gone this far, why stop now? Lets ride this dog across the finish line. We might discover a few more crooks along the way.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
The senate hasn't been given the opportunity to do anything. Impeachment happens in congress, I don't believe the senate can hold a trial until congress impeaches.
My hunch is that congress want's to wait until 2020 to start the process, that would allow them to trash Trump right before the election and hamstring his campaign at the same time. That's serious political capital that needs to be spent wisely for maximum effect.

Sure impeachment starts in the house, but conviction happens in the Senate. Dems have certainly done the math on that and it's an empty play to vote to impeach in the house to only have it be completely ignored by the Republican controlled senate that has done nothing but protect and obstruct for this president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
Good article, connects a lot of dots. I still have no issue at all with an investigation into it's beginnings. There will be a paper trail, there will be court documents, it should be very easy to gather those up and say "it's all good". We've gone this far, why stop now? Lets ride this dog across the finish line. We might discover a few more crooks along the way.

sure, but again the same question: How many investigations into the investigation are needed until "it's all good," as you say? When is that determination met? This is now the 3rd such investigation, again, because the GOP was unsatisfied with the previous results. One might wonder why they weren't satisfied the first two times: didn't find what they were hoping for? Needed more distraction and chaff for the unwashed masses? When is it enough?

Are you interested in the results of the previous two investigations?

It's almost as if this kind of behavior from the GOP is entirely predictable. Almost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Good article, connects a lot of dots. I still have no issue at all with an investigation into it's beginnings. There will be a paper trail, there will be court documents, it should be very easy to gather those up and say "it's all good". We've gone this far, why stop now? Lets ride this dog across the finish line. We might discover a few more crooks along the way.

We have already done exactly that...twice. Exactly how many times do we need to investigate the same thing? This is becoming another Benghazi disgrace.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,937
9,220
136
We have already done exactly that...twice. Exactly how many times do we need to investigate the same thing? This is becoming another Benghazi disgrace.
Gotta love the GOP living up to their reputation as utter hypocrites--on the one hand saying "we gotta keep investigating the origin of the investigation!" while on the other hand saying "Mueller's investigation is concluded--no "do-overs"--Congress should stop investigating!"
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,754
2,344
126
I do not believe for an instant he colluded or conspired with Russians.
I do not believe he attempted to obstruct the investigation. Maybe to defend himself, but not obstruct.

Our Democratic elections were interfered with by a hostile foreign power. Trump tried several times to shut down the investigations into that attack. The absolute best case scenario (and apparently what you believe) is that Trump had nothing to do with it but thought the investigation would make him look bad. The President of the United States cares more about how he looks than the integrity of our elections, arguably one of the most important things in this country. And you support this.