• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mueller

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bshole said:
I believe the Russia probe is a losing hand for the Democrats. I don't know that it is, it is just my opinion. Each day that passes without a criminal indictment convinces me a little bit more. If Trump is not indicted for something, this could blow up in the Democrats' face. There are generally real political consequences of investigations that end without a criminal indictment against the main target.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. The longer it takes, the more likely the case will be air-tight.

Watergate took years.
 
bshole said:
I believe the Russia probe is a losing hand for the Democrats. I don't know that it is, it is just my opinion. Each day that passes without a criminal indictment convinces me a little bit more. If Trump is not indicted for something, this could blow up in the Democrats' face. There are generally real political consequences of investigations that end without a criminal indictment against the main target.
Click to expand...
Yeah the endless Benghazi trials really swept the GOP out of power.
 
hal2kilo said:
Well, they were actually hearings, but I get the point.
Click to expand...

and that's the important part. They were hearings because there could never be a trial. There never was an argument, there never was evidence for anything, no court would have allowed it. So, you hold a hearing. You hold a dozen of them. You do it again and again and do it very publicly. You allow your enemy to be "but on notice!" in a public farce, because it's chaff for the brainless twits that eat it up. They believe something substantial has happened--they actually think this person must be a criminal, because why hold all these "hearings" otherwise?

Fucking Republican jizz moppers even admitted publicly that this was all a staged show, just to discredit Hillary. And the jizz moppers-in-training that carry the Republican voter card slurped it up, like they always do. Just the image of something happening is all one needs to believe that very clear anti-truth is somehow, some form of truth. I don't understand how any republican walks around these days, without the weight of shame keeping them down. What a bunch of useless twits.
 
zinfamous said:
. I don't understand how any republican walks around these days, without the weight of shame keeping them down. What a bunch of useless twits.
Click to expand...

If you think you have rage, you don't have a clue. My family is at the point where I could see them outright killing Democrats. I have never seen them so enraged and full of hatred. I think the hatred is fully reciprocated on the Democratic side. We could be sliding into an era of vastly increased political violence. You need widespread hate BEFORE you really get the widespread violence.
 
bshole said:
If you think you have rage, you don't have a clue. My family is at the point where I could see them outright killing Democrats. I have never seen them so enraged and full of hatred. I think the hatred is fully reciprocated on the Democratic side. We could be sliding into an era of vastly increased political violence. You need widespread hate BEFORE you really get the widespread violence.
Click to expand...
Maybe if Democrats stopped eating babies your parents wouldn't be so upset with them.
 
bshole said:
If you think you have rage, you don't have a clue. My family is at the point where I could see them outright killing Democrats. I have never seen them so enraged and full of hatred. I think the hatred is fully reciprocated on the Democratic side. We could be sliding into an era of vastly increased political violence. You need widespread hate BEFORE you really get the widespread violence.
Click to expand...

Trump really has 'em snookered, huh?

I don't hate conservatives for that. Part of the reason they're so livid is because they're deep in denial & the cognitive dissonance is started to seep in, driving them crazy. It's very difficult for them to maintain the fantasy of Trump in the face of the reality of Trump. It probably won't get any easier, either.
 
Jhhnn said:
Trump really has 'em snookered, huh?

I don't hate conservatives for that. Part of the reason they're so livid is because they're deep in denial & the cognitive dissonance is started to seep in, driving them crazy. It's very difficult for them to maintain the fantasy of Trump in the face of the reality of Trump. It probably won't get any easier, either.
Click to expand...
If Westworld is any indication they'll go mad and start shooting everyone in the end.
 
Jaskalas said:
Mueller might be the investigator, but it's up to Trump's own DOJ and Republicans in Congress to act on it.
To imagine that they might act on any findings Mueller brings forth....
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm very well aware. This is why I said in the face of all of his adversaries. If Mueller puts on the table such a strong iron clad case that causes wide spread outrage that would make it impossible even for the staunchest republican representatives to ignore, then yes, the man will go down in history as Legend.
 
I said this before when Mueller was first appointed, before there were any indictments. Mueller is impressive. That opinion will not change regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
 
Mueller is OK, he's the one that instituted the Woods Procedures that are used to vet FISA warrants.


"But there are even more reviews and processes regarding government applications for wiretaps designed to make sure inaccurate or unverified information isn’t used.

In November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage.

Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they’ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office’s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.

All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his attention. Personally.

Who was the director of the FBI when all of this careful work was done?

Robert Mueller.

Perhaps ironically, Mueller isn’t in charge of the investigation examining the conduct of FBI and Justice Department officials and whether they followed the rules he’d carefully implemented 15 years before. Instead, Mueller is leading the probe into Russia’s alleged illegal connections with Trump associates. Congress is looking at the wiretap process.

With so much information still classified, redacted and — in some cases — withheld, there is much we don’t know. Perhaps we will eventually learn that there’s a good reason unverified material was given to the court. Maybe there was no violation of rules or processes.

But there’s a reason Woods Procedures exist in the first place. They aren’t arcane rules that could have been overlooked or misunderstood by the high-ranking and seasoned professionals working under the Obama and Trump administrations who touched the four Carter Page wiretap applications and renewals. And unless they’ve secretly been lifted or amended, Woods Procedures aren’t discretionary.

In the past, when the FBI has presented inaccuracies to the FISA court, it’s been viewed so seriously that it’s drawn the attention of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department attorneys accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions."

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ses-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

I wonder if he'll have the integrity to make sure those procedures were actually followed?
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Mueller is OK, he's the one that instituted the Woods Procedures that are used to vet FISA warrants.


"But there are even more reviews and processes regarding government applications for wiretaps designed to make sure inaccurate or unverified information isn’t used.

In November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage.

Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they’ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office’s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.

All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his attention. Personally.

Who was the director of the FBI when all of this careful work was done?

Robert Mueller.

Perhaps ironically, Mueller isn’t in charge of the investigation examining the conduct of FBI and Justice Department officials and whether they followed the rules he’d carefully implemented 15 years before. Instead, Mueller is leading the probe into Russia’s alleged illegal connections with Trump associates. Congress is looking at the wiretap process.

With so much information still classified, redacted and — in some cases — withheld, there is much we don’t know. Perhaps we will eventually learn that there’s a good reason unverified material was given to the court. Maybe there was no violation of rules or processes.

But there’s a reason Woods Procedures exist in the first place. They aren’t arcane rules that could have been overlooked or misunderstood by the high-ranking and seasoned professionals working under the Obama and Trump administrations who touched the four Carter Page wiretap applications and renewals. And unless they’ve secretly been lifted or amended, Woods Procedures aren’t discretionary.

In the past, when the FBI has presented inaccuracies to the FISA court, it’s been viewed so seriously that it’s drawn the attention of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department attorneys accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions."

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ses-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

I wonder if he'll have the integrity to make sure those procedures were actually followed?
Click to expand...

I have a difficult time believing there was any violation since Nunes didn’t specifically cite any. Doing so would have put his argument on much more solid ground. That he did not is telling.
 
boomerang said:
He could pull a Hillary and say that he does not recall, has no recollection, or can't remember. I don't think her lawyers told her to say those things because the woman has got morals and scruples oozing from every pore of her body.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Click to expand...

Or like Reagan during Iran contra

"In all, Reagan said ``I don`t recall`` or ``I can`t remember`` 88 times in the eight hours of testimony taken Feb. 16-17 in Los Angeles."

lol 88 times. Whats good for the gander is good for the goose as well, no?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-23/news/9001160156_1_iran-contra-testimony-recall
 
Thebobo said:
Or like Reagan during Iran contra

"In all, Reagan said ``I don`t recall`` or ``I can`t remember`` 88 times in the eight hours of testimony taken Feb. 16-17 in Los Angeles."

lol 88 times. Whats good for the gander is good for the goose as well, no?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-23/news/9001160156_1_iran-contra-testimony-recall
Click to expand...

Reagan announced that he had Alzheimer's in 1994. It is plausible that in 1990, Reagan did not remember. There is some evidence (though not conclusive) that he was operating under diminished capacity by the end of his 2nd term. Witnessing this shit with my father, I can say that it is a very long slow slide which strips your humanity away one small slice at a time. I fear the day that he ceases to care about politics/religion because that will mark the end of his sentience.
 
bshole said:
Reagan announced that he had Alzheimer's in 1994. It is plausible that in 1990, Reagan did not remember. There is some evidence (though not conclusive) that he was operating under diminished capacity by the end of his 2nd term. Witnessing this shit with my father, I can say that it is a very long slow slide which strips your humanity away one small slice at a time. I fear the day that he ceases to care about politics/religion because that will mark the end of his sentience.
Click to expand...
That's very true and I'd completely forgotten about that aspect of it and I wish we had him today rather than what we've got.

I was going to say I'd rather have Dan Quayle until I saw this.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...-reporters-dont-recognize-him/article/2608407
 
bshole said:
Reagan announced that he had Alzheimer's in 1994. It is plausible that in 1990, Reagan did not remember. There is some evidence (though not conclusive) that he was operating under diminished capacity by the end of his 2nd term. Witnessing this shit with my father, I can say that it is a very long slow slide which strips your humanity away one small slice at a time. I fear the day that he ceases to care about politics/religion because that will mark the end of his sentience.
Click to expand...

Happened to my father as well. It's a mercy if they die before it reaches advanced stages.
 
zinfamous said:
and that's the important part. They were hearings because there could never be a trial. There never was an argument, there never was evidence for anything, no court would have allowed it.
Click to expand...

There was the gun running from Libya to terrorists in Syria, but with both parties complicit they had no interest in pursuing that.
 
Thebobo said:
Or like Reagan during Iran contra

"In all, Reagan said ``I don`t recall`` or ``I can`t remember`` 88 times in the eight hours of testimony taken Feb. 16-17 in Los Angeles."

lol 88 times. Whats good for the gander is good for the goose as well, no?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-23/news/9001160156_1_iran-contra-testimony-recall
Click to expand...
In the three hours-plus that Hillary Clinton spoke with FBI investigators about her private email server on July 2, she cited more than three-dozen things that she could not recall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-her-fbi-interview/?utm_term=.6e7b54efdefb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top