Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > What good things has Trump accomplished?      Home login  
 from site to sight
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 4626
What good things has Trump accomplished?Page 186 of 216    (176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216)
There's got to be a money trail somewhere along the line, between the Russians and Trump if there was collusion. The Russians wouldn't try to help Trump win the election unless they get something out of it. I don't think Trump is smart enough to cover up shady deals, but maybe the Russians did the covering up for him. Hopefully, the investigation will uncover proof of money exchanging hands if it happened.

I agree with Whiskey-for a guy who keeps claiming there is no collusion, he sure doesn't like the idea of being checked out to see if there is any funny business going on.
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4627
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/4/2018 8:24:00 AM
""":Huh? What the **** kind of gibberish are you peddling now?"""

Commenting on your gibberish is all.
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 4628
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/4/2018 3:32:17 PM

Posted By: Doubleknotspy7
Well you're outta the club, the Meister has proclaimed.

it seems more like you ran away from the club .....but anyway did asked me to reveal what ammunition you and topolata were supplying to the Holocaust deniers I granted your wish careful what you wish for

Posted By: Topolata
and of course funs babbling.

if not for me you wouldn't have discovered that you're not from a tribe of Hebrews but of converted Germans

so as for you belonging to some sort of lost Jewish Tribe're being deceptive ...unless of course you can explain how the Hebrews which were people of color somehow morphed into 98% European White Germans?

only tribe you belong to were those carrying Tiki torches marching about Confederate monuments shouting "Jews will not replace us"

Posted By: ja6425
More information coming soon as far as the democratic scandal

the scandal is watching the Republican party turn into a bunch of leftists complaining about how corrupt the FBI is....

the Left been complaining about FBI corruption since J Edgar Hoover was accused of cross-dressing welcome all, to the new republican party consisting of a group of paranoids that no longer trust the government...but yet are the government

maybe in that declassified document there is evidences that the FBI tricked Trump into saying that Mexico would pay for the Wall ....
Joined: 8/10/2016
Msg: 4629
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/4/2018 4:18:29 PM

it seems more like you ran away from the club .....but anyway did asked me to reveal what ammunition you and topolata were supplying to the Holocaust deniers I granted your wish careful what you wish for

I have no rebuttal as you are obviously an expert on the subject. After all, who am I to question a denier?


Feds actively investigating Clinton Foundation

(CNN)Federal authorities are actively investigating allegations of corruption related to the Clinton Foundation, the charity of Bill and Hillary Clinton, according to a US official briefed on the matter.

The FBI and federal prosecutors are looking into whether donors to the foundation were improperly promised policy favors or special access to Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state in exchange for donations to the charity's coffers, as well as whether tax-exempt funds were misused, the official said.

Trumps greatest accomplishment amongst his many will always be denying this woman the White House.
Gee, somebody up above has something in common with President Trump, they are both are deniers.
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 4630
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 8:14:48 AM

Posted By: Doubleknotspy7
I have no rebuttal as you are obviously an expert on the subject

perhaps I'm an expert on those such as yourself with no thoughts of their own and forever doomed to "google cut and paste" off obscure websites in search of something that might (deceptively) favor the lies of their alt-right hero Trump ...

Posted By: Doubleknotspy7
After all, who am I to question a denier?

I've never denied the Holocaust took place, I stated that those such as yourself when trying to debate the Holocaust give ammunition to Holocaust deniers, your greatest argument was (of course) a "google cut and paste" from the dictionary about the capital "H" and lowercase "h" and that's somehow proof that the Holocaust pertaining to Jews took place

Posted By: Doubleknotspy7
Gee, somebody up above has something in common with President Trump, they are both are deniers.

as your commonality with Trump is that you both have a platform to comfortably display your "alt-righteousness" ....

years ago I wrote a song and sent it to the Library of Congress called "She's All Right" I'm thinking about changing the words because when it's sung it sounds like "She's Alt-Right"
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4631
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 8:20:58 AM
^^^^ you do show a shocking level of ignorance Fun... so its hard to tell if you are a denier or not. Obviously, at the least, you have a very limited understanding of the subject or of the confederacy. I mean, if you can deny Slavery had everything to do with the Southern Economy....well we can't help you. Very sad. :-(
Joined: 10/14/2017
Msg: 4632
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 9:25:39 AM

Representative Devin Nunes, a man of tremendous courage and grit, may someday be recognized as a Great American Hero for what he has exposed and what he has had to endure!

7:08 AM - Feb 5, 2018
....Get your tin foil hats ready!
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 4633
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 9:44:20 AM

Posted By: Topolata
you do show a shocking level of ignorance Fun.

speaking of shocking levels of ignorance.... you're a White dude that spent most of your life believing you were Hebrew...and I'm still waiting on you to explain how Hebrews went from people of color and turn into 98% white Germans ....does it have anything to do with Darwinism? ...mutation? ...Einstein's Theory of Relativity?......climate change? ...Trump becoming President?

my aim is to ask questions that you can't find on a website and therefore forced you to use your own original thoughts (if any) if you attempt to deflect or not answer......I'll understand

Posted By: Topolata
Obviously, at the least, you have a very limited understanding of the subject or of the confederacy.

the Confederacy were White Supremacists...the Nazis were White Supremacists're a German with ties to Nazi Germany that admitted that you like to walk among the Confederate monuments of White Supremacists .....

so...would I really be going out on a limb if I said that it appear more than likely that you're a White Supremacist ..."perhaps in denial?"..... if I'm wrong, could you provide a brief (semi-rational) explanation as to why.... thank you very much ...
Joined: 8/10/2016
Msg: 4634
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 10:25:14 AM
Ok Ok... some else is not a Jew and I am an alt-rightist... according to you that is.
You are consumed with identity politics and fitting everyone into little boxes or denying them their little box.
Does some one have a god complex...?

The Eagles love President Trump
Philadelphia Eagles enjoy reduced tax on Super Bowl bonus

Every Philadelphia Eagles player will get a $112,000 bonus for winning the Super Bowl. But when it comes to federal taxes, the Eagles are also likely to get a little bit of a break this year.

Because of the tax cut that President Donald Trump signed in December, each team member will pay about $41,000 to Uncle Sam on that prize money. That's down from what would have been about $44,000 under the old rules. There are still Minnesota state taxes to take into account.

$3,000 dollars in every Eagles players pocket heck thats a new fur coat for their wives.
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4635
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 11:16:29 AM
Fun, I can almost see the smoke coming out of your ears. Geeze...what are you looking for US to say to make you feel better?

Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4636
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 11:18:17 AM
Okay ...will the last man standing please turn out the lights?

 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 4637
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 11:45:59 AM
^^^Erm... surely the whole "identity" of being a "jew" is nothing but "identity politics"?
Never mind, he's gone!!

Funches, Marilyn thinks that not only are the "jews" a "race", but she thinks they're the "most superior" "race".
In short, she thinks she's supremely supremacist.

Today, your dimwit president claimed that a march supporting our NHS was a march against it
The only reason people were marching is because this Tory government have underfunded it, and cut funds for social services (by 40%), which has put even more pressure on the hospitals, because elderly patients who were previously looked after at home, now have to go to hospital, and use up scarce resources and beds.
They've cut funding, while simultaneously cutting taxes for corporations, and the richest...
Sound familiar?

The Tory stupidity of leaving the EU has also resulted in a mass exodus of European doctors and nurses.
If someone gets sick here, or injured, a free ambulance arrives, and takes you to a free hospital, even if you're a homeless tramp. (That's a "bum" in American, but a bum here is just an arse)
Our medics take your pulse first.
Trump wants yours to take your credit card first.

The tories here are just like republicans, they don't like what they think of as "big state", so they've been trying to privatise our health care system, "by stealth".
The people won't let them.
Hence the march...

I've been reading about Devin Nooneys...
I have formulate a theory.
I must stress that it's only for "entertainment purposes"...
(I don't want the FBI on my case...)

Divine Nooneys was involved in tipping trump off, about "Obama bugging trump tower", (via microwaves, toasters, hair-weaves, etc etc)
So we know he's "super-loyal" to the orange fuhrer.

I think, maybe....... when trump was looking for "people" for his campaign, - you know, aides, advisors, and suchlike..
Maybe mr Big Tits (aka divine nooneys) just gave Trump a list of all the people with Russian connections, who the FBI were watching..

Like I said, it's only a theory.
-But it would explain why Trump seems to have so many pro-Russian people, who are being watched by the FBI....
And we know that Nooneys like to leak FBI information to him.
Not that I'm saying he's "biased" or anything.... no sireee..

I expect trump is celebrating because the patriots got beaten.
-He doesn't like patriots, because they work against his friend putin, and he's got the piss tapes.

Here's another thought: why doesn't Trump put one of the many naked pictures of the "First Lady" on a stamp ??
Then anyone could lick it, - for 5 cents
Free Melania!!!!

Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4638
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 12:15:07 PM

Funches, Marilyn thinks that not only are the "jews" a "race", but she thinks they're the "most superior" "race".
In short, she thinks she's supremely supremacist.

Herod, each Race has developed certain characteristics that make them different from other races. I would never try to field a world champion team of Jews to play basketball... Blacks really are stronger, can run faster and jump higher. Physiologically, their muscles structure allows them to do so.

I know you don't like to concede facts which somehow disrupt your egalatarian view of life....but things are what they are..not what you want them to be. So sorry. :-) I do think all people are equal and deserve the same rights as everybody else. I don't think the facts bear out there aren't differences between the races.

But we've been through this story before. No need to have another go-round.
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 4639
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 2:14:00 PM
This is a beaut!

Lawyer who drafted Nunes memo once brutally slapped by judge with ‘order of ineptitude’
Joined: 10/14/2017
Msg: 4640
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 5:15:41 PM
^^^No surprise there....Clowns!
It seems all those involved in the draft of this memo didn't think through any of the details or facts.
The only one that thinks he caught someone doing something crooked is the President and some of his entourage.
If he read it...he has little comprehension of what it actually says.
But he's running with it...such a moron.
Watching him speak today is proof of just how he can lie with such conviction....truly amazes me..

Nunes was actually repeating the old lie that George Stronopolous(sp)never even met Trump.
Say what? Pictures of them sitting at the same table...

News Flash>>>>Trumps lawyers don't want Trump to testify....surprise!!
I bet he backs out....if he doesn't throw a kabash into it first....somehow.
Joined: 1/16/2018
Msg: 4641
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 5:52:11 PM
The democrats swore that if the memo was released that there would be a HUGE National Security issue!!!!! Then the memo came out and they said it was a "nothing burger".....That was funny, that was just one more in a very long line of trying to gain something when the democrats get shot down every time!

No, this memo is not a "nothing burger" and the dems are circling the wagons trying to create yet a new narrative to see if that sticks. There is a lot more to come about this FISA issue and the democrats are sinking fast. Like I said, I believe this will be the biggest US scandal in history.
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 4642
view profile
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/5/2018 9:07:56 PM
What did you read in the memo that gave you this opinion?
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 4643
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 5:43:41 AM
That's a good question. I doubt that he can answer it because the guy is on record promoting the idea that the changes to the memo the repugnicants made were just grammatical errors that don't change anything.
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4644
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 6:11:37 AM
John is just being a contrarian. A memo written by this trump supporter is nothing but hearsay having no meaning whatsoever. And nothing in the memo is of any substance. Investigators are paid and have biases?...big fuking deal.
Joined: 1/16/2018
Msg: 4645
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 6:48:06 AM
"And nothing in the memo is of any substance"

^^^^^^^^There we go again as far as liberal talking points. Just a week or so again the democrats were screaming that releasing that memo would be catastrophic to National Security. Then they sheepishly had to go away from that "nothing burger" narrative. Topolata calls anyone a contrarian when they don't agree with his opinion, even when his opinion is wrong. Hang in there, the truth will set you free!
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4646
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 7:08:14 AM
John...if you can point to anything of so. Factually, there is nothing in that memo being worth more than a pitcher of pizz. Show us otherwise, if you can. Right now you are just being shrill.
Joined: 10/14/2017
Msg: 4647
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 7:12:19 AM

democrats were screaming that releasing that memo would be catastrophic to National Security.

I don't know why you would find that "odd" ?
The Repubes were promising it was gonna expose some big conspiracy theory didn't....such a let down.(nothing burger)
Plus it was supposedly from a TOP SECRET file.....bunch of morons.

the truth will set you free

^^^Who talks like weird.
Joined: 1/16/2018
Msg: 4648
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 7:17:21 AM
"What did you read in the memo that gave you this opinion?"

Glad you asked Dayna, here is a good look at what is going on. Topolata, you also can learn what is going on with your democratic party and how they are indeed circling the wagons:

By AndrewCMcCarthy: Representative Nadler is a shrewd lawyer but he has spent his life in legislatures rather than courtrooms. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has written a six-page response to the FISA-abuse memo published Friday by the committee’s Republican staffers under the direction of Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.). I won’t get sidetracked by the fact that Nadler’s “Dear Democratic Colleague” letter has been “exclusively obtained” by NBC News — i.e., that it was leaked to the media, whereas the so-called Nunes memo was provided to committee Democrats before publication so they could seek changes. The Nunes memo had to be subjected to a rules-based process because of classified-information issues. The Nadler memo does not seem to contain classified information; it just responds to what the Republicans have produced, which is now public record. I don’t agree with Jerry Nadler’s politics, but he is an able lawyer. What surprises me about his retort is how weak it is. He posits four points, the last two of which are strictly political red meat. Of the other two, one provides an inaccurate explanation of the probable-cause standard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); the other is an ill-conceived argument about Christopher Steele’s credibility. The latter provides a welcome opportunity to confront a wayward theory — which I’ll call “vicarious credibility” — that has been vigorously argued by apologists for the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the Steele dossier. Let’s take the easy stuff first — Nadler’s last two contentions. Next UpMelania Trump Is No Longer Joining the President in Davos00:50Rewind 10 SecondsNext Up: Melania Trump Is No Longer Joining the President in Davos00:3100:59Share VideoDiscoverSettingsFullscreen A. The Nunes Memo and Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinNadler’s point 3 insists that “the Nunes memo provides no credible basis whatsoever for removing Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General.” But the Nunes memo does not advocate Rosenstein’s ouster, nor does any credible commentator claim that the Nunes memo provides a basis to oust him. The memo merely notes that Rosenstein approved the last (third) application for reauthorization of the original FISA warrant. This is recited in the course of listing all the deputy attorneys general and FBI directors who approved applications (as the statute requires). Rosenstein’s approval is an unassailable fact. It is not a firing offense, nor is it portrayed as such. To be sure, on the separate matter of the Mueller investigation, there is no shortage of reasons to be critical of Rosenstein’s passively erratic supervision. (See, e.g., here and here.) But that has nothing to do with the Nunes memo, or with the fact that Rosenstein happens to have signed one of the FISA applications — a fact that, on the woefully inadequate information we have, does not translate into knowingly submitting a misleading application to the court. For all we know, the last application — which would likely have relied on whatever intelligence the first three had yielded and may have had nothing to do with President Trump — could have been bulletproof. B. The Nunes Memo and the Mueller InvestigationNadler’s point 4 argues that “House Republicans are now part and parcel to [sic] an organized effort to obstruct the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Given the fantasy conception of obstruction Democrats have internalized since shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, it is little wonder that they now see felonies under every rock. The Nunes memo, however, has no bearing on the work of Special Counsel Mueller, which commenced seven months after the first FISA warrant on Page. A cautionary note: Those Republicans trying to use the inquiry into FISA abuse as a Trojan horse for discrediting Mueller’s investigation are undermining both their own credibility and that of the FISA inquiry. Similarly, Democrats trying to make Mueller’s probe of Russia’s election-meddling synonymous with “Trump–Russia collusion” are doing themselves and Mueller no favors. But to investigate missteps and potential abuses in investigations relevant to the 2016 election does not impede Mueller in any way, much less corruptly obstruct him. Now to the more serious contentions. C. The “Vicarious Credibility” TheoryNadler’s Point 1 (and to some extent, Nadler’s Point 2) is especially useful because it exemplifies a fatal flaw in the reasoning of defenders of the Justice Department and FBI’s use of the Steele dossier in a warrant application, including such commentators as the usually excellent Orin Kerr at Lawfare. It involves imputation to the informants of the investigator’s trustworthiness or biases — vicarious credibility. Proceeding from the erroneous premise that former British spy Christopher Steele is the source of the dossier information, these analysts posit the inarguable proposition that the government is not required to provide the court with all of the potential credibility problems of an information source. Therefore, the theory goes, there is nothing untoward in the government’s failure to inform the FISA court that Steele’s information was bought and paid for by the Democratic presidential candidate, and then used in an application in which agencies run by the Democratic president sought court-authorized surveillance of the Republican candidate’s campaign. Here’s the problem: Steele is not the source of the information. For purposes of the warrant application, he is the purveyor of information from other sources. The actual sources of the information are Steele’s informants — anonymous Russians providing accounts based on hearsay three- and four-times removed from people said to have observed the events alleged. An example makes the point. Say I’m a prosecutor in a narcotics investigation. My DEA case agent is simply the best — many times rewarded by his agency and the Justice Department for his competence, diligence, and expert knowledge of how international drug cartels work. The agent brings me information that three of his sources have told him X is using a shipping container to import cocaine. I thus want to get a search warrant for the shipping container. When the court asks me what my probable cause is, I don’t get to say, “Gee, Judge, I have this fabulous investigative agent who’s got more performance awards than Tom Brady has touchdown passes. He tells me his informants are certain about the container.” If I try that, the judge — assuming he remains calm and doesn’t throw the warrant application in my face — either sends me back to law school or patiently explains that the issue is not the credibility of my investigative agent; it’s the credibility of my investigative agent’s informants. Similarly, if the informants were shown in the application to be creditworthy, it would not matter that my case agent had been fired for dishonesty or incompetence. This is the truly outrageous thing about the Steele dossier saga that I am surprised commentators don’t, or won’t, see. In the case of these FISA applications, the principal problem is not Steele himself but his information. We can never even get to the task of evaluating whether Steele’s anonymous, Russian, multiple-hearsay sources have some bias against Trump or Page. We don’t know who the sources are, and the FBI seems never to have corroborated them. In the case of these FISA applications, the principal problem is not Steele himself but his information. For a very long time, I confidently assured people that attacks on the FISA applications were sure to be futile. It did not matter that Steele had credibility issues, I explained; the critical thing was the credibility of Steele’s informants. The FBI and DOJ, I insisted, would never bring a court information based on factual allegations that the FBI had not corroborated, provided by sources that the FBI had not checked out. I intuited that Steele’s name probably did not even appear in the warrant application. That is because once the underlying sources are verified, the credibility of the person who tipped the investigator off to misconduct is beside the point. As a prosecutor, I took information from terrorists, mobsters, drug lords, scam artists — you name it. There is nothing wrong with taking information from a suspect source as long as the investigator then rolls up his sleeves and corroborates the information. That means establishing the credibility of the witnesses who claim to have seen or heard the sinister activities that are said to be the probable cause justifying the warrant. Alas, it appears that I was wrong. From everything we have heard thus far, the FBI did not corroborate Steele’s informants. Their inflammatory allegations about Trump are acknowledged to be “salacious and unverified.” According to the Nunes memo, FBI corroboration efforts were only in their “infancy” at the time the first warrant was sought, and they never yielded anything but “minimal” verification (which may be a charitable way of putting it). Now, that would not be a decisive infirmity if the warrant contained other reliable information that established probable cause, even if the Steele allegations were stripped out. But we’ve been told that did not happen. According to the Nunes memo, the FBI’s then–deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that there was not enough information outside the Steele allegations to show probable cause. (We’ll come back to that testimony, and the dispute over it, shortly.) To justify a finding of probable cause, the government must satisfy the court as to the credibility of the informant who, it is claimed, witnessed the factual transactions described in the warrant. There is no vicarious credibility: The informant’s reliability cannot be shored up by the impeccable credentials of the investigative agent. The agent is not the witness; the informant is. The agent’s job is to satisfy the court that the informant was in a position to provide a reliable (generally, firsthand) account of what happened, and that the informant should be believed. Typically, the prosecutor and agent will give the court an assurance along the lines of “Confidential Informant No. 1 (CI-1) works at the bank, is intimately familiar with activity in the suspect’s account, and has described the following transactions . . . ”; and/or “CI-1 has provided similar information to the FBI on three other occasions and has been corroborated each time.” There is nothing close to that in Steele’s dossier. His informants are anonymous. Some of them do not claim to have seen or heard the things they report — they’ve purportedly gotten the information from others. Meanwhile, Steele himself does not deal directly with the sources; he has a network of connections developed in his years as a British intelligence officer. In effect, A tells B something that is reported to C, who tells it to D, Steele’s guy in Russia, who passes it along to Steele. We have no idea whether A was in a position to observe what he told B, much less what credibility problems beset A, B, C, and the rest on down the chain. This is no doubt why Steele himself, in the libel cases against him, has taken the position that he cannot vouch for the truthfulness of the allegations in the dossier. Rather, he admits they were hearsay claims that he passed along because they seemed alarming, but that needed vigorous investigation by the FBI to determine their provenance and accuracy. Observe the dynamic here: The closer a source of information is to firsthand knowledge, the more irrelevant are the merits or demerits of the ultimate purveyor of the information to the government and, ultimately, the court. Let’s say Steele or FBI agent Peter Strzok had a source who claimed that Trump conspired with Putin to hack Democratic email accounts. The notorious fact that Steele and Strzok harbor animosity against Trump would not matter as long as their source had firsthand information and a history of reliability. By contrast, if their informants could not be checked out and their information could not be corroborated, the impressive professional credentials of these investigators would not validate their informants. Thus, the investigators’ animus against Trump would become a very alarming problem. As experienced agents, they are well aware that they must corroborate their sources before proceeding with something as serious as a FISA warrant application; if they failed in that rudimentary duty, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether their personal feelings got the better of them — especially since we now have direct sources whose credibility cannot be evaluated at all, a purveyor of their multiple-hearsay allegations who is deeply biased against the target, and the overlay of a presidential election in which one candidate’s opposition research is being used to justify spying on the other campaign. As Professor Kerr correctly explains, the facts of every case are different and there are indeed times when credibility problems are so dire that the government is obliged to reveal them to the court. Now, let’s return to Nadler’s letter. Before elevating the vicarious-credibility theory to a new level of farce — by portraying Steele as an “expert” witness — the congressman argues that “the Nunes memo does not provide a single shred of evidence that any aspect of the Steele dossier is false or inaccurate in any way.” Again, this is backwards. It is the burden of the Justice Department and FBI to establish that the allegations they provided to the court were sufficiently corroborated to show probable cause. There is already a mountain of evidence (including Steele’s own admissions) that the dossier is deeply suspect. The Justice Department and FBI relied on it nonetheless. It is thus for them to satisfy the public that their warrant application was valid; it is not up to the critics to prove that the dossier is false. So far, the FBI and Justice Department have provided only cause for grave concern that they gave a federal court unverified, highly unreliable information that was essential to the court’s probable-cause finding, and that they did so without being candid with the court about the biases of the information’s purveyor. That being so, the burden is on the FBI and the Justice Department to prove that they did not act improperly in seeking the FISA warrant — especially since they, rather than the rest of us, are in possession of the information that they insist would vindicate them. Nadler is a shrewd lawyer, but he has spent his life in legislatures rather than courtrooms; he is perhaps to be forgiven for not understanding how expert testimony works. He asserts that “Christopher Steele is a recognized expert on Russia and organized crime.” Let’s stipulate that this is the case. Nevertheless, before you ever get to the point of having an expert explain factual transactions that are beyond the ken of the layman, the occurrence of these factual transactions has to be established by competent, reliable witnesses. Steele and the FBI point us to none. Steele might know more about Russia and organized crime than Putin himself. Such expertise would still not endow his anonymous, hearsay sources with credibility, or fill in the chasm left by the lack of verified factual information for an expert to interpret. D. The Nunes Memo and FISA LawNadler’s point 1 asserts that the Nunes memo does not “rule out the possibility that considerable evidence beyond the Steele dossier” supported the FISA court’s finding of probable cause to believe Carter Page was a Russian agent. This framing of the issue gets things backwards: We are supposed to have extreme confidence that the findings of a federal court are not based on suspect evidence. Nadler’s standard, in effect, is: It is not impossible that the court relied on solid evidence here. That is not what we aspire to. In any event, the Nunes memo asserts that Andrew McCabe testified before the committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or ‘FISA Court’] without the Steele dossier information.” I hasten to add that I am quoting from the memo, not from McCabe’s testimony — of which the Nunes memo gives us a description, not a verbatim excerpt. Some committee Democrats have suggested this is a misleading rendering of what McCabe said. Interestingly, Nadler makes no such claim. He appears to be taking it as a given that McCabe did opine that the warrant application would not have been sufficient absent the allegations in the dossier. That makes the credibility of the dossier critical. Yet, as we’ve seen, the credibility of the dossier has never been established and almost certainly cannot be. Nadler takes three shots at repairing this defect, all unavailing. First, there is some razzmatazz about the timing of the warrant application. Noting that the FBI opened an investigation of George Papadopoulos in late July 2016, Nadler leaps to the conclusion that “the FBI was actively investigating the Trump campaign months before they approached the court about Carter Page.” So what? There was never any doubt that FBI agents were investigating long before they went to the FISA Court in October 2016. The Bureau’s opening of a Papadopoulos investigation on paper does not necessarily mean agents were acting on it meaningfully (there seems to have been no Papadopoulos FISA warrant, he was not interviewed until late January 2017, and he only pops up in the Nunes memo in connection with a FISA warrant application for Page). But no matter: We know the FBI was investigating Page in July — when he went to Russia and the Bureau started getting Steele’s reports. Nevertheless, how long the agents were investigating before applying for a FISA warrant has nothing to do with what they put in the warrant application. They could have been investigating Trump and Page for a hundred years before approaching the FISA court; warrants are issued based on the quality of the information proffered to the court, not the duration of the information-gathering process. Second, Nadler suggests that FISA law, as he purports to describe it, strongly supports an inference that the FISA court’s probable-cause finding was sound — i.e., the finding that Page was a Russian agent. But, after labeling the Nunes memo “deeply wrong on the law,” Nadler proceeds to get the law wrong, and misses the point in any event. According to the congressman, to justify a FISA warrant, the Justice Department had to show probable cause that “the target of the electronic surveillance is . . . an agent of a foreign power.” No, that’s only half of what must be shown. Nadler neglects to explain that, because Page is an American citizen, the Justice Department also had to establish that the clandestine activity in which Page supposedly engaged on Russia’s behalf may have involved federal crimes. (See sec. 1801(b) of Title 50, U.S. Code.) This is a salient omission. The Steele dossier alleges that Page was implicated in crimes — potentially heinous ones. As I have pointed out previously, we don’t know everything the FBI knows, so we can’t discount the possibility that Page was not only involved in criminal activity but involved in it with Russians. That seems highly unlikely, though, given that Page has not been charged with any crimes, and that there are no obvious reasons for suspecting him of crimes besides what is alleged in the dossier (allegations he strenuously denies). That is, FISA law appears to make the dossier more relevant and problematic, not less. On the question of criminality, I note that many commentators point to Page’s involvement in a prior FBI investigation involving Russia, and darkly observe that he “was on the Bureau’s radar screen for years” before the October 2016 FISA warrant application — as if this supposition were a substitute for FISA’s legal requirement of proving criminal activity. But the 2013 investigation into which Page stumbled was a case of Russian agents trying to recruit him as a source. Far from doing anything criminal, Page appears to have cooperated with the FBI and Justice Department to nail the Russian spies. (See the Justice Department’s complaint in United States v. Buryakov, at pp. 12–13 — Page is “Male-1,” whom the Russian spy Victor Podobnyy refers to as an “idiot,” and whose 2013 interview by the FBI is described in paragraph 34.) Again, we don’t know everything the FBI knows, but based on what we have been told, it appears that in the prior case, Page worked with the United States against Russia; that does not jibe with the allegation in the FISA warrant application that he worked with Russia against the United States. It appears that in the prior case, Page worked with the United States against Russia; that does not jibe with the allegation in the FISA warrant application that he worked with Russia against the United States. Putting aside Nadler’s glaring omission in describing FISA’s probable-cause requirements, his statement that the law requires a finding that Page was a foreign agent does nothing to establish that Page was, in fact, a foreign agent. The question is whether the alleged facts presented in the warrant application showed that he was a foreign agent involved in potential federal crimes. Nadler does not come close to addressing that. Third and finally, Nadler offers more vicarious-credibility theory: We should believe there was probable cause in the FISA warrant application because “the Department of Justice thought so,” and “a federal judge agreed.” This tautological proposition is even more risible than the claim that Steele’s professional credibility and expertise are a substitute for corroborated factual assertions by reliable informants. The Justice Department’s job is to establish probable cause, and the court’s task is to find probable cause based on a sufficient factual showing. These burdens are not satisfied by the happenstance that a prosecutor handed an application to a judge, who then signed a warrant. If they were, we’d be living in a very different kind of country — one that would defy Jerry Nadler’s history of civil-liberties activism. Congressman Nadler’s attack on the Nunes memo is wholly unpersuasive, and in several particulars frivolous. READ MORE:Is Releasing the Nunes Memo a National Security Threat?EDITORIAL | The Nunes Memo Should Be Just the StartThe Steele Dossier was Used to Spy on Trump Campaign Adviser — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. Share article on Facebook Tweet article Plus one article on Google Plus SPONSORED CONTENT These Cars Will Plummet In Value In 2018 - Is Yours On Our List? Engineer Leaks Hedge Fund Secret Psoriatic Arthritis: The Most Common Symptoms Yahoo! Search [Gallery] Woman Kept In Captivity For 19 Years And Gave Birth To 9 Children Nocartridge The New Needle-Free Line Filler Everyone is Talking About DermStore Olympia: What kind of car can you buy for under $10K? Switch and you could save $620. Yay! Savings make me smile. Progressive Edmunds 25 Best Sedans of 2018 Edmunds Recommended by More Stories Feminists Seize the Moment for Sisterly Revenge Robert Mueller Is No Ken Starr Some Activists Want to Turn ‘LGBT’ Into ‘LGBTQQICAPF2K+’ for Inclusion The Prosecution Is Weakening The Prosecution Is Weakening The Memo Doesn’t Make Its Case Next ArticleAmerica’s Identity CrisisDaniel P. Schmidt, Michael E. Hartmann Load More Photo Essay Super Bowl LII Trending on National Review The FISA-Gate Boomerangs Is Trump Serious About "Treasonous" Democrats? Was the FBI Out to Get Trump? About Institute Advertise Contact NR Facebook Twitter Google+ Privacy

Read more at:
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 4649
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 7:49:21 AM
Sorry John I'm not going to read all that. I'm pretty sure I understand any potential legal issues. A big fat nothing Burger. Certainly not Watergate, not the Pentagon papers, not Nixon sabotaging the peace talks. Probably less important then the fact Clinton got a b******
Joined: 10/25/2017
Msg: 4650
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/6/2018 8:03:01 AM
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > What good things has Trump accomplished?