FBI conducted predawn raid of former Trump campaign chairman Manafort’s home
66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52555966]Surprisingly there haven't been any leaks from his investigation team (wonder why)[/QUOTE]
There are fewer to no leaks from Mueller's team than from Trump's administration because Muller's team isn't a threat to our democracy. Regardless of how valid the perception that Trump's a threat to our democracy is, a great many people consider him a huge threat. And his general attitude and actions only serve to validate those fears. So they take whatever action they can to try and help prevent it such as by leaking what information they can so people don't fall for Trump's bullshit.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52556021]What did he mean by this?[/QUOTE]
I mean that in recent months, leaks coming out of the White House and elsewhere have been nothing but damaging to trump and his associates/family. So, with little to no leaks coming from this investigation could mean Two different things, either everyone who knows anything about the investigation and where it is at are completely trustworthy. Or there is nothing exciting to leak about.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52556003]It doesn't say it was from his team.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]FBI agents raided the Alexandria home of President Trump’s former campaign chairman late last month, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials, [B]according to people familiar with the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.[/B][/QUOTE]
One or more people on Mueller's team talked to people who talked to the Washington Post. That middleman source could be a government official who is a liaison to their team, it could be a government or Trump/Manafort/Flynn/etc. lawyer (although oh BOY if they're leaking to journalists, so unlikely), or, you know, it could be someone's personal friend and they're tipping little hints over beers on the weekend.
[B]This is the first paragraph of the story.[/B] You are clearly literate, how did you still come to make this post?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52556048]
[B]This is the first paragraph of the story.[/B] You are clearly literate, how did you still come to make this post?[/QUOTE]
You are clearly literate as well. Investigation team != someone familiar with the investigation.
If it were someone from the team I think WaPo would say because that would boost their credibility.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52556171]If it were someone from the team I think WaPo would say because that would boost their credibility.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, putting your source's life and career in immediate danger is clearly a great way to improve your paper's credibility.
With news like this, it's no wonder the Mooch wanted to kill all the leakers.
This is going to be in our little Facepunchlings' history books.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52556171]You are clearly literate as well. Investigation team != someone familiar with the investigation.
If it were someone from the team I think WaPo would say because that would boost their credibility.[/QUOTE]
Ralgo, the Washington Post [I]does not have[/I] an issue with their credibility. Despite a mild left-leaning bias, they have an excellent track record in terms of journalistic integrity. Their stories are fact checked, their sources are vetted, and their information is verified before printing.
I know that it has been explained to you [I]many[/I] times why it is important to protect the identity of anonymous sources, and the rigorous methods used by respectable and legitimate journalistic entities such as the Washington Post to confirm the information received from them and the credibility of the source themselves.
This does not come down to a matter of credibility. Rather, it is simply a problem of you [B]choosing to disbelieve[/B] information that runs counter to your political agenda or beliefs, and that's seriously concerning. Ralgo, because you choose to dismiss the "Mainstream Media" as Fake News, you were so poorly informed about the details of the Trump/Russia situation that you [B]didn't even know[/B] that it was officially a criminal investigation.
Your intense bias and irrational subscription to Trump's propaganda has left you [B]severely[/B] underinformed, if not actively [I]mis[/I]informed. So long as that remains true, you don't have a leg to stand on in this conversation.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52556040] So, with little to no leaks coming from this investigation could mean Two different things, either everyone who knows anything about the investigation and where it is at are completely trustworthy. Or there is nothing exciting to leak about.[/QUOTE]
It's the former. Bob Mueller just runs a very tight ship.
I've seen quite a few people on Twitter point out that the pre-dawn raid was on the same day that Trump said those icky trans people should be banned from the military.
Wow, what a total coincidence!
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52556283]Ralgo, the Washington Post [I]does not have[/I] an issue with their credibility. Despite a mild left-leaning bias, they have an excellent track record in terms of journalistic integrity. Their stories are fact checked, their sources are vetted, and their information is verified before printing.
I know that it has been explained to you [I]many[/I] times why it is important to protect the identity of anonymous sources, and the rigorous methods used by respectable and legitimate journalistic entities such as the Washington Post to confirm the information received from them and the credibility of the source themselves.
This does not come down to a matter of credibility. Rather, it is simply a problem of you [B]choosing to disbelieve[/B] information that runs counter to your political agenda or beliefs, and that's seriously concerning. Ralgo, because you choose to dismiss the "Mainstream Media" as Fake News, you were so poorly informed about the details of the Trump/Russia situation that you [B]didn't even know[/B] that it was officially a criminal investigation.
Your intense bias and irrational subscription to Trump's propaganda has left you [B]severely[/B] underinformed, if not actively [I]mis[/I]informed. So long as that remains true, you don't have a leg to stand on in this conversation.[/QUOTE]
I could have used a different word, I meant if they got the information directly from someone investigating it would be better than saying they got there information from somebody who is "familiar" with the investigation. I'm not saying they should reveal their sources in anyway and I understand why because of your explanations.
Yeah yeah go ahead give me shit for not knowing it was a criminal investigation, I haven't really been following it because there really haven't be been any big revelations yet.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52556338]Yeah yeah go ahead give me shit for not knowing it was a criminal investigation, I haven't really been following it because there really haven't be been any big revelations yet.[/QUOTE]
Aside from Michael Flynn's resignation; Jeff Sessions perjuring himself; Trump firing and attempting to blackmail James Comey; Trump Jr. enthusiastically agreeing to a meeting in which he was explicitly offered hacked DNC documents by the Russian government...
Might be time to start paying attention, don't you think?
[QUOTE=mcharest;52556374]Aside from Michael Flynn's resignation; Jeff Sessions perjuring himself; Trump firing and attempting to blackmail James Comey; Trump Jr. enthusiastically agreeing to a meeting in which he was explicitly offered hacked DNC documents by the Russian government...
Might be time to start paying attention, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
two of those were before the investigation even began. The James Comey shenanigans were why it all began in the first place right? And yeah, I heard about Trump Jr. and I think its very suspicious that he didn't disclose the meeting and I think it was fucking stupid of him to lie about it. Was it even Mueller that dug that up? I thought it was another leak from the WH.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52556171]You are clearly literate as well. Investigation team != someone familiar with the investigation.
If it were someone from the team I think WaPo would say because that would boost their credibility.[/QUOTE]
You're still not getting it.
The WaPo talked to sources who are "familiar with the investigation". Those people are not on Mueller's team.
[I]But those people talked to people who are on Mueller's team[/I] unless you would like to propose an alternate method in which they became familiar with the investigation. What are they, psychic?
As for there not being any big revelations, the Steele dossier is increasingly turning out to be correct. There is a pretty credible chance that the piss tape exists, and if that is true, then Putin personally has damaging blackmail on Trump. There is no way on this planet to diminish that as not a big deal. It's not confirmed, but it's not just a rumour anymore, it's about just how close to 100% true the dossier actually is.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52556425]two of those were before the investigation even began. The James Comey shenanigans were why it all began in the first place right? And yeah, I heard about Trump Jr. and I think its very suspicious that he didn't disclose the meeting and I think it was fucking stupid of him to lie about it. Was it even Mueller that dug that up? I thought it was another leak from the WH.[/QUOTE]
Plese correct me if I am wrong but I can vauglely recall that the investigation has been on-going atleast before the election itself. I think I heard this from one of the Congressional hearigs Comey was in
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52556336]I've seen quite a few people on Twitter point out that the pre-dawn raid was on the same day that Trump said those icky trans people should be banned from the military.
Wow, what a total coincidence![/QUOTE]
"Mr. President, FBI agents have just raided Paul Manafort's house."
"GET THE TRANNIES OUT OF THE MILITARY!"
"M-Mr. President, what does that have to do with—?"
"I WANT 'EM OUT!"
Smokes and mirrors, distraction and deception - The Trump Administration Strategy
MrRalgoman, you should probably do a bit more research on the subject before asserting these things with such confidence (and snark). There's a solid bit of Dunning–Kruger going on here.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52556332]It's the former. Bob Mueller just runs a very tight ship.[/QUOTE]
Well, that, and the people who know also know that leaks would make it much easier for trump to try to evade penalties.
[QUOTE=Retinazer;52556608]Plese correct me if I am wrong but I can vauglely recall that the investigation has been on-going atleast before the election itself. I think I heard this from one of the Congressional hearigs Comey was in[/QUOTE]
I didn't think the FBI investigation into Russia is the same as Mueller's investigation into US Russian collusion.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52558637]Could you tell me what post you're even talking about?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://facepunch.com/search.php?searchid=8075433[/url]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52558689][url]https://facepunch.com/search.php?searchid=8075433[/url][/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nFvS6PQ.png[/IMG]
Direct post links?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52558711][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nFvS6PQ.png[/IMG]
Direct post links?[/QUOTE]
I was linking to his entire post history, but my mischief backfired. Boy, are my cheeks red.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52558637]I didn't think the FBI investigation into Russia is the same as Mueller's investigation into US Russian collusion.[/QUOTE]
Acting Attorney General Rosenstein authorized Mueller to conduct James Comey's counterintelligence investigation at the FBI as it was confirmed by him before Congress, as well as to prosecute (within limits) crimes arising from that investigation. They are one and the same.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52562555]Acting Attorney General Rosenstein authorized Mueller to conduct James Comey's counterintelligence investigation at the FBI as it was confirmed by him before Congress, as well as to prosecute (within limits) crimes arising from that investigation. They are one and the same.[/QUOTE]
Chonch, you need to stop spreading the lie that this is just a "counterintelligence investigation." This is a criminal investigation. It has [I]been[/I] a criminal investigation since Meuller took over. This is [B]not[/B] a "counter intelligence" operation in which Meuller "may prosecute," this is a full on fucking criminal investigation centered around the President of the United States, his family, and his closest advisers. You are acting as if the criminal investigation is somehow a secondary facet, and this is really just a harmless probe into intelligence operations. It's not. It's a criminal investigation first and foremost. [I]Stop[/I] spreading misinformation.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52563834]Chonch, you need to stop spreading the lie that this is just a "counterintelligence investigation." This is a criminal investigation. It has [I]been[/I] a criminal investigation since Meuller took over. This is [B]not[/B] a "counter intelligence" operation in which Meuller "may prosecute," this is a full on fucking criminal investigation centered around the President of the United States, his family, and his closest advisers. You are acting as if the criminal investigation is somehow a secondary facet, and this is really just a harmless probe into intelligence operations. It's not. It's a criminal investigation first and foremost. [I]Stop[/I] spreading misinformation.[/QUOTE]
Misinformation is the last thing I'm aiming for. My understanding of the situation comes from the [URL="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html#document/p1"]letter[/URL] that authorized Mueller's appointment and defined the scope of his assignment. I implore you read it and take any action you deem necessary, if afterwards you still sincerely believe I intend to decieve people.
Otherwise, I will continue on as I have.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52563896]Misinformation is the last thing I'm aiming for. My understanding of the situation comes from the [URL="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html#document/p1"]letter[/URL] that authorized Mueller's appointment and defined the scope of his assignment. I implore you read it and take any action you deem necessary, if afterwards you still sincerely believe I intend to decieve people.
Otherwise, I will continue on as I have.[/QUOTE]
The letter that explicitly states that the counsel has the authority to prosecute individuals involved with "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump", as well as anything related to/stemming from that?
Well then, yes, please continue your campaign of delusioned disinformation.
[editline]12th August 2017[/editline]
Fuck, this got me heated...
Cornell Law:[URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1"]https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1[/URL]
[quote="§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel"]The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, [I]will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that [B][U]criminal investigation[/U] of a person or matter is warranted[/B] and[/I] -
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Chonch;52563896]Misinformation is the last thing I'm aiming for.
Otherwise, I will continue on as I have.[/QUOTE]
You're kinda giving mixed signals here. You keep getting corrected and continuing to repeat the same shit. And here you are stating you're intending to continue in the future. If that's not willfully spreading misinformation then what is?
[QUOTE=Chonch;52563896]Misinformation is the last thing I'm aiming for. My understanding of the situation comes from the [URL="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html#document/p1"]letter[/URL] that authorized Mueller's appointment and defined the scope of his assignment. I implore you read it and take any action you deem necessary, if afterwards you still sincerely believe I intend to decieve people.
Otherwise, I will continue on as I have.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/robert-mueller-takes-russia-case-as-criminal-inves/[/url]
[quote]The Justice Department’s look at Russian meddling in the presidential election[B] has turned from a counterintelligence investigation into a criminal probe[/B], leading senators said Thursday as they emerged from a secret briefing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[/quote]
[quote][B]“The biggest legal change seems to be that Mr. Mueller is going to proceed forward with the idea of a criminal investigation versus a counterintelligence investigation,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican[/B], told reporters after the briefing.
He suggested that Mr. Mueller’s investigators will not scrutinize only actions by Russians or other foreign actors.[/quote]
[quote][B]“Bob Mueller is doing a criminal investigation,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat. “The special prosecutor is doing an investigation of criminal allegation[s] that are extremely serious, including possible obstruction of justice.”[/B][/quote]
You are deliberately spreading intentionally misleading information. This is [I]not[/I] a "counterintelligence probe." It stopped being one within days of Meuller's appointment. This is a full-fledged criminal investigation specifically targeted towards the president of the United States, his family, his campaign advisors, and other people with close ties to the personal, business, and political interests of the aforementioned parties.
Stop fucking lying to everybody lol
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52563929]The letter that explicitly states that the counsel has the authority to prosecute individuals involved with "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump", as well as anything related to/stemming from that?
Well then, yes, please continue your campaign of delusioned disinformation.
[editline]12th August 2017[/editline]
Fuck, this got me heated...
Cornell Law:[URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1"]https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1[/URL][/QUOTE]
I am sorry if I have upset you, that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm familiar with the section you referenced, but i am not sure if it directly applies to Mueller's authorization. 600.4 - 600.10 are referenced specifically. It would appear Mueller is given the ability to look into criminal activity he sees as related to his investigation, but it is not the expressed purpose of the investigation to seek out such activity. Does this make sense?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52564010][url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/robert-mueller-takes-russia-case-as-criminal-inves/[/url]
You are deliberately spreading intentionally misleading information. This is [I]not[/I] a "counterintelligence probe," and hasn't been since Meuller was appointed. This is a full-fledged criminal investigation specifically targeted towards the president of the United States, his family, his campaign advisors, and other people with close ties to the personal, business, and political interests of the aforementioned parties.
Stop fucking lying to everybody lol[/QUOTE]
I am not intentionally misleading anyone, nor am I deliberately spreading false/misleading information, or lying. These are very strong charges, and I would not use them so flippantly if I were in your position.
While this article is news to me, I do not believe it gives me any reason to change my stance on the question. Without a clear statement from Rosenstein -- who ultimately defines the boundary, scope, and aim of Mueller's probe, and clearly was not ever asked if this probe is now a criminal investigation -- this article leaves me with not much more than the brief comments of a few politicians, who may or may not have their own ulterior motives (political or otherwise) for giving the responses they choose to give to the press. I am particularly given pause by the reaction of Marco Rubio.
Given this, and with respect for the seriousness of this subject as well as the great deal of knowledge neither you nor I have access to in regards to it, I am compelled to restrict my insight to what I know for a fact and can prove with documentation from primary sources -- such as Rosenstein or Mueller. To do otherwise would be be an irresponsible and unacceptable exercise of speculation on my part.
I hope you can at least understand if not empathize with my decision here, as I do not take any pleasure in typing up these long form responses on my mobile device, and would prefer not to have to do so at all if the situation did not necessitate it.
So, basically, you're ignoring firsthand sources reporting factual information from in-person briefings with Rosenstein confirming that this is, in fact, a criminal investigation as Fake News because it doesn't suit your political interests to acknowledge its legitimacy, and you fully intend to continue spreading intentionally misleading information in an effort to downplay the seriousness of the issues we
are currently facing in order to unnecessarily cheerlead on behalf of your political role model?
And all of this dishonesty is justified, in your mind, only for the fact that the Attorney General will not personally confirm what bipartisan leadership present at his briefings [I]have[/I]?
[editline]12th August 2017[/editline]
Honestly, I don't know why anyone bothers with you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.