The president is calling for a purge and shutting down the Mueller investigation based on conspiracy mongering about the Russia investigation again, but can someone explain to me exactly what about the FISA document he is referring to?
I don't see how the Steele dossier is responsible for the Mueller investigation except incidentally given the firing of Comey and not the dossier was why Rosenstein appointed Mueller.
It’s important to realize that basically every point he’s trying to make here is an absolute lie that’s been disproven a number of times. Like, every single thing he’s saying is just about the opposite of reality.
The dossier didn’t start these investigations, it’s just been proven more and more true as time has gone on. Of the verifiable claims it makes, I don’t think a single one has been proven untrue. And the dossier was not entirely paid for by Clinton or the DNC, it started as Republican oppo research.
These FISA warrants were granted, and extended, a number of times. Typically you would need to show proof that you were collecting new evidence in order to get an extension. That’s not to say FISA courts aren’t slightly sketchy though.
And Carter Paige was on the FBI’s radar for a long time before he joined the Trump campaign.
The president is calling for a purge and shutting down the Mueller investigation based on conspiracy mongering about the Russia investigation again, but can someone explain to me exactly what about the FISA document he is referring to?
I don't see how the Steele dossier is responsible for the Mueller investigation except incidentally given the firing of Comey and not the dossier was why Rosenstein appointed Mueller.
It’s important to realize that basically every point he’s trying to make here is an absolute lie that’s been disproven a number of times. Like, every single thing he’s saying is just about the opposite of reality.
The dossier didn’t start these investigations, it’s just been proven more and more true as time has gone on. Of the verifiable claims it makes, I don’t think a single one has been proven untrue. And the dossier was not entirely paid for by Clinton or the DNC, it started as Republican oppo research.
These FISA warrants were granted, and extended, a number of times. Typically you would need to show proof that you were collecting new evidence in order to get an extension. That’s not to say FISA courts aren’t slightly sketchy though.
And Carter Paige was on the FBI’s radar for a long time before he joined the Trump campaign.
Everything in those tweets is a lie.
You know how I know everything in those tweets is a lie? Because Donald Trump said them.
Apparently we can measure his momentum with perfect accuracy.
It's infuriating because he's asking these questions that we have answers to. Youre the fucking president, if you wanted to know why Obama didn't say anything you could find out yourself. Everyone else did, and we aren't even the president. Hell you could fucking ask him yourself. Do literally anything except be sarcastic on twitter
It all makes me want to tear my face off. If Obama had said anything Hillary would be president and the republicans would be comfortably bleating about norms being violated and jailing Obama for interfering.
I can't entirely blame Obama because the resulting investigation would have been an absolute cluster-fuck; there is simply no way to make having your political opponents arrested months before an election look good, no matter how guilty they subsequently turn out to be. Imagine a march on the scale of the women's march, only instead of women its all the looniest parts of the right wing. People would have shown up armed. People would have died.
Simply because others will demonstrate on your behalf does not mean that you should not enforce the law. Looking back with hindsight, Obama should have simply found ANY Republican (Bush 1 or 2 perhaps?) who was willing to stand up with him and say "Wikileaks is a Russian front, everything they leak about Hillary is suspicious. The Trump campaign is subject to an ongoing FBI investigation of far greater severity than the Clinton emails ever could be" or possibly even have gone further.
It IS a hard thing to do to arrest political opponents before an election, but then, what do you do if you know that they have broken the law? Is being a political candidate a license to engage in any and all corrupt activities? Trump SHOULD have been arrested. He should be arrested now. If we had a functional political system, and he was the one broken outlier then he would be.
Apparently we can measure his momentum with perfect accuracy.
It's infuriating because he's asking these questions that we have answers to. Youre the fucking president, if you wanted to know why Obama didn't say anything you could find out yourself. Everyone else did, and we aren't even the president. Hell you could fucking ask him yourself. Do literally anything except be sarcastic on twitter
It all makes me want to tear my face off. If Obama had said anything Hillary would be president and the republicans would be comfortably bleating about norms being violated and jailing Obama for interfering.
I can't entirely blame Obama because the resulting investigation would have been an absolute cluster-fuck; there is simply no way to make having your political opponents arrested months before an election look good, no matter how guilty they subsequently turn out to be. Imagine a march on the scale of the women's march, only instead of women its all the looniest parts of the right wing. People would have shown up armed. People would have died.
Simply because others will demonstrate on your behalf does not mean that you should not enforce the law. Looking back with hindsight, Obama should have simply found ANY Republican (Bush 1 or 2 perhaps?) who was willing to stand up with him and say "Wikileaks is a Russian front, everything they leak about Hillary is suspicious. The Trump campaign is subject to an ongoing FBI investigation of far greater severity than the Clinton emails ever could be" or possibly even have gone further.
It IS a hard thing to do to arrest political opponents before an election, but then, what do you do if you know that they have broken the law? Is being a political candidate a license to engage in any and all corrupt activities? Trump SHOULD have been arrested. He should be arrested now. If we had a functional political system, and he was the one broken outlier then he would be.
This is just it. I'm going to assume, for these purposes, that the Trump team has actually done what it looks like they're doing.
Let's say Trump lost the election and is on Twitter ranting about it being rigged. Does the Obama admin have him arrested right after the loss? Does the Clinton admin do it when they are sworn in? The optics problem is still there. The investigation would still be a clusterfuck. So we find ourselves in the world where Trump has won the election. Right now we are seeing the same kind of optics problem, except it's an uphill battle because the guy is president. Even assuming everything goes "well" and he is voted out in 2020...can he be arrested then without a similar sort of problem? All of these issues will still be present. On the other hand, if he just walks, then you've now established that there effectively are no rules in political campaigns because none of them can be enforced, or at least, can't be enforced against Republicans.
Essentially, at some point, the adults in the room, if there are any, need to accept that there is a possibility that the right-wing is going to go apeshit if there are any consequences for the malefactors on their side of the aisle. There's a non-zero chance that some Alex Jones listening nut tries to enact Oklahoma City part 2. But this is true either way. If nothing is done and the far right controls everything, you are still going to have these nuts marching in the streets (i.e. Charlottesville), shooting up schools, or what have you.
David Alexander is a Reuters correspondent working in Washington
I can't recall the specific details, but the few analyses I read about this immunity made it seem like they are not free from any charges, but specifically from anything arising from their testimony here.
Yes, the way immunity works is you want the witness to freely be able to testify about criminal conspiracies/acts they were part of, or may have potential criminal liability for. You don't give them a blanket "you can't be prosecuted for anything." WaPo reports:
They are requesting what is known as “use immunity,” which would mean prosecutors could not use the witnesses’ statements against them unless they were to make false statements.
The two sides will on Tuesday debate a questionnaire that will be given to potential jurors.
Manafort would like Ellis, the judge, to ask jurors where they get their news, the extent of their involvement in politics and whether they voted in the 2016 election. The government is interested in whether jurors have strong feelings about the Internal Revenue Service and tax laws, Mueller and Manafort himself.
That'll be fun!
The trial may be delayed as there are a lot of documents involved which usually means the defense wants tons of time.
Relevant quote:
Defense attorney Kevin Downing argued that the trial, set to begin Wednesday, comes as his team is still struggling with tens of thousands of documents only recently provided by prosecutors.
“These are very big items to look at, and what we would consider for us very important documents to look at,” Downing said.
Judge T.S. Ellis III said he would rule on the continuance and hear other issues this afternoon. He also approved and unsealed motions to compel five witnesses against Manafort to testify at trial.
Prosecutors said the most relevant papers handed over recently were financial documents from Manafort’s bookkeeper that his attorneys turned over themselves last summer.
Manafort had a different defense team at the time. Downing said once the bookkeeper was subpoenaed by the government, the firm demanded money to give them back to Manafort.
“We thought that we would get it through discovery. It’s a lot cheaper.” Downing said.
“It depends on how you calculate the expense,” Ellis replied.
When has committing too many crimes and generating too much evidence have been a valid way of avoiding jail time?
These guys wow!
It's a little-known fact that all Federal sentences are stored as signed integers. If you can get your sentence over 32,767 years, it will actually wrap around to negative numbers and the government has to pay you compensation for all the years you were unjustly imprisoned.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
I know at least three of them no longer work in intelligence so shouldn't they have their clearances stripped anyway?
Why would a retired or fired person need a clearance?
Yes, the way immunity works is you want the witness to freely be able to testify about criminal conspiracies/acts they were part of, or may have potential criminal liability for. You don't give them a blanket "you can't be prosecuted for anything." WaPo reports:
They are requesting what is known as “use immunity,” which would mean prosecutors could not use the witnesses’ statements against them unless they were to make false statements.
The two sides will on Tuesday debate a questionnaire that will be given to potential jurors.
Manafort would like Ellis, the judge, to ask jurors where they get their news, the extent of their involvement in politics and whether they voted in the 2016 election. The government is interested in whether jurors have strong feelings about the Internal Revenue Service and tax laws, Mueller and Manafort himself.
That'll be fun!
The trial may be delayed as there are a lot of documents involved which usually means the defense wants tons of time.
Relevant quote:
Defense attorney Kevin Downing argued that the trial, set to begin Wednesday, comes as his team is still struggling with tens of thousands of documents only recently provided by prosecutors.
“These are very big items to look at, and what we would consider for us very important documents to look at,” Downing said.
Judge T.S. Ellis III said he would rule on the continuance and hear other issues this afternoon. He also approved and unsealed motions to compel five witnesses against Manafort to testify at trial.
Prosecutors said the most relevant papers handed over recently were financial documents from Manafort’s bookkeeper that his attorneys turned over themselves last summer.
Manafort had a different defense team at the time. Downing said once the bookkeeper was subpoenaed by the government, the firm demanded money to give them back to Manafort.
“We thought that we would get it through discovery. It’s a lot cheaper.” Downing said.
“It depends on how you calculate the expense,” Ellis replied.
I don't understand what the bolded means exactly. It's phrased in an odd way.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
I know at least three of them no longer work in intelligence so shouldn't they have their clearances stripped anyway?
Why would a retired or fired person need a clearance?
(honest questions, I really don't know)
Security clearances are good for a set number of years depending on the level. It why I was able to work in a secure building a year after getting out of the AF.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
I know at least three of them no longer work in intelligence so shouldn't they have their clearances stripped anyway?
Why would a retired or fired person need a clearance?
(honest questions, I really don't know)
Security clearances are good for a set number of years depending on the level. It why I was able to work in a secure building a year after getting out of the AF.
Yeah, but having been issued clearance doesn't mean you have access to anything. There's still a process for your post-AF employer to give you access to the building or any materials; it's just a process that's expedited by your having already been granted access within the past X months.
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
+6
Options
Drake ChambersLay out my formal shorts.Registered Userregular
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
+22
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
James Brennan
Donna Duggan
Conor O’Brien
Cindy Laporta
Dennis Raico
NOTE: That is not JOHN Brennan, the person Trump's been screaming about revoking the security clearance of. I do not know if this Brennan and that Brennan are related.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
Yea, compartmentalization is a thing. If your job doesn't involve Iran in any way at all it'd be really weird and inappropriate for you to pull a classified report on Iran.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
Yes. It's utterly nonsensical. The universe of TS documents is so vast, there's nothing practical he could even do with such information.
It'd be like if you got a job as an executive at AT&T, and your first request was to see a list of every cell phone call made by employees. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.
Edit: And it's a clue that Kushner didn't understand what having TS clearance means.
Drake Chambers on
+8
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
this is the first I'm hearing about this and it is insane
James Brennan
Donna Duggan
Conor O’Brien
Cindy Laporta
Dennis Raico
NOTE: That is not JOHN Brennan, the person Trump's been screaming about revoking the security clearance of. I do not know if this Brennan and that Brennan are related.
TPM says they think Raico worked at Federal Savings Bank, which secured Manafort a $16 million loan and whose head was a Trump advisor. The others they have not yet identified.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
this is the first I'm hearing about this and it is insane
what a fucking idiot
Well, it was, like, a couple of months ago, so it's easy to understand why you've missed it, buried as it is under the mountain of other bullshit.
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
this is the first I'm hearing about this and it is insane
what a fucking idiot
Well, it was, like, a couple of months ago, so it's easy to understand why you've missed it, buried as it is under the mountain of other bullshit.
I thought it was toward the beginning of the administration
I am not sure if this is relevant enough to go here, but Huckabee Sanders just said Trump is looking for ways to revoke the security clearances of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe. I have to imagine it is mostly meant in retaliation for the investigation related stuff as that is all Trump cares about.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
this is the first I'm hearing about this and it is insane
what a fucking idiot
Well, it was, like, a couple of months ago, so it's easy to understand why you've missed it, buried as it is under the mountain of other bullshit.
I thought it was toward the beginning of the administration
It was, yes - which I guess is more like a year and change ago, now. Man, how time flies when you're having fun!
James Brennan
Donna Duggan
Conor O’Brien
Cindy Laporta
Dennis Raico
NOTE: That is not JOHN Brennan, the person Trump's been screaming about revoking the security clearance of. I do not know if this Brennan and that Brennan are related.
Care to take the bet that Trump didn't know at the time of his tweet that that was the case?
Cause I wouldn’t bet against him seeing Brennan, assuming it was John (or not remembering his first name), and that being enough to set his brain afire.
It's not like this President is known for thinking things through properly.
Sigh, Federal Savings Bank being referred to as FSB is going to cause me some serious headaches trying to contextualize breaking news about this case...
Yes, the way immunity works is you want the witness to freely be able to testify about criminal conspiracies/acts they were part of, or may have potential criminal liability for. You don't give them a blanket "you can't be prosecuted for anything." WaPo reports:
They are requesting what is known as “use immunity,” which would mean prosecutors could not use the witnesses’ statements against them unless they were to make false statements.
The two sides will on Tuesday debate a questionnaire that will be given to potential jurors.
Manafort would like Ellis, the judge, to ask jurors where they get their news, the extent of their involvement in politics and whether they voted in the 2016 election. The government is interested in whether jurors have strong feelings about the Internal Revenue Service and tax laws, Mueller and Manafort himself.
That'll be fun!
The trial may be delayed as there are a lot of documents involved which usually means the defense wants tons of time.
Relevant quote:
Defense attorney Kevin Downing argued that the trial, set to begin Wednesday, comes as his team is still struggling with tens of thousands of documents only recently provided by prosecutors.
“These are very big items to look at, and what we would consider for us very important documents to look at,” Downing said.
Judge T.S. Ellis III said he would rule on the continuance and hear other issues this afternoon. He also approved and unsealed motions to compel five witnesses against Manafort to testify at trial.
Prosecutors said the most relevant papers handed over recently were financial documents from Manafort’s bookkeeper that his attorneys turned over themselves last summer.
Manafort had a different defense team at the time. Downing said once the bookkeeper was subpoenaed by the government, the firm demanded money to give them back to Manafort.
“We thought that we would get it through discovery. It’s a lot cheaper.” Downing said.
“It depends on how you calculate the expense,” Ellis replied.
I don't understand what the bolded means exactly. It's phrased in an odd way.
Original defense team and prosecutors traded discovery materials. Included were X financial documents from defense.
Original defense team quits. New defense team comes on. New defense team doesn't have those financial documents (this seems weird to me btw, wouldn't the old defense team pass a copy on to the new team...)
New defense team asks financial institution for documents. The bookkeeper at this point has been subpoenaed by the governement. Financial instutition (for whatever reason) says hey you want copies it'll cost you $$.
New defense team asks instead for the prosecutors to give them a copy of the copy already given to them from old defense team. Because it would be cheaper. Excepting the cost to the governement to make all the copies, I guess.
Posts
It’s important to realize that basically every point he’s trying to make here is an absolute lie that’s been disproven a number of times. Like, every single thing he’s saying is just about the opposite of reality.
The dossier didn’t start these investigations, it’s just been proven more and more true as time has gone on. Of the verifiable claims it makes, I don’t think a single one has been proven untrue. And the dossier was not entirely paid for by Clinton or the DNC, it started as Republican oppo research.
These FISA warrants were granted, and extended, a number of times. Typically you would need to show proof that you were collecting new evidence in order to get an extension. That’s not to say FISA courts aren’t slightly sketchy though.
And Carter Paige was on the FBI’s radar for a long time before he joined the Trump campaign.
Everything in those tweets is a lie.
You know how I know everything in those tweets is a lie? Because Donald Trump said them.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
What’s the line on a last minute guilty plea?
I would guess about the same as Manafort suddenly developing immunity to all known chemical weapons.
Simply because others will demonstrate on your behalf does not mean that you should not enforce the law. Looking back with hindsight, Obama should have simply found ANY Republican (Bush 1 or 2 perhaps?) who was willing to stand up with him and say "Wikileaks is a Russian front, everything they leak about Hillary is suspicious. The Trump campaign is subject to an ongoing FBI investigation of far greater severity than the Clinton emails ever could be" or possibly even have gone further.
It IS a hard thing to do to arrest political opponents before an election, but then, what do you do if you know that they have broken the law? Is being a political candidate a license to engage in any and all corrupt activities? Trump SHOULD have been arrested. He should be arrested now. If we had a functional political system, and he was the one broken outlier then he would be.
This is just it. I'm going to assume, for these purposes, that the Trump team has actually done what it looks like they're doing.
Let's say Trump lost the election and is on Twitter ranting about it being rigged. Does the Obama admin have him arrested right after the loss? Does the Clinton admin do it when they are sworn in? The optics problem is still there. The investigation would still be a clusterfuck. So we find ourselves in the world where Trump has won the election. Right now we are seeing the same kind of optics problem, except it's an uphill battle because the guy is president. Even assuming everything goes "well" and he is voted out in 2020...can he be arrested then without a similar sort of problem? All of these issues will still be present. On the other hand, if he just walks, then you've now established that there effectively are no rules in political campaigns because none of them can be enforced, or at least, can't be enforced against Republicans.
Essentially, at some point, the adults in the room, if there are any, need to accept that there is a possibility that the right-wing is going to go apeshit if there are any consequences for the malefactors on their side of the aisle. There's a non-zero chance that some Alex Jones listening nut tries to enact Oklahoma City part 2. But this is true either way. If nothing is done and the far right controls everything, you are still going to have these nuts marching in the streets (i.e. Charlottesville), shooting up schools, or what have you.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Please stick to the current investigation.
David Alexander is a Reuters correspondent working in Washington
I can't recall the specific details, but the few analyses I read about this immunity made it seem like they are not free from any charges, but specifically from anything arising from their testimony here.
Good
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mueller-seeks-immunity-for-5-witnesses-in-manafort-case/2018/07/17/eefb5100-89ff-11e8-9d59-dccc2c0cabcf_story.html?utm_term=.b73600b05457
Here's some more articles with more details:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/paul-manafort-wants-details-of-ukraine-political-work-kept-out-of-fraud-trial/2018/07/21/ee4ca568-8cf9-11e8-8aea-86e88ae760d8_story.html?utm_term=.de24d0af0031
That'll be fun!
The trial may be delayed as there are a lot of documents involved which usually means the defense wants tons of time.
Relevant quote:
These guys wow!
It's a little-known fact that all Federal sentences are stored as signed integers. If you can get your sentence over 32,767 years, it will actually wrap around to negative numbers and the government has to pay you compensation for all the years you were unjustly imprisoned.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I know at least three of them no longer work in intelligence so shouldn't they have their clearances stripped anyway?
Why would a retired or fired person need a clearance?
(honest questions, I really don't know)
I don't understand what the bolded means exactly. It's phrased in an odd way.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
If they don't work in a position that requires security clearance then they already don't have it...
Security clearance isn't something you just keep once you get it. Having clearance not only requires passing the various background checks, it also requires that you have an active need to know the secured information. And for the most part having clearance only gets you access to the specific information you need to know to do your job. Once you're not in that job anymore you stop having access to any of that information.
I guess he maybe has the authority to say that such and such person always automatically fails requests for clearance in the future, should they find themselves in a position where they need to be evaluated for clearance. That would be fantasically petty and abusive of his power (if that is indeed within his power) but that's pretty much par for the course.
Security clearances are good for a set number of years depending on the level. It why I was able to work in a secure building a year after getting out of the AF.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Yeah, but having been issued clearance doesn't mean you have access to anything. There's still a process for your post-AF employer to give you access to the building or any materials; it's just a process that's expedited by your having already been granted access within the past X months.
Just an additional bit of clarifying perspective. There's a common misconception that once people receive, for example, a Top Secret clearance, that this whole world of information opens up to them, and that they're automatically privy to information that they didn't have before.
Think of a security clearance more from the perspective of the people who already have the information and are capable of disseminating it. Whether a person has clearance or not dictates whether or not you can share secret information with them. There's no entitlement to know about secrets.
NOTE: That is not JOHN Brennan, the person Trump's been screaming about revoking the security clearance of. I do not know if this Brennan and that Brennan are related.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Wasn't this part of why Jared Kushner requesting absolutely every document that was labeled "Top Secret" was such a weird big deal?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Yea, compartmentalization is a thing. If your job doesn't involve Iran in any way at all it'd be really weird and inappropriate for you to pull a classified report on Iran.
Yes. It's utterly nonsensical. The universe of TS documents is so vast, there's nothing practical he could even do with such information.
It'd be like if you got a job as an executive at AT&T, and your first request was to see a list of every cell phone call made by employees. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.
Edit: And it's a clue that Kushner didn't understand what having TS clearance means.
this is the first I'm hearing about this and it is insane
what a fucking idiot
TPM says they think Raico worked at Federal Savings Bank, which secured Manafort a $16 million loan and whose head was a Trump advisor. The others they have not yet identified.
Well, it was, like, a couple of months ago, so it's easy to understand why you've missed it, buried as it is under the mountain of other bullshit.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I thought it was toward the beginning of the administration
It was, yes - which I guess is more like a year and change ago, now. Man, how time flies when you're having fun!
Alt text: It's always just his first month.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Cause I wouldn’t bet against him seeing Brennan, assuming it was John (or not remembering his first name), and that being enough to set his brain afire.
It's not like this President is known for thinking things through properly.
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
Original defense team and prosecutors traded discovery materials. Included were X financial documents from defense.
Original defense team quits. New defense team comes on. New defense team doesn't have those financial documents (this seems weird to me btw, wouldn't the old defense team pass a copy on to the new team...)
New defense team asks financial institution for documents. The bookkeeper at this point has been subpoenaed by the governement. Financial instutition (for whatever reason) says hey you want copies it'll cost you $$.
New defense team asks instead for the prosecutors to give them a copy of the copy already given to them from old defense team. Because it would be cheaper. Excepting the cost to the governement to make all the copies, I guess.