Barr has Mueller report


#1233

No. They did not name any name and specify which parties were involved. They just made it clear it was about an opposing poltician.

It was and remains entirely unsourced. We have absolutely no way to know the names of the actual authors and where they got their information. There is no way to verify their veracity or their methods of information collection.

No, that is true NOT ONE allegation in the dossier has ever been proven and it certainly wasn’t proven at the time of the applicaions.

There is no page 321 or 322 but on page 15 the FBI says that “source 1” who is Steele is known to be reliable, and someone paid by the FBI and they are unaware of any derogatory information regarding him , yet they FIRED him for lying to them and speaking to the press, when they told him not to.

Unless you’re telling a FISA judge the things I stated then it doen’t matter what other facts you are telling them. You are concealing the true nature of the dossier.

M


#1234

Don’t be the least bit surprised if Barr convenes a special grand jury and/or appoints an independent prosecutor to look into all of the abuses at FBI, DOJ, and the frauds committed against the FISA courts.

Now that the Mueller probe is over I would not be the least bit surprised to see the FISA judges themselves start hauling people back into court to explain their lies and omissions.


#1235

Yes.

If you look really closely, you’ll see that no one in the document is named, aside from Page. Trump isn’t named, nor is Steele.

Such is often the case, when it comes to intelligence. Sometimes it comes down to reputation.

You’re only looking at the first application. At the time of the first application, Steele had not yet been “fired”.

The link I posted contains all 4 applications - the original, and the renewals. Pages 321-2, within the fourth document, explain the circumstances of Steele’s “firing”.

All of the facts that you stated were included in the applications. You are only angry about the tone.

And that reflects a fundemental misunderstanding of how our Justice system works. We have an antagonistic legal system. Its an argument.

The prosecution is under no obligation to make an argument for the defense.

They’re not allowed to lie, or withhold evidence. But they are not obligated to present both sides.


#1236

I should hope so.

I also wanna hear from the Cheif Justice, John Roberts, who is in charge of the FISA courts and appoints the judges.

He is always defending the judiciary but someone in the judiciary either screwed up mightily or they were lied to and I wanna know what he intends to do, in either case.

This is wholly unacceptable.

Last fall, Mark Meadows and JIm Jordan sent a letter to U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, askinhg her about this concern. She is chief judge of the FISC. Whether or not she responded we do not yet know, but I want to know, and soon.

M


#1237

It would be inappropriate for Roberts to comment since there’s a chance one of these cases could eventually work it’s way to the SCOTUS.


#1238

I’m sorry but that is just nonsense.

The court requires that they get verification and the FBI presented the dossier like it was verified and that is simply a lie.

They also failed to tell the court the concerns of Bruce Ohr concerning Steele, which woud have more correclty shown the dossier to be what it was - the hopes and dreams of Christopher Steele to stop the election of Donlad Trump.

If, in fact, you have to rely on reputation then you would have to believe that Steele was completely credible, as he is ACTUALLY the only known source, and when you see how badly he wanted to hurt Trump he as a source has a lousy reputation for fair and impartial reporting of facts.

He actually could have written the whole thing in his Mom’s basement on a a few cold and wet London weekends, for all we know.

…and more importantly, for all any court could know. This was supposed to be the MOST careful court. If the FBI told them all I have said there should be NO WAY to spy on an American based on the dossier.

M


#1239

No. The court requires that they present all of the evidence that they’ve collected, and swear or affirm the truth of the claims made in the application.

They were under no obligation to do so. Bruce Ohr’s personal opinion is not evidence.


#1240

I know that is the concern but I have no faith in the court at the moment and that is his failure. He leaves me with no faith in the court when he is always preaching how much we should have faith in the judiciary.

He cannot have it both ways. He AT LEAST should state that he has his own concerns and is addressing them.

And if he doesn’t have concerns then where the hell is his head at?

M


#1241

They cannot claim the dossier is anything but what I said it was. THAT IS THE TRUTH. It is totally unverified allegations, unsourced and unsubstantiated, presented by someone with an admitted bias against the subject of it.

It might as well have been written by Alistair MacLain, for all it is actually worth as a piece of intelligence and information.

Unless the FBI says that they are lying about it, because that is the truth about it.

As to Bruce Ohr he gave them more than opinion but if you’re the FBI you have to tell ALL the reputaton of Steele - especially the reputation he has with DOJ attorneys - if you are in fact using HIM as your only only verified source of information. They told the FISA court the story about Steel that made him look like a reliable source only.

That was a lie of ommision, and you know it.

M


#1242

The Chief Justice isn’t under any obligation to assuage your lack of faith.

And your logical reasoning leaves much to be desired.


#1243

He has made it his obigation to asuage my lack of faith in the jusdiciary in the past. He’s the one who defends it all the time.

Let him defend the FISA court, too, if it is defensable. I have seen things these last two years that lead me to believe it is hugely problematic and if you think I’m alone you’re nuts.

M


#1244

Mueller is a friend of Comey!!


#1245

:rofl:

No, he hasn’t. He is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

He does not need your faith. He is not obligated to defend anything according to your demands.

I have some issues with FISA - and I have had those issues for much longer than you have. But I have no reason to think that Roberts will change his position in regards to issues with surveillance - and I doubt your demands will change that.


#1246

No, again it would be inappropriate for him to comment at all since he may have to preside over cases related to this in the fairly near future.

It’s up to the AG to take on that role.


#1247

The BBC posted this article which makes for interesting reading.

I do like the way the BBC looks at what was said and presents no real opinion but lets the reader decide. Thr US media could learn a lot from the BBC. Its not perfect and at times a bit slow but the standard of reporting is among the best in the world (if not the best)


#1248

and who’s happy.

the joy of the last 48 hours was too much for people and they exposed themselves again.


#1249

And look who has Russian Collusion Fatigue
“I reject your reality, and substitute my own!” - The entire democrat party


#1250

Yes… Grassy knoll’ers

"If you look at the blur and imagine real hard…lol!


#1251

I didn’t demand anything. Stop with the drama queen act.

He is the one telling us that the judiciary is above reproach. Being the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doesn’t absolve him from explaining why the court he is tasked with staffing and overseeing is this problematic.

He works for US - not the other way around.

M


#1252

The AG isn’t in charge of the FISC. Roberts is.

I don’t want specifics from him, but I want to know he is as concerned as the rest of us and is resolved to fix this.

If I don’t get that from him I then believe he is NOT concerned and he needs to be. If there is any court that NEEDS to look scrupulously fair and proper it is THIS one, above all.

The reputation of the FISC is in tatters.

M