"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[rjs330]

And? What exactly is wrong with that? He did not know that he was working for the Clinton campaign until several months into the investigation (Fusion GPS told him that they were hired by a law firm and his direction was simply to find out why Trump had sought to do business deals in Russia) and the Clinton campaign never knew that they were paying him until the dossier was leaked by BuzzFeed.

Steele turned the information over to the FBI, not the Clinton campaign. The Steele Dossier was never delivered to the Clinton campaign - it wasn't even completed until after the election.

Either way, I fail to see how this relates to what Trump did wrong.

Apparently Trump didn't do anything wrong. Remember nothing happened. How it relates is people have an opinion about Trump and Russia being so bad when nothing happened, but could care less and defend Clinton when the guy they hired used Russians and had unverified information which was used to obtain warrants. I'm not buying the hypocrisy.

 

[rjs330]

People above have done a great job of setting you straight on most of this, but I just want to highlight your premise about the FBI. If you hear information that a crime has been committed, then it’s absolutely normal to provide that to law enforcement. What on earth does ‘unverified’ even mean in this context? Since when was it the responsibility of a private citizen let alone a foreign national to verify a complex crime before reporting it? You expect people to act as detectives when they believe a crime has been committed before involving law enforcement?

It’s down to the FBI to determine the validity of that information and to a judge to determine whether there is sufficient grounds to issue warrants. Trying to attack Steele for doing a service to the US that he had absolutely no requirement to perform just makes America look incredibly petty and ungrateful, not to mention untrustworthy of course. In future foreign allies will be much less likely to come to America’s aid after seeing what happened to Steele.

The FBI didn't make sure the information was verified. People are buying what the liberals are selling. They weren't honest with the FISA courts on how they got the information. You have to swear on an affidavit that the information was true. Unverified information is not true information.

 

[Arcangl86]

The FBI didn't make sure the information was verified. People are buying what the liberals are selling. They weren't honest with the FISA courts on how they got the information. You have to swear on an affidavit that the information was true. Unverified information is not true information.

There is no requirement that information used for a warrant is verified as being true if you are honest about it not being verified. In this case, the FISA application did specify that the dossier was the product of a political campaign and unverified.

 

[Pommer]

Fisa warrants against the Trump campaign.

Okay, source?
(There were no FISC warrants for the Trump campaign.)

 

[rjs330]

It's not even that the work has to be done domestically. It's just that anything that counts as a campaign contribution (i.e. donation) cannot come from a foreign government or foreign national. If you're paying someone to do a job, it doesn't really matter where they're from - optics aside. For example, the Trump campaign employed Cambridge Analytica, which is a British company. That didn't break any laws. The reasons for shielding Steele from the Clinton campaign would be to maintain objectivity and prevent any appearance of impropriety.

Keep in mind I'm not saying Clinton broke any laws. I'm saying that people are all up in arms over Trump who actually do NOT pay, receive or obtain anything for anything. But they don't seem to care that Clinton was involved with an unverified dosier that was used to obtain warrants. Excuses excuses.

I'm wondering if all would feel the same way if Trump had paid someone to get dirt on Hillary and that someone used Russian sources, turned over uncooborated, unverified information to the FBI and that was used to obtain warrants on the Clinton's. I don't believe you or others would find that acceptable.

The fact that it's Trump that has got you all worked up over nothing.

 

[rjs330]

There is no requirement that information used for a warrant is verified as being true if you are honest about it not being verified. In this case, the FISA application did specify that the dossier was the product of a political campaign and unverified.

No they didn't.
FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet

 

[Arcangl86]

No they didn't.
FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet

Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application

The actual application. Page 15 and 16 are the parts relevant to Steele.

 

[Pommer]

No they didn't.
FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet

“Sept. 25, 2016 – Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway tells CNN’s Jake Tapper that Page is not part of the Trump campaign:

He’s certainly not part of the campaign I’m running, meaning we don’t have him — we have a number of people, fabulous people, men and women, as part of our national security and foreign policy team. And he’s not among them at Trump Tower.

Tapper asks if Page had any contact with Kremlin officials, to which Conway responds:

If he’s doing that, he’s certainly not doing it with the permission or knowledge of the campaign, the activities that you described…He is certainly not authorized to do that.”



“Oct. 21, 2016 – The Justice Department and the FBI apply for and obtain a FISA probable cause order to surveil Page’s electronic communications, according to the memo authored by the staff of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). The memo states that the FBI and DOJ obtain three renewals of the order. Under the FISA statute 50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), orders to surveil U.S. persons must be renewed every 90 days, suggesting Page’s was renewed in January, April, and July of 2017. The Washington Post had reported prior to the memo’s release that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order was obtained on Oct. 19, 2016.“

https://www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Apparently Trump didn't do anything wrong.

First of all, we're talking about my opinion here, not legal theory. Based on the information I have, I consider the actions of the Trump campaign wrong. Second, wrong is not a synonym of illegal - things can be legal and still wrong. Third, something can be both wrong and illegal, and yet you may not be charged for it because the prosecutor did not believe that he had enough information to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As I understand it, the situation that we're talking about here falls into that third category because Mueller determined that the Trump campaign officials may not have been aware that they were breaking the law, and therefore had no malicious intent. What they did was still wrong, and probably illegal, but in this case, ignorance of the law is apparently enough of a defense.

Remember nothing happened. How it relates is people have an opinion about Trump and Russia being so bad when nothing happened, but could care less and defend Clinton when the guy they hired used Russians and had unverified information which was used to obtain warrants. I'm not buying the hypocrisy.

How are the actions of the FBI relevant to the Clinton campaign? I fail to see how these situations are related.

The issue with Trump's campaign is that they were willing to accept campaign contributions in the form of opposition research from a foreign government. In theory, this puts them in debt to that foreign government, because nothing is free in politics. There is no analogous situation with the Clinton campaign that I'm aware of for me to have a hypocritical opinion about.

 

[rjs330]

“Sept. 25, 2016 – Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway tells CNN’s Jake Tapper that Page is not part of the Trump campaign:

He’s certainly not part of the campaign I’m running, meaning we don’t have him — we have a number of people, fabulous people, men and women, as part of our national security and foreign policy team. And he’s not among them at Trump Tower.

Tapper asks if Page had any contact with Kremlin officials, to which Conway responds:

If he’s doing that, he’s certainly not doing it with the permission or knowledge of the campaign, the activities that you described…He is certainly not authorized to do that.”



“Oct. 21, 2016 – The Justice Department and the FBI apply for and obtain a FISA probable cause order to surveil Page’s electronic communications, according to the memo authored by the staff of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). The memo states that the FBI and DOJ obtain three renewals of the order. Under the FISA statute 50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), orders to surveil U.S. persons must be renewed every 90 days, suggesting Page’s was renewed in January, April, and July of 2017. The Washington Post had reported prior to the memo’s release that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order was obtained on Oct. 19, 2016.“

https://www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/

Page was part of the Trump campaign. The warrants may have been obtained after he left, but it wasn't just for stuff that happened after he left.

 

[Pommer]

Page was part of the Trump campaign. The warrants may have been obtained after he left, but it wasn't just for stuff that happened after he left.

You know what...you go on believing anything you so desire.
I’m done talking to you about this.

 

[stevil]

It’s down to the FBI to determine the validity of that information and to a judge to determine whether there is sufficient grounds to issue warrants.

and Judges aren't stupid people. You can't just give them unverified claims and they then issue warrants.

This narrative is only alive and kicking on Fox News and other unashamed conservative outlets. You go to real sources of news, objective and balanced sources like "main stream media", and you don't hear this stuff. Even on Fox if you go to the proper journalists like Chris Wallace and Shep and you hear the same stuff that you get from main stream media, not the rubbish narratives spewed out on conservative sites.

A person who only watches, only trusts conservative media, they get this false view of the world. Trump told them not to believe what they see and hear on main stream media, so they don't watch those shows. Trump has his fans minds in the palms of his hands. The obvious lies he spews out and are seen as obvious lies to us who watch real news and know what the actual truth is, well, Trump's fans don't know, they don't know the facts, they don't do research, they just believe what Trump says, what Sarah says, what Hannity says. Just believe, without seeing. They consider this Faith to be a virtue.

 

[stevil]

I'm wondering if all would feel the same way if Trump had paid someone to get dirt on Hillary and that someone used Russian sources, turned over uncooborated, unverified information to the FBI and that was used to obtain warrants on the Clinton's. I don't believe you or others would find that acceptable.

The fact that it's Trump that has got you all worked up over nothing.

Personally, I'd be very worried if people in Clinton's campaign were having secret meetings with Russians, lying about the meetings, and sharing polling data with the Russians and then removing sanctions put on for interference in the elections.

I'd hope that warrants are given and investigations and surveillance is performed.

 

[Pommer]

Trump's fans don't know, they don't know the facts, they don't do research, they just believe what Trump says, what Sarah says, what Hannity says. Just believe, without seeing. They consider this Faith to be a virtue.

It’d be simpler if they stopped watching ANY NEWS, so that when they realize one day, that our country is on the hill that leads to the cliff of Civil War 2, they’ll at least have a shot at becoming self-aware enough to question “the news” (yes, even their “usual sources”).
Some might come up to speed with the Right’s Media quite quickly, but after a time outside the kitchen, you can REALLY smell that chicken, roasting in your oven, upon your return!

 

[rjs330]

and Judges aren't stupid people. You can't just give them unverified claims and they then issue warrants.

This narrative is only alive and kicking on Fox News and other unashamed conservative outlets. You go to real sources of news, objective and balanced sources like "main stream media", and you don't hear this stuff. Even on Fox if you go to the proper journalists like Chris Wallace and Shep and you hear the same stuff that you get from main stream media, not the rubbish narratives spewed out on conservative sites.

A person who only watches, only trusts conservative media, they get this false view of the world. Trump told them not to believe what they see and hear on main stream media, so they don't watch those shows. Trump has his fans minds in the palms of his hands. The obvious lies he spews out and are seen as obvious lies to us who watch real news and know what the actual truth is, well, Trump's fans don't know, they don't know the facts, they don't do research, they just believe what Trump says, what Sarah says, what Hannity says. Just believe, without seeing. They consider this Faith to be a virtue.

Judges go by what's on the affidavit. If you don't tell them everything, they don't know. You have to swear that everything is accurate. That means verified.

And I wouldn't listen to Trump. You can't trust what he says on stuff. Any more than you can trust most people in government. And there is no way I trust the main stream media. They have lost all sense of journalism and are lock stock and barrel sold out to the Democrats. They put out the liberal narrative.

 

[Arcangl86]

Judges go by what's on the affidavit. If you don't tell them everything, they don't know. You have to swear that everything is accurate. That means verified.

And I wouldn't listen to Trump. You can't trust what he says on stuff. Any more than you can trust most people in government. And there is no way I trust the main stream media. They have lost all sense of journalism and are lock stock and barrel sold out to the Democrats. They put out the liberal narrative.

No it doesn't. You need to swear that everything you are telling the judge is the truth, which is why you don't present information from a source as fact. You simply report what the source told you and the reasons you feel the source should or should not be trusted.

 

[Pommer]

Judges go by what's on the affidavit.

A FISC Judge?
You’re joking, surely.

 

[stevil]

And there is no way I trust the main stream media. They have lost all sense of journalism and are lock stock and barrel sold out to the Democrats. They put out the liberal narrative.

So I take it you only listen, read from Conservative sources.

 

[Pommer]

So I take it you only listen, read from Conservative sources.

It would explain much!

 

[rjs330]

No it doesn't. You need to swear that everything you are telling the judge is the truth, which is why you don't present information from a source as fact. You simply report what the source told you and the reasons you feel the source should or should not be trusted.

That's what I meant by verified. If you don't know it's true it's wrong to put it on the affidavit. Verified simply means you checked out the information and found it to be true. The FBI swore that the information was true, but they didn't really know.