Printable View
If true, the information in this article appears to be detailed enough for a growing number of insiders to believe they can positively identify the informant:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/1...stigation.html
I won't repeat the name here. I must say, I can't help but think this was extremely irresponsible given concerns about his safety as well as the integrity of several other unrelated ongoing investigations.
the shitrag thedailycaller published all this back in March, the NYT only picked it up recently (after Trump started ranting about a spy), suggesting once again that Nunes and his ilk are douches of the highest order
http://www.dailycaller.com/2018/03/2...-london-emails
Really though, it's the republican establishment doing the enemy's work:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/day-we-c...burn-informant
Going to be a lot of egg on a lot of people's faces if there is more to the 'insurance plan' the FBI bragged about when everything is brought to light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Trump seems to have forgotten that he received a high level intelligence briefing on this matter and Americans seem to have forgotten just how thoroughly infiltrated his campaign was by shady people with shady Russian & Gulf state contacts who've for some reason lied repeatedly to FBI and congress about all those contacts, not to mention the subsequent indictments. Good job on harming the FBI's ability to reassure sources though.
I wonder if we're ever going to get to the point where the rights constant crying about 'political bias' as a tool to deflect criticism or try and avoid being held to account for anything, ever is going to start to generate any kind of backlash? It's almost gotten to the point of self-parody, but apparently it's still an effective tool
There was a time when people said "the church can't be corrupt, it is the church." See the thing is there are ZERO institutions where everyone in them are trustworthy and free from bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
What are you saying, Lewk? Is this some weird new type of solipsism?
No one is saying there is zero "corruption" in the FBI. Of course, in this matter the consequences seem to have been positive for the Trump campaign. Your fixation on irrelevant or trivial things to the point where you end up ignoring substantial concerns about Trump & affiliated individuals as well as their attempts to obstruct or exert inappropriate influence over investigations is pretty fucked up although perhaps unsurprising given your steady decade-long consumption of Fox kool-aid.
I don't think there was any collusion between Trump and Russia. Are some people in Trump's campaign assholes and possibly criminal? Sure but you don't create a special prosecutor because someone is an asshole, if there is no collusion between Trump and Russia its time to put the investigation to rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If there was no collusion why has the special prosecutor already made arrests and got witness statements etc?
If the special prosecutor was drawing a blank you'd have a point.
I have been by no means following this closely, but my understanding is many of the indictments don't deal directly, (or even indirectly) with the question of collusion, and revolve more around making false statements to investigators, money laundering, failure to disclose financial assets, etc... No doubt the hope is that by getting these indictments they will be able to coerce them into cooperating with the investigation, and ultimately to find evidence of "collusion." At least with what is publicly known, (again with the caveat that I am not following this terribly closely) there haven't been arrests because evidence of collusion (a nebulous term without much in the way of legal meaning as I understand it) with Russia has been found.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Can't be assed to copy and paste all the growing links, but here we go. Keep to the text in the yellow box to avoid further confusion.
https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/com...ussia/dth0x7i/
Here is one written more in wiki form
https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/com...raged/dw6e933/
I'm more in the camp that there is simply so much shit to dig through that Mueller is being as thorough as possible, picking off players as he comes across them, possibly waiting for a congress that isn't possibly implicated or complacent.
If you're comfortable with reddit, I suggest /r/keeptrack
It is true in many investigations that it wasn't the original crime but the cover-up that gets you. If Mueller is finding evidence of making false statements etc then that should be thoroughly investigated. Closing down the evidence early because the initial investigation has turned up evidence of attempting to pervert the course of justice is a bit ... odd to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Why, it's almost like the people suggesting such things aren't interested in finding the truth at all.
Not interested in the facts behind Russian interference in our elections, huh. Seems you're mistaken about the scope of the investigation, how long it takes to collect facts, and connect the dots. Especially in a web this complicated involving foreign actors and multiple types of crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You didn't mind it when four years were spent investigating Clinton/Benghazi, so what's the rush now? :donkey:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feature...01867-explore:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Some more reading in case you ever feel like "not following this closely" is a bullshit way to contribute to a discussion.
That's an awesome link, OG! :up:
But wait, there's more!Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/174383...ssia-collusion
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/u...-virginia.html
Boy, what a fucking dilemma. How will they ever be able to resolve it? Whew, what a puzzler.