What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Diane Feinstein has released the testimony grassley and the GOP tried to hide.
Fusion gps testimony says there was evidence of trump campaign and Russia before the Steele dossier.
Shocking the Rs want to suppress this, I know.
Click to expand...

I've been reading it since like 4. My jaw has dropped a number of times. It's an incredible read from like page 70 to 175 (where I'm at now). Some excerpts:
Page 159
5 So the question by now of whether this was
6 Russia and whether this might have something to do
7 with the other information that we'd received was,
8 you know, the immediate question, and I think this
9 is also -- by the time this memo was written Chris
10 had already met with the FBI about the first memo.
11 So he's -- if I can interpret a little bit here.
12 In his mind this is already a criminal matter,
13 there's already a potential national security
14 matter here.
15 I mean, this is basically about a month later
16 and there's a lot of events that occurred in
17 between. You know, after the first memo, you know,
18 Chris said he was very concerned about whether this
19 represented a national security threat and said he
20 wanted to -- he said he thought we were obligated
21 to tell someone in government, in our government
22 about this information. He thought from his
23 perspective there was an issue -- a security issue
24 about whether a presidential candidate was being
25 blackmailed. From my perspective there was a law

1 enforcement issue about whether there was an
2 illegal conspiracy to violate the campaign laws,
3 and then somewhere in this time the whole issue of
4 hacking has also surfaced.
5 So he proposed to -- he said we should tell
6 the FBI, it's a national security issue. I didn't
7 originally agree or disagree, I just put it off and
8 said I needed to think about it. Then he raised it
9 again with me. I don't remember the exact sequence
10 of these events, but my recollection is that I
11 questioned how we would do that because I don't
12 know anyone there that I could report something
13 like this to and be believed and I didn't really
14 think it was necessarily appropriate for me to do
15 that. In any event, he said don't worry about
16 that, I know the perfect person, I have a contact
17 there, they'll listen to me, they know who I am,
18 I'll take care of it. I said okay. You know, I
19 agreed, it's potentially a crime in progress. So,
20 you know, if we can do that in the most appropriate
21 way, I said it was okay for him to do that.
Click to expand...

Page 174
You said that he told you of the meeting
19 with the FBI in Rome in mid or late September, that
20 he "gave them a full briefing"?
21 A. A debrief I think is what he probably
22 said, they had debriefed him. I don't remember him
23 articulating the specifics of that. You know, my
24 understanding was that they would have gotten into
25 who his sources were, how he knew certain things,


1 and, you know, other details based on their own
2 intelligence. Essentially what he told me was they
3 had other intelligence about this matter from an
4 internal Trump campaign source and that -- that
5 they -- my understanding was that they believed
6 Chris at this point -- that they believed Chris's
7 information might be credible because they had
8 other intelligence that indicated the same thing
9 and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human
10 source from inside the Trump organization.
11 Q. And did you have any understanding then or
12 now as to who that human intelligence source from
13 inside the Trump campaign might have been?
14 MR. LEVY: He's going to decline to answer
15 that question.
16 MS. SAWYER: On what basis?
17 MR. SIMPSON: Security.
18 MR. LEVY: Security.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

The Sicatoka said:
She's not in jail.
She's just continually muckraked.

Seems familiar ...

Just like "they're sick!" seems familiar ...
Click to expand...

But you think she's a criminal. Despite there being no money trail, or no explicit quid pro quo. You think she's guilty. Of something.

But you go to the ends of the earth to defend Trumpy.
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

Wow.
Page 179:
1 Sometime thereafter the FBI -- I understand
2 Chris severed his relationship with the FBI out of
3 concern that he didn't know what was happening
4 inside the FBI and there was a concern that the FBI
5 was being manipulated for political ends by the
6 Trump people and that we didn't really understand
7 what was going on. So he stopped dealing with
8 them.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

It's going to be another year of long nights for Mueller to sort all this out, isn't it?
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
It's going to be another year of long nights for Mueller to sort all this out, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I mean it will take even longer if all resources need to concentrate on the Hillary investigation. That’s the real issue right?
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

My favorite is starting around page 170-175ish, the lawyers for Grassley expose their agenda and themselves as being just bad lawyers. Also, Simpson has very good lawyers.

On page 289, the court reporter actually has to step in to calm things down..



ETA: And JFC, on page 308 they keep going back and try to pin him to the Democrats and that Simpson ran a firm for Democrats. And Simpson's lawyers *****slapped them for asking the same stupid questions again and again.

ETA: Simpson notes the following:
23 MR. SIMPSON: I did investigate Senator
24 Obama's campaign in 2008 when I was working for the
25 Wall Street Journal and wrote an article that



Page 288
1 caused his campaign chair to resign. The record is
2 replete -- or the public report of my work is
3 replete with examples of investigations I've done
4 of Democrats that resulted in them losing their
5 elections and being prosecuted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

Ok, I read the whole thing and it's impossible to find a single thing that Senator <strike>Ballcupper</strike> Graham could find that would warrant the FBI to investigate Simpson or Fusion.

Way to go Feinstein. I love it when Republicans get the moneyshot right in the eye.
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

more excerpts I highlighted:

Steele was the lead Russianist at MI-6. If that doesn't scream credibility, I don't know what does.

So we did things like we looked at the golf courses and whether they actually ever made any money and how much debt they had. We looked at the bankruptcies, how could somebody go through so many bankruptcies, you know, and still have a billion dollars in personal assets. So those are the kinds of things. We looked at a lot of things like his tax bills. Tax bills are useful because you can figure out how much money someone is making or how much they're worth or how much their properties are worth based on how much they have to pay in taxes. One of the things we found out was that, you know, when it comes to paying taxes, Donald Trump claims to not have much stuff. At least the Trump organization. So they would make filings with various state and local authorities saying that their buildings weren't worth much.
Click to expand...
14 Q. You mentioned as well, you brought up Trump golf courses. What in particular were you looking into with regard to Donald Trump's golf courses?

A. The original inquiry was into the value of the courses, whether he had to borrow money to buy them, whether they were encumbered with debt, how much money they brought in, what valuations he put on them, and property tax filings.

Q. And in general can you share what findings and conclusions you reached?

A. A number of them don't make any money. His valuations of the properties are questionable. I guess those would be the main findings.

Q. You just mentioned broadly but didn't describe it, you mentioned research on Scotland. I don't know if it was particular properties or something with regard to Scotland. Can you just describe what that research was.

A. Sure. He has golf courses in Scotland and Ireland and one of the facets of UK or anglo company law is that private companies have to file financial statements, public financial statements. So when you're looking at a guy like Donald Trump who doesn't like to share information about his company, it's useful to find a jurisdiction where he's required to share that information with the local government.

So we went and ordered the records -- the financial statements of the golf courses. There's also a long-running land use controversy -- I think there's multiple long-running land use controversies over those properties. We haven't really touched on this at all, but there were also environmental issues that were part of the research.

Q: With regard to the public financial statements, did you reach any conclusions based on that?

A. That they were not profitable entities. I don't specifically recall. I just remember that these were not doing very well and that he'd sunk a lot of money into them and he hadn't gotten a lot of money back yet.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
Ok, I read the whole thing and it's impossible to find a single thing that Senator <strike>Ballcupper</strike> Graham could find that would warrant the FBI to investigate Simpson or Fusion.

Way to go Feinstein. I love it when Republicans get the moneyshot right in the eye.
Click to expand...

I wonder, when did the shameless abuse of majority investigatory and oversight power begin? I don't remember the Democrats doing anything like this. Was I just not paying attention?
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

I didn’t realize Steele was the lead Russian at MI6. Geez.
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

I didn’t either. That was one of the things I highlighted as soon as I read it. I knew he was British secret service but didn’t know what he was into. Really leads one to wonder how much of that dossier is true.
 
Re: The "There's no Special Prosecutor thread?" thread

But I thought he was a Democrat who was just finding dirt on the GOP? Are you saying Right Wing Radio and every GOPer (and the Faux Libertarians around here) were WRONG?!?!? :eek:
 
Handyman said:
But I thought he was a Democrat who was just finding dirt on the GOP? Are you saying Right Wing Radio and every GOPer (and the Faux Libertarians around here) were WRONG?!?!? :eek:
Click to expand...

Just like papadop was a low level coffee boy, the republicans want us to think Steele was a janitor who isn’t qualified to be a spy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top