IronGarm

IGX "...overflowing with foulmouthed ignorance."
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:52 am

<


All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 330 posts ]  Go to page Previous 110 11 12 13 14
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:32 am 
Offline
Gunny

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm
Posts: 848
Quote:
Schiff (who has a Harvard JD) appears not to know the bounds of attorney-client privilege.
"Adam Schiff" was the name of Jack McCoy's boss on Law & Order thruout the 90s. District Attorney of New York.

_________________
Quote:
I carry, along with my three survival knives, a pocketful of flash-bangs. Good for active shooter incidents and for running into your mistress while with the wife.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline
Gunny

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm
Posts: 848
Politico published a long interview with Michael Morell, longtime deputy director of the CIA, occasional acting director, and former personal daily intelligence briefer for W Bush around the time of Sept 11.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ell-216061

Super interesting, very worthwhile read. Looks like a transcript of a podcast, so you might be able to listen to it rather than read it, if that's your preference.

Two interesting sections relevant to this thread. On the one hand:
Quote:
The Russian 2016 hacking, Morell told me, was in fact a U.S. “intelligence failure” in multiple ways. It was, he argued, at the least “a failure of imagination that’s not dissimilar to the failure of imagination that we had for 9/11,” with America’s spy agencies apparently unable to have conceived of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and electronic hacking of Gmail being used to attack the country’s election.

But it was another kind of failure, too, Morell argued, of shifting money away from Russia and elsewhere in the name of fighting terrorism. “As we were trying to protect the country from terrorists,” he said, “we became more blind to what was going on in the rest of the world, both from a collection perspective and from an analytic perspective. And that was a cost…. When you make choices, you leave significant risk on the table.”

But on the other hand:
Quote:
Morell: So, let’s talk about what I think the possibilities are, going forward. So, I would not be surprised if Bob Mueller concludes that the Trump campaign did not violate the law with regard to its interactions with the Russians. I’m really open to that possibility. Why? Because, as you know, The New York Times, The Washington Post, every media outlet that is worth its salt has reporters digging into this, and they haven’t found anything. And I think that, had there been something there, they would have found something. And I think Bob Mueller would have found it already and it would have leaked. So, I’m really open to the possibility that there’s no there there on a crime being committed by the campaign and the Russians. Right? That interaction leading to criminal charges.

The second point I’d make is that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who were associated with the campaign who violated the law with respect to their interactions with the Russians on the election. Paul Manafort comes to mind. I think he has little to no integrity. There’s no way you spend that much time with the old Ukrainian government and not bump up against Russian intelligence officers a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who faced criminal charges here with regard to their interactions with the Russians, and Paul Manafort’s a possibility. But that’s different than a conspiracy by the campaign, right?

The third thing I’d say is, every FBI investigation that I’ve ever had visibility into or been involved in, the people who they’re looking at actually don’t end up getting charged with the crime they were being investigated for. They get charged with something else. Right? And that something else in this case could be the laundering of Russian organized crime funds. And if that was done by the Trump organization – if that was done knowingly – it’s a criminal violation. If it was done unwittingly, because you didn’t do the due diligence that’s required under U.S. law for where the money is coming from, from overseas – it’s a civil penalty. And the Trump organization gets fined. What the politics of all that is, I have no idea. That’s the third thing I’d say.

The fourth thing I’d say is, the obstruction of justice issue. In my view, when I read the statute, boy, it looks – you know, it looks like you could make a case. Now, the hard part is intent. Right? You have to intend to violate the statute. You have to intend to obstruct justice. That’s the difficult piece to prove here. You need something on paper, or you need somebody who heard the president say something about what he was trying to do here, or you need him to tell you that. Right? Well, he’s not going to do that. And so, while it looks like it to all of us, that that’s what he was trying to do – you’ve got to get to that intent part, and that’s what’s hard from a criminal perspective.
Makes sense.

_________________
Quote:
I carry, along with my three survival knives, a pocketful of flash-bangs. Good for active shooter incidents and for running into your mistress while with the wife.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:01 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Posts: 6730
is there a section where he says, "lock her up"?

_________________
Quote:
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:31 am 
Offline
Lifetime IGer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Posts: 20035
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Looks like we're not getting out of the 'worst deal ever.'
Quote:
The U.S. Congress will allow a deadline on reimposing sanctions on Iran to pass this week, congressional and White House aides said on Tuesday, leaving a pact between world powers and Tehran intact at least temporarily.

In October, Trump declined to certify that Iran was complying with the nuclear agreement reached among Tehran, the United States and others in 2015. His decision triggered a 60-day window for Congress to decide whether to bring back sanctions on Iran.

Congressional leaders have announced no plans to introduce a resolution to reimpose sanctions before Wednesday’s deadline and aides say lawmakers will let the deadline pass without action.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran ... E62HP?il=0

_________________
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline
Lifetime IGer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm
Posts: 10453
Not a huge fan of Fox and the GOP trying to undermine confidence in the FBI.

_________________
//:=)


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 330 posts ]  Go to page Previous 110 11 12 13 14

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited