The Mueller report

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's apparent that you cannot answer a question. What precisely did Team Mueller say about Putin's plans regarding the Russian disinformation campaign represented by hildebeest's Steele dossier? Why can you not answer that question?

Volume I

Footnote 465

This footnote addresses a question that has been raised time and again, and which was echoed by Attorney General William Barr in his testimony to Congress on April 10: What was the basis, or predicate, for the Russia investigation?

The White House has claimed that the investigation was based on the “Steele Dossier,” an intelligence report compiled by a former British spy and financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which alleged that there were ties between Trump and the Kremlin. But in this footnote, Mueller explains the sequence and timing of events that gave rise to a credible threat to national security, warranting an investigation. First, Mueller notes earlier in the report that in July 2016, Wikileaks began disseminating emails stolen from the DNC. A few days later, the U.S. intelligence community assessed with “high confidence” that the Russian government had orchestrated the hack of these emails. Within a week of that release, a foreign government informed the FBI that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, told a representative of their government that Russia had offered to “assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Mueller states that this information “is contained in the case-opening document and related materials.” This means that it was these facts, not the Steele Dossier, which raised an open question on whether Russia had attempted or was trying to attempt to coordinate with members of the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and led to the official opening of an investigation.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Volume I

Footnote 465

This footnote addresses a question that has been raised time and again, and which was echoed by Attorney General William Barr in his testimony to Congress on April 10: What was the basis, or predicate, for the Russia investigation?

The White House has claimed that the investigation was based on the “Steele Dossier,” an intelligence report compiled by a former British spy and financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which alleged that there were ties between Trump and the Kremlin. But in this footnote, Mueller explains the sequence and timing of events that gave rise to a credible threat to national security, warranting an investigation. First, Mueller notes earlier in the report that in July 2016, Wikileaks began disseminating emails stolen from the DNC. A few days later, the U.S. intelligence community assessed with “high confidence” that the Russian government had orchestrated the hack of these emails. Within a week of that release, a foreign government informed the FBI that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, told a representative of their government that Russia had offered to “assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Mueller states that this information “is contained in the case-opening document and related materials.” This means that it was these facts, not the Steele Dossier, which raised an open question on whether Russia had attempted or was trying to attempt to coordinate with members of the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and led to the official opening of an investigation.

then why was the Steele dossier used as the main basis for the FISA warrants? you do know that the first attempt to obtain a warrant failed. yeah? then the next one relied on the Steele Dossier and was approved while not relieving that it was a political hack job as required? They clearly knew the Steele Dossier was a political opposition piece but kept that from the FISA court. that is a VIOLATION OF LAW.

you speak of all these many "crimes" by Trump and his campaign yet the facts are revealing that the real crimes were committed by the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign.

it has already been established that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th renew of the FISA warrant were illegally obtained. the first will also be found illegal as again the Steele Dossier was the main reason. Even Comey testified to that. When the first is ruled as obtained due to improper disclosure of the source then it all goes down like the Titanic.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Volume I

Footnote 465

This footnote addresses a question that has been raised time and again, and which was echoed by Attorney General William Barr in his testimony to Congress on April 10: What was the basis, or predicate, for the Russia investigation?

The White House has claimed that the investigation was based on the “Steele Dossier,” an intelligence report compiled by a former British spy and financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which alleged that there were ties between Trump and the Kremlin. But in this footnote, Mueller explains the sequence and timing of events that gave rise to a credible threat to national security, warranting an investigation. First, Mueller notes earlier in the report that in July 2016, Wikileaks began disseminating emails stolen from the DNC. A few days later, the U.S. intelligence community assessed with “high confidence” that the Russian government had orchestrated the hack of these emails. Within a week of that release, a foreign government informed the FBI that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, told a representative of their government that Russia had offered to “assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Mueller states that this information “is contained in the case-opening document and related materials.” This means that it was these facts, not the Steele Dossier, which raised an open question on whether Russia had attempted or was trying to attempt to coordinate with members of the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and led to the official opening of an investigation.

I'm just sayin'

[The_Waco_Kid]

if i was a compassionate person i'd feel sorry for the leftists so agitated by Trump. I mean, imagine the daily anguish of the left over Trump? how do they function every day under the oppressive dictatorial rule of Evil Lord Trump? it must be unbearable! but i'm not a compassionate person, i am in fact a "Me first and foremost" kinda person. So i don't give a shit about the left's angst .. over anything.

BAHHAHAHAAAAAAA

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

then why was the Steele dossier used as the main basis for the FISA warrants? you do know that the first attempt to obtain a warrant failed. yeah? then the next one relied on the Steele Dossier and was approved while not relieving that it was a political hack job as required? They clearly knew the Steele Dossier was a political opposition piece but kept that from the FISA court. that is a VIOLATION OF LAW.

you speak of all these many "crimes" by Trump and his campaign yet the facts are revealing that the real crimes were committed by the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign.

it has already been established that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th renew of the FISA warrant were illegally obtained. the first will also be found illegal as again the Steele Dossier was the main reason. Even Comey testified to that. When the first is ruled as obtained due to improper disclosure of the source then it all goes down like the Titanic.

Here we go again, you got proof of that crap then find someone to put together a grand jury and indict somebody. For two days in a row the courts are upholding the House committees demands that Putin’s punk releases information, he can take it to the Supreme Court if wants to. I believe John Roberts will be on the side of the law.
That was quite a spectacle he put on in the rose garden....very presidential

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Here we go again, you got proof of that crap then find someone to put together a grand jury and indict somebody. For two days in a row the courts are upholding the House committees demands that Putin’s punk releases information, he can take it to the Supreme Court if wants to. I believe John Roberts will be on the side of the law.
That was quite a spectacle he put on in the rose garden....very presidential

Take a few slides down the fire pole ,make sure you wipe it clean.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Here we go again, you got proof of that crap then find someone to put together a grand jury and indict somebody. For two days in a row the courts are upholding the House committees demands that Putin’s punk releases information, he can take it to the Supreme Court if wants to. I believe John Roberts will be on the side of the law.
That was quite a spectacle he put on in the rose garden....very presidential

No ... here you go again ...

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by bambino

Take a few slides down the fire pole ,make sure you wipe it clean.

good thing he's not a female firefighter .. those snail tracks are Hell to clean off!


BAHHAHAHAHAAAAA

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Volume I

Footnote 465

This footnote addresses a question that has been raised time and again, and which was echoed by Attorney General William Barr in his testimony to Congress on April 10: What was the basis, or predicate, for the Russia investigation?

The White House has claimed that the investigation was based on the “Steele Dossier,” an intelligence report compiled by a former British spy and financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which alleged that there were ties between Trump and the Kremlin. But in this footnote, Mueller explains the sequence and timing of events that gave rise to a credible threat to national security, warranting an investigation. First, Mueller notes earlier in the report that in July 2016, Wikileaks began disseminating emails stolen from the DNC. A few days later, the U.S. intelligence community assessed with “high confidence” that the Russian government had orchestrated the hack of these emails. Within a week of that release, a foreign government informed the FBI that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, told a representative of their government that Russia had offered to “assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Mueller states that this information “is contained in the case-opening document and related materials.” This means that it was these facts, not the Steele Dossier, which raised an open question on whether Russia had attempted or was trying to attempt to coordinate with members of the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and led to the official opening of an investigation.

Yet McCabe swore under oath before Congress that their evidence was so feeble that the FISA Court rejected their applications until they included the Steele dossier and its circular-form from Yahoo news article. And whose "timeline"? Comey's? New evidence emerging is proving "Comey's timeline" is a lie. Why did Comey, et al, find it necessary to lie about the timeline?

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Here we go again, you got proof of that crap then find someone to put together a grand jury and indict somebody. For two days in a row the courts are upholding the House committees demands that Putin’s punk releases information, he can take it to the Supreme Court if wants to. I believe John Roberts will be on the side of the law.
That was quite a spectacle he put on in the rose garden....very presidential

Yeah. McCabe's sworn testimony before Congress. McCabe made the statement under oath that the FISA warrants couldn't have been secured without the Steele dossier.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yet McCabe swore under oath before Congress that their evidence was so feeble that the FISA Court rejected their applications until they included the Steele dossier and its circular-form from Yahoo news article. And whose "timeline"? Comey's? New evidence emerging is proving "Comey's timeline" is a lie. Why did Comey, et al, find it necessary to lie about the timeline?



Yeah. McCabe's sworn testimony before Congress. McCabe made the statement under oath that the FISA warrants couldn't have been secured without the Steele dossier.

Footnote 112

On June 8, 2017, then FBI Director James Comey stated in his testimony to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that information contained in the Steele Dossier was “salacious and unverified.” Comey’s words have since been interpreted as referring to the entirety of the raw intelligence provided in the Steele Dossier — and thereby tainting any portion of the investigation in which it might have been used. As noted above, there is no evidence that the Steele Dossier was used to open the investigation, and it’s not clear how much of the report, if any, was used to obtain things like FISA orders. But to whatever extent it was used, Mueller takes pains to note here that Comey’s testimony referred to a specific piece of the Steele Dossier, namely the “reporting’s unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.” This footnote makes clear that in his testimony, Comey was not characterizing any other portion of the dossier, other than those that refer to potentially compromising tapes on President Trump, as being “unverified.” This means that there may well have been portions of the Dossier that were verified early on in the Russia investigation (and much of it has been corroborated in public reporting since), and could have been a legitimate source of raw intelligence for the FBI in its investigation.K

[Jaxson66]

Footnote 1091

This is perhaps the most consequential footnote in Mueller’s report. In this section, Mueller dismantles Trump’s lawyers’ argument that the president cannot, legally speaking, obstruct justice. It is here, while forcefully making the claim that Congress indeed can hold the president accountable for obstruction of justice, that Mueller adds a telling a footnote emphasizing that “[a] possibility remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office.” What Mueller is saying here is that impeachment and criminal prosecution are independent processes which vindicate different interests. Therefore, even Congress removing Trump from office would not preclude the same evidence from being used in a criminal prosecution — which could result in a jail sentence for a former President of the United States.

Mango Mussolini needs a new game plan, anytime he’s in doubt he runs in circles shits and shouts. He’s a disgrace to the office..

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Footnote 112

On June 8, 2017, then FBI Director James Comey stated in his testimony to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that information contained in the Steele Dossier was “salacious and unverified.” Comey’s words have since been interpreted as referring to the entirety of the raw intelligence provided in the Steele Dossier — and thereby tainting any portion of the investigation in which it might have been used. As noted above, there is no evidence that the Steele Dossier was used to open the investigation, and it’s not clear how much of the report, if any, was used to obtain things like FISA orders. But to whatever extent it was used, Mueller takes pains to note here that Comey’s testimony referred to a specific piece of the Steele Dossier, namely the “reporting’s unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.” This footnote makes clear that in his testimony, Comey was not characterizing any other portion of the dossier, other than those that refer to potentially compromising tapes on President Trump, as being “unverified.” This means that there may well have been portions of the Dossier that were verified early on in the Russia investigation (and much of it has been corroborated in public reporting since), and could have been a legitimate source of raw intelligence for the FBI in its investigation.K

But everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that that is a bald face lie. Not a solitary FISA warrant was obtained without hildebeest's foreign sourced Steele dossier and its bastard offshoot circulated in the lib-retard press: "circular intelligence". And McCabe swore under oath in front of Congress that hildebeest's foreign sourced Steele dossier was absolutely necessary to obtain those FISA warrants -- each and every damn one of them!

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that that is a bald face lie. Not a solitary FISA warrant was obtained without hildebeest's foreign sourced Steele dossier and its bastard offshoot circulated in the lib-retard press: "circular intelligence". And McCabe swore under oath in front of Congress that hildebeest's foreign sourced Steele dossier was absolutely necessary to obtain those FISA warrants -- each and every damn one of them!

Give it up IB, Jaxson is simply playing semantics at this point to be argumentative.

The "investigation" into Trump began as soon as he became more than a fly on the wall.

And even the special counsel "investigation" into Russian interference is outside much of that. The turn into a Trump "witch hunt", is however as you keep pointing out a far different story. It had no legs without the FISA warrants predicated on false information and innuendo.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that that is a bald face lie. Not a solitary FISA warrant was obtained without hildebeest's foreign sourced Steele dossier and its bastard offshoot circulated in the lib-retard press: "circular intelligence". And McCabe swore under oath in front of Congress that hildebeest's foreign sourced Steele dossier was absolutely necessary to obtain those FISA warrants -- each and every damn one of them!

The average weight of a human brain is three pounds , those who only have an ounce of intelligence believe that Mueller, Comey, the FBI, the CIA, foreign agencies, and Tillerson are lying and only trump tells the truth. Hannity has been barking that conspiracy for sometime. My all time Handjob Hannity favorite is the Seth Rich conspiracy.
Andrew McCabe is probably the one holding the counter intelligence file that has been growing for two years from the Mueller investigations. The same guy who testified there wasn’t any spying. The same guy Hannity and Limbaugh were just dissing days ago.
I’m sure your hate for Obama is equal to my hate for trump. Take eccie users advice and give it up. You lack solid evidence.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Andrew McCabe is probably the one holding the counter intelligence file that has been growing for two years from the Mueller investigations. ......
I’m sure your hate for Obama is equal to my hate for trump. Take eccie users advice and give it up. You lack solid evidence.

You HAVE NO EVIDENCE! Just your own mindless drivel of "probably" and "I'm sure"!

BTW: When did you finish the "Mueller Report" in its ENTIRETY?

Where is BigTex when YOU need him? He could see hundreds of feet under the sand 6,000 to 7,000 miles over the horizon from Houston, Texas! Of course that was almost 20 years ago, so perhaps his eyesight has FADED NOW.