Jump to content
The Education Forum

Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

"But did you not notice that over this past summer legal arguments were advanced in the mainstream media holding that “probable cause” to engage total surveillance on any American, and all of his or her associates, could be met solely by hearsay evidence as long as it was endorsed by an authority figure?"

Citation please.

 

Andrew McCarthy’s dissection of the Steele Dossier and its misuse in creating waves of suspicion directed against persons associated with the Trump administration  was published last summer. It received a lot of attention as it undercut many common assumptions, particularly as articulated through the mainstream media. McCarthy argued that the Steele Dossier relied heavily on hearsay evidence, largely unverified at the time it was used to secure a FISA warrant directed at Carter Page.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/

This prompted a pushback of legal arguments in the press to counter McCarthy’s points, seekingt to portray the granting of the FISA warrant as normal and justified - including the reliance on hearsay:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666

former officials say the use of hearsay is common in warrant applications, because the FBI wants to tell the judge as much as possible about what is known about the target. No judge, however, would grant a surveillance warrant based entirely on hearsay…”

Here is a similar opinion, from a legal panel writing for The Daily Beast:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-would-have-been-derelict-not-to-use-the-steele-dossier-for-the-carter-page-fisa-warrant?ref=author

The reason why hearsay information is permitted in warrant applications is simple: it is hard enough for law enforcement to develop sources who can infiltrate criminal organizations or foreign threats to our national security.  If the FBI were required to not only learn of the information from its own sources but also confirm that information with the sub-sources, it would not be able to do its job.  Instead, the FBI is legally entitled to rely upon the assertions of a previously credible source, such as Steele, in relaying information from other sub-sources to whom the FBI does not have direct access.“

McCarthy argues that Steele is not, in fact, a “source”, rather a “purveyor” of collected information consisting mostly of second hand hearsay from unidentified persons. McCarthy argues the FBI was required to properly vet or  verify the information. The legal team writing for Daily Beast argue that verification is simply a technical matter:

Under FISA, ‘verification’ simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation.”   

That is, under this technical standard, the hearsay evidence described in the warrant application needs to correspond with the obtained hearsay evidence as appears in the Steele Dossier. Then it is considered “verified”. The panel then argues that because the FBI asserts Steele is "credible", then the use of hearsay presented to the judges is "legally entitled".

This leads back to the reassurance that “no judge would grant a surveillance warrant based entirely on hearsay.” The claim is made  other evidence unrelated to the dossier corroborates the dossier’s main allegations (and) is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. “ But this can be considered a very disingenuous argument, and I’ll follow up on that.

If interested in these issues, it is worthwhile reading McCarthy’s piece followed by the two rebuttals, and weigh the conflicting legal arguments yourself.

Here is a description of what was in the Steele Dossier at the time of the first FISA application:

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/an-updated-trump-dossier-cheat-sheet-by-publius-tacitus.html#more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

It’s generally understood that Martin Luther King’s civil rights were grossly violated by an FBI-led surveillance regime generated by suspicion of communist infiltration conjured by King’s association with Stanley Levison. It was recognized as these abuses were uncovered that suspicion, in itself, could be subject to pre-existing bias or malicious intent, and could not stand as legal justification for violation of civil rights. That history informs consideration of how Trump campaign associate Carter Page became subject to a FISA warrant which permitted the FBI to engage in full electronic surveillance of him and his associates.

Representative Adam Schiff stressed that the FISA probable cause requirement, in the warrant application directed at Carter Page, was met by demonstrating four points: evidence of Russian election interference; Russian links to Trump campaign officials; Page’s history with Russian intelligence; Page’s suspicious activities in 2016.  The first two points have no direct connection to the targeted suspect, and the fourth point refers to the hearsay evidence as appears in the Steele Dossier.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

The third point refers to events from 2013. Carter Page had longstanding legitimate business activity in Russia tied to the energy industry. In 2013, he was in contact in the US with Russians who were, unknown to him, suspected espionage agents. He was interviewed by the FBI, and at no time was he described as under suspicion or uncooperative. This apparently benign activity will be later spun at the FISA court as “contact” with “Russian intelligence.”  This appears to be the sole “corroborating” evidence in addition to the Steele Dossier hearsay. McCarthy makes good case that it is, and nothing referred by Schiff infers secret as yet unrevealed information beyond the aforementioned four points.

FBI agent describes Page (Male1) in 2013, see page 13: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0126_spyring2.pdf

McCarthy dissects Schiff’s House report:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/

Using online search engines, a simple search for Carter-Page-Russian-espionage-2013 will bring up dozens of mainstream media news stories which paint Page’s contacts in 2013 in the most sinister terms, when in fact the record is completely benign.

Schiff also claims that FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign, but the allegations against Page are concerned with exactly the Trump campaign’s supposed Russian links, as confirmed by the fact two of the four points supporting probable cause have to do with these supposed links and the Trump campaign, not with Page.

It does appear that a warrant to conduct full surveillance on a US citizen was granted largely on the basis of hearsay evidence, and that there are ongoing efforts, not least in the mainstream media, to justify and normalize these practices. The issues are compounded by the fact the targeted individual had links to a then current presidential campaign, which may have been the true target of the surveillance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rob Couteau said:

During the primary debates she referred to war criminal Henry Kissinger as her "mentor." That tells you all you need to know about how despicable she is.

He may be her mentor, but he actively advises Trump, in and out of White House all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

He may be her mentor, but he actively advises Trump, in and out of White House all the time.

Is this claim by Andrew Prutsok true?

If so, how can someone give Trump a thumbs up and Hillary Clinton a thumbs down for the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Is this claim by Andrew Prutsok true?

Kissinger, a longtime Putin confidant, sidles up to Trump

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-kissinger-russia-putin-232925

Did Henry Kissinger Say Donald Trump Is the ‘One True Leader’?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/henry-kissinger-trump-one-true-leader/

Henry Kissinger didn’t press Donald Trump to work with Russia to ‘box in’ China, institute says

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2165108/henry-kissinger-didnt-press-donald-trump-work-russia-box-china

51 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

If so, how can someone give Trump a thumbs up and Hillary Clinton a thumbs down for the same thing?

Because these Trump apologists are naive and under-informed.

Hillary wouldn't have hired John Bolton or dropped out of the Iran nuke deal.  Under Trump we have both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Andrew McCarthy’s dissection of the Steele Dossier and its misuse in creating waves of suspicion directed against persons associated with the Trump administration  was published last summer. It received a lot of attention as it undercut many common assumptions, particularly as articulated through the mainstream media. McCarthy argued that the Steele Dossier relied heavily on hearsay evidence, largely unverified at the time it was used to secure a FISA warrant directed at Carter Page.

That isn't news.  Steele said the material was unverified.  The FISA judges were all Republican.  James Comey and Robert Mueller -- Republican.

To claim that these investigations are politically motivated is ridiculous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that there is a deep state coup against someone implies that underhanded stuff has been done to bring someone down.

Most of us know how that worked around JFK and LHO -- they blew JFK's brains out of his head, set a patsy up to take the fall, fabricated incriminating evidence, ignored or altered exculpatory evidence,  bullied, threatened, perhaps even killed, etc.

The only claim I've seen that anything like this has been the case in the current special counsel investigation of 2016 Russian meddling and collusion in the campaign, is claims by people that the Deep State used flimsy evidence to get a FISA warrant.  What part of these cases hinges on what James Comey, McCabe, Strozk or Page say (apart from potential obstruction)? I'd like to see evidence of how what the FBI did made Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort meet with Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton? How did they make Roger Stone reach out to Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks about hacked Democratic emails? These are things the president's men did on their own. 

Also, I'd bet anything I could get my hands on that the president and his tower -- which is like little Moscow -- have been under fed surveillance since the 1980s, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2019 at 12:58 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I guess that mentorship helped her in the Libya debacle

Jim, This was Bernie's response in the follow-up debate (link below): ""She talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger," Bernie Sanders said. "Now, I find it kind of amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country." (Link below.) Just imagine what the mentoring consisted of. Genocide 101. Overthrowing Democratically Elected Governments. Torture as an Effective Tool of Political Repression. Etc.

 

 

Edited by Rob Couteau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

If you are still working under the premise that the DNC emails were "hacked" then you are about 2 years behind what actually happened.

The emails were leaked, not hacked.

If you would like to understand in painfully detailed forensic detail, read this. NSA whistleblower Bill Binney has been the spokesperson for much of the effort to spread the truth about how wikileaks obtained the DNC emails. Alternatively, continue to rely on the Washington Post and NY Times, which as you know, is still backing the Oswald was a loan nut narrative, 55 years later.

Why is it important to "correct the record" with respect to how the DNC emails were transferred to Wikileaks?

It is important because if it was a "leak" then it was an inside job. The Russian narrative is blown out of the water. There was no hack.

How does Bill Binney and his team know it was a leak?

Because the transfer speeds for the emails can only be obtained via a Thumbdrive. A hacker could not have moved that many emails in that little time over the Internet.

How else do we know the emails were leaked and not hacked?

Friggin' Julian Assange Says He's 1,000% Sure Russia Didn't Hack the DNC's Emails

So "who leaked the emails" any curious person, without an agenda, would ask?

You know his name.

 

No I don’t - who? Btw not saying I disagree with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Roger Stone Handed Gag Order for Posting Judge Photo With Crosshairs: 'You Apparently Need Clear Boundaries'

https://www.newsweek.com/roger-stone-judge-impose-gag-order-1339919

As he should. But the damage is done, and an apology is meaningless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

 

Music was better when we all thought the Russians were going to drop a bomb on our heads at any time.

At the 3:33 mark -- "USSR Gone Too Far" -- a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  Lyrics by yours truly.  Rudimentary recording.

Quote

 

In other news, we are down to 2 Monkees as Peter Tork has died.

RIP Peter Tork.  My favorite Monkee's song:

 

Quote

Reminded me of The Meatmen song "1 Down 3 to Go."

A John Lennon assassination song.

Hard to top the callous savagery of The Meatmen.  I'll counter with a Ronnie Reagan assassination attempt tune:

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Lyndon LaRouche played a key role in my letter to Special Counsel Mueller:

Lyndon LaRouche, Cult Figure Who Ran for President 8 Times, Dies at 96

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/obituaries/lyndon-larouche-dead.html

Remember how ridiculed and villified he was in the 80s? He would be considered a Walter Cronkite along side the likes of Alex Jones, Breitbart, the daily caller and the other deranged sites Mr. Wheeler is pointing people to defend someone who could well be an actual agent of a foreign power.

 

And incidentally, Larouche reported Russians were recruiting and grooming Donald Trump for the presidency...in 1987.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

If you are still working under the premise that the DNC emails were "hacked" then you are about 2 years behind what actually happened.

The emails were leaked, not hacked.

If you would like to understand in painfully detailed forensic detail, read this. NSA whistleblower Bill Binney has been the spokesperson for much of the effort to spread the truth about how wikileaks obtained the DNC emails.

Not so fast!

A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review

Conclusion: Good-faith efforts to parse the available data to provide insight into the unlawful extraction of documents from the DNC in 2016 are admirable and necessary. All parties, however, must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses. Walking nontechnical readers down any narrative path that cannot be directly supported by evidence must be avoided. At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved. [/q]

Russia Indictment 2.0: What to Make of Mueller’s Hacking Indictment

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment

This indictment...offers a potential factual breakthrough. It tells us that the prior factual premise was wrong: the alleged conduct violating the CFAA continued to occur throughout the summer of 2016. That affects the earlier analysis in two ways. First, it makes clear that the Russians did intend to release the information at the time the hacking occured. Second, and perhaps more important, the indictment alleges that the criminal hacking conspiracy was ongoing at the time individuals in the Trump campaign were in contact with charged and uncharged Russian conspirators, raising the possibility of more straightforward aiding and abetting liability.

In other words, stay tuned. This indictment represents a tightening of the ring in the story of criminal prosecution for the 2016 election hacking. The government has now alleged that the social media manipulations by Russian actors constituted a criminal conspiracy. It has alleged as well that the hacking of Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails were crimes conducted by officers of the Russian state. The question remains: Who, if anyone, helped? [/q]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...