The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
"Less than two weeks before Donald Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination, his campaign chairman offered to provide briefings on the race to a Russian billionaire closely aligned with the Kremlin, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Paul Manafort made the offer in an email to an overseas intermediary, asking that a message be sent to Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate with whom Manafort had done business in the past, these people said.
"If he needs private briefings we can accommodate," Manafort wrote in the July 7, 2016, email, portions of which were read to The Washington Post along with other Manafort correspondence from that time."
Good hire.
Paul Manafort made the offer in an email to an overseas intermediary, asking that a message be sent to Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate with whom Manafort had done business in the past, these people said.
"If he needs private briefings we can accommodate," Manafort wrote in the July 7, 2016, email, portions of which were read to The Washington Post along with other Manafort correspondence from that time."
Good hire.
Adoptions. I never realized they were that serious of an international issue.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Is that next to Narnia?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
What does it say that the dumbest person ever to be President outsmarted the Democrats. It was a **** sandwich or a giant douche, maybe the problem is the 2 party monopoly or the fact that neither party is obligated by law to run fair primaries. The DNC has already admitted they could pick the nominee in a back room and votes mean nothing.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The Democratic Party's rules were designed to reduce the chances of someone like Bernie Sanders winning the nomination. In that sense they were effective.
But I share a lot of the frustration out there with the two party system. I used to be quite comfortable within the Republican Party. Now I consider myself politically homeless.
57Brave
Well-known member
It says and the pile of info grows daily , Trump didn't win.
What is at issue is how it gets rectified
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-objections/index.html
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump was formally certified as the winner of the presidential election Friday, after handful of congressman tried to object during the tally of Electoral College votes, a desperate gambit quickly squashed by Vice President Joe Biden.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i'd say about six cans short of a six-pack
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
That polling is interesting. I think 2018 is going to be very bad for the GOP, but Trump will be able to somewhat distance himself from it. I think the House will go to the Democrats, in a swing of possibly historic proportions. The math in the Senate is much more friendly to the Republicans and I think they will hold control there.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
That's when I predict things will get really bad. Mass protests that get really violent. I still can't help but think he will parallel Lincoln. Ride a big military victory into reelection. He seems to be playing a game of chicken with North Korea. If Kim Jong-un blinks first Trump is going to come off looking like gold. Maybe in the second term we get a media scandal accusing Trump of working with North Korea to get him reelected.
57Brave
Well-known member
Why did Trump name Manafort Campaign Manager ?
Why so many lies and perjured statements concerning Russian involvement ?
Why doesn't Trump support Mueller or Congressional investigations ?
To at least learn about Facebook
Er, no, it's most decidedly not. And putting aside for a moment the shocking depravity of that utterance, it's a fundamental part of the point I've been trying to make since my initial foray into this particular Matryoshkal **** show.
FISA warrants are issued in one year increments. The bar for a warrant to be granted, as I've said, is high (on paper) - but it's also important to note that the burden of probable cause in a FISA court is extremely low (e.g. instead of "is" a foreign agent, FISA accepts "may be" scenarios). We know the initial warrant was granted by the court in 2014, for surveillance from ~2014-2015. We don't know if surveillance was granted again sometime during 2015, but we do know that it was granted again sometime in 2016. That's at least two (possibly three) FISA wiretap warrant renewals. Let's ignore the Fifth Amendment issue here and deal with the known facts; 1) the government believes Paul Manafort is an agent of a foreign government 2) the government is building a case against Manafort 3) the government, despite stating to a FISA court that they have enough probable cause to believe Manafort is a criminal foreign agent, can't make a prosecutable case against Manafort despite years of eavesdropping material.
So, we can assume that either the court was given new, clear and compelling evidence about Manafort's activities each time it reviewed the 'renewal' warrant application, or that it wasn't, given that we don't know with any real certainty how FISA treats warrant renewals vs. original applications. I shouldn't neglect to mention the fact that FISA courts have denied somewhere in the neighborhood of ~0.3% of warrant cases brought before them.
It's not that I find the (original) warrant specious in and of itself, but rather that I find the jurisprudential approach of the renewing court(s) extremely suspect. That suspect behavior easily morphs into negligence when you consider things like incidental collection and the likelihood that Manafort was either working for, or heavily involved in the Trump campaign at the time he was wiretapped the second (or third) time.
And I don't know what comes after negligence when we earnestly consider something like civil liberties. Although, given that Manafort is your Russo-American collusion great white whale, I can understand why you'd be happy to temporarily sweep your convictions under a rug.