Napolitano: It's 'Unheard Of' for FBI #2 Official to Request Immunity Before Testifying

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So why does it have to be just the Russians.  The Hillary campaign was colluding with a UK spy who was in turn colluding with Russian sources.  Does that qualify in your opinion of further scrutiny by the FBI?  If so, where was it?

It's really that simple. 

[Dashinka 23,234]

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'd have to review the timing of when the FBI found out about Steele, and his connection with Hillary's campaign. 

 

Also, like it or not, I believe our intelligence agencies act differently when someone is working with a UK National versus a Russian National. Our relationship, at least up until now, has been quite different with the UK versus Russia. Though with the way Trump is shifting his allegiances that may change. I don't believe that standard was established in the last campaign. My guess is we have been more suspicious of connections with Russia since, I don't know, perhaps the Cold War? 

Steele, after gathering information, took it directly to the FBI. That seems like an entirely appropriate thing to do. While yes he may have learned his information from Russian sources while under the payroll of Clinton (after his group was first payrolled by conservatives), but in this situation his source of funding is less important than the actual information he uncovered. He did what a responsible intelligence operative should do - Forward it to the government organization that can try to confirm the information and investigate further.

So since it was a UK spy working with the Russians that is fine. Must be those "good" Russians.  Btw, foreign is foreign.

 

Steele took it to the FBI since he knew how politicized it was ala Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, etc., with all their secret political plans and alternatives to "save" the country.  Washington insiders at its best. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Penguin_ie 5,984]

****** several posts removed for TOS violations (personal attacks, bickering) or quoting same.  Be civil or do not post ******

[jb914 33]

On 6/13/2018 at 11:36 AM, Bill & Katya said:

So since it was a UK spy working with the Russians that is fine. Must be those "good" Russians.  Btw, foreign is foreign.

This is a false equivalency. The US has allies, and the US has adversaries.

 

US and UK intelligence agencies historically work together very closely. A former UK MI6 agent conducting private oppo research for a US political party, is not equivalent to an active Russian Intelligence Operation directed by the Kremlin to disrupt or alter the outcome of a US election.

 

For the most part, US Allies support the international order that the US has built since the end of World War II. NATO members tend to support Free and Open Elections, Relatively Free Trade and Markets, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, respect for Rule of Law (as opposed to rampant official corruption and kleptocracy) and Human Rights. One can most definitely point to US shortcomings on these matters, but objectively the US and Nato allies are less corrupt and more open and free than are totalitarian regimes.

[Dashinka 23,234]

5 minutes ago, jb914 said:

This is a false equivalency. The US has allies, and the US has adversaries.

 

US and UK intelligence agencies historically work together very closely. A former UK MI6 agent conducting private oppo research for a US political party, is not equivalent to an active Russian Intelligence Operation directed by the Kremlin to disrupt or alter the outcome of a US election.

 

For the most part, US Allies support the international order that the US has built since the end of World War II. NATO members tend to support Free and Open Elections, Relatively Free Trade and Markets, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, respect for Rule of Law (as opposed to rampant official corruption and kleptocracy) and Human Rights. One can most definitely point to US shortcomings on these matters, but objectively the US and Nato allies are less corrupt and more open and free than are totalitarian regimes.

Foreign is foreign.  This was not two allied spy agencies working together, this was a campaign laundering campaign research payments through a law firm to a private foreign agent albeit from a allied country who in turn went to work with agents/sources from an unfriendly country to dig up or manufacture dirt for a political campaign.

 

 

[jb914 33]

10 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

a campaign laundering campaign research payments through a law firm to a private foreign agent albeit from a allied country who in turn went to work with agents/sources from an unfriendly country to dig up or manufacture dirt for a political campaign.

 

 

There seems to be some confusion surrounding two terms here, foreign agent and laundering.

 

1. US citizens and residents are required to register as Foreign Agents if they are representing the interests of a Foreign Government, which Steele was not.

 

Here, Steele's Fusion GPS firm was contracting on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, which is in no way shape or form illegal. All major political parties and presidential campaigns hire contractors to perform research. This would only be comparable to what Meuller is investigating, if the UK had directed an intelligence operation to alter the course of the US Election, which obviously it did not.

 

2. "Laundering" refers to concealing the origins of profits from criminal enterprises so as to make them appear legitimate. Using campaign contributions for political research is not "money laudering."

[Dashinka 23,234]

15 minutes ago, jb914 said:

There seems to be some confusion surrounding two terms here, foreign agent and laundering.

 

1. US citizens and residents are required to register as Foreign Agents if they are representing the interests of a Foreign Government, which Steele was not.

 

Here, Steele's Fusion GPS firm was contracting on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, which is in no way shape or form illegal. All major political parties and presidential campaigns hire contractors to perform research. This would only be comparable to what Meuller is investigating, if the UK had directed an intelligence operation to alter the course of the US Election, which obviously it did not.

 

2. "Laundering" refers to concealing the origins of profits from criminal enterprises so as to make them appear legitimate. Using campaign contributions for political research is not "money laudering."

No confusion.  If this was so on the up and up in the Hillary campaign, then why funnel the payments to Steele through Perkins Coie calling it legal services and simply pay him direct from the campaign and call it what it was campaign research.  Btw, Steele does not own Fusion GPS as you implied.

 

The upshot is that we have actual evidence of one campaign colluding with foreign agents including the Russians to impact the election, which may be only a very minor crime, and the other under a continuous investigation that doesn’t seem to have an end and so far has found nothing material with the exception of some periphrial actors with process crimes and one fraud case that occurred years prior to the election.  If this is how we are going to proceed with all future elections then fine, we can vote on a president and a special prosecutor at the same time.  The special prosecutor election can be by popular vote to make everyone happy.

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

No confusion.  If this was so on the up and up in the Hillary campaign, then why funnel the payments to Steele through Perkins Coie calling it legal services and simply pay him direct from the campaign and call it what it was campaign research.  Btw, Steele does not own Fusion GPS as you implied.

 

The upshot is that we have actual evidence of one campaign colluding with foreign agents including the Russians to impact the election, which may be only a very minor crime, and the other under a continuous investigation that doesn’t seem to have an end and so far has found nothing material with the exception of some periphrial actors with process crimes and one fraud case that occurred years prior to the election.  If this is how we are going to proceed with all future elections then fine, we can vote on a president and a special prosecutor at the same time.  The special prosecutor election can be by popular vote to make everyone happy.

What is your definition of a "foreign agent", because I don't think it is the standard one?

 

A "foreign agent" is someone who is actively carrying out the interests of a foreign country while located in a host country. Steele wasn't a "foreign agent". He had prior experience working with the British government but I don't believe he was actively working for them at the time. He wasn't carrying out the interests of the United Kingdom in any capacity. He was working as an independent agent. The Clinton campaign worked with a "foreigner", but not a "foreign agent". Steele's contacts in Russia, to our knowledge, were also not "carrying out the interests" of Russia considering there is extensive separate evidence that it was in "Russia's interest" for Trump to be elected. So if anything his Russian contacts were doing exactly the opposite of "carrying out the interests" of their country. So again, no "foreign agents", just "foreigners".

 

Do you have a problem with people who work with foreigners?

 

EDIT: An example of a "foreign agent" would be Manafort. You don't even need to be a citizen of the foreign country.

Edited June 15, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 23,234]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

What is your definition of a "foreign agent", because I don't think it is the standard one?

 

A "foreign agent" is someone who is actively carrying out the interests of a foreign country while located in a host country. Steele wasn't a "foreign agent". He had prior experience working with the British government but I don't believe he was actively working for them at the time. He wasn't carrying out the interests of the United Kingdom in any capacity. He was working as an independent agent. The Clinton campaign worked with a "foreigner", but not a "foreign agent". Steele's contacts in Russia, to our knowledge, were also not "carrying out the interests" of Russia considering there is extensive separate evidence that it was in "Russia's interest" for Trump to be elected. So if anything his Russian contacts were doing exactly the opposite of "carrying out the interests" of their country. So again, no "foreign agents", just "foreigners".

 

Do you have a problem with people who work with foreigners?

 

EDIT: An example of a "foreign agent" would be Manafort. You don't even need to be a citizen of the foreign country.

In this context it is someone from a foreign country materially working for a US presidential campaign.  Maybe a “foreign actor” would be more appropriate.

 

I have no issues with people working with people from outside the US, I work with foreigners everyday.  So in this sense even if there is any evidence that the Trump team worked with a foreign agent as the Hillary team did then you would have no problem with that?

[jb914 33]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So in this sense even if there is any evidence that the Trump team worked with a foreign agent as the Hillary team did then you would have no problem with that?

Repeating something does not make it true. Again, Steele was not a "Foreign Agent." He was not carrying out the interests of a Foreign Government. He was an independent contractor.

 

On the other hand, Manafort and others associated with the Trump campaign were acting as Foreign Agents, and were not registered as such.

 

As for evidence, the Mueller investigation has already indicted 20 people, 3 companies, and secured 5 guilty pleas.

[bcking 3,157]

10 hours ago, jb914 said:

Repeating something does not make it true. Again, Steele was not a "Foreign Agent." He was not carrying out the interests of a Foreign Government. He was an independent contractor.

 

On the other hand, Manafort and others associated with the Trump campaign were acting as Foreign Agents, and were not registered as such.

 

As for evidence, the Mueller investigation has already indicted 20 people, 3 companies, and secured 5 guilty pleas.

This continues to somehow go over people's heads. Not just on these forums, but again at certain news outlets.

 

Steele was an independent contractor. The fact that he is British makes no difference. He could have been American, Canadian, Australia, French, or heck he could have been RUSSIAN. But he was independent. There is no evidence to suggest he was working in the interest of a foreign government. He was not a foreign agent.

 

People like Manafort, on the other hand...

[jb914 33]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

This continues to somehow go over people's heads. Not just on these forums, but again at certain news outlets.

 

Somehow, because of the ongoing Fox News counternarrative to reality, which sadly a good 40% of Americans seem to take as gospel.

 

Here John Oliver does an entertaining job unpacking the Trump Defense/ Fox News misinformation campaign. It comes down to the fact that impeachment is up to Congress, and Congress is at least supposed to answer to its constituents, so the Trump defense is aggressively trying to sway the public against the FBI and investigation (ironic since Mueller is himself a registered Republican). So it doesn't matter if Giuliani and company's statements have any basis in jurisprudence or reality- they just have to convince the public.

 

Its straight out some 2-bit banana republic dictator's playbook- smear the press, sear the investigators, attempt to discredit the entire FBI and National Security apparatus. Even any Republicans who question the administration's attacks on the FBI/National Security Agencies (like those Liberal diehards Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Trey Gowdy, Lindsay Graham, every one of them with any integrity) are labeled as part of the "conspiracy."

 

It's really astounding to witness.

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by jb914

[jg121783 3,907]

22 hours ago, jb914 said:

This is a false equivalency. The US has allies, and the US has adversaries.

 

US and UK intelligence agencies historically work together very closely. A former UK MI6 agent conducting private oppo research for a US political party, is not equivalent to an active Russian Intelligence Operation directed by the Kremlin to disrupt or alter the outcome of a US election.

 

For the most part, US Allies support the international order that the US has built since the end of World War II. NATO members tend to support Free and Open Elections, Relatively Free Trade and Markets, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, respect for Rule of Law (as opposed to rampant official corruption and kleptocracy) and Human Rights. One can most definitely point to US shortcomings on these matters, but objectively the US and Nato allies are less corrupt and more open and free than are totalitarian regimes.

Your right. Two seperate things. One of them actually happened and can be proven. The other one didn't and can't be proven.

13 hours ago, jb914 said:

Repeating something does not make it true. Again, Steele was not a "Foreign Agent." He was not carrying out the interests of a Foreign Government. He was an independent contractor.

 

On the other hand, Manafort and others associated with the Trump campaign were acting as Foreign Agents, and were not registered as such.

 

As for evidence, the Mueller investigation has already indicted 20 people, 3 companies, and secured 5 guilty pleas.

Don't forget the 2 ham sandwiches Mueller indicted that have as much to do with alleged Russian collusion as the people, companies and guilty pleas you are referring to.

[jb914 33]

13 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

The other one didn't and can't be proven.

To believe that, we have to take former KGB agent Vladamir Putin's word over that of the entire US Intelligence Community, all of whom agree that Putin ordered Russia's cyber campaign against Clinton and pro Trump.

 

Here is the DNI's own declassified report: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf stating as much, read for yourself.

 

In what reality are we to take the Kremlin's word over every that of every single US intelligence agency?

Edited June 16, 2018 by jb914

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

23 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Your right. Two seperate things. One of them actually happened and can be proven. The other one didn't and can't be proven.

 

 

     Both should be investigated and run their course to determine what can be proven or not.  I'm sure the next time a democrat is president and there are allegations of collusion with and/or interference by a foreign entity, you will be 110% behind a full investigation.

 

   Many have been calling for this investigation to end since day one. The same people still want Hillary prosecuted for pizza gate and giving uranium to Russia. Partisanship is great, until you are blinded by it. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Steeleballz