HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Taylor and Mensch now rep...

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:08 PM

Taylor and Mensch now report, based on separate sources, a sealed indictment against DT.

Last edited Sat May 13, 2017, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

First there was this:





And now this:

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/14/exclusive-sealed-indictment-granted-against-donald-trump/

By Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor

Separate sources with links to the intelligence and justice communities have stated that a sealed indictment has been granted against Donald Trump.

While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted, sources say that the indictment is intended by the FBI and prosecutors in the Justice Department to form the basis of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. The indictment is, perhaps uniquely, not intended or expected to be used for prosecution, sources say, because of the constitutional position of the President.



149 replies, 12527 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 149 replies Author Time Post
Reply Taylor and Mensch now report, based on separate sources, a sealed indictment against DT. (Original post)
pnwmom May 2017 OP
pangaia May 2017 #1
cstanleytech May 2017 #89
womanofthehills May 2017 #132
cstanleytech May 2017 #135
MelissaB May 2017 #2
Feathery Scout May 2017 #3
melman May 2017 #4
Thomas Hurt May 2017 #5
chillfactor May 2017 #12
marylandblue May 2017 #6
Agschmid May 2017 #7
pnwmom May 2017 #22
moonscape May 2017 #8
ucrdem May 2017 #9
Comrade Donald May 2017 #10
jberryhill May 2017 #11
sheshe2 May 2017 #15
jberryhill May 2017 #16
Comrade Donald May 2017 #17
jberryhill May 2017 #77
Comrade Donald May 2017 #91
pnwmom May 2017 #20
jberryhill May 2017 #21
pnwmom May 2017 #23
jberryhill May 2017 #28
pnwmom May 2017 #42
jberryhill May 2017 #55
thesquanderer May 2017 #72
jberryhill May 2017 #74
thesquanderer May 2017 #79
jberryhill May 2017 #81
thesquanderer May 2017 #87
jberryhill May 2017 #88
thesquanderer May 2017 #90
jberryhill May 2017 #111
thesquanderer May 2017 #114
jberryhill May 2017 #115
thesquanderer May 2017 #117
jberryhill May 2017 #120
FBaggins May 2017 #144
sharedvalues May 2017 #39
jberryhill May 2017 #40
pnwmom May 2017 #48
jberryhill May 2017 #52
MelissaB May 2017 #25
jberryhill May 2017 #41
MelissaB May 2017 #45
snooper2 May 2017 #147
pnwmom May 2017 #54
jberryhill May 2017 #57
onenote May 2017 #70
jberryhill May 2017 #78
pnwmom May 2017 #92
onenote May 2017 #96
jberryhill May 2017 #100
jberryhill May 2017 #99
sharedvalues May 2017 #37
jberryhill May 2017 #49
sharedvalues May 2017 #62
jberryhill May 2017 #64
pnwmom May 2017 #50
jberryhill May 2017 #59
womanofthehills May 2017 #56
HopeAgain May 2017 #13
Zo Zig May 2017 #14
womanofthehills May 2017 #18
HopeAgain May 2017 #34
Mr. Ected May 2017 #19
jberryhill May 2017 #24
pnwmom May 2017 #27
jberryhill May 2017 #30
pnwmom May 2017 #33
jberryhill May 2017 #35
sharedvalues May 2017 #43
jberryhill May 2017 #61
DefenseLawyer May 2017 #26
pnwmom May 2017 #29
jberryhill May 2017 #32
DefenseLawyer May 2017 #47
jberryhill May 2017 #63
L. Coyote May 2017 #31
ucrdem May 2017 #38
MelissaB May 2017 #36
ucrdem May 2017 #44
jberryhill May 2017 #46
DefenseLawyer May 2017 #69
Oneironaut May 2017 #51
onenote May 2017 #53
Doodley May 2017 #58
jberryhill May 2017 #65
Charlotte Little May 2017 #107
jberryhill May 2017 #108
Charlotte Little May 2017 #110
jberryhill May 2017 #112
Charlotte Little May 2017 #113
jberryhill May 2017 #121
Charlotte Little May 2017 #136
jberryhill May 2017 #137
Charlotte Little May 2017 #139
jberryhill May 2017 #140
Charlotte Little May 2017 #141
jberryhill May 2017 #142
Charlotte Little May 2017 #143
Madam45for2923 May 2017 #125
snooper2 May 2017 #148
Mr. Ected May 2017 #66
jberryhill May 2017 #71
Mr. Ected May 2017 #73
jberryhill May 2017 #75
Qutzupalotl May 2017 #85
jberryhill May 2017 #86
mehrrh May 2017 #60
Honeycombe8 May 2017 #67
QC May 2017 #76
melman May 2017 #83
Doodley May 2017 #82
pnwmom May 2017 #95
Honeycombe8 May 2017 #102
pnwmom May 2017 #103
Honeycombe8 May 2017 #104
pnwmom May 2017 #105
Honeycombe8 May 2017 #126
pnwmom May 2017 #127
Honeycombe8 May 2017 #131
pnwmom May 2017 #133
pnwmom May 2017 #122
Honeycombe8 May 2017 #123
pnwmom May 2017 #124
jberryhill May 2017 #146
pnwmom May 2017 #149
jberryhill May 2017 #145
Blue_Roses May 2017 #68
AgadorSparticus May 2017 #80
flamingdem May 2017 #84
Dawson Leery May 2017 #93
Name removed May 2017 #94
lamp_shade May 2017 #97
Vinca May 2017 #98
Kahuna7 May 2017 #101
Kablooie May 2017 #106
Demsrule86 May 2017 #109
Foamfollower May 2017 #116
jberryhill May 2017 #118
Warren DeMontague May 2017 #134
YoungDemCA May 2017 #119
Feathery Scout May 2017 #128
pnwmom May 2017 #129
Feathery Scout May 2017 #130
Cattledog May 2017 #138

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:10 PM

1. So, impeach him than throw his ass in the clink!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #1)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:32 AM

89. You would need a shit ton of Repugnants in the House and Senate to agree to do that

and I suspect what they would is impeach in the House but they would fall just short in the Senate or in other words they will shield him like they shielded Bush jr, Cheney, Reagan and Bush Sr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #89)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:36 PM

132. Civil Rights Lawyer Andrew C. Laufer's take

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #132)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:07 PM

135. Ya if they all voted to shield him but if the majority in the House vote to impeach all they need

to do in the Senate is to tell the right ones to vote yes as well but they would withhold the one final one (probably one that is set to retire) that would be the one needed to cross the threshold and impeach him and they would then claim they really tried but because of the actions of a few they were unable to impeach him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:17 PM

2. K&R Your thread was up just before mine, so I'm deleting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:19 PM

3. No getting my hopes up just yet. Have more faith in the financial subpoenas. Follow the money!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:22 PM

4. Preposterous

Holy shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:25 PM

5. so what, even if true, you still have to have the GOP caucus willing to start the process...

They are not going to embarrass the party unless their seats are on the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #5)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:34 PM

12. if this is true....

then if the GOP caucus does nothing..then their seats will be in jeopardy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:29 PM

6. The Supremacy clause does not prohibit prosecution of a sitting president nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:31 PM

7. I'll believe it when I see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #7)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:53 PM

22. Of course. It's not proven yet. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:31 PM

8. As was pointed out in comments on this,

FISA issues warrants, not indictments. Indictments come from federal grand juries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:33 PM

9. I don't think the FISA court issues that kind of warrant

As I understand it their function is to issue search warrants, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:34 PM

10. From my 'Worst Week Ever' file

 

Jared, Ivanka...bring me two buckets of KFC.

This is going to be BIGLY. My impeachment will beat Nixon in the ratings. I PROMISE !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:34 PM

11. Complete Bullshit


The FISA court cannot issue indictments, and does not conduct criminal proceedings.

The FISA court is limited solely to reviewing surveillance warrant applications. It does not have the general powers of a US District Court. Any suggestion otherwise is from a stupid person or a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:41 PM

15. I would suggest you tread carefully with your comments.

It almost seems you are accusing the OP of stupidity and lying.

"Any suggestion otherwise is from a stupid person or a liar."


Maybe it is just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:43 PM

16. This is not some kind of mysterious question

What section of 28 USC grants the FISA court the authority to conduct criminal prosecutions.

This is not some kind of matter of opinion or religious belief. The jurisdiction of the court is there in black and white letters. It is limited to reviewing surveillance warrant applications.

If you believe otherwise, simply saying "taint so" doesn't cut it.

And, no, the OP is merely posting tweets saying such a thing. I have no doubt the OP accurately represents what was tweeted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:44 PM

17. Comrade, it's over

 

Rubles in the mail. No, sorry. Bitcoin in cloud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Donald (Reply #17)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:56 PM

77. Unlike anonymous bullshit artists...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #77)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:35 AM

91. Why? I pay high price for shade.

 

It's a fabulous investment. How else could I survive, what is it --118 days without 'good shade'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:51 PM

20. He probably got the part about the FISA court wrong. But James Comey himself

said that he has been coordinating his investigation with 2 prosecutors, including one in the Eastern District of Virginia. One of those prosecutors could have included a sealed indictment against Donald Trump along with other indictments.

We don't know how this will turn out. But Claude Taylor reported on the existence of two Grand Juries a couple weeks before , including one in the same district where Comey said he was working with a prosecutor. So this is plausible, though not proven by any means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #20)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:53 PM

21. Are you serious? A tweet is not that long

Do the words "sealed indictment has been issued against Trump by FISA court" appear on your screen when viewing the OP, or has my system been hacked in a most unusual way?

The blog post, noted above, is even worse.

That's a hell of a basic fact to get wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #21)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:55 PM

23. I had been focused on the statement in the Patribotics blog and just posted the tweets

for background. The 2nd tweet had just popped up and, yes, I didn't read it carefully.

And you are right, the FISA court part doesn't sound right. But I can believe here is a sealed indictment with Donald Trump's name on it, and that FBI agents are furious enough about Comey's ill-treatment to be leaking about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:58 PM

28. The Patribotics blog is even dumber


"While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted..."

As explained above, that is two pieces of bullshit rolled into one. The Supremacy Clause deals with jurisdictional issues as between the states and the federal government. If the president were charged with a federal crime, the Supremacy Clause has zip, zero, zilch to do with it.

Secondly, it is not at all a settled legal question as to whether or not a sitting president can be the subject of a federal criminal prosecution. So, absent authority otherwise, he certainly can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:05 PM

42. And yet there was no attempt made to criminally indict President Nixon.

The issue isn't settled law because there is no political will to do so. The impeachment process HAS been successfully used, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #42)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:12 PM

55. How is that relevant to the question?



There was no attempt made to criminally indict Clinton for perjury either. So what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:43 PM

72. What if it's a state (rather than federal) court issuing the indictment?

Might that somehow make it relevant to the supremacy clause?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #72)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:46 PM

74. Then what would the FISA court have to do with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #74)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:59 PM

79. One of the two sources said no court specified, so...

...in the event that the FISA reference is a mistake, my question was whether it would then be possible that the supremacy clause thing could be right, because it could be a state (rather the federal) court issuing the indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #79)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:03 AM

81. That does not cure the bullshit in the blog post


Oh, yeah, they immediately found out that it was obvious bullshit, so they "corrected" it.

The Supremacy Clause would still have nothing to do with it.

If Trump fulfilled his promise of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, he would be charged by the State of New York for murder. The Supremacy Clause would have no relevance, since the state would be charging him with a crime properly in their jurisdiction.

The Supremacy Clause does not stop prosecution of anyone for violating a state law properly within a state's jurisdiction. It is not relevant to a criminal indictment under a state law.

For example, when the State of Arizona wanted to enforce federal immigration law in their state courts, THAT was a supremacy clause question, since the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction for that.

There is no conceivable context in which the Supremacy Clause has any relevance to what they claim has happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #81)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:19 AM

87. I wonder if by "supremacy clause" he may have been (wrongly, I think) referring to...

...the kind of thing discussed in the link below, kindly provided by The Velveteen Ocelot elsewhere...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2016/11/09/can-a-president-trump-be-prosecuted-based-upon-allegations-of-past-misconduct/#700cf823491b

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #87)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:22 AM

88. The Supremacy Clause has absolutely nothing to do with it


This is what the "I wanna believe it" impulse does.

Faced with a piece of arrant bullshit in something one wants to believe, then one has to find a way to explain away the bullshit.

Perhaps God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. Or, maybe they are the remains of ancient creatures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #88)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:33 AM

90. I do not believe or disbelieve.

But neither do I want to allow reasonable "layman" errors to be used to rule out the possibility that the actual information (or something close to it) could possibly be true. Using an errantly worded supporting comment to "prove" the main thing is false is not proper logic either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #90)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:07 PM

111. Did I say there were no sealed indictments anywhere?

Sure, there may be.

But since that is not a claim subject to critical analysis, then all we got is a strong indication that these people don't know what they are talking about.

The "Supremacy Clause" thing is not a "layman's error" because it is so far from relevant that it is not even "wrong". The underlying premise - that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted - is not a settled question, so for a layman to say so in an "of course this is impossible" tone, is not a matter of some error in word selection. The premise is not even correct, and the bizarre reason for it is simply bizarre.



But if the sealed indictment is filed next to Obama's "real" birth certificate, then it doesn't help.

There are, out in the open, horrendous things this cretin has done, about which there are still idiots who do not quite grasp the enormity of the situation we are in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #111)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:27 PM

114. I assume you've seen this...?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029062661

He's owning up to at least some of the sloppiness, but it standing by the underlying premise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #114)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:31 PM

115. That would be a safe assumption


Although asking me whether I've seen a thread in which I have already posted is kind of an odd question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #115)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:56 PM

117. Sorry, I don't read every response or note every author.

I just happened to see that OP right after reading your reply to me and thought it was relevant. Sorry for the distraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #117)

Sun May 14, 2017, 04:02 PM

120. Here's are some good DU threads...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #120)

Sun May 14, 2017, 11:00 PM

144. Fitzmas is still coming!

You just have to have faith!

That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #21)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:04 PM

39. He corrected it in second tweet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #39)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:05 PM

40. Let me know when he corrects the abject nonsense on the blog

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #40)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:08 PM

48. And there's this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #48)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:10 PM

52. Ah, another tweet


Well, there you are.

I can find a tweet that supports any opinion whatsoever.

The only reason a grand jury would be involved in any relevant process would be to determine probable cause for a surveillance warrant.

But, hey, someone I never heard of made a tweet, so golly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #20)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:56 PM

25. I'm wondering that as well. Louise did NOT say FISA court granted the indictment in the article. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelissaB (Reply #25)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:05 PM

41. See my comments on the article


Catch up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #41)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:07 PM

45. Settle down, Bevis. I've read your snarky comments.

You don't have all of the answers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelissaB (Reply #45)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:33 AM

147. I have all the answers

 

And this is all bullshit LOL-

Speculation on fucking Twitter about the Twitler


Louise Mensch is trolling you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelissaB (Reply #25)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:11 PM

54. An attorney tweeted this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #54)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:14 PM

57. Yes, so?


An attorney tweeted that.

And?

It can convene a grand jury on any matter within its jurisdiction - i.e. whether there is probable cause to issue a surveillance warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #54)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:39 PM

70. Oh boy, an attorney tweeted!!

I don't tweet but I'm an attorney. And I say a FISA court cannot convene a grand jury. And unlike Mr. Laufer, a personal injury lawyer in a two person firm with no apparent expertise in anything remotely connected to FISA (his website identifies the following as his areas of practice: Auto Accidents; Construction Accidents;Slip & Fall Accidents; Elevator Accidents; Civil Rights Law; Employment Law; Malpractice Law; Personal Injury; Wrongful Death; Real Estate Litigation; Wrongful Imprisonment; Police Brutality Cases), I'll point to the statute that authorizes the creation and defines the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and which nowhere gives this court the authority to do anything but act on surveillance warrants: 18 USC 1803.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #70)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:57 PM

78. What's amazing is...


There are several attorneys on DU. You and I have even disagreed on stuff before.

Every attorney on DU who has posted on this agrees it is bullshit.

But, yeah, someone with "Esq" on Twitter said something, so....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #70)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:51 AM

92. James Comey said that he is working with 2 Federal prosecutors, including one

in Virginia. How do you know that evidence from a FISA search wasn't used by one of those prosecutors in a Grand Jury proceeding?

Louise Mensch's blog post said nothing about a FISA court, by the way. Only Taylor said that in one of his tweets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #92)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:28 AM

96. Well, why doesn't the blog and tweet identify the courts where these indictments are emanating from?

Do you seriously think Dana Boente has been supervising a grand jury investigating Donald Trump? The same Dana Boente who accepted the appointment as acting attorney general when Sally Yates was fired. The guy who was willing to defend the immigration ban. The guy who two weeks ago was appointed, BY JEFF SESSIONS, to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division while still serving as US Attorney for the Eastern District. The guy that Sessions named to replace Mary McCord, who many here believed was forced out at DOJ because she knew too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #96)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:13 AM

100. How dare you post facts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #54)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:12 AM

99. And then deleted his account because he was so wrong:





Good source there, pnwmom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:04 PM

37. The FISA courts have certified question jurisdiction

If the grand jury had a question of law, that question could be heard by FISC or FISCR.

So federal grand jury issues indictments, but FISA courts are involved via certified question jurisdiction. That is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #37)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:09 PM

49. On issues of probable cause relating to surveillance warrants


Wake me when the arrests are made on the basis of a FISA court indictment.

After all, it won't be long, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #49)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:17 PM

62. A little more broad than that

But yes fair point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #62)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:20 PM

64. So, please, explain this to me


Are you saying that some other court submitted a certified question to FISA, which then used discretionary power (which certified question jurisdiction always is) to do.... what? Convene a grand jury to issue an indictment? On a certified question?

A certified question is a question of law, not fact, and does not require a jury of any kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #37)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:10 PM

50. And there was this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:15 PM

59. Okay, so


Let's say the FISA court has issued a sealed indictment as claimed.

When do you suppose the arrests will be made?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:13 PM

56. Louise Mensch says no issuing court specified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:35 PM

13. Claude and Louise ...

Woodward and Bernstein sorta?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:35 PM

14. Under clause

can claim federal immunity from state laws, I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:47 PM

18. Bill Palmer - the purpose of this indictment is to try to kickstart the impeachment process


Report: FISA court issues sealed indictment against Donald Trump

When it comes to political pundits who claim to have inside sources, I judge them by track record. Liberal pundit Claude Taylor’s sources have recently been proven right about Donald Trump grand juries. Conservative pundit Louise Mensch’s sources have long been proven right on Trump-Russia FISA warrants. So when the two of them say they each have different inside sources telling them the same thing, I listen. And what they’re jointly saying tonight is that a sealed indictment has been delivered against Donald Trump.

Let’s be clear here: this is not an indictment against a Donald Trump associate or adviser, or some other ancillary player. Taylor and Mensch are jointly stating tonight on Mensch’s site that the sealed indictment is against Donald Trump himself (link). The sitting President of the United States cannot be arrested by law enforcement or tried by the Judicial Branch. But as they explain, the purpose of this indictment is to try to kickstart the impeachment process in Congress.

That may sound unlikely, considering Trump’s own Republican Party has a majority in both the House and Senate. But my own stated view all along has been that if if damning enough evidence against Trump surfaces in the Russia scandal such that his approval rating falls far enough, the Congressional Republicans in moderate states and districts will have to consider moving forward with the impeachment process in order to protect their own chances of reelection in the midterms. In such case the GOP would put its own interests before Trump. And only around 10% of the Republicans in the House would need to join House Democrats to form the simple majority vote required to begin impeachment hearings.

I ran this evening’s report past a retired attorney, who found it legally valid on its face. So I find this credible, both from a logical standpoint, and more importantly, based on the fact that the inside sources of Mensch and Taylor have consistently proven to be correct. The news outlets that have been ignoring their sources have ended up being months late to important stories. Republican strategist Rick Wilson is vouching for them both this evening, based on their track record of inside sourcing (link). So now we see where this goes, but it’s clear things have accelerated in response to Trump’s firing of James Comey.
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/report-fisa-court-issues-sealed-indictment-against-donald-trump/2810/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #18)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:02 PM

34. Palmer too?

The triad of reliable news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:50 PM

19. So is this why we had half a dozen threads today condemning Mensch and Taylor?

Makes me wonder if DU has been visited by the disinformation squad.

Though I will admit that, until verified, this new information is nothing more than internet conjecture.

BUT DAMN. This is exciting nonetheless. Are we getting closer? Finally???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Ected (Reply #19)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:56 PM

24. Why do people always focus on personalities


Quite clearly, if the "FISA court issued an indictment" as claimed, then that fact would be true or false, regardless of whatever anyone says about those two people.

However, the claim on its face is stupid, since FISA doesn't have the authority to do such a thing in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #24)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:57 PM

27. Taylor said that in his tweet, but it was not repeated in the post in Mensch's Patribotics,

which he also signed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #27)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:59 PM

30. And yet, the blog is equally, if not more, legally fucked up


Please explain to me what the Supremacy Clause has to do with it, as suggested in the blog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:01 PM

33. I think that is just a layperson's way of acknowledging that the 3 branches are co-equal

and that the only way to get rid of a President is to impeach him and convict him in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #33)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:03 PM

35. Oh come on...

"Supremacy Clause" has an actual meaning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

"The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied."

You are talking about what every schoolchild knows to be "Separation of Powers".

The blog authors are using "fancy legal phrases" at random, to persuade dumb people they know what they are talking about.

The question of whether a sitting president can be the subject of a federal criminal prosecution has NOTHING to do with the Supremacy Clause, and is not even a settled question with a definite answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #24)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:06 PM

43. Taylor corrected.

Edited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #43)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:17 PM

61. Do you understand what certified question jurisdiction is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:57 PM

26. This is stupid.

 

If their "sources" don't know basic criminal procedure, I can only conclude that they aren't legitimate sources. The FISA court isn't issuing indictments, not now or ever. It's just attention grabbing blather.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #26)

Sat May 13, 2017, 10:58 PM

29. The report in Mensch's blog says nothing about a FISA court being involved.

=https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/14/exclusive-sealed-indictment-granted-against-donald-trump/

By Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor

Separate sources with links to the intelligence and justice communities have stated that a sealed indictment has been granted against Donald Trump.

While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted, sources say that the indictment is intended by the FBI and prosecutors in the Justice Department to form the basis of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. The indictment is, perhaps uniquely, not intended or expected to be used for prosecution, sources say, because of the constitutional position of the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #29)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:00 PM

32. Hey, Defenselawyer


"While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted..."

Do you want to try to explain that turd of a sentence? Because its obvious nonsense quotient appears to resist efforts to explain it to the folks who keep reposting it, but apparently have no idea what the Supremacy Clause is even about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #32)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:08 PM

47. The Supremacy Clause simple says federal law trumps state law.

 

These super secret sealed indictments are presumably coming from federal grand juries, so the Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with anything. It's like the old Damon Wayans character on "In Living Color" that tried to sound smart by saying all the big words he knew, but most of them turned out to be bodily functions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #47)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:18 PM

63. It's sad


It's the classic disinfo tactic. Put out so much bullshit information around the truth in order to obscure the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to L. Coyote (Reply #31)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:04 PM

38. I think they're talking to pissed-off Federal agents

who are feeding them a crock of sh#t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:03 PM

36. From an attorney: FISA court can convene a grand jury who can issue a true bill.

FISA court can convene a grand jury who can issue a true bill.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelissaB (Reply #36)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:06 PM

44. They rubberstamp eavesdropping warrants.

Maybe Cheato was right about Trump Tower eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelissaB (Reply #36)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:07 PM

46. It can empanel a grand jury to find probable cause to issue a warrant


Not an indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelissaB (Reply #36)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:35 PM

69. An attorney, on Twitter, that doesn't know what he's talking about

 

Prosecutors convene grand juries. The only thing the could does is provide the pool of jurors and a room and the court reporter. When the US attorney convenes a grand jury it is in Federal District Court. It would never be in the FISC. That court has a specific role, to approve warrants for surveillance of foreign agents inside the United States. There are no FISA grand juries and no FISA indictments. This is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:10 PM

51. lol Sorry, but this is pure fantasy.

Mensch is a click-baiting carnival barker. There really is absolutely nothing to see here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:11 PM

53. So we're to believe that Dana Boente is leading the charge against Trump

He's the US Attorney for the Eastern District. He also is the guy who accepted the appointment as acting attorney general when Sally Yates was fired. The guy who was willing to defend the immigration ban. The guy who two weeks ago was appointed, BY JEFF SESSIONS, to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division while still serving as US Attorney for the Eastern District. The guy that Sessions named to replace Mary McCord, who many here believed was forced out at DOJ because she knew too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:15 PM

58. Even if untrue, it's spreading across the Internet and will make Trump freak out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doodley (Reply #58)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:26 PM

65. For entertainment, I used to read the "birther" threads at FreeRepublic


And was always kind of surprised at the contingent that adopted that particular "Even if it isn't true..." it is somehow helpful for some purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #65)

Sun May 14, 2017, 02:51 PM

107. Jesus

The claim that there is an indictment against Trump is nowhere in the vicinity of the bullshit that the birther lie Trump championed is.

I can't face-palm you enough. If I or anyone else wants to read Mensch and Taylor, it's really NOYDB.

I personally hope their right even if they get the details all squirrelly. In the meantime, I follow them on twitter just as I follow Maddow and O'Donnell. I'm a big girl, all grown up and capable of deciding for myself what I think is possible and what's not. Has nothing to do with it being "helpful for some purpose."

I would imagine I'm not alone on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #107)

Sun May 14, 2017, 02:55 PM

108. The initial claim, before it was changed in view of it being a howler


Was that the FISA Court had issued an indictment. That claim is nonsense on its face.

The secondary claim that "While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted..." is still nonsense, for reasons I've posted about.

So, you have an indefinite claim, bundled with two things that are objectively nonsense. The indefinite claim may have some sort of truth behind it, but the only apparent thing at the moment is the nonsense which accompanied it.

It's like the "Arrests Are Possible Tomorrow" sensation a few days back. Well, yeah, sure, arrests are possible any time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #108)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:06 PM

110. Forest, not the trees, jberryhill

I'll try again.

It's. None. Of. Your. Damn. Business. - if people like me want to follow L&M and speculate on whether they may be correct or may be tripping on the same batch of acid.

I'm not arguing your insistence that it's all a big ol' pile of horseshit, okay? I'm just pointing out to you that your overzealous, grandiose attack on the horseshit spreaders has run amok.

We hear you...over and over and over again. Got it. Horseshit - all of it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going pop on twitter to see what Claude's up to now. After that, I may mosey on over to Jake Tapper's TL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #110)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:08 PM

112. Where did I say it was my business what you read?


There's a helpful ignore button, if you think you're being oppressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #112)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:14 PM

113. weaksauce

I'm speaking in general and I think you know that. I'm also trying to make a point to you. Your screaming this down isn't going to change minds or stop the Claudes and Louises of the Twitterspheres.

Maybe not take it so seriously. It's just our democracy at stake and a madman at the wheel intent on cliff surfing. Some of us are enjoying the fantasy of him being dragged out of the White House in shackles whether that is legal per the constitution or not, okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #113)

Sun May 14, 2017, 04:05 PM

121. I don't think I'm capable of screaming down anything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #121)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:18 PM

136. Serious Questions

With all that's happened in the past week, with the firing of Comey and the admittance by Trump that he fired Comey to obstruct the investigation into Russian collusion, that there is no chance in hell of an indictment to start impeachment?

You think Comey was lying under oath when he mentioned prosecutors and EDVA in his recent hearing?


You think that's all just a big nothing-burger?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #136)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:31 PM

137. simple


1. No.

2. No.

3. I don't know what you are specifically referring to by "that's all". If that refers to the previous two propositions, then whether there is a "chance", "no chance" or any chance at all of X is simply stating the obvious. There's always a chance of something. On the second proposition, I don't think it is a particularly big deal that Comey in all likelihood testified truthfully to the best of his knowledge. That's pretty normal.

What is clear is that the authors of the blog post to which the tweet referred lack basic knowledge of what the Constitution means, and that their initial tweets indicate lack of basic knowledge of the statutory authority of the FISA Court. Those glaring errors suggest to me that they either misunderstand whatever information they have, or they have no such information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #137)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:41 PM

139. I'm baffled...

...by your answer to my first question. Has nothing to do with Mensch or Taylor and more to do with what amped-up in the past week. Clapper was just on CNN talking openly about Trump assaulting our institutions. The dems are sounding the alarms and starting to threaten a refusal to vote on an FBI Director until a special prosecutor is brought in. Emergency meetings are taken place. The rhetoric is building.

If you want to keep hammering on about two Twitter folks, go for it. But to flat out think that there could be no indictment for impeachment is naive, IMHO. I'm not saying there is. But I'd never say there isn't - especially now that Trump admitted on national television that he flat out fired Comey to get rid of the Russian investigation. The smoke alarm has officially gone off and I refuse to believe that our country is just going to sit back and allow that piece of shit to install an authoritarian banana republic.

Not happening.

So, I'll believe in aliens, big foot and the tooth fairy before I'll not believe that impeachment is coming. I don't know the process, I will willingly admit. Hell, I never even heard of a FISA or EDVA or Supremacy Clause before now. I am no expert. But the winds have changed. It's coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #139)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:49 PM

140. "But to flat out think that there could be no indictment for impeachment is naive"

That's not even what my answer to your question was.

Your question:

"With all that's happened in the past week, with the firing of Comey and the admittance by Trump that he fired Comey to obstruct the investigation into Russian collusion, that there is no chance in hell of an indictment to start impeachment?"

Now, given the grammatical problems with that question in the first place, I assume there is a missing "do you think" before the word "that".

You are asking if there is "no chance". That was your question.

I answered the question "No". I do not agree there is "that there is no chance in hell" of an indictment.

If you are going to ask a "yes or no" question, please try to understand what you are asking, or what the answer means.

I do not agree with your proposition that there is "no chance" of a sealed indictment, filed somewhere, naming someone, of doing something. Accordingly, I answered "no".

Then you come back and and say that I "flat out think that there could be no indictment". That's not even what my answer to your question said.

Let me give you a friendly tip that may save you a lot of problems communicating. When you ask a "yes or no question" try not to include a negative in the question, such as "no chance".

Things like "Isn't it not untrue that you were not at the murder scene?" are not good questions, because of the work required to understand what "yes" or "no" even means in response to them.

You have either (a) not understood your own question, or (b) not understood the answer to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #140)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:41 PM

141. Oh, so very sorry

My typing in a hurry with such awful grammar and misunderstanding your answer to my question.

I am but a mere mortal.

"You have either (a) not understood your own question, or (b) not understood the answer to it."

B. I misunderstood your answer. Terrible, shameful. I hang my head in shame for being such a mistaken human in the presence of your anonymous awe.

If you'd like, I can go beat myself with a wet towel. Or I could write you an essay on why it so goddamn awful of me for misunderstanding a question by the honorable jberryhill on a forum on the fucking internet.

Would you like a 500 word essay or two word essay? If the latter, I already know exactly what I'm going to write to you.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #141)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:48 PM

142. I don't understand the tone

I just thought the reaction was odd, and went through the detail of explaining it for clarity.

I also don't understand the "anonymous" awe thing. I'm not anonymous.

I post under my real name, and if you have any doubt about what I think of Trump, consider me early:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/03/i-bought-the-website-trump-org-then-donald-trump-came-after-me/?utm_term=.529a1b59dab2

Please note the attorney who told Trump to fuck off.

or, Dick Cheney for that matter:

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-06-cheney-error_x.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #142)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:23 PM

143. Like I wrote to you...

...in another thread, it's your delivery.

You could have simply pointed out that I must have misunderstood your answer (clearly). I would have apologized graciously. But you felt the need to "school" me. I guess that's your nature since you're a lawyer, but it doesn't read well.

As for anonymous, I don't know who you are. Why do you assume I would assume you're using your real name? And to be clear, I don't go Googling folks' names on forums.


I didn't have any doubt that you don't care for Trump. I also have no doubt that you don't care for Louis Mensch and Claude Taylor...none whatsoever.

You've made your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #107)

Sun May 14, 2017, 05:53 PM

125. If I or anyone else wants to read Mensch and Taylor, it's really NOYDB.

 

This! I am just gonna quote you:



If I or anyone else wants to read Mensch and Taylor, it's really NOYDB.

I personally hope their right even if they get the details all squirrelly. In the meantime, I follow them on twitter just as I follow Maddow and O'Donnell. I'm a big girl, all grown up and capable of deciding for myself what I think is possible and what's not. Has nothing to do with it being "helpful for some purpose." Photo by Phil Hawksworth source http://www.flickr.com/photos/philhawksworth/5037670666/

I would imagine I'm not alone on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlotte Little (Reply #107)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:36 AM

148. Why would you intentionally read BS?

 

Actually, I guess there is a place for everything otherwise National Enquirer wouldn't still be selling off the store shelves...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doodley (Reply #58)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:27 PM

66. Maybe that was the intent all along!

Cause a shock wave throughout Washington. Smoke out the rats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Ected (Reply #66)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:40 PM

71. Spreading falsehoods is a poor tactic in service of the truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #71)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:45 PM

73. Not to the intelligence community

Disinformation is certainly a tool in their toolbox.

I don't quarrel with you about the ethics, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Ected (Reply #73)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:50 PM

75. Irony truly is dead

So, we should participate in spreading false information?

How did the "Trump Going To Trial For Rape!" thing work out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #75)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:07 AM

85. The accuser received threats and withdrew her case. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #85)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:12 AM

86. Riiiight....

It couldn't have been that it was a scheme originally promoted by a Cruz backer and a Jerry Springer producer.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

This spring, a man called “Al Taylor” sent a video of a woman with a blurred face and blonde wig (allegedly Johnson) recounting the allegations against Trump to news outlets, saying he wanted $1 million for it. Taylor, the Guardian reported, was actually Norm Lubow, a former producer on the Jerry Springer show who has a history of using fake names and disguises to make juicy, false claims about celebrities.

The lawsuit was promoted to the media by an anti-Trump, anti-abortion activist named Steve Baer, a conservative activist and donor with a very influential email list that he uses to relentlessly spam reporters and conservative power players. Baer, too, has a history of passing around “whoa if true” rumors: Last year, he was a key figure in spreading the notion that US Rep. Kevin McCarthy was having an extramarital affair with a woman in Congress when McCarthy was a candidate to become speaker of the House.

-----

Because, you see, the Trump organization kept a detailed log on girls raped in the 1990's, and has followed them ever since, so that if they ever made anonymous accusations later, they'd know which one it was and where to find them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:17 PM

60. It my be happening now

Thsi story is appearing all over the internet tonight.
We may see this as the harbinger of the end of Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:28 PM

67. If it's true, it'll be on a legit news site, like CNN. I don't know this Mensch.

She might be reliable, but she's not likely to get news before CNN or another news org. The news orgs have sources everywhere far more extensive than any one person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #67)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:51 PM

76. She's a former Tory MP and used to be a top Rupert Murdoch executive.

We all have to draw our own conclusions as to what those things mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #76)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:06 AM

83. Still works for News Corp

In the NY Times it says this...


[img][/img]



at the bottom of this op-ed...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/opinion/what-to-ask-about-russian-hacking.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #67)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:05 AM

82. I thought DT said CNN is fake news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #67)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:53 AM

95. It took 5 months for most of the American media to confirm her story about the October FISA

warrant, though the BBC and the Guardian confirmed it within a couple weeks.

I'm not expecting this indictment, if it exists, to get unsealed anytime soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #95)

Sun May 14, 2017, 11:41 AM

102. There was no October FISA warrant, that I can tell.

That was never corroborated by legitimate news organizations in America. That was a conservative meme, to bolster Trump's claim that Obama was wiretapping him. I just Googled that and found it "reported" on partisan websites, liberal & conservative.

When you think about it, that makes sense that a conservative news person in Britain would have intel sources in the U S that our enormous news organizations here, some of which are global news organizations like CNN, would not have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #102)

Sun May 14, 2017, 02:32 PM

103. Your googling leaves a great deal to be desired. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #103)

Sun May 14, 2017, 02:35 PM

104. Oh, I found it. Comey & Clapper testimony.

They will neither confirm nor deny any warrants....classified.

There is no evidence of any FISA warrants having been issued in October. No big news org. has repeated that story, either. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc.

Like this Mensch person's other stories, they appear on partisan websites. I assume because they are un-sourced and unverified. In other words, it's not verified news. It's just unsubstantiated rumor. That's not to say it isn't true. But there's nothing to say it is.

These are conservative memes put out by conservatives, as far as I can tell. Mensch is also a conservative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #104)

Sun May 14, 2017, 02:38 PM

105. Ever hear of BBC, the Guardian, or McClatchy? They were the first.

For example;

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #105)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:06 PM

126. This is the BBC. It is more meaningful. However...

I'm too tired right now to track this down. I watched parts of the Comey/Clapper testimony. I recall them saying, when asked about some British report or story, that they were unable to verify it. Don't know if it's this story they were being asked about.

There are a lot of stories & claims and such going around, at different points in time, about various warrants & FISA warrants regarding different people, and whether done or not done, or maybe stated were done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #126)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:20 PM

127. Of course they're unable to verify it! The info is classified.

That doesn't mean that the anonymous sources of Mensch, and the BBC, and the Guardian, and McClatchy are all wrong.

Do you remember Deep Throat? He was anonymous till shortly before his death, but he had been a top FBI guy. No one inside the FBI was OFFICIALLY confirming anything. Mark Felt broke the law when he leaked to the rookie WA Post reporter, Bob Woodward -- because he felt he had to do something about Nixon's abuse of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #127)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:31 PM

131. The BBC report doesn't mention Mensch or use the same source(s). It doesn't mention

the Guardian or McClatchy. It's different and separate.

No, they did not say they couldn't respond because their answer would be classified. Clapper said he just couldn't verify it. I assumed that to mean because it's a report by a foreign country using unnamed sources. They couldn't possibly verify it.

They were asked if they could verify the story. They weren't asked if they had been able to verify independently the facts stated in the story. Those are two different things, if you catch the difference. At least that's how I recall it.

Separately, Comey stated several times at the hearings that his refusal to answer because that's a classified subject should not be interpreted to mean yay or nay, either way. It merely means he won't answer questions that pertain to an area of classified information; sometimes by stating NO, that alone reveals something classified. If, for instance, he says no warrants were issued for such and such, that mere statement reveals classified information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #131)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:49 PM

133. You're right, the BBC report didn't mention Mensch. But it DID confirm the FISA

warrant issued in October against the Russian banks.

And, you're right -- Clapper didn't say he couldn't respond because it was classified. So? He didn't state a reason for why he couldn't respond. That doesn't eliminate the chance that the info was classified.

IOW, no conclusion can be drawn from Clapper's lack of a response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #104)

Sun May 14, 2017, 05:33 PM

122. Here's a Guardian piece that summarizes the confirmations of Mensch's FISA story.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/louise-mensch-trump-russia-ties-media-scoop

Two months later, however, the BBC put out a story echoing Mensch’s original report about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court warrant issued in October to allow the justice department to look into transfers and communications between the Russian banks and Trump associate – and that US intelligence agencies were investigating the link.

The Guardian separately confirmed the original request for a Fisa warrant, which had been turned down earlier in the summer, and former officials said they believed that the Mensch and BBC account of the Fisa warrants was correct.

In mid-January, the McClatchy news agency said one of its sources had also confirmed the report, and the New York Times’ public editor, Liz Spayd, published an assessment of its coverage of the Trump-Moscow link on 20 January, arguing that it had been “too timid”. The Times, Spayd argued, “knew several critical facts: the FBI had a sophisticated investigation under way on Trump’s organization, possibly including Fisa warrants”.

The full facts about the connections between the Trump camp and the Kremlin are not yet known. . . . However, it seems increasingly clear that Mensch landed an extraordinary scoop that had eluded the best investigative journalists in the US. Her explanation is that her vocal advocacy on behalf of UK and US intelligence agencies since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass surveillance led her sources to trust her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #122)

Sun May 14, 2017, 05:40 PM

123. The Guardian story is just repeating that "Mensch says...." So it's not a verified direct news story

It's not a direct journalistic news story. It's just repeating Mensch's story, according to her. It does not, that I saw, verify any of the facts itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #123)

Sun May 14, 2017, 05:48 PM

124. Here, I'll make it easier for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/louise-mensch-trump-russia-ties-media-scoop

Two months later, however, the BBC put out a story echoing Mensch’s original report about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court warrant issued in October to allow the justice department to look into transfers and communications between the Russian banks and Trump associate – and that US intelligence agencies were investigating the link.

The Guardian separately confirmed the original request for a Fisa warrant, which had been turned down earlier in the summer, and former officials said they believed that the Mensch and BBC account of the Fisa warrants was correct.

In mid-January, the McClatchy news agency said one of its sources had also confirmed the report, and the New York Times’ public editor, Liz Spayd, published an assessment of its coverage of the Trump-Moscow link on 20 January, arguing that it had been “too timid”. The Times, Spayd argued, “knew several critical facts: the FBI had a sophisticated investigation under way on Trump’s organization, possibly including Fisa warrants”.

The full facts about the connections between the Trump camp and the Kremlin are not yet known. . . . However, it seems increasingly clear that Mensch landed an extraordinary scoop that had eluded the best investigative journalists in the US. Her explanation is that her vocal advocacy on behalf of UK and US intelligence agencies since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass surveillance led her sources to trust her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #124)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:28 AM

146. So this means the Russians were also behind the Ferguson protests, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #146)

Mon May 15, 2017, 12:46 PM

149. She didn't say they were "behind the Ferguson protests."

There were days of peaceful protests by the residents of Ferguson before outside agitators arrived and the riots began.

Mensch is not alone in thinking Russia could have been involved in promoting some of the outsiders who instigated violence. Clint Watts, at the Senate hearings, spoke of Russian “active measures” around the world, and how they spread divisive messages in their propaganda.


?lang=en

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/243568-ferguson-mayor-outsiders-openly-funded-protests
5/31/15

Ferguson mayor: Outsiders 'openly funded' protests

The mayor of Ferguson, Mo. said on Sunday that politically motivated groups outside his city helped fund some of last summer’s civil unrest.

Mayor James Knowles III said external interests inflamed tensions in Ferguson over the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager shot and killed by a police officer in 2014.

“They’ve been openly raising money and distributing money for some time,” Knowles told radio host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 in New York..

SNIP

The Ferguson mayor added that negative attention over Brown’s death even attracted demonstrators from overseas. “People have come from all over the world and gotten arrested during this unrest,” Knowles said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/19/ferguson-outsiders-protesters-riots-peaceful-unrest

Ferguson: outsiders spread unrest and unease in pursuit of eclectic aims

Tuesday 19 August 2014

For more than a week the people of Ferguson welcomed the outside activists who flocked here to show solidarity after police killed an unarmed teenager. By day 11, some residents were having second thoughts.

The intensified mayhem of recent nights, apparently initiated by a small, organised group of agitators, has raised a question mark over the strangers who join the nightly demonstrations.

“Who the hell are you people?” one woman shouted early on Tuesday morning as youths surged towards a phalanx of police, hurling insults, water bottles and, later, molotov cocktails.

With the national guard deployed to quell civil unrest in the US for the first time in over a decade, amid a night of gunshots, teargas, chaos and 31 arrests, it was an urgent question.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #95)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:27 AM

145. When do you expect they might confirm her claim that BLM is a Russian Front?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sat May 13, 2017, 11:30 PM

68. This is happening so fast now

that Comey was fired. Trump sealed his fate as president with that decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:00 AM

80. Keeping my fingers and toes crossed!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:06 AM

84. Will he share a cell with Spicey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:51 AM

93. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:11 AM

97. Definition of "sealed indictment" for anyone who doesn't understand (like me)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:19 AM

98. If this is true, we'll know in a very short time.

There's no real way to prove or disprove in the meantime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:16 AM

101. It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 02:41 PM

106. Always remember these are Tweets, not news.

They may be correct but then again they may not.

Don't mistake them for fact ... yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 02:58 PM

109. Keith thinks there was something this and as he points out they were right about

the FISA court and the Grand Jury.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:51 PM

116. In 24 business hours!!!!

 

And the Whitey tape will be released any day now, along with the real birth certificate!!!!!

The indictments of Bush for war crimes were sealed and are ready to go!!!!!!

The sealed indictment of Bush for outing a CIA agent will g into effect any day now AND the indictment of Clinton for rape and murder is coming too!!!!!

This bullshit happens every administration. Con artists prey on people desires by spouting bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #116)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:59 PM

118. "BUSH AND CHENEY INDICTED"



https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4245367

A Chicago grand jury has indicted the President and Vice-President of the United States along with multiple high officials in the Bush administration

Chicago -- August 2, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com -- U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's Chicago grand jury has issued perjury and obstruction of justice indictments to the following members of the Bush Administration: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Senior Cheney advisor Mary Matalin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #118)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:57 PM

134. Skepticism is always a good idea.

I remember Fitzmas pretty well, and yeah.

That said, it's also worth mentioning how incredibly quick the wheels have come off the bus with this White House. And the increasingly erratic behavior of the people involved indicates to me that there seems to be some actual shit going down.

My gut feeling is, whether Mensch and co. are just making shit up for twitter churn or not, we're probably not looking at a nothingburger, either. I could be wrong, I could always be wrong--

but it's also worth noting that even with the institutional backing of the GOP (for now) these guys aren't Bush and Cheney. Bush and, more precisely Cheney had experience manipulating the levers of power and government. They wouldn't have put someone like Flynn up there for National Security Advisor.

And team Trump has already managed to alienate, by many accounts, large swaths of both the intelligence and federal law enforcement communities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 04:02 PM

119. Multiple sources are reporting that Bigfoot + the Loch Ness Monster killed JFK and were behind 9/11

 

This is a developing story though. Will update soon...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:26 PM

128. Would the FBI have the autonomy to perform an investigation on Trump..all the way to

...the Grand Jury and indictment stage without informing the DOJ or the Top 8 Leaders in Congress?

Because that's what it sounds like these folks are saying.

Congress has given no hint of any evidence about anyone let alone Trump....and if DOJ knows, Sessions knows, and then Trump knows.

And....*theoretically, I guess* that could have happened. And Trump fired Comey.

But I just really doubt it. The levers of government aren't that airtight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feathery Scout (Reply #128)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:28 PM

129. Congress wouldn't disclose details of a classified investigation to the public.

So the fact that they haven't doesn't mean anything one way or another.

And, yes, Trump might know. Maybe that has something to do with him abruptly firing Comey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #129)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:30 PM

130. Like how Chaffetz kept Hillary's secret when Comey notified him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:31 PM

138. Left is catching up fast with it's own FAKE news ecosystem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread