Nunes Wins Battle With Rosenstein to See Trump Probe Document

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Hmmm...the Psychology of Flatus.

I might recommend this

blogs.psychcentral.com...

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: carewemust

BTW...The same idiots who were giggling and laughing on MSNBC about the prospects of Trump beating Hillary, were giggling and laughing over the prospect of Rosenstein/Wray taking Devin Nune's Contempt/Impeachment threat seriously. Too dumb to learn? Apparently.

Who is laughing now?

As I see it, this is the FISA application they have viewed.

This is the horse's mouth so to speak?

The actual application was 13 pages, but probably contained a lot of legalese. The document viewed tonight was the raw intelligence. If it doesn't point to Carter Page, the FISA spy warrant was a double lie. (No Carter Page + Fake Dossier = Lie + Lie)

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: burntheships

My poops smell better then Devin. That dude is a creep. His intentions do not serve the American people, just his agenda.

Did you have better success tonight at the crapper, AAU?

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: burntheships

The details will finally be out. Better hang on, the rides going to get bumpy for one side of this story.

Too bad the FBI drug its feet, but they had to come up
with Plan B. Its a race at this point.

Let Mueller twist in the wind is the best option,
and go for the underbelly.

Also, The Daily Caller has a few thoughts that this could
have been Australia, and Downer.

The FBI opened its investigation on July 31, 2016, reportedly based on information passed to the bureau by the Australian government about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser. Papadopoulos claimed in May 2016 to have information that Russia possessed stolen Hillary Clinton emails, Australia’s ambassador to the U.S. reportedly told his American counterparts. Papadopoulos allegedly made the claim during a conversation in London with Alexander Downer, Australia’s top diplomat to United Kingdom.

dailycaller.com...

Which is possible, I was not aware there was an Aussie Agent involved.
but Downer leads directly back to The Clinton Foundation.

The Australian angle also has a fatal flaw.

The Australian mentioned in the media regarding this mess works for the Australian government and was the go between for the Australian government and its donations to the Clinton Foundation.

a reply to: burntheships

Clintons ? Mr Downer is an Australian liberal / conservative ie RIGHT WING

originally posted by: socalf
a reply to: burntheships

Clintons ? Mr Downer is an Australian liberal / conservative ie RIGHT WING

Yeah because everyone on the right loves Trump...

Australia did get involved in the US elections by sending volunteers to help defeat Trump.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Australia did get involved in the US elections by sending volunteers to help defeat Trump.
The Australian Labor Party is not the Government

I like Nunez. For having such a serious job, his demeanor is that of a "regular guy". Almost like a neighbour who invites you to his barbecue, then is nice enough to ask if you are entertained, aware that you don't necessarily know anyone else there.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Phage

You're right. It was likely Lichtenstein all along.

At first I thought it was Guilder, but it turns out Prince Humperdink actually hired a Sicilian to frame them.

originally posted by: socalf
a reply to: Xcathdra

Australia did get involved in the US elections by sending volunteers to help defeat Trump.
The Australian Labor Party is not the Government

The ALP is democratic socialist so nothing can go wrong there..

You seem to be ignoring the part about this guy being the go between for the Australian government and its donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Or is the Australian government not the Australian government?

THE FEC thinks other -source - FEC

The Prohibition

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
Who is a Foreign National?

The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:

Foreign governments;
Foreign political parties;
Foreign corporations;
Foreign associations;
Foreign partnerships;
Individuals with foreign citizenship; and
Immigrants who do not have a "green card."

Also

Volunteer Activity

Generally, an individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. 11 CFR 100.74. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

In AO 1987-25, the Commission allowed a foreign national student to provide uncompensated volunteer services to a Presidential campaign. By contrast, the decision in AO 1981-51 prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a Senate campaign.[2]
Non-election Activity by Foreign Nationals

cartoon of protestDespite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels. The FEC has clarified such activity with respect to individuals' activities.

In AO 1989-32, the Commission concluded that although foreign nationals could make disbursements solely to influence ballot issues, a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate's re-election campaign.

In AO 1984-41, the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were not election influencing because they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.[3]


Assisting Foreign National Contributions or Donations

Under Commission regulations it is unlawful to knowingly provide substantial assistance to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. 11 CFR 110.20(h). "Substantial assistance" refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. 67 FR 69945-6 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].


Soliciting, Accepting, or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign Nationals

As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:

Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.
11 CFR 110.20(a)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii).

Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include, but are not limited to the following: A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address,

makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national. 11 CFR 110.20(a)(7).


Monitoring Prohibited Contributions

When a federal political committee (a committee active in federal elections) receives a contribution it believes may be from a foreign national, it must:

Return the contribution to the donor without depositing it; or
Deposit the contribution and take steps to determine its legality, as described below.

Either action must be taken within 10 days of the treasurer's receipt. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(1).

If the committee decides to deposit the contribution, the treasurer must make sure that the funds are not spent because they may have to be refunded. Additionally, he or she must maintain a written record explaining why the contribution may be prohibited.[4] 11 CFR 103.3(b)(4) and (5). The legality of the contribution must be confirmed within 30 days of the treasurer's receipt, or the committee must issue a refund.[5]

If the committee deposits a contribution that appears to be legal, but later discovers that the deposited contribution is from a foreign national, it must refund the contribution within 30 days of making the discovery. If a committee lacks sufficient funds to make a refund when a prohibited contribution is discovered, it must use the next funds it receives. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(1) and (2).

a reply to: burntheships

You guys keep forgetting the warrant on Carter Page was renewed three times since it was sought. Twice under trumps DOJ.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: burntheships

The details will finally be out. Better hang on, the rides going to get bumpy for one side of this story.

Too bad the FBI drug its feet, but they had to come up
with Plan B. Its a race at this point.

Let Mueller twist in the wind is the best option,
and go for the underbelly.

Also, The Daily Caller has a few thoughts that this could
have been Australia, and Downer.

The FBI opened its investigation on July 31, 2016, reportedly based on information passed to the bureau by the Australian government about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser. Papadopoulos claimed in May 2016 to have information that Russia possessed stolen Hillary Clinton emails, Australia’s ambassador to the U.S. reportedly told his American counterparts. Papadopoulos allegedly made the claim during a conversation in London with Alexander Downer, Australia’s top diplomat to United Kingdom.

dailycaller.com...

Which is possible, I was not aware there was an Aussie Agent involved.
but Downer leads directly back to The Clinton Foundation.

The Australian angle also has a fatal flaw.

The Australian mentioned in the media regarding this mess works for the Australian government and was the go between for the Australian government and its donations to the Clinton Foundation.

About $25mil worth of donations.

Did hillary write that all down?

Or down under the table?

originally posted by: socalf
a reply to: Xcathdra

Australia did get involved in the US elections by sending volunteers to help defeat Trump.
The Australian Labor Party is not the Government

Tough noogies,

They colluded!!!

Bomb sidney!!!

What are them idiots gonna do about interfering?

Throw another clinton on the barbie!

What do you expect from a country whose national past time is punching your best friend in the face.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I like Nunez. For having such a serious job, his demeanor is that of a "regular guy". Almost like a neighbour who invites you to his barbecue, then is nice enough to ask if you are entertained, aware that you don't necessarily know anyone else there.

And gets you really drunk?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

You guys keep forgetting the warrant on Carter Page was renewed three times since it was sought. Twice under trumps DOJ.

Lies x3.
First Fisa approval was based on an Australian spy. Most like relating to the Papadopoulous drinking binge down under.
Renewal 2 and 3 were based on fake dossier.

Boom. Boom. Boom!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

You guys keep forgetting the warrant on Carter Page was renewed three times since it was sought. Twice under trumps DOJ.

Yeh, don't meaan squat except it was corrupt to begin with.

Snakes are snakes.

Stroke and page still have their security clearances. Why?

Isn't there some HR law about fraternizing?

Where are the interviews with their spouses, Woof?

FBI office love affair conspiracy is not as bad as billionaire playboy schtuping a porn star?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

You guys keep forgetting the warrant on Carter Page was renewed three times since it was sought. Twice under trumps DOJ.

Lies x3.
First Fisa approval was based on an Australian spy. Most like relating to the Papadopoulous drinking binge down under.
Renewal 2 and 3 were based on fake dossier.

Boom. Boom. Boom!

They were in the UK.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

You guys keep forgetting the warrant on Carter Page was renewed three times since it was sought. Twice under trumps DOJ.

and the way those were renewed are a massive problem. There are not many FISA judges ( a handful actually). However when those warrants are signed off on by different judges instead of the one who initially signed off creates a very real constitutional violation.

You cannot judge shop in order to get a favorable outcome of a warrant application. By doing that you are intentionally misleading the court by failing to provide complete transparency. Warrants are time based and each application needs to contain new information in order to justify the continued surveillance. You only judge shop when you dont have any new info to justify an extension. These types of warrants are not supposed to be used on an open ended, non specific basis with the only intent is to listen in hopes of finding something that can be used in a prosecution.

Secondly it was not the AG who signed off any any of this. It was Rosenstein. So you can stop trying to distract with that glaring omission.

a reply to: burntheships

There is no "Battle".

Nunes has been the subject of repeated ethics complaints, campaign finance inquiries, and was even forced to recuse himself from the committee for 6 months. He has been caught in multiple lies.

His GOP Colleagues don't take him seriously.

Paul Ryan has now announced his retirement, which means he doesn't need to worry about re-election and Nunes can be removed from the committee by Paul Ryan.

The buzz in DC is that Paul Ryan will be removing Nunes in an attempt to salvage what little credibility the House Intelligence Oversight committee has left after Nunes has stripped it of legitimacy with his BS.

a reply to: burntheships

A redaction is now an implication?


That's what they're doing?
Covering for each other?

Not protecting the innocent or protecting allied sources?