Trump accused of a Felony in today's Southern District of New York Filing

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough. You need hard evidence. And that is not Cohen's word.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

The FBI waltzed into a FISA court with an unverified dossier containing opposition research. You don't think a small time prosecutor looking to pin a large feather in his cap wouldn't try?

Requesting a warrant to further an investigation is not the same as presenting evidence to indict someone of a crime or presenting evidence in court to convict someone of a crime.

Add to that the Dossier was only a small portion of the evidence provided in that warrant request.
We still do not fully know what was and wasn't verified in the dossier at the time the FISA warrant was granted.

I don't find the comparison valid.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough. You need hard evidence. And that is not Cohen's word.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

The FBI waltzed into a FISA court with an unverified dossier containing opposition research. You don't think a small time prosecutor looking to pin a large feather in his cap wouldn't try?

Requesting a warrant to further an investigation is not the same as presenting evidence to indict someone of a crime or presenting evidence in court to convict someone of a crime.

Add to that the Dossier was only a small portion of the evidence provided in that warrant request.
We still do not fully know what was and wasn't verified in the dossier at the time the FISA warrant was granted.

I don't find the comparison valid.

Comey admitted under oath Friday that the dossier was unverified prior to seeking a FISA warrant, and remained unverified after obtaining said FISA warrant. The other evidence you refer to being Media articles which the FBI cited as probable cause. Those articles were mostly from the dossier. This can be found in the declassified FBI warrant application.

When one seeks a warrant, one has to show probable cause in most instances which is tantamount to evidence. If all that cause stems from an unverified dossier, and media articles talking about said dossier, is that probable cause?

The comparison is completely valid to those paying attention.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough. You need hard evidence. And that is not Cohen's word.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

The FBI waltzed into a FISA court with an unverified dossier containing opposition research. You don't think a small time prosecutor looking to pin a large feather in his cap wouldn't try?

Requesting a warrant to further an investigation is not the same as presenting evidence to indict someone of a crime or presenting evidence in court to convict someone of a crime.

Add to that the Dossier was only a small portion of the evidence provided in that warrant request.
We still do not fully know what was and wasn't verified in the dossier at the time the FISA warrant was granted.

I don't find the comparison valid.

Comey admitted under oath Friday that the dossier was unverified prior to seeking a FISA warrant, and remained unverified after obtaining said FISA warrant.

Here is the transcript.
You can search for keywords like "Dossier".
I see no testimony by Comey to support what you are claiming, but am open to being corrected if you can show me where.
www.lawfareblog.com...

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough. You need hard evidence. And that is not Cohen's word.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

The FBI waltzed into a FISA court with an unverified dossier containing opposition research. You don't think a small time prosecutor looking to pin a large feather in his cap wouldn't try?

Requesting a warrant to further an investigation is not the same as presenting evidence to indict someone of a crime or presenting evidence in court to convict someone of a crime.

Add to that the Dossier was only a small portion of the evidence provided in that warrant request.
We still do not fully know what was and wasn't verified in the dossier at the time the FISA warrant was granted.

I don't find the comparison valid.

Comey admitted under oath Friday that the dossier was unverified prior to seeking a FISA warrant, and remained unverified after obtaining said FISA warrant.

Here is the transcript.
You can search for keywords like "Dossier".
I see no testimony by Comey to support what you are claiming, but am open to being corrected if you can show me where.
www.lawfareblog.com...

Sure, start at page 115, and work your way up to around 130, you'll get the picture. He lays out that it was unverified prior to his firing, and prior to the FISA applications he signed off on.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough. You need hard evidence. And that is not Cohen's word.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

The FBI waltzed into a FISA court with an unverified dossier containing opposition research. You don't think a small time prosecutor looking to pin a large feather in his cap wouldn't try?

Requesting a warrant to further an investigation is not the same as presenting evidence to indict someone of a crime or presenting evidence in court to convict someone of a crime.

Add to that the Dossier was only a small portion of the evidence provided in that warrant request.
We still do not fully know what was and wasn't verified in the dossier at the time the FISA warrant was granted.

I don't find the comparison valid.

Comey admitted under oath Friday that the dossier was unverified prior to seeking a FISA warrant, and remained unverified after obtaining said FISA warrant.

Here is the transcript.
You can search for keywords like "Dossier".
I see no testimony by Comey to support what you are claiming, but am open to being corrected if you can show me where.
www.lawfareblog.com...

Sure, start at page 115, and work your way up to around 130, you'll get the picture. He lays out that it was unverified prior to his firing, and prior to the FISA applications he signed off on.

Can you be specific. I read it and do not see what you are claiming.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough. You need hard evidence. And that is not Cohen's word.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

The FBI waltzed into a FISA court with an unverified dossier containing opposition research. You don't think a small time prosecutor looking to pin a large feather in his cap wouldn't try?

Requesting a warrant to further an investigation is not the same as presenting evidence to indict someone of a crime or presenting evidence in court to convict someone of a crime.

Add to that the Dossier was only a small portion of the evidence provided in that warrant request.
We still do not fully know what was and wasn't verified in the dossier at the time the FISA warrant was granted.

I don't find the comparison valid.

Comey admitted under oath Friday that the dossier was unverified prior to seeking a FISA warrant, and remained unverified after obtaining said FISA warrant.

Here is the transcript.
You can search for keywords like "Dossier".
I see no testimony by Comey to support what you are claiming, but am open to being corrected if you can show me where.
www.lawfareblog.com...

Sure, start at page 115, and work your way up to around 130, you'll get the picture. He lays out that it was unverified prior to his firing, and prior to the FISA applications he signed off on.

Can you be specific. I read it and do not see what you are claiming.

Page 121 Starting with Mr. Ratcliffe's questioning.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Mr. Comey, do you recall that you signed a FISA application on October 21st, 2016, relating to Carter Page?

Mr. Comey. - I don't recall the date. I do remember signing such a FISA in October.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Would you have reviewed the FISA application before you signed it?

Mr. Comey. - Yes.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Do you recall that the FISA application would have been titled -- or was titled "verified application"?

Mr. Comey. - No, I don't recall that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Don't all FISA applications state that they are verified applications?

Mr. Comey. - I don't know. I don't -- sitting here today, I can't remember the word "verified."

Mr. Ratcliffe. - What did the FISA application that you signed on October 21st of 2016, aver in terms of probable cause
for a warrant on Carter Page?

Ms. Bessee. - Congressman, he can only respond to information that's not classified or that's been put out there

Page 122 contains a back and forth about the hearing.

Page 123:

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Did the FISA application that you certified, or verified, allege that there was probable cause to believe that Carter Page was working for or with the Russian Government?

Mr. Comey. - I don't remember specifically. My recollection is it was -- it was submitted to the court as part of an application where the Department of Justice was alleging that he was an agent of a foreign power, namely, the Russian Federation, but I can't remember what it said about probable cause.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Would it have averred that there was probable cause to believe that he was in a position to influence the Trump campaign or Trump campaign officials?

Mr. Comey. - I don't remember that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - But you did review it?

Mr. Comey. - Yes. I remember reading it for the purpose of signing the certification that the FBI Director has to sign.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Do you recall that part of the probable cause submitted to the court was the -- what you've referred to as the Steele dossier?

Mr. Comey. - I don't.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Following up on Mr. Gowdy's question about Christopher Steele, do you know whether he had any direct

Continued on page 124:

knowledge about collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between anyone associated with the Trump campaign, or was it based on other sources and subsources?

Mr. Comey. - My recollection is that it was the latter, that he didn't have personal knowledge of most, maybe all, of the things that were in the reports, but they were reported to him by sources and that the, sort of, the core allegation of the dossier, as I recall, was that there was an effort to coordinate with the Russian interference campaign, but that was not the product of Steele's personal knowledge is my -- I could be wrong about that, but that's my recollection.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - All right, so, if there were other sources or subsources, would you agree that that information would be double and triple hearsay?

Mr. Comey. - I don't know.

(this next exchange is a little oddly formatted) Mr. Ratcliffe. Could be. (maybe Comey?) I don't know. Do you know whether each application -- or do you know whether the application that you signed states that the FBI has reviewed this verified application for accuracy?

Mr. Comey. - I don't remember that specifically. It sounds like the kind of thing that would be in there as a matter of course, but I don't remember.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - And what would be the purpose of verifying to the FISA court that the Department of Justice and the FBI have corroborated the allegations?

Mr. Comey. - Well, you're trying to convince a Federal judge

Here is the unclassified application. Note that it does indeed state "Verified Application" near the top. int.nyt.com...

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Ran out of room.

Continued on page 125:

that you have probable cause, and so the better you can present your evidence and the way it might overlap or interlock, the better the chance you have of convincing the judge you have probable cause.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - So I want to relate to you some of the testimony that we've already received. FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe testified before Congress that the FBI could provide no points of verification to verify the Steele information other than the fact that Carter Page had traveled to Russia in July of 2016. Were you aware of that when you signed the application on October 21st of 2016?

Mr. Comey. - I don't remember any of that right now.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Bill Priestap who -- what does Bill Priestap do at the FBI?

Mr. Comey. - I think he's still the Assistant Director in charge of the Counterintelligence Division.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Okay. He testified that corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its, quote/unquote, infancy, at the time of the application that you signed on October 21st, 2016. Did you know that?

Mr. Comey. - I don't remember hearing that, but that makes sense to me, if my recollection is correct, that we got it in September or maybe October. It would, by definition, be in its infancy in October.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - All right. And do you know when

Continued on page 126:

Christopher Steele was terminated as a source for the FBI?

Mr. Comey. - I don't. And I don't know for a fact that he was terminated.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - So have you reviewed any FBI source validation report on Christopher Steele?

Mr. Comey. - I have not.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - So you don't know whether or not such a report would reflect that, as of November 1st of 2016, Christopher Steele's reporting in the Steele dossier was determined by the FBI to be only, quote, minimally corroborated, end quote?

Mr. Comey. - I don't know that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - So those things that I've just related to you about testimony as I've represented it from Andy McCabe and Bill Priestap, and the report as I've represented it to you from the FBI, does that cause you any concern about the fact that you signed a verified application for a warrant to surveil Carter Page when the Steele dossier was only minimally corroborated or in its infancy in its corroboration?

Mr. Comey. - I don't know enough or remember enough 2 years later to have a reaction. I don't know their testimony. I haven't looked at the thing.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - I'm just asking you to accept what I've represented as true, and if it is true, does that cause you concern? Should the FISA court have been granting warrants

Continued on page 127:

where the information submitted and verified, in fact, had only been minimally corroborated?

Mr. Comey. - Yeah, I can't answer that because I -- look, I accept what you're saying, but I don't know what else you're not telling me that was in the FISA application and what was done. I just don't know enough about what happened to offer a view one way or the other.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Okay. Well, do you recall that, on numerous occasions subsequent to October 21st of 2016, you, in your capacity as the FBI Director, referred to the Steele dossier as salacious and unverified?

Mr. Comey. - of it. Yes. I don't know that I was referring to all Maybe I was, but I had in mind some particular portions of it that were salacious and unverified.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - But, again, your characterization of it was that it was unverified, even though you had verified it to the court?

Mr. Comey. - Well, it was coming to us from a reliable source with a track record, and it's an important thing when you're seeking a PC warrant. But what I understand by verified is we then try to replicate the source information so that it becomes FBI investigation and our conclusions rather than a reliable source's. That's what I understand it, the difference to be. And that work wasn't completed by the time I left in May of 2017, to my knowledge.

After the FISA warrant was granted.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Hey wardaddy, why did the fbi seek fisa warrants against us citizens and not your standard court supplied warrant to wiretap?
There is no need for fisa warrants on russians is there?
It wouldn't be that the fisa warrants are secret and therefore defense attorneys wouldn't be able to follow the paper trail would it?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Continued on page 128:

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Well, when you talk about getting a warrant and the PC and the importance there, isn't it important for the judge to be able to weigh the reliability and the credibility of all the sources for the information, particularly those that saw or heard the relevant information that serves as the predicate for seeking the warrant?

Mr. Comey. - Not necessarily. I mean, I can imagine -- I think I've dealt with warrants where you just identify that your primary CI, or primary source, has subsources, and so long as the court is aware of that phenomenon and that you're speaking to the reliability of the primary source, to my mind, that's a totally legit warrant application.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Comey. comment on it.( no idea here)

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Who is Sally -- And I don't remember this one well enough to I'm thinking about other criminal cases I've worked.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Who is Sally Moyer?

Mr. Comey. - Sally Moyer? A lawyer in the General Counsel's Office.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Do you know if she was involved in the preparation of the FISA application?

Mr. Comey. - I don't.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - If she testified -- and I'll represent to you that she testified that the FISA court -- it was 49-51, maybe 50-50, that the FISA court would have approved the warrant without the Steele dossier. If I represent that to you, does

Continued on page 129:

that cause you concern that the court was relying on a document that was largely unverified and minimally corroborated?

Mr. Comey. - No. Because it asked me to assume the truth of the last part of your question, and I don't know that to be the case.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Who -- you've already said you're not sure that Christopher Steele was terminated as a source for the FBI, correct?

Mr. Comey. - Correct.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - If he was terminated as a source for the FBI, it would be improper for him to continue to do work for the FBI. Would you agree with that, as a source?

Mr. Comey. - I guess I don't know what "work" means. I would say in general, but I would imagine there would be circumstances where someone -- in fact, I know -- sorry, go ahead.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - So let me see if I can break it down. So does the FBI -- the FBI has an entire manual, don't they, on governing the use of confidential human sources?

Mr. Comey. - Yes.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - All kinds of rules and validations, correct?

Mr. Comey. - Correct.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - And if Christopher Steele was, in fact, terminated, it would have been for violating those standards or rules or validations?

Continued on page 130:

Mr. Comey. - I don't know for sure. It could be for violating them, but -- I don't know for sure whether it could be something else too.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - As you've sat here today -- as you sit here today, have you heard anything about the fact that Christopher Steele was terminated for leaking information to the press?

Mr. Comey. - As I sit here today, since I left the FBI, I've read stuff in the media about that. I don't believe I had ever heard anything about that while I was still at the FBI.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So, if Christopher Steele -- again, I know you don't know whether he had been terminated, but if he was and he continued to provide information as a source to the FBI, who would have authorized that?

Mr. Comey. - I don't know. And it's too much of a hypothetical for me to even begin to answer. I don't know. Because I don't know -- I don't know whether any of the -- the preamble to your question is true.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Are you aware that Christopher Steele had a relationship -- and by "relationship," I mean a working relationship -- with Bruce Ohr?

Mr. Comey. - With Bruce Ohr? Am I aware that he had a working relationship No.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Are you aware of any communications or contact between Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr?

Mr. Comey. - I am not aware.

Continued on page 131:

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Who is Bruce Ohr?

Mr. Comey. - He's a lawyer for the Department of Justice, who I don't know exactly what his job was. the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - I remember him from But a DOJ lawyer. Would you expect a DOJ lawyer to be part of the chain of custody of evidence relating to the Steele dossier or a FISA application?

Mr. Comey. - I'm not sure I know what that means.

(Transcript is a little weird here) custody with respect to a FISA application. Chain of With respect to the -- I just don't understand that question. Sounds like a quick exchange


Mr. Ratcliffe. - Yeah. Should a DOJ lawyer be used as a cutout to transfer evidence in connection with a FISA application?

Mr. Comey. - I don't know.

Mr. Ratcliffe. - Who would have approved that?

Mr. Comey. - I don't know. I keep trying to imagine circumstances in which -- I'm not familiar with a circumstance in which it's happened, but I don't know enough -

Mr. Meadows. - Are you aware of any other time where a DOJ attorney actually acted as a conduit to provide information that would go into a FISA application?

Mr. Comey. - What do you mean by "conduit"?

Mr. Meadows. - Well, with Mr. Ohr, Mr. Steele, it's been widely reported -- I'm sure you've read the reports, Director Comey, but in testimony, we would have an interaction between

Continued on page 131. I could keep going if this wasn't specific enough.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I imagine if there was a need, the three letter intel agencies would have lawyers sitting in court with applications 24/7/365.

Your guess is as good as mine.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

or any corporation, any officer or any director of any corporation

Actually they set up a shell corporation to do it.... soooooooooo

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

You think Hillary is that powerful huh?

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

You think Hillary is that powerful huh?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

You think Hillary is that powerful huh?

The people paying the foundation money in exchange for her time certainly thought so.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

You think Hillary is that powerful huh?

I hear her breath is....

a reply to: Extorris

Again, paying hush money is not illegal nor is it a campaign finance violation. What Democrats are refusing to talk about is how one of their own, John Edwards, set the precedent on hush money.

John Edwards' Hush Money Was Not Illegal, FEC Told Campaign

After three weeks of salacious testimony about Edwards' affair with mistress Rielle Hunter and the nearly $1 million collected to keep it quiet, Edwards' lawyers kicked off their defense focusing on the much less steamy intricacies of campaign finance law.

After reviewing the campaign's financials for four years, the FEC determined last month that money Edwards' aides collected from wealthy donors Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Fred Baron were "not campaign contribution[s]," Lora Haggard, Edwards' 2008 chief financial officer, said today.

click link to read article.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I sincerely appreciate your exhaustive citation of the former FBI Directors testimony, but am I wrong in stating that he did not posses certainty on whether or not any of the Dossier had been corroborated or verified?

Though it might be frustrating, him being unable to claim knowledge that it had been verified is not the same as saying it was not verified?

Please narrow down his testimony if I missed something.

a reply to: BlackJackal

wow i love hearing news, i love to learn new info. thank you above top loving your website!!!!! maga