[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Wow that's a stretch. I said no such thing. Dowly made a correction of my statement about Carter Page. I agreed with him. I said, quote... "I believe, but can't find a source that says that the FISA warrant can gain access to previous communications, emails, phone records etc."

Explain how you get "it appears you would say a suspect in a crime could not have any of his records or communications dated prior to the execution of a warrant scrutinized" from that. Or am I missing something?

The whole point of that response to Dowly was that although Page was no longer a member of the Trump campaign, he and any one he communicated with at any time, including the President, was under surveillance.
arguing that point. At least not me.

On the other hand, why cooperate with Mueller? With the FISA warrants, the Steele dossier, Strzok and Page, Comey and the rest of the clown show the whole thing is a joke. If Mueller thinks he can subpoena the President, let him. I think the fact that he hasn't so far speaks volumes.

I don't recall I specifically said such a thing, I just extrapolated your comments and speculated on the possible logical extensions of such an idea...


As far as the time frame(s) being covered by the Mueller, et al, inquiries, remember not a few of the subjects had already been on the intelligence communities radars some time (in some cases, quite some time) before Trump even announced his candidacy or, later, took office; some were subjects even before the "dossier" was even a factor (in fact, the head of FusionGPS testified, in Congress, under oath, the FBI told him the main reason they were interviewing him about the dossier was to confirm or substantiate intel the FBI had already gathered on subjects)...


I said it before, if I were a member of an intelligence agency tasked with monitoring foreign influence or infiltration into domestic politics, I rather believe it would be a bit of a bell ringer if there was a very large number of a presidential candidate's staff, officials and/or advisors who had known links to a single, hostile, foreign power and had possible influence over that candidate; that many people with ties to Russia, Crimea, Ukraine, etc., all on a single candidate's staff would certainly raise the question of something being more than a 'coincidence'...

Originally Posted by u crank

No one is arguing that point. At least not me.

On the other hand, why cooperate with Mueller? With the FISA warrants, the Steele dossier, Strzok and Page, Comey and the rest of the clown show the whole thing is a joke. If Mueller thinks he can subpoena the President, let him. I think the fact that he hasn't so far speaks volumes.

Actually, if you think about it, Trump's people may be equally afraid Trump would tell the truth; remember, Trump has a nasty habit of mindlessly speaking and spilling the beans at the oddest moments: recall the fact Trump, two days after firing Comey, in a televised interview with Lester Holt, blithely admitted he fired Comey primarily because of the FBI Russia investigation; the face-palms among the Trump staff must have been epic...


The fact Mueller hasn't subpoenaed Trump thus far speaks nothing. If you carefully observe the conduct of the case so far in the courts, with the guilty pleas already gained and the indictments already filed, there is a foundation being built on the way to the "bigger fish"; Trump may, or may not, be the ultimate target in the Russian meddling probes, but he has very much set himself up as a target on obstruction charges and some questionable actions during his campaign and tenure in the Oval Office; just because someone hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean there is no evidence of possible criminal activity on their part, it just means that, perhaps, the investigators may be seeking to build as tight a case as possible before going public with charges; Trump not yet being subpoenaed does not equate to Trump being 'innocent' nor does it mean he is out of the woods...

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I don't like Trudeau because his veterans come back injured and he won't take care of them

You mean unlike the "quality" care the US VA gives to our returning troops, a substandard of care not helped by Trump's thus far failed appointees to head the VA (one withdrew amid questions over his competency, and another resigned amid ethics scandals)..

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Many voted in a Jr senator who had very little experience.

The government of the US is a business that happens to write legislations and oversees laws. As such, being a business, Trump qualifies in this arena IMO.

"Ms. Jones, do you have the resume for the next CEO candidate, a Mr. Donald J. Trump, is it?"


"Yes, sir, here it is..."


"Let's see...


...Four bankruptcies...
...no major US banks will do business with him...
...a history of non-payment of debts, even rather small ones...
...no reputable law firms will represent him due to non-payment of costs and fees...
...has dubious dealings with offshore entities...
...Has the distinction of being one of the very, very few casino owners to have the casino go belly up...
...has a history of setting up charities and, on top of not paying out funds, including those for a disabled veterans charity, but, also, using the charities as a sort of 'money laundry'...
...is deeply in debt and over-leveraged to an extreme...



...hmmm....


Ms. Jones?"


"Yes, sir?"


"Surely this can't be a serious resume for a business CEO?"


"Sir, I'm afraid, in this case, he is serious."


"Well, I would doing a disservice to the shareholders, employees, and patrons of our firm if I were to put Trump in for consideration."


"Yes, sir. What shall I do with his resume?"


"Tell you what: send on to the Washington DC office. Maybe some one over there knows some one who might be interested; Trump may have what it takes for politics, but not for running a corporation..."...










<O>