Oh you guys are gonna have a field day. Cohen was wiretapped!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

There's got to break something more than Stormy Daniels here. I don't see that being the catalyst for these strong measures.

There had better be. Because if this was just Stormy's lawyer calling in a favor to dig up dirt, then everyone who's touched this (up to & including Rosenstein) needs to be sent to prison for criminal conspiracy.

a reply to: Grambler

Your what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

originally posted by: luthier
Uh we have no idea what the investigation has or doesn't have.

Actually based on the questions released that he wants to ask the president - and a few of the people he has talked to recently we do have a very good idea what he has.

Pretty much nothing. That is why he has to word the questions as open ended - to try and trap the president - because he has no real evidence of anything.

The questions show he is trying to get him for obstruction of justice. What I still want someone to explain to me is how can you obstruct justice when there is no justice to obstruct.

Meaning there was no Russian collusion so how would firing Comey obstruct anything - even if his only intention was to try and stop the investigation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnBreakable

Since they have absolutely nothing on Russian collusion

You know that Trump lies, right?

I have it on good authority that Trump's lies are all lies!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Your what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

The day I take criticism from you about the quality of my posts seriously will be the day I leave ats.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

There's got to break something more than Stormy Daniels here. I don't see that being the catalyst for these strong measures.

I agree it appears the tactics are vastly too aggressive for an alleged campaign finance violation.
While I do not trust the event that is the mueller investigation, I have no reason to distrust the feds in ny. There would have been significant steps taken to obtain a wiretap against Cohen.
www.nbcnews.com...

Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, now an NBC News analyst, says there's a high bar for having a wiretap approved. "The affidavits are typically highly detailed and carefully vetted by experienced lawyers," he said. "In all cases the wiretap must be approved by a federal judge." Rosenberg said that wiretaps are usually approved for an investigation into a current crime and not solely for possible crimes that have been committed in the past. "This is an exacting process where the government must demonstrate to a federal judge that there is an ongoing crime."

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Carter Page was known to associate with Russian spies and was supposedly being evaluated by them for recruitment. He had already been on FBI radar for years.
Do you know this man you're all depending on to save the day? Do you care he could have been working against our country with a foreign adversary? What if it was iran? Would it matter then? Tell me what you know and believe about Mr Carter Page.

LOL he was an informant for the FBI. Good lord you kill me, thanks again for the laugh!!

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

There's got to break something more than Stormy Daniels here. I don't see that being the catalyst for these strong measures.

I agree it appears the tactics are vastly too aggressive for an alleged campaign finance violation.
While I do not trust the event that is the mueller investigation, I have no reason to distrust the feds in ny. There would have been significant steps taken to obtain a wiretap against Cohen.
www.nbcnews.com...

Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, now an NBC News analyst, says there's a high bar for having a wiretap approved. "The affidavits are typically highly detailed and carefully vetted by experienced lawyers," he said. "In all cases the wiretap must be approved by a federal judge." Rosenberg said that wiretaps are usually approved for an investigation into a current crime and not solely for possible crimes that have been committed in the past. "This is an exacting process where the government must demonstrate to a federal judge that there is an ongoing crime."

This is a very solid post. There is a preponderance of hoops the NY Feds would have had to jump through to get the wiretap.

a reply to: proximo

That s common practice. Something Rudy himself did hundreds of times.

But there were certainly a few conspiracy questions in there. Maybe you missed them or don't know how us prosecutors work witnesses.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Your what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Your grammar what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Honestly, i don’t hold it against you...your parents are probably proud....sadly

-Chris

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Butterfinger

Remember when everyone ridiculed Trump for using the phrase "Wire Tap"?

Yes.
But the phrase was, "Obama was tapping my phones." He didn't say, "The FBI was tapping my attorney's phones."

So, what's your point?

Just wait - it is going to come out Obama was aware of it and likely in full support.

The point is people used to call the entire idea ANYONE was tapping his phones as crazy, but time has proved him right. You don't seem to have figured out Trump does not make statements on twitter that are not based on some knowledge he already has.

Remember the timing of that tweet - it was right after the head of the NSA Mike Rodgers visited him in Trump tower - and Rogers would know who ordered it.

This was just a way for Mueller to get around attorney client privilege. He surveiled Cohen until he found some evidence then referred it to the Southern district of New York fbi. So they could raid his offices and look at all the privileged documents. If the Southern district of New York finds evidence for Mueller they will hand it over to him.

The Dems can’t have all this winning! It’s ok I’m sure there will be all kinds of taps on the dem candidates.

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Your what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Your grammar what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Honestly, i don’t hold it against you...your parents are probably proud....sadly

-Chris

This is like Eleventy level chess comeback. Did you just use bad grammar to call him out on bad grammar?

originally posted by: Meniscus

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

The wire tap and raid were perfectly lawful and legally executed. Not corrupt.

Meuller surveiled Cohen until he found some evidence then referred it to the Southern district of New York fbi. Who raided his offices so if they stumbled across evidence against Trump they would hand it over to Mueller. That sounds pretty shady.

That does sound pretty shady.

Do you have any real evidence to substantiate that claim, or are we playing political fantasy here?

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Your what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Your grammar what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Honestly, i don’t hold it against you...your parents are probably proud....sadly

-Chris

Well I am the worst speller on ats, so I wont criticize anyones grammar or spelling.

a reply to: Meniscus

I'm sure that Mueller has been looking at Cohen as trumps fixer. He's a part of it.
I agree completely. They found something and referred it to N.Y..

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Your what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Your grammar what about posts are going strong. Keep up the good work.

Honestly, i don’t hold it against you...your parents are probably proud....sadly

-Chris

This is like Eleventy level chess comeback. Did you just use bad grammar to call him out on bad grammar?

Yep...I sure did
While he was playing checkers, I was playing what about...

-Chris

a reply to: proximo

Pretty much nothing. That is why he has to word the questions as open ended - to try and trap the president - because he has no real evidence of anything.

That may not be entirely correct. They may have evidence, such as Trump's own statements, like him wanting to fire Comey for a specific reason, that raise red flags. If you read the questions, if they are from the SC, it seems clear that they are trying to figure out Trump's intent.

As we have learned from the Clinton email fiasco, intent is very important and can mean the difference between a slap on the wrist and prosecution.

Meaning there was no Russian collusion so how would firing Comey obstruct anything - even if his only intention was to try and stop the investigation.

That is a very odd way of thinking. You do not have to have a crime, in this case collusion, in order to intend to obstruct the investigation of that potential crime.

a reply to: Meniscus

I never saw anything suggesting that. Counterintelligence had him on their radar for years. That doesn't sound like he was an informant. Sounds like he was a subject.