'Trump's son should be concerned': FBI obtained wiretaps of Putin ally who met with Trump Jr.

dcsports said:

A glaring problem for Democrats is that they really don't have any emerging leadership that could be a viable candidate for the office. And, yes, they should have that by now. Pelosi, Schumer, and Clinton represent the old guard, and they aren't likely to run. Biden could be recycled, but hasn't gotten party support. (IMHO, he's too ethical). Sanders and Warren are somewhat in the fringe. So who is even a potential candidate at this point?

Click to expand...

Oh please. After Romney lost in 2012, who the hell did the Republicans have as "emerging leadership"? Obviously nobody, since their party was completely hi-jacked by a loud mouth Reality T.V. Game show host. ANYTHING can happen between now and 2020. Nobody thought after the GOP lost in 2012 that their next leader would be Donald Trump of all people.

justabubba said:

you make excellent points
and if the blue wave crests, there may well be an impeachment
but it appears the wave will not result in a changed senate balance, preventing a conviction

the only way i see tRump not surviving until 2020 is due to his diet or because Mueller's investigation reveals matters so heinous, that even a republican senate will no longer stand with the sitting president

Click to expand...

Even if there is a blue wave in the House, and by some miracle the Democrats actually take the Senate, it won't be the 60 vote majority needed for conviction, unless Mueller comes up with something so horrendous not even the Republicans can ignore it.

upsideguy said:

I think there is zero evidence that Trump expanded his base. His approval numbers remain below where they were after the election and after he took office. He continues to wallow in the 44% zone, artificially bolstered by the erratic and questionable Rasmussen numbers, though Reuters/IPSOS is there as well.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

If you remember correctly, Trump barely won the 2016 election, winning by just 80,000 votes in three states, with the Russian winds at his back. Though in 2016, the editorial staffs of every major American newspaper deemed him unfit to be president, there were still enough voters willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now, 56% of all voters have also concluded he is unfit to be president (https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/more-than-half-of-voters-think-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president-poll/). Please note the distinction: This is not a job approval number, this is a determination he is incompetant and dangerous in the position. That is not a winnable metric. Trump was elected by a minority. Rather than tacking toward a broader coalition of supporters, he merely feeds a base of people while alienating a majority. Its pretty hard to see how he repeats. One of the biggest reasons he won was not the HE excited anyone; its he (and others) managed to depress the Hillary vote.... Trump garnered no more votes than Romney; Hillary just garnered very little support.

As to the Dems not taking the house... this seems wishful thinking fueled by your friends over a Fox News as it is contrary to US history. Over the years, the party out of power typically picks up seats in mid-term elections. In years where the President's approval ratings are in the mid 40's, such as the case with Trump, those "pick-ups" tend to be "wave elections" (a pick-up of 20 or more seats).... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_elections_in_the_United_States. The Dems need 24 seats to take the house. About six of those seats will come from the re-districted Pennsylvania, picking up the remaining 18 seats should be a walk in the park. The 2006, 2010 and 1994 elections, where the Presidential approval ratings were the mid-40's resulted in seat flips of 31, 63 and 54 seats, respectively. Every house race since 2016 has seen a double digit change in Republican support between 2016 and the current election. There is almost no basis, other than wishful thinking, to believe that the house will not flip.

This time next year, far more likely than not, we are discussing impeachment. Depending on how outlandish the charges and the Republican reaction to same will dictate whether the Cons have any shot whatsoever in 2020. The Cons best chances are if they turn on Trump next year and scramble toward the appearance that they are doing the right thing for the country.

If I were you, I would not be too invested in the future of a Trump administration.

Click to expand...

My friends at Fox News? I am entirely, completely against Trump and couldn't be more eager to see his back. The fact that I'm afraid he will be re-elected has nothing to do with any support I might give him (oh my God, no!). Much the opposite, I intend to donate the maximum amount of money I can to whoever opposes him, and I intend to actively participate in the campaign to try to get people to avoid the mistake of 2016 of staying home (given how Hillary ran a horrible campaign; and of course also due to the Russians, and the stupid Comey letter).

I never watch Fox News except on occasion to see what the "enemies" are thinking.

Wishful thinking? I strongly hope for the Dems to take the house and at least be able to obstruct the disastrous Trump administration.

I'm just afraid they won't...

If Trump achieves peace in North Korea (the one thing in which I support him; I mean, I don't doubt he will screw up, but I hope he doesn't, for the sake of the country and the world) he will breach the 50% threashold. At the peak of the appearance that he was achieving something there, his popularity in some polls went to 53%. Maybe, biased polls. But if the economy performs well and there is peace and prosperity (although temporary), it won't be so easy to unseat the incumbent.

Invested in the future of the Trump administration? Far from me.

I don't see why my simply predicting that things won't be so easy, equals in your mind, support for Trump.

But let's not underestimate him. 16 Republican primary candidates did, and he beat them all, then beat Hillary (although like you said by a hair and with the help of the Russians, and the help of Hillary's unforced errors, plus a relentless smear campaign that worked).

If we want to win we need to stay vigilant and engaged, and we shouldn't think we have it in the bag.

RAMOSS said:

Even if there is a blue wave in the House, and by some miracle the Democrats actually take the Senate, it won't be the 60 vote majority needed for conviction, unless Mueller comes up with something so horrendous not even the Republicans can ignore it.

Click to expand...

Conviction needs 67 votes, not 60. It will never happen, even if Mueller finds something horrendous. Yes, the Republicans will ignore everything, because they are afraid that the Trump base will prevent them from getting re-elected if they take him down. They are cowards. Maybe there will be impeachment but definitely not conviction.

Here are the top 3 priorities for these Republican senators (and that would be true of Democrats too):

1. Get re-elected
2. Get re-elected
3. Get re-elected

Notice that "doing the right thing" or "doing what is good for the American people" are not listed among those top 3 priorities.

Puigb said:

Oh please. After Romney lost in 2012, who the hell did the Republicans have as "emerging leadership"? Obviously nobody, since their party was completely hi-jacked by a loud mouth Reality T.V. Game show host. ANYTHING can happen between now and 2020. Nobody thought after the GOP lost in 2012 that their next leader would be Donald Trump of all people.

Click to expand...

Trump wasn't really even on the radar. Look at the difference in the primaries for the last election. Republicans had many emerging leaders -- Cruz, Rubio, Ryan, Kasich etc. -- many of whom are still active in politics and will be strong potential candidates in 2020 or 2024. The best Democrats could do is Sanders (who no one viewed as a legitimate contender) and recycling Clinton.

apdst said:

And the case will get kicked out, as soon as the judge finds out that the information was obtained illegally.

Click to expand...

You are right about that. I consulted a top level lawyer who is a friend of mine, a graduate of an excellent law school. He said that in my analogy the evidence would be tainted. He did say that the cop could simply say that he saw them drag the body because he was already suspicious of the husband and was investigating based on his sister-in-law's report, and simply not mention how he knew he needed to be there at 1 AM.

But I also explained to him my question about the Spanish prosecutor turning the evidence into the FBI, and while my analogy was imperfect, this part seems to be admissible, for a totally different reason. Here is what the lawyer said:

"The constitution only protects citizens from the US government. If another country acquires evidence through their process and sends it to the US, the US can use it."

Interesting. So I was right about the evidence being admissible, but not for the reason I imagined.

GreatNews2night said:

You are right about that. I consulted a top level lawyer who is a friend of mine, a graduate of an excellent law school. He said that in my analogy the evidence would be tainted. He did say that the cop could simply say that he saw them drag the body because he was already suspicious of the husband and was investigating based on his sister-in-law's report, and simply not mention how he knew he needed to be there at 1 AM.

But I also explained to him my question about the Spanish prosecutor turning the evidence into the FBI, and while my analogy was imperfect, this part seems to be admissible, for a totally different reason. Here is what the lawyer said:

"The constitution only protects citizens from the US government. If another country acquires evidence through their process and sends it to the US, the US can use it."

Interesting. So I was right about the evidence being admissible, but not for the reason I imagined.

Click to expand...

Well hell! By your logic, U.S. law enforcement could just farm out all it's surveillance to forein intel agencies and skip over The Constitution. You know that isn't legal. Right?

apdst said:

Well hell! By your logic, U.S. law enforcement could just farm out all it's surveillance to forein intel agencies and skip over The Constitution. You know that isn't legal. Right?

Click to expand...

But the Spanish folks wiretapped the guy in Europe, not here. And it's not my logic. I simply submitted the question to this very knowledgeable lawyer and that's what he told me. Honest. I swear that this is what I did, and this is what he said. I frankly believe that he knows a lot more about it than you and me unless you are also a lawyer.

PS - I just got another short email from him, where he said: "Another factor is the US has treaties with most developed countries to share law enforcement documents. We have such a treaty with Spain, meaning that our courts accept their documents even if their procedures aren’t the same as ours.

If they were documents from say, North Korea, with whom we certainly don’t have a treaty, then a court would reject it. But we view Spain as a peer nation with a fair justice system."

GreatNews2night said:

But the Spanish folks wiretapped the guy in Europe, not here. And it's not my logic. I simply submitted the question to this very knowledgeable lawyer and that's what he told me. Honest. I swear that this is what I did, and this is what he said. I frankly believe that he knows a lot more about it than you and me unless you are also a lawyer.

PS - I just got another short email from him, where he said: "Another factor is the US has treaties with most developed countries to share law enforcement documents. We have such a treaty with Spain, meaning that our courts accept their documents even if their procedures aren’t the same as ours.

If they were documents from say, North Korea, with whom we certainly don’t have a treaty, then a court would reject it. But we view Spain as a peer nation with a fair justice system."

Click to expand...

Ask your pard if it would be constitutional for the FBI to ask a foreign intelligence apparatus to surveil an American citizen.

apdst said:

Ask your pard if it would be constitutional for the FBI to ask a foreign intelligence apparatus to surveil an American citizen.

Click to expand...

But that's not the situation. Nobody asked a foreign intelligence apparatus to surveil an American citizen. Your scenario of outsourcing is not what happened. And my friend didn't say that Americans could outsource this so that foreign agencies spy on our citizens, over here. He merely said that if a foreign source with whom we have a treaty, using their own legal processes, in their own country, going after their own people there, then bump into evidence that an American committed a crime, they refer it to the FBI and it is admissible.

Here is what happened: the Spanish apparatus engaged independently in surveillance of the Russian, in Europe, talking to another Russian (apparently they were investigating the guy for possible money laundering in Spain). Apparently Trump Jr. was mentioned in the recorded conversation and the prosecutor turned the evidence into the FBI.

Are you under the impression that the Spanish prosecutor was surveiling Trump Jr? Again, that's not what happened, so, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

What my lawyer friend said is that the evidence the Spaniards bumped into, can be turned into the FBI and it is admissible (just like the Interpol; these law enforcement agencies have treaties of cooperation and mutual admissibility) because it doesn't fall under the US Constitutional protections, given that it wasn't the doing of an American agency.

An European agency surveiled an European talking to another European. If evidence of a crime committed by an American then pops up in the conversation, the Spaniards notify the United States. Just like, if the FBI were (with the proper warrants) surveiling two Americans and they talked about evidence that a Spanish person committed a crime, the FBI would warn the Spaniards.

Got it now?

*Should* our protections extend to such situation? Maybe they should; I'm not disputing this part. But according to my friend, they currently don't. If you want your representatives to sponsor a constitutional amendment to include something about this, be my guest; but currently, there aren't constitutional protections in the US against evidence of a crime committed by an American, when it's discovered by a foreign agency operating abroad. The Spaniards reached their conclusion independently, using their own processes, supposedly did it legally too according to their laws, and they found something that compromises an American; given their treaties of international law enforcement cooperation, they warned the United States.

Now, let me tell you who my friend is. He majored in International Studies in college. Spent time studying in Switzerland and Italy during college. Law school in the Ivy League. Works for a major firm specializing in white collar crime. His firm does defend foreigners and they have offices in London and Milan (in addition to several offices in the United States).

Frankly, I'm quite sure he knows waaaaaaay more about this than you and me. I mean, I can speak for me. He knows way more than me, no doubt (which is why I asked him). I don't know if you are a lawyer specializing in white collar international crime (with a background in international studies and time spent studying in Europe), who graduated from one of the best law schools in the United States (and the world), and who works for a firm with international expertise. If you are, then, fine. If you aren't, chances are that he knows more about this than you do.

So, why not take the word of an expert?

According to him, if (and that's an if because we don't know what is in the tape) the Spanish prosecutors when surveiling two Russians in Europe, bumped into information that compromises Trump Jr., they can turn it into the FBI, and it is admissible.

The "if" is kind of likely, given what the Spanish prosecutor said: "The president's son should be concerned."

Why in the hell would he say that, if the content of the tape had nothing to do with Trump Jr.???

GreatNews2night said:

But the Spanish folks wiretapped the guy in Europe, not here. And it's not my logic. I simply submitted the question to this very knowledgeable lawyer and that's what he told me. Honest. I swear that this is what I did, and this is what he said. I frankly believe that he knows a lot more about it than you and me unless you are also a lawyer.

PS - I just got another short email from him, where he said: "Another factor is the US has treaties with most developed countries to share law enforcement documents. We have such a treaty with Spain, meaning that our courts accept their documents even if their procedures aren’t the same as ours.

If they were documents from say, North Korea, with whom we certainly don’t have a treaty, then a court would reject it. But we view Spain as a peer nation with a fair justice system."

Click to expand...

It's an interesting question, for sure. Even if the wiretap is technically admissible, I believe actually using it in court would require having someone testify to it's validity and chain of custody -- something that the Spanish intelligence agency isn't likely to do. It may be useful for intelligence purposes, but not for anyone's trial.

apdst said:

Ask your pard if it would be constitutional for the FBI to ask a foreign intelligence apparatus to surveil an American citizen.

Click to expand...

I don't know whether it's constitutional, but we ended up with all roads in the Trump investigation leading to MI6.

Remember last year in March, Napolitano made the following statement on Fox News:

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command…He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, he didn’t use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ… the initials from the British intelligence spying agency. By having two people say to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump he’s able to get it and no American fingerprints on it.”

The following day Napolitano was taken off air and when he came back 2 weeks later, he was a "changed man".

Jr. may worry, but, ultimately, he has nothing to worry about. Worst case scenario, Dad will pardon him and he'll still be riding 1st class. What? Me? Worry?

dcsports said:

It's an interesting question, for sure. Even if the wiretap is technically admissible, I believe actually using it in court would require having someone testify to it's validity and chain of custody -- something that the Spanish intelligence agency isn't likely to do. It may be useful for intelligence purposes, but not for anyone's trial.

Click to expand...

Sure, but why not? The FBI could bring in their Spanish counterparts who would testify to its validity and chain of custody. Fine. There would probably also be technical testimony about whether or not there was evidence of tampering or editing. But that's because the thing is already admissible, so, it plays a role in the trial, the role is scrutinized, the two parties fight about it, sure. But it's admissible. Otherwise it doesn't even get to that. You don't need to bring experts to talk about chain of custody and all and electronic evidence of tampering or lack thereof if something is not admissible. Why waste the time? The thing won't be part of the trial, period. It's for the admissible stuff that all that happens.

bluesmoke said:

Jr. may worry, but, ultimately, he has nothing to worry about. Worst case scenario, Dad will pardon him and he'll still be riding 1st class. What? Me? Worry?

Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. If evidence of a crime is found, a federal prosecutor has the option of turning the case into the state court of the state that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the crime was committed, and then, a presidential pardon can't touch a state court. Mueller is no spring chicken. He will likely think of all that when he decides about federal indictments versus referrals to state prosecutors.

apdst said:

Ask your pard if it would be constitutional for the FBI to ask a foreign intelligence apparatus to surveil an American citizen.

Click to expand...

Why are you rooting for the Trumps to get away with criminal activity on technicalities? Are they that neato in your lil world?

markjs said:

Why are you rooting for the Trumps to get away with criminal activity on technicalities? Are they that neato in your lil world?

Click to expand...

Why are you rooting for American citizens's civil rights to be violated?

Barnacle said:

I don't know whether it's constitutional, but we ended up with all roads in the Trump investigation leading to MI6.

Remember last year in March, Napolitano made the following statement on Fox News:

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command…He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, he didn’t use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ… the initials from the British intelligence spying agency. By having two people say to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump he’s able to get it and no American fingerprints on it.”

The following day Napolitano was taken off air and when he came back 2 weeks later, he was a "changed man".

Click to expand...

That and a Clinton connection are the two main constants in this whole **** show.

GreatNews2night said:

But that's not the situation. Nobody asked a foreign intelligence apparatus to surveil an American citizen. Your scenario of outsourcing is not what happened. And my friend didn't say that Americans could outsource this so that foreign agencies spy on our citizens, over here. He merely said that if a foreign source with whom we have a treaty, using their own legal processes, in their own country, going after their own people there, then bump into evidence that an American committed a crime, they refer it to the FBI and it is admissible.

Here is what happened: the Spanish apparatus engaged independently in surveillance of the Russian, in Europe, talking to another Russian (apparently they were investigating the guy for possible money laundering in Spain). Apparently Trump Jr. was mentioned in the recorded conversation and the prosecutor turned the evidence into the FBI.

Are you under the impression that the Spanish prosecutor was surveiling Trump Jr? Again, that's not what happened, so, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

What my lawyer friend said is that the evidence the Spaniards bumped into, can be turned into the FBI and it is admissible (just like the Interpol; these law enforcement agencies have treaties of cooperation and mutual admissibility) because it doesn't fall under the US Constitutional protections, given that it wasn't the doing of an American agency.

An European agency surveiled an European talking to another European. If evidence of a crime committed by an American then pops up in the conversation, the Spaniards notify the United States. Just like, if the FBI were (with the proper warrants) surveiling two Americans and they talked about evidence that a Spanish person committed a crime, the FBI would warn the Spaniards.

Got it now?

*Should* our protections extend to such situation? Maybe they should; I'm not disputing this part. But according to my friend, they currently don't. If you want your representatives to sponsor a constitutional amendment to include something about this, be my guest; but currently, there aren't constitutional protections in the US against evidence of a crime committed by an American, when it's discovered by a foreign agency operating abroad. The Spaniards reached their conclusion independently, using their own processes, supposedly did it legally too according to their laws, and they found something that compromises an American; given their treaties of international law enforcement cooperation, they warned the United States.

Now, let me tell you who my friend is. He majored in International Studies in college. Spent time studying in Switzerland and Italy during college. Law school in the Ivy League. Works for a major firm specializing in white collar crime. His firm does defend foreigners and they have offices in London and Milan (in addition to several offices in the United States).

Frankly, I'm quite sure he knows waaaaaaay more about this than you and me. I mean, I can speak for me. He knows way more than me, no doubt (which is why I asked him). I don't know if you are a lawyer specializing in white collar international crime (with a background in international studies and time spent studying in Europe), who graduated from one of the best law schools in the United States (and the world), and who works for a firm with international expertise. If you are, then, fine. If you aren't, chances are that he knows more about this than you do.

So, why not take the word of an expert?

According to him, if (and that's an if because we don't know what is in the tape) the Spanish prosecutors when surveiling two Russians in Europe, bumped into information that compromises Trump Jr., they can turn it into the FBI, and it is admissible.

The "if" is kind of likely, given what the Spanish prosecutor said: "The president's son should be concerned."

Why in the hell would he say that, if the content of the tape had nothing to do with Trump Jr.???

Click to expand...

You don't know that. We already found out that the FBI planted a spy inside the Trump campaign. At this point, anything is possible.

GreatNews2night said:

Don't be so sure. If evidence of a crime is found, a federal prosecutor has the option of turning the case into the state court of the state that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the crime was committed, and then, a presidential pardon can't touch a state court. Mueller is no spring chicken. He will likely think of all that when he decides about federal indictments versus referrals to state prosecutors.

Click to expand...

But it’s a federal case, not a state case. The US is the offended party. It involves a violation of the US Constitution or federal law, not state law. Mueller, or whoever handles the case, is bound to pursue the matter in federal court. It can’t be “given” to a state court.

justabubba said:

you make excellent points
and if the blue wave crests, there may well be an impeachment
but it appears the wave will not result in a changed senate balance, preventing a conviction

the only way i see tRump not surviving until 2020 is due to his diet or because Mueller's investigation reveals matters so heinous, that even a republican senate will no longer stand with the sitting president

Click to expand...

It's actually my "hope" that the impeachment happens and Trump is retained. Of course, I feel more comfortable with a Democratic POTUS, so I am interested in the best path to get there.

Giving Pence two years in the White House and establishing him as an incumbent far better positions the Repubs to retain the White House and Senate than if the Senate votes to retain him. Depending on how compelling the ultimate impeachment case is in the eyes of the independent / swing voters will tell us whether the Republicans get shellacked in 2020 (because it appeared they voted party over rule of law) or have a fight chance to stay in power (because the case ended up being weak and looked like a 'witch hunt').

The problem for the Republicans right now is they think there is safe-harbor in appealing to their base. If they don't wish to be primaried or draw the ire of Trump, I suppose its a bit of a short term strategy... kind of like staying in a foxhole. Their base, however, is insufficient to them to retain power. If the charges have substance, Trump will be likely neutered by an impeachment trial. His Republican support will realize they are in not in a safe harbor, but a foxhole they must leave.

The path to victory in 2020 is through the independents*. Ultimately, they have to address the swing voters or, figure out as they did in 2016, convince the Dems to stay home (the latter is likely a lost cause as they seem pretty highly motivated to right their wrong of staying home based upon the special elections of 2017 and 2018)..... the Republicans from districts where they win by 10 points or less, that fail to do the right thing in the impeachment trials of 2019, are done. That is a big number.

* - with full recognition that most independents (including most on DP) are IINO; most naturally lean one way or another. In fact, about only 1/3 of those that say they are independent actually swing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pendent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.049a5c63b4d2

apdst said:

You don't know that. We already found out that the FBI planted a spy inside the Trump campaign. At this point, anything is possible.

Click to expand...

No, they did not plant a spy inside the Trump campaign. That is a blatant lie. They repeated the lie so often that now you believe in it. Poor you.

GreatNews2night said:

No, they did not plant a spy inside the Trump campaign. That is a blatant lie. They repeated the lie so often that now you believe in it. Poor you.

Click to expand...

What would you call it?

apdst said:

What would you call it?

Click to expand...

"They" was the FBI. Obama wasn't even aware of it. And what they did, is that an informant talked 3 or 4 times with members of the campaign. Period.
But you'be been told a lie, and you are used to believing in what your handlers tell you. Sad.

dcsports said:

Trump wasn't really even on the radar. Look at the difference in the primaries for the last election. Republicans had many emerging leaders -- Cruz, Rubio, Ryan, Kasich etc. -- many of whom are still active in politics and will be strong potential candidates in 2020 or 2024. The best Democrats could do is Sanders (who no one viewed as a legitimate contender) and recycling Clinton.

Click to expand...

And again, you are proving my point. Trump wasn't on the radar at all, and yet today he's the president of the United States. You have no idea who can emerge from now until 2020. Anything can happen. You mention Cruz, Rubio, Ryan and Kasich, are any of them president? Nope, Trump is. Which means the guy that was NOT on the radar after Romney's loss...ended up being the winner. The same thing can easily happen to the Democrats.