The country is going to pay for the divinely inpsired madness that was the FBI's decision to get involved with the Steele dossier for years to come.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/us/politics/trump-fbi-justice.html …
-
-
Replying to @varadmehta
Surprised to see you pushing this. Considering info from shady sources is normal for intelligence. And FBI had a relationship with Steele from the FIFA investigation. Do you really think the US should ignore counter-intel risks unless they hear about them from pristine sources?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
As I've said, the legal ins-and-outs aren't my concern. My focus is on the politics, because in the end Mueller/Russia will be resolved politically. And there the dossier is a stone cold loser.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @varadmehta
That’s simultaneously criticizing the FBI for being too political and not political enough. Unless it’s not a criticism at all? Perhaps a lament, with hindsight, that things worked out this way? Because a legal counter-Intel org doing counter-intel legally is how it should work.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
No one has made the right decision at any point in this mess. And I don't expect Mueller to be immune from that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @varadmehta @NGrossman81
And yeah, it's more a lament than a criticism, if those are the options. I'm trying to game this out. I don't understand why people are so resistant to the assertion that the provenance of the dossier matters politically. But maybe "resistant" is the correct term here.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @varadmehta @NGrossman81
Speaking of counter-intel, is the Mueller probe counter-intel still? Supposedly it was at the start but now I wonder if Mueller even knows. If he's serious about going after Trump for obstruction, then it isn't. But that would also be hitting the self-destruct button, so I dunno.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @varadmehta
The provenance of the dossier matters politically, but not legally. The FBI should operate according to the latter (and mostly does). But much of the public prioritizes political over legal (even though some wouldn't admit it).
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @varadmehta
Mueller's mandate was always broad. Basically, answer the Russia question, and prosecute crimes discovered along the way. Papadopoulos counter-intel. Flynn mostly counter-intel, but also some criminal. Manafort/Gates currently indicted for criminal, but probably counter-intel too
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @varadmehta
What's the counter-intel part of the Manafort/Gates case?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Manafort worked for Ukraine's Russia-allied leader Viktor Yanukovych, spearheading a lobbying campaign in the US. That, on its own isn't illegal. But when he ran the Trump campaign, the Republican party platform changed its stance towards Ukraine. Worth investigating why.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.