-
@crucial said in US Politics:
As I have said before, I don't think that Trump himself directed anything but others in his campaign did and have tried to keep it under wraps. Dumb Donny Jnr is the most likely screwup and where Trump himself will possibly cop it is from trying to protect his son from something that he thought was minor and could be brushed away.
Yeah that is just a pipe dream form people who are desperate for a way to redo the 2016 election.
Do you have any actual evidence of Collusion from someone in Trumps team? Better yet any evidence of collusion more substantial than the Democrats and Steele working directly with Russians? -
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel Do you not think that if there is a possibility that a foreign power is trying to influence your electoral process that it's not worthy of investigation? Leaving aside the right v left and pro/anti Trump issues?
Do you honestly think this is something new? Shit the Guardian was very upfront in their attempts to influence voters in Clarke County during the 2004 election. Maybe not a foreign power, but still a dirty foreigner melding in an election and trying to influence the result.
If the Russians controlled congressmen or senators or judges then yes, investigate that, but bots on social media? Give me a break.
I don' think it's as simple as bots on social media mate, more importantly, neither do the Seppos. Whether or not more is found will likely be the measurement, but I would be pretty pissed off if something like this happened in the UK and the authorities did jack shit despite knowing about it.
I don't know. I think I'd be more pissed off about millions of pounds in public money being spent on determining that the Russians played silly buggers on social media. If it was talk of hacking voting machines or channelling massive amounts of cash into the hands of certain candidates or parties then fair enough. But as far as I'm aware, there have never been any claims of this actually occurring.
Are there actually specific terms of reference for this investigation?
I think you need to view it in the light of whatever was being done, it was being done in an organised manner by a foreign (unfriendly) power with a view to disrupt or influence the democratic system the US is trying to uphold. Simple as that.
Doesn't matter if they changed sides or changed results or were even successful in any way. It is that they were doing it.
The offshoot of this investigation (where the extent of influence is being looked at) is whether anybody within the US system knowingly brought into the disruption in an attempt to help themselves.
Trump has always tried to paint the picture that unless he deliberately planned stuff alongside the Russians then he did nothing wrong. That isn't the case.
As I have said before, I don't think that Trump himself directed anything but others in his campaign did and have tried to keep it under wraps. Dumb Donny Jnr is the most likely screwup and where Trump himself will possibly cop it is from trying to protect his son from something that he thought was minor and could be brushed away.It's very difficult to know whether you actually give a shit about Russian involvement or are still living in hope that the investigation will find something that will bring down Trump.
I do think he should give a shit about Russian interference and no, I'm not 'living in hope' of anything, just stating my opinion. I'm not trying to win a prize here.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
As I have said before, I don't think that Trump himself directed anything but others in his campaign did and have tried to keep it under wraps. Dumb Donny Jnr is the most likely screwup and where Trump himself will possibly cop it is from trying to protect his son from something that he thought was minor and could be brushed away.
Yeah that is just a pipe dream form people who are desperate for a way to redo the 2016 election.
Do you have any actual evidence of Collusion from someone in Trumps team? Better yet any evidence of collusion more substantial than the Democrats and Steele working directly with Russians?No, I don't. But I'm not an investigator in what is an ongoing investigation and not party to all they know.
As I explained, to say only a narrow definition of collusion is wrongdoing is misleading. That isn't what the investigation is.
The questions are- was there interference from a foreign power?
- did anyone from any campaign get involved with that interference?
- basically, was everything done according to the laws of the country.
Quite simple to understand the purpose and complicated to unravel, especially given the propensity of politicians and their sidekicks to tell lies and omit truths.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
As I have said before, I don't think that Trump himself directed anything but others in his campaign did and have tried to keep it under wraps. Dumb Donny Jnr is the most likely screwup and where Trump himself will possibly cop it is from trying to protect his son from something that he thought was minor and could be brushed away.
Yeah that is just a pipe dream form people who are desperate for a way to redo the 2016 election.
Do you have any actual evidence of Collusion from someone in Trumps team? Better yet any evidence of collusion more substantial than the Democrats and Steele working directly with Russians?No, I don't. But I'm not an investigator in what is an ongoing investigation and not party to all they know.
As I explained, to say only a narrow definition of collusion is wrongdoing is misleading. That isn't what the investigation is.
The questions are- was there interference from a foreign power?
- did anyone from any campaign get involved with that interference?
- basically, was everything done according to the laws of the country.
Quite simple to understand the purpose and complicated to unravel, especially given the propensity of politicians and their sidekicks to tell lies and omit truths.
We already know the answers to all your questions. Steele and the Democrats answered them..
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel Do you not think that if there is a possibility that a foreign power is trying to influence your electoral process that it's not worthy of investigation? Leaving aside the right v left and pro/anti Trump issues?
Do you honestly think this is something new? Shit the Guardian was very upfront in their attempts to influence voters in Clarke County during the 2004 election. Maybe not a foreign power, but still a dirty foreigner melding in an election and trying to influence the result.
If the Russians controlled congressmen or senators or judges then yes, investigate that, but bots on social media? Give me a break.
I don' think it's as simple as bots on social media mate, more importantly, neither do the Seppos. Whether or not more is found will likely be the measurement, but I would be pretty pissed off if something like this happened in the UK and the authorities did jack shit despite knowing about it.
I don't know. I think I'd be more pissed off about millions of pounds in public money being spent on determining that the Russians played silly buggers on social media. If it was talk of hacking voting machines or channelling massive amounts of cash into the hands of certain candidates or parties then fair enough. But as far as I'm aware, there have never been any claims of this actually occurring.
Are there actually specific terms of reference for this investigation?
I think you need to view it in the light of whatever was being done, it was being done in an organised manner by a foreign (unfriendly) power with a view to disrupt or influence the democratic system the US is trying to uphold. Simple as that.
Doesn't matter if they changed sides or changed results or were even successful in any way. It is that they were doing it.
The offshoot of this investigation (where the extent of influence is being looked at) is whether anybody within the US system knowingly brought into the disruption in an attempt to help themselves.
Trump has always tried to paint the picture that unless he deliberately planned stuff alongside the Russians then he did nothing wrong. That isn't the case.
As I have said before, I don't think that Trump himself directed anything but others in his campaign did and have tried to keep it under wraps. Dumb Donny Jnr is the most likely screwup and where Trump himself will possibly cop it is from trying to protect his son from something that he thought was minor and could be brushed away.It's very difficult to know whether you actually give a shit about Russian involvement or are still living in hope that the investigation will find something that will bring down Trump.
I do think he should give a shit about Russian interference and no, I'm not 'living in hope' of anything, just stating my opinion. I'm not trying to win a prize here.
I'm sure he does give a shit about Russian interference, but he's perfectly entitled to be pissed off that his entire presidency is being called into question based on nothing but a smear campaign from the losing side. He is also right to be suspicious of the investigation. Again I go back to terms of reference. Are they just investigating foreign influence or investigating him or anyone or anything with even the most tenuous link to him?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel Do you not think that if there is a possibility that a foreign power is trying to influence your electoral process that it's not worthy of investigation? Leaving aside the right v left and pro/anti Trump issues?
Do you honestly think this is something new? Shit the Guardian was very upfront in their attempts to influence voters in Clarke County during the 2004 election. Maybe not a foreign power, but still a dirty foreigner melding in an election and trying to influence the result.
If the Russians controlled congressmen or senators or judges then yes, investigate that, but bots on social media? Give me a break.
I don' think it's as simple as bots on social media mate, more importantly, neither do the Seppos. Whether or not more is found will likely be the measurement, but I would be pretty pissed off if something like this happened in the UK and the authorities did jack shit despite knowing about it.
I don't know. I think I'd be more pissed off about millions of pounds in public money being spent on determining that the Russians played silly buggers on social media. If it was talk of hacking voting machines or channelling massive amounts of cash into the hands of certain candidates or parties then fair enough. But as far as I'm aware, there have never been any claims of this actually occurring.
Are there actually specific terms of reference for this investigation?
I think you need to view it in the light of whatever was being done, it was being done in an organised manner by a foreign (unfriendly) power with a view to disrupt or influence the democratic system the US is trying to uphold. Simple as that.
Doesn't matter if they changed sides or changed results or were even successful in any way. It is that they were doing it.
The offshoot of this investigation (where the extent of influence is being looked at) is whether anybody within the US system knowingly brought into the disruption in an attempt to help themselves.
Trump has always tried to paint the picture that unless he deliberately planned stuff alongside the Russians then he did nothing wrong. That isn't the case.
As I have said before, I don't think that Trump himself directed anything but others in his campaign did and have tried to keep it under wraps. Dumb Donny Jnr is the most likely screwup and where Trump himself will possibly cop it is from trying to protect his son from something that he thought was minor and could be brushed away.It's very difficult to know whether you actually give a shit about Russian involvement or are still living in hope that the investigation will find something that will bring down Trump.
I do think he should give a shit about Russian interference and no, I'm not 'living in hope' of anything, just stating my opinion. I'm not trying to win a prize here.
I'm sure he does give a shit about Russian interference, but he's perfectly entitled to be pissed off that his entire presidency is being called into question based on nothing but a smear campaign from the losing side. He is also right to be suspicious of the investigation. Again I go back to terms of reference. Are they just investigating foreign influence or investigating him or anyone or anything with even the most tenuous link to him?
He's given no indication he is pissed off with Russian interference. Apart from opinions by commentators his legitimacy isn't being called into question. That is a story of his own making consistent with still carrying on about the losing side over a year later.
I'm not talking about a smear campaign, I'm talking about the legitimate investigation which has provided its terms of reference numerous times even if the media and others kept trying to bring focus on Trump (because that is the bigger story).
Why is he right to be suspicious? No reason unless you believe his own paranoia.
Yes, it appears that the FBI used some of Steele's work to support their investigative needs and Steele was funded by anti-Trumpers. The also verified as fact those parts they used before continuing. Does it then matter what the origin is? If some dirtbag provided provable evidence on a murder are investigators meant to discard it because of the origin? -
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel Do you not think that if there is a possibility that a foreign power is trying to influence your electoral process that it's not worthy of investigation? Leaving aside the right v left and pro/anti Trump issues?
Do you honestly think this is something new? Shit the Guardian was very upfront in their attempts to influence voters in Clarke County during the 2004 election. Maybe not a foreign power, but still a dirty foreigner melding in an election and trying to influence the result.
If the Russians controlled congressmen or senators or judges then yes, investigate that, but bots on social media? Give me a break.
I don' think it's as simple as bots on social media mate, more importantly, neither do the Seppos. Whether or not more is found will likely be the measurement, but I would be pretty pissed off if something like this happened in the UK and the authorities did jack shit despite knowing about it.
I don't know. I think I'd be more pissed off about millions of pounds in public money being spent on determining that the Russians played silly buggers on social media. If it was talk of hacking voting machines or channelling massive amounts of cash into the hands of certain candidates or parties then fair enough. But as far as I'm aware, there have never been any claims of this actually occurring.
Are there actually specific terms of reference for this investigation?
I think you need to view it in the light of whatever was being done, it was being done in an organised manner by a foreign (unfriendly) power with a view to disrupt or influence the democratic system the US is trying to uphold. Simple as that.
Doesn't matter if they changed sides or changed results or were even successful in any way. It is that they were doing it.
The offshoot of this investigation (where the extent of influence is being looked at) is whether anybody within the US system knowingly brought into the disruption in an attempt to help themselves.
Trump has always tried to paint the picture that unless he deliberately planned stuff alongside the Russians then he did nothing wrong. That isn't the case.
As I have said before, I don't think that Trump himself directed anything but others in his campaign did and have tried to keep it under wraps. Dumb Donny Jnr is the most likely screwup and where Trump himself will possibly cop it is from trying to protect his son from something that he thought was minor and could be brushed away.It's very difficult to know whether you actually give a shit about Russian involvement or are still living in hope that the investigation will find something that will bring down Trump.
I do think he should give a shit about Russian interference and no, I'm not 'living in hope' of anything, just stating my opinion. I'm not trying to win a prize here.
I'm sure he does give a shit about Russian interference, but he's perfectly entitled to be pissed off that his entire presidency is being called into question based on nothing but a smear campaign from the losing side. He is also right to be suspicious of the investigation. Again I go back to terms of reference. Are they just investigating foreign influence or investigating him or anyone or anything with even the most tenuous link to him?
He's given no indication he is pissed off with Russian interference. Apart from opinions by commentators his legitimacy isn't being called into question. That is a story of his own making consistent with still carrying on about the losing side over a year later.
I'm not talking about a smear campaign, I'm talking about the legitimate investigation which has provided its terms of reference numerous times even if the media and others kept trying to bring focus on Trump (because that is the bigger story).
Why is he right to be suspicious? No reason unless you believe his own paranoia.
Yes, it appears that the FBI used some of Steele's work to support their investigative needs and Steele was funded by anti-Trumpers. The also verified as fact those parts they used before continuing. Does it then matter what the origin is? If some dirtbag provided provable evidence on a murder are investigators meant to discard it because of the origin?Ok.. now you are just making stuff up.
Please tell us what parts they verified as facts before continuing, and how much of the dossier was verified? That dossier is a steaming pile of horse manure. Unproven salacious crap. I get you want to like it because it is a nasty hit job against a politician you don't like, but don't pretend it is remotely credible.
And did you seriously say
"Does it then matter what the origin is?"WTF? That is the whole point, but I am guessing you don't care if Russians provide lies and propaganda as long as it is against Trump, but as soon as they organise a rally for 45 people.. that is the big news.
You just cannot make up this level of double standard.
Being russian doesnt matter when providing info to Democrat paid for Steele...
Being Russian is a huge deal if they organise a Facebook gathering for 40 odd people. -
@crucial there's a good Sam Harris podcast just out with Niall Ferguson, Hirsan Ai (sorry spelling) husband and historian.
He talks a bit about these events without the rabid narrative distortion you get on here.If, like me, you couldn't give a figs arse what sort of character a dysfunctional US electorate elects, but the historical context it provides, the podcast is worth a listen.
-
@siam rabid narrative distortion???
What a meaningless piece of nonsense.
How do you distort a narrative?
Dysfunctional US electorate? Why? Because they elected Trump?...the guy you supposedly don't give a fig about. Yeah right. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@siam rabid narrative distortion???
What a meaningless piece of nonsense.
How do you distort a narrative?
Dysfunctional US electorate? Why? Because they elected Trump?...the guy you supposedly don't give a fig about. Yeah right.Errrr ok.....
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
Ok.. now you are just making stuff up.
Please tell us what parts they verified as facts before continuing, and how much of the dossier was verified? That dossier is a steaming pile of horse manure. Unproven salacious crap. I get you want to like it because it is a nasty hit job against a politician you don't like, but don't pretend it is remotely credible.Considering the the FISA application I am referring to was for surveillance on Page, I think it is a fair assumption that the part about Page was used. The 'dossier' is just that, a dossier. A collection of various things that Steele's investigations lead him to assess. The FBI decided that the Page allegations were grounded in enough factual evidence that they could take them to a judge for a FISA warrant. The judge agreed that there was enough evidence there to grant it.
I guess that your assumption was that they used untested and unverifiable allegations and pulled the wool over a judge's eyes? 'Look, this pommy bloke says Trump plays watersports with Russian hookers! Can I have a warrant to snoop on something unrelated?'
Yep, that sounds stupid.
Which of the above is most likely to be closest to fact?And did you seriously say
"Does it then matter what the origin is?"Yes, In context.
It does matter where the evidence/allegation came from and the Judge was told exactly where and who funded it.
However, despite the origin, if there is a fact in Steele's work that is proven independently (yes, the FBI is not the democratic party despite Mr Trumps tweets saying they are) then surely you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'll re-word my previous example. The Mongrel Mob tell the police about a whole load of shit they reckon Black Power are up to. The police put aside much of it as unprovable hearsay from an unreliable source but among the allegations is some strong and provable facts linked to an unsolved murder. They want to follow that lead. Should they totally ignore it instead?WTF? That is the whole point, but I am guessing you don't care if Russians provide lies and propaganda as long as it is against Trump, but as soon as they organise a rally for 45 people.. that is the big news.
You just cannot make up this level of double standard.
Being russian doesnt matter when providing info to Democrat paid for Steele...
Being Russian is a huge deal if they organise a Facebook gathering for 40 odd people.Now who is getting silly? Have I said, or implied any of that?
Yes, I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him, and certainly not anywhere near your own declared levels of hatred for Obama and Clinton.
I'm happy if someone less biased calls my out on having double standards but shouting from way over the other side of the fence carries no weight.
I have quite clearly stated that I don't think that Trump personally ran, directed or even instructed some great plan with Russia. Nor do I think there is any way to judge how the election was affected. I'm not campaigning for a reversal either.
I am simply stating how I see things, which differs to other views and for the most part am happy to try and support my opinion.
No, I don't agree with Trump's 'world view' but most of all I dislike his childish, narcissistic behaviour.
None of this is going to lead anywhere good. I tend to believe that as the pressure comes harder on Trump he will reach a point where he will just quit and claim a high ground leading disenfranchised supporters to feel shit upon and dividing the country even further. Metaphorically he will set fire to those tacky gold drapes and walk out of the office. -
@crucial said in US Politics:
Considering the the FISA application I am referring to was for surveillance on Page, I think it is a fair assumption that the part about Page was used. The 'dossier' is just that, a dossier. A collection of various things that Steele's investigations lead him to assess. The FBI decided that the Page allegations were grounded in enough factual evidence that they could take them to a judge for a FISA warrant. The judge agreed that there was enough evidence there to grant it.
I guess that your assumption was that they used untested and unverifiable allegations and pulled the wool over a judge's eyes? 'Look, this pommy bloke says Trump plays watersports with Russian hookers! Can I have a warrant to snoop on something unrelated?'I think your safe assumption is anything but safe, and you have no evidence to back up your claim. The FISA details haven't been released, and the people who have read them, have a very different opinion than you.
Yes, In context.
It does matter where the evidence/allegation came from and the Judge was told exactly where and who funded it.That is just completely and utterly 100% factually wrong.. where the heck do you get your information from??????
However, despite the origin, if there is a fact in Steele's work that is proven independently (yes, the FBI is not the democratic party despite Mr Trumps tweets saying they are) then surely you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'll re-word my previous example. The Mongrel Mob tell the police about a whole load of shit they reckon Black Power are up to. The police put aside much of it as unprovable hearsay from an unreliable source but among the allegations is some strong and provable facts linked to an unsolved murder. They want to follow that lead. Should they totally ignore it instead?Proven independently??? By who?? Please share as this is the first I have heard of this.
Your analogy is just silly.Yes, I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him, and certainly not anywhere near your own declared levels of hatred for Obama and Clinton.
Oh so you dont like Trump but apparently I hated Obama... I barely mentioned US politics during Obamas time, I certainly didnt post as much about him as you have about Trump..... And where did I declare hatred of Obama? Or is that something else you just made up?
I have quite clearly stated that I don't think that Trump personally ran, directed or even instructed some great plan with Russia. Nor do I think there is any way to judge how the election was affected. I'm not campaigning for a reversal either.
I am simply stating how I see things, which differs to other views and for the most part am happy to try and support my opinion.You dont really support your opinion at all, I have tried numerous times to get you to o that, you never really do.
None of this is going to lead anywhere good. I tend to believe that as the pressure comes harder on Trump he will reach a point where he will just quit and claim a high ground leading disenfranchised supporters to feel shit upon and dividing the country even further. Metaphorically he will set fire to those tacky gold drapes and walk out of the office.
The US is divided because the left there see compromise as everyone agreeing with everything they say. Do have an example of them compromising over Trump?
-
But the good news is that this will all come out. The scab has well and truly been picked.
-
That dastardly Rooskie “troll farm” that the unimpeachable Bob Mueller and the FBI just indicted looks like it’s, well, maybe not the sinister conspiracy the mainstream news media is hypervebntilating about, and much more likely a marketing company seeking “likes” and “followers” with virtual “memes” from everything-and-everybody, from 4chan Trump supporters, to BLM and LGBT organizations, as well as kitten & puppy appreciation groups. Great work guys. Oh, and some of the 13 people indicted, haven’t worked at the “troll farm” since 2014. Incredible.
-
Russia Today has a vested interest in this story. The opinions of one of their hosts isn't a great source
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
And where did I declare hatred of Obama? Or is that something else you just made up?
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
I loath Obama and think he was an arrogant nasty tool.
(Sic)
-
@duluth said in US Politics:
Russia Today has a vested interest in this story. The opinions of one of their hosts isn't a great source
I wish I could like this more than once. Russia today is usually as credible as infowars .
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
Considering the the FISA application I am referring to was for surveillance on Page, I think it is a fair assumption that the part about Page was used. The 'dossier' is just that, a dossier. A collection of various things that Steele's investigations lead him to assess. The FBI decided that the Page allegations were grounded in enough factual evidence that they could take them to a judge for a FISA warrant. The judge agreed that there was enough evidence there to grant it.
I guess that your assumption was that they used untested and unverifiable allegations and pulled the wool over a judge's eyes? 'Look, this pommy bloke says Trump plays watersports with Russian hookers! Can I have a warrant to snoop on something unrelated?'I think your safe assumption is anything but safe, and you have no evidence to back up your claim. The FISA details haven't been released, and the people who have read them, have a very different opinion than you.
Do they? Might depend on whose bedtime stories you read and what barrow they were pushing.
BTW I said fair assumption not safe assumption. Please don't twist meanings.
My evidence is that the FISA application was about Page. Therefore presented supporting evidence would also be about Page and stand up to scrutiny.Yes, In context.
It does matter where the evidence/allegation came from and the Judge was told exactly where and who funded it.That is just completely and utterly 100% factually wrong..
Is it? You have just declared above that as I haven't seen the application I can't even make fair assumptions about it yet you apparently know enough to declare the next statement 100% factually wrong. I didn't realise your US clearance levels were so high.
However, despite the origin, if there is a fact in Steele's work that is proven independently (yes, the FBI is not the democratic party despite Mr Trumps tweets saying they are) then surely you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'll re-word my previous example. The Mongrel Mob tell the police about a whole load of shit they reckon Black Power are up to. The police put aside much of it as unprovable hearsay from an unreliable source but among the allegations is some strong and provable facts linked to an unsolved murder. They want to follow that lead. Should they totally ignore it instead?Proven independently??? By who?? Please share as this is the first I have heard of this.
Your analogy is just silly.Why is it silly? Independently by the FBI.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
Do they? Might depend on whose bedtime stories you read and what barrow they were pushing.
BTW I said fair assumption not safe assumption. Please don't twist meanings.
My evidence is that the FISA application was about Page. Therefore presented supporting evidence would also be about Page and stand up to scrutiny.I believe Trey Gowdy. He is by far the most credible person who has read the documents.
Is it? You have just declared above that as I haven't seen the application I can't even make fair assumptions about it yet you apparently know enough to declare the next statement 100% factually wrong. I didn't realise your US clearance levels were so high.
Yes because even Democrats have admitted the courts were not told who funded the Dossier. And that is ignoring the fact you brazenly claimed the judge was told. Evidence??? I can provide quotes form all sides who actually have readf the FISA documents stating the judge was not informed.
Why is it silly? Independently by the FBI.
The FBI didn't verify it. Why are you just making this stuff up?
US Politics