Another question is how much audio we have of Trump considering that Manafort was being listened to during a time period when his own daughter has described his relationship with Trumpstating “Dad and Trump are literally living in the same building and mom says they go up and down all day long hanging and plotting together,” and that they were ““The most dangerous friendship in America.”
I will note that BLT Steak is in the same building as the New York Times’ Washington Bureau. For real.
That’s certainly of interest. But I would have to think there was nothing really big there, based on Comey subsequently telling Trump he was not personally under investigation. If he was picked up saying incriminating things on wiretaps, you would have to think that would have changed.
I’ve been suspicious of this idea that Comey stating that Trump wasnt personally under investigation means that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation. If the intelligence community had evidence of serious wrongdoings on the part of the president, would he really have any obligation to be honest with that president on the topic? (Asking a question, not making a statement.).
Wonderful. Now every scandal will be ScandalBLTSteak.
This one will be Steakgate.
Will you be staying at the Watergate?
IIRC, in his congressional testimony Comey indicated that the statement was accurate.
Only a five year old child or under would think to ask a question so meaningless and not know the answer was meaningless. But now we know that the baboon would, and did.
But the media don’t have to pretend the question or the answer had any meaning. As a society do we need to pretend it was not meaningless?
“You’re not under investigation now, you may be tomorrow or any time in the future, welcome to the real world dickhead.”
It does not appear that you understand the context of the discussion here.
How so?
You failed to agree.
It’s been a long time since I was familiar with the FISA minimization procedures, but is it really a foregone conclusion that the FBI would have reviewed recordings of Trump-Manafort conversations before the Mueller investigation started?
I would have thought that those conversations were quite protected, if not deleted, until such time as they were within the scope of a proper investigation.
We’re not discussing the general significance of Comey’s assurance. We’re discussing the specific implications WRT whether or not anything significantly incriminating Trump was overheard on Manafort’s conversations with him.
Even if Trump “may be [under investigation] tomorrow or any time in the future”, it would not change the fact that subsequent to the Manafort wiretaps he was still not under investigation. So the implication as to the content of those wiretaps specifically is not affected.
What’s the difference, from a legal standpoint, between the Comey/FBI investigation of Russia interference and the Mueller investigation of that exact same issue?
This is a completely stupid and insignificant post, but I think Paul Manafort looks like a bad guy from The Rockford Files. Here he is, after just stepping out of a long black sedan. He’s trying to intimidate Rockford, who just glares back at him. I have no idea why I make that association. But every time I see Manafort’s picture I hear the theme music in my head.
The difference concerns what we may infer from Comey’s assurances to Trump about him not being the target of an investigation. That is, your argument is assuming the FBI reviewed all of the conversations on the Manafort tap for relevance to any investigation concerning Trump before Comey’s testimony. I don’t think that assumption is sound.
So is this one: The Manafort Trap sounds like a Frederick Forsyth novel. 
My question is why you seem to think there’s a legal difference between the Comey and Mueller investigations.
You’re saying that the wiretaps would be “protected, if not deleted” until “they were within the scope of a proper investigation”. The implication was that the Comey/FBI investigation was not a “proper investigation”, such that they couldn’t access the Manafort wiretaps, but that the Mueller investigation was a “proper investigation” and they therefore could access them. I’m asking about the basis for this distinction.
I would have assumed there’s no legal difference, and anything Mueller could access Comey could access, and if there would have been any incriminating statements by Trumo on the Manafort wiretaps then the FBI would have accessed them and begun investigating Trump. What’s your basis for saying otherwise?
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood the question.
No, there is no legal difference between the investigations. But the investigation has to have proceeded far enough, and be about the right subject matter, to justify reviewing conversations between Manafort and Trump. I don’t think we can just assume that Comey’s investigation would have proceeded that far or had been sufficient to justify it.
Just for example, if the minimization procedure is that you need a credible basis for believing a crime has occurred, then it’s perfectly possible that they didn’t have that before they began investigating obstruction of justice (the scope of the investigation of which would include the propriety of the underlying charges purportedly being obstructed). In that scenario, the counter-intelligence investigation might not have been enough, but the criminal investigation would be. Alternatively, it could be that they simply did not yet have strong evidence that Trump himself was involved in any communications with Russia, and only developed that after Comey’s testimony, thereby justifying review of the Manafort-Trump calls.
Given the potential Fourth Amendment implications of using a FISA warrant to monitor conversations between two US nationals on US soil, I can imagine them being pretty cautious about when they felt they had enough justification to review those calls.
I believe that’s the sequel to The Day of the Jackass.