A point of Disagreement
The final report from the Justice Department's Inspector General was released yesterday. My good friend "Surfs__Up" has already seeded it to NT. The Report has left many on both sides of the aisle with ammunition in the controversy over the investigations of the President. However those charged with conducting a much broader investigation of the actions of intelligence officials have waited, with respect for Inspector General Horowitz, to point out that there may very well be conflicting evidence obtained via the US Attorney's investigation:
Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
The final conclusion will have to wait for the findings and or prosecutions of US Attorney John Durham.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors
Just how bad was the FBI’s Russia FISA?
John Solomon counted 51 violations and 9 false statements
https:// johnsolomonreports.com/just-how-bad-w as-the-fbis-russia-fisa-51-violations-and-9-false-statements/
If a normal person was as dishonest with the FBI as the FBI was with the FISA court, they’d be in jail.
No agency should be above the law!
Anyone with a 6th grade education knows this, although Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and their mob seem to believe that they need to remind US citizens of this on an hourly basis.
Vic, the only thing I know about the IG report is what I heard on the news shows. I havent looked at the actual report yet.
Based on what you see in the report, which ones(s) of the following people will be indicted in connection with "deep state" activities related to Donald Trump and/or his 2016 campaign ?
James Comey
Andrew Mc Cabe
Peter Strzok
Lisa Page
James Bakker (FBI consul)
none of the above
Wait and see. Durham's investigation is going to follow every breadcrumb, no matter how stale
If you think Durham will indict FBI personnel for something that the IG report did not uncover you are hallucinating.
I think Durham will act on the things that Horowitz simply dosen't know of. Durham's investigation is all-encompassing. Horowitz's was extremely narrow.
The IG report is just another "Tool" for Durham to use in his "Infinite" investigation.
Bill Barr , months ago - "I think there was spying, yes."
IG report - no spying.
It will be very hard for Barr and Durham to try and indict FBI personnel after their Inspector Generals's report didnt.
Barr is a Trump lackey and I'm sure he will try and make a mountain out of the molehills he finds.
Of course there was spying. It's right there in the report.
I dont think that is the spying Barr had in mind. When he made his comment the existence of the FISA warrant was known.
Did the report really say that?
It will be very hard for Barr and Durham to try and indict FBI personnel after their Inspector Generals's report didnt.
Why? They are looking at far more than Horowitz could.
Barr is a Trump lackey and I'm sure he will try and make a mountain out of the molehills he finds
William Barr might just be the finest AG in my lifetime. The lackeys were the disgraced Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder. Fuckin Holder even admitted it. He called himself "Obama's wingman".
Not only did the FBI spy on Page and Papadapoulos , per the report the FBI even used a routine briefing with the Trump campaign as a pretext to gather information for Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
So we heard on CNN. If you read the report you will find that what many of us have been saying is true, such as the use of the Steele Dossier etc.
As for the inspector general saying there was no political conspiracy - that is his opinion, which is contradicted by his own findings. Most people who read his report will find that it WAS politically motivated. Democrats got what they've been craving for with that opinion and some former FBI officials got a temporary and maybe very brief sigh of relief.
Susan Rice added that he told Comey remember to follow the rules. Se added it to the meetings notes as Trump was being inaugurated.
Better late than never!
John, that's not responsive. The facts are the facts.
The FBI did spy on the campaign. The FBI did present false evidence and withhold material evidence from the FISA court...
You can see the goal posts moving and liberals running away from their recent arguments as we speak. Just a few minutes ago I saw a CNN legal expert get caught deleting tweets where she heaped scorn upon claims that the FBI would ever submit unverified information to a FISA court. Whoops!
Things liberals claimed were wild "conspiracy theories" just a few months ago they now dismiss as old news.
The facts of the FBI's unconscionable behavior are undeniable. Just because the IG doesn't think he can prove a crime with them doesn't make them any less odious.
Just Spit !
Probably none of those. There is the FBI lawyer who doctored information. He might be charged. Horowitz has made criminal referrals in the past and nothing was done with them. As IG he is limited to interviewing those still working in the DOJ and has no powers to prosecute. He has been quite generous to his colleagues in the DOJ by attributing malfeasance to mistakes or errors rather than criminal intent.
John Durhan will not be so timid.
Where is this deep state conspiracy you and Trump talk so often about?
John, Just look at what they did to Carter Page. Try and justify that.
From the Report:
They obtained authorization to electronically eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen, through duplicity — by withholding information, falsifying information, using uncorroborated information, and by use of a source the FBI knew was unreliable & politically motivated!
Justify what? How was he harmed? They made him famous twice over.
Carter page laughs all the way to the bank each and every day.
He is a PLAYER.
Net worth between $110 to 610 million, estimated to make $6 million annually.
He's thriving on this.
Justify what? How was he harmed?
There we have it. Why should anyone be mad the FBI presented false evidence and withheld exculpatory evidence from a Court in order o spy on them? Who could possibly be upset by having their privacy violated? The stress of a federal investigation is fun!
It's always amazing to see the nonsense people will actually post for partisan reasons.
Are you kidding? He was an American citizen! I know he was connected to Trump so he has no rights.
Carter page laughs all the way to the bank each and every day.
He may sue the FBI. Then he will be able to laugh. Basically the Horowitz report says that the justification for spying on Carter Page, a U.S. citizen, was “based on significant omissions and inaccurate information in the initial and renewal FISA applications.”
Sean, is Donald Trump fit to serve as president of the United States for 5 more years?
Well, seeing how you are an expert on that subject, I will agree.
seeing how you are an expert on that subject, I will agre
I am. I've been on this board for years watching people make nonsensical claims like you just did. I'm glad you admit it. It' simply amazing to see people lose all self respect and embarrass themselves in service of the democrats.
Imagine claiming that there's no harm in undergoing the stress and financial expense of an FBI investigation. That just about takes the cake.
Totalitarians can justify anything in service of their ideology. Civil rights don't matter to progressives if they stand in the way.
Sad to see how little the principles this country was founded up mean to them.
I've been investigated several times by several branches of the government including the FBI.
No stress and no expense, except for the cake when it was all over...
Page was actually talking to Russian agents that wanted to recruit people.
So turn a blind eye? Do you think if you were talking to Russian agents the FBI would not take a look at you?
On another note, Page is also a fruit loop dingus.
What crimes are you suspected of having committed?
No stress and no expense
you enjoy having strangers listen to your phone calls? If you get off on being an exhibitionist, so be it. But you should probably understand that some people enjoy having the right to have private conversations with friends and family.
no expense
Did you defend yourself or get someone from legal aid to help defend you from the criminal investigations?
My goodness............another expert keyboard warrior, eh?
smh
Here's some of what we learned for the Horowitz Report (Part II):
All of these things were found to be true by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his December 9 report. In fact, Horowitz detailed rampant abuse that went far beyond these four items.
The Democratic minority on the committee, then led by Rep. Adam Schiff, put out a response memo with competing claims:
Each of these claims were found by Horowitz to be false.
Horowitz found that FBI and DOJ officials did in fact omit critical material information from the FISA warrant, including several items exculpatory to Page. Material facts were not just omitted but willfully hidden through doctoring of evidence.
The warrants were based on Steele’s dossier, which was known by January 2017 to be ridiculously uncorroborated. The renewals did not find information that corroborated Steele’s reporting. The warrants clearly didn’t allow the FBI to collect valuable intelligence. And Steele’s prior reporting was not used in criminal proceedings.
“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,” the executive summary of the report says.
The media joined Department of Justice bureaucrats in bitterly opposing the release of the Nunes memo. The Justice Department released a letter to the press saying the action was “extraordinarily reckless,”would be “damaging” to “national security,” and would risk “damage to our intelligence community or the important work it does in safeguarding the American people.”
Our thanks to Molly Hemingway - (To be filed for the group)
Page # please?
Here's the full report. It's only 476 pages.
BTW ... what you block quoted was from here ... not the Horowitz Report itself.
Yes, I know.
Yet since I can't ask the author of that article to support her claim, I asked Vic to do so as he is the one that posted it here on NT.
Of course you can. It's easy to contact Molly Hemingway at The Federalist:
Yet she's not the one that posted it here, is she?
BTFW, the BS in the blockquote isn't in the report.
No, but that's not what you complained about in your comment 6.1.2 .
It is Molly Hemingway's reporting in this article . That you feel that it's BS rests on you.
I didn't complain about anything, I asked for a page number from the report that supports ANY of the crap Molly stated. Sure, she can take words from the report and create a sentence but that isn't what the report states.
I KNOW it's BS because I read the report.
Well, I have perused IG Michael Horowitz's report. I admit that 480 pages of boring isn't my idea of a good read.
My take is that Horowitz was attempting to determine if the FBI meddled in the 2016 election to pursue partisan objectives. Horowitz's finding a lack of 'political bias' doesn't really answer any questions about political motivations. Citing examples of pro-Clinton and pro-Trump attitudes within the FBI is supposed to equate to lack of partisan bias. However, Horowitz's findings concerning the progression of the preliminary investigation to a full investigation does suggest a political motivation. The FBI's motivation appears to have been influenced by a presumption of guilt justified by politically motivated Confidential Human Sources. Those CHS assets did exhibit a political motivation and those political motivations did influence the progression of the investigation. While the FBI may not have shown a partisan bias, the political motives for the investigation seem rather apparent.
One odd facet, of which I was vaguely aware, was brought into sharper focus by the Horowitz report. Paul Manafort was under investigation for associations with the Ukrainian government; not for associations with the Russian government or Russian agents. While George Papadopoulos and Carter Page provided an excuse for opening a preliminary investigation, it does seem that Paul Manafort's involvement in the Trump campaign was the red flag. And it would seem that Manafort would be promoting Ukrainian interests rather than Russian interests. Ukraine really did affect the Trump campaign early on. Ukraine has been at the center of the controversy from the beginning.
It seems Horowitz adopted an expedient conclusion. The FBI was incompetent in its actions rather than influenced by political motivations. Incompetence can be addressed by a few firings and memorandums. However, finding that the FBI meddled in the election due to political motivations would be an institutional crisis. Horowitz's report apparently is intended to avoid political scrutiny of the FBI and Congressional oversight. But that result, in itself, would seem to be politically motivated.
John Durham's 'point of disagreement' seems to be about the distinction between political biases and political motivations. Howowitz investigated political (or partisan) biases that may have influenced the FBI investigation. Durham seems to be scrutinizing the political motivations for the FBI investigations.
That's why Horowitz's investigation was limited to the internal workings of the FBI to determine if the FBI meddled in the 2016 election to achieve partisan goals. Durham appears to be casting a larger net to capture domestic and foreign political motivations for encouraging the FBI to pursue an investigation. Time will tell if Durham finds that the FBI was simply duped (incompetent) or was complicit in pursuing a politically motivated investigation.
Actually he does and states clearly, multiple times that there were NO 'improper motivations'. READ MORE CAREFULLY.
Even Comey said intent is hard to prove...................................
Comey was taking about obstruction of justice when he said that.
Oh and BTW, it didn't stop Trump and his minions from accusing practically the entire top level of the FBI of Treason and just about every other crime imaginable.
Final Thoughts:
Let me top off this little discussions with AG Barr's remarks during an interview he just had with NBC:
"I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press," Barr said. "I think there were gross abuses …and inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the FBI."
"I think that leaves open the possibility that there was bad faith."
Barr argued that Horowitz didn't look very hard, and that the inspector general accepted the FBI's explanations at face value.
"All he said was, people gave me an explanation and I didn't find anything to contradict it … he hasn't decided the issue of improper motive," Barr said. "I think we have to wait until the full investigation is done."
Barr said he stood by his assertion that the Trump campaign was spied on, noting that the FBI used confidential informants who recorded conversations with Trump campaign officials.
"It was clearly spied upon," he said. "That's what electronic surveillance is … going through people's emails, wiring people up."
Barr portrayed the Russia investigation as a bogus endeavor that was foisted on Trump, rather than something undertaken by career civil servants who were concerned about whether a foreign power had compromised a political campaign.
"From a civil liberties standpoint, the greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government use the apparatus of the state … both to spy on political opponents but also to use them in a way that could affect the outcome of an election," Barr said. He added that this was the first time in history that "counterintelligence techniques" were used against a presidential campaign.
Barr said that presidential campaigns are frequently in contact with foreigners, contradicting the comments of numerous political professionals who have said for two years that there is rarely, if ever, a reason for a presidential campaign to be in touch with Russians.
Barr added, "There was and never has been any evidence of collusion and yet this campaign and the president’s administration has been dominated by this investigation into what turns out to be completely baseless."
But the biggest outrage, Barr said, is that the FBI's "case collapsed after the election and they never told the court and they kept on getting these renewals."