╌>

A point of Disagreement

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  5 years ago  •  113 comments


A point of Disagreement
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


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:








Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

District of Connecticut




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



Monday, December 9, 2019




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

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

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/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

If a normal person was as dishonest with the FBI as the FBI was with the FISA court, they’d be in jail. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    5 years ago

No agency should be above the law!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    5 years ago

Just like the 'president'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to    5 years ago

The gop congress seems to think they're above the law, just like the turd 'president'

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    5 years ago
Just like the 'president'

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    5 years ago

So you don't accept the findings.  What a surprise!

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
2.1  katrix  replied to  Tessylo @2    5 years ago

Funny how they demand an investigation - and are quite happy to accept it if it says what they've already decided (with no evidence). But they refuse to accept it when it doesn't support their conspiracy theories.

Sad.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @2.1    5 years ago
So you don't accept the findings.  What a surprise!
But they refuse to accept it when it doesn't support their conspiracy theories.

Holy shit. Did you two just type that drivel? Mueller report ring a bell? Hard to tell from here..........pot(s) or kettle(s)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.1    5 years ago

Everyone now accepts the IG showed  Schiff, Steele, the FBI, etc  lied to the Court and country.  The facts reported by the Ig vindicate pretty much everything most of us have been claiming since this shitshow started.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.2    5 years ago

Sean, is Donald Trump fit to serve as president of the United States for 5 more years ? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    5 years ago

I'm not Sean, but yes, Donald Trump will serve the United States as president for 5 more years.

The reasons you consider him unfit for the office are uninformed and ridiculous.

How do you like your crow prepared...when he is overwhelmingly reelected?

It is has been fun watch the Democrats self destruct and sign their own death warrant.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.4    5 years ago
The reasons you consider him unfit for the office are uninformed and ridiculous.

Donald Trump is a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot , and moron. 

That is WAY more than enough reason to say he is unfit for office. 

He has also serially abused the power of his office, which also certainly makes him unfit. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
2.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    5 years ago
He has also serially abused the power of his office,

I'll take that abuse anytime ! It's gotten the country going in a direction it was ALWAYS meant to go. "Promoting" (Not Providing)...the "general welfare" !

More Jobs than people is a bad thing ?

As the "Democrats" say about what their entire position for 2020 is , " We can't take a chance that President Trump get's elected again. Our own candidates just SUCK ! "

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.4    5 years ago
How do you like your crow prepared

There are a number of tasty ones ...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    5 years ago

You have the same 1 vote to cast to decide that as everyone else. Sorry, Hillary losing the election is not a valid reason to impeach Trump.

If Trump is nearly as bad as you make him out to be he should be easy to defeat in a fair and open election. Of course looking at the Democratic exploding clown car of candidates running ever further left; I can see why the left is scared of the distinct possibility of an easy Trump victory.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    5 years ago
So you don't accept the findings.  What a surprise!

That equals two assumptions on your part:

1) that I didn't accept the findings

2) that the findings somehow debunked the idea that the FBI acted improperly.


Wrong on both assumptions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    5 years ago

'Everyone now accepts the IG showed  Schiff, Steele, the FBI, etc  lied to the Court and country.'  

No, they didn't.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3    5 years ago
No, they didn't.  

Oh to the contrary, the IG implicitly stated that McCabe lied. He even made a criminal referral. He also called Comey insubordinate. Christopher Steele was completely discredited in the IG Reports, both I & II

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 years ago

No, that's not true.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 years ago
the IG implicitly stated that McCabe lied. He even made a criminal referral.

That was in April of 2018 and we were "promised" an indictment in the summer of 2019.  There is still no indictment of McCabe and the Judge just ordered that the "smoking guns documents" to to released per the FOIA requests at an increased rate of 200 pages per month through December 2020.

Opinions, accusations, criminal referrals and indictments do not equate to guilt.

That should be evident every day to everyone.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.2    5 years ago
There is still no indictment of McCabe

That only shows a reluctance to prosecute


criminal referrals and indictments do not equate to guilt.

Nor do they equal exoneration.  He lied! Flynn got prosecuted for the same thing. Why shouldn't federal hacks be prosecuted?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    5 years ago
That only shows a reluctance to prosecute

By a Grand Jury of his peers?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.4    5 years ago

I don't know the reason. Iv'e heard all the rumors. I don't really want to go there.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to    5 years ago

progressives can't seem to get by that one sentence where Horowitz gives his opinion (which defies all logic) on political motivation. If they would only read the rest of the document they might learn something.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 years ago

You're conflating IG reports Vic.

The criminal referral was a year and a half ago and McCabe was not indicted. The court told the DOJ to put up or shut up and on Nov. 14th, the DOJ was ordered to release documents to CREW about McCabe's firing. Those documents prove that the DOJ failed to follow it's own procedures when if fired McCabe. 

Maybe now that Horowitz is done with Trump's FBI witch hunt he can delve into why the DOJ violated it's own policies when it fired McCabe. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @3    5 years ago

no, they didn't.

It's good you never try and defend your "arguments." 

Seriously, there was a report released by the IG yesterday. You should read it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    5 years ago
It's good you never try and defend your "arguments." 

Suppose you defend yours Sean. Please cite the page of Horowitz's report, released yesterday, that 'showed' that Adam Schiff lied to ANYONE. 

Then cite the page where Steele lied to the court or the country. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4    5 years ago

Wait and see. Durham's investigation is going to follow every breadcrumb, no matter how stale

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    5 years ago

If you think Durham will indict FBI personnel for something that the IG report did not uncover you are hallucinating. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    5 years ago
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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
4.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    5 years ago
If you think Durham will indict FBI personnel for something that the IG report did not uncover you are hallucinating. 

The IG report is just another "Tool" for Durham to use in his "Infinite" investigation. jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    5 years ago
IG report - no spying. 

Of course there was spying.  It's right there in the report.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.1.5    5 years ago

I dont think that is the spying Barr had in mind. When he made his comment the existence of the FISA warrant was known. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    5 years ago
IG report - no spying. 

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".

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.7    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    5 years ago
In no uncertain words, the inspector general says there was no political conspiracy to undermine Trump's 2016 campaign.

Horowitz did not find "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions" to launch the investigation.

The report accuses a former FBI lawyer of altering a document related to the surveillance of campaign aide Carter Page. But Horowitz did not find that it undermined the overall validity of the surveillance.

Conspiracy theories debunked

The report essentially rebuts more than two years of talking points by Trump and Republicans about a deep-state effort to derail his campaign.

There were no FBI spies planted in Trump Tower, for instance.

And the famed dossier by ex-British spy Christopher Steele was not the reason the investigation was launched, the IG report states.

Horowitz specifically says that Peter Strzok, a former senior
counterintelligence officer, and Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney, whom Trump has repeatedly vilified and mocked in crude ways, did not act out of bias or unduly influence the start of the investigation.

The IG's office found that the FBI did not try to recruit members of the Trump campaign as informants, and did not to try infiltrate the campaign itself -- either by instructing sources to get hired onto the campaign, or by sending sources into campaign spaces to collect information.



 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.10    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.1.12    5 years ago

False

False

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.1.12    5 years ago
Obama admin spied on a presidential campaign----fact

_BCdYi1Y?format=jpg&name=small

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!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.10    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.1.16    5 years ago
'Pucker up, Indictments are going to happen.'

We won't hold our breath on those indictments which have been coming for a long, long, long, long, long, long time.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
4.1.18  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.13    5 years ago
False False

Just Spit !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    5 years ago

Where is this deep state conspiracy you and Trump talk so often about? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    5 years ago

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!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.2    5 years ago
Just look at what they did to Carter Page. Try and justify that.

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.3    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.3    5 years ago
How was he harmed?

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.”




 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.4    5 years ago

Sean, is Donald Trump fit to serve as president of the United States for 5 more years? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.4    5 years ago
It's always amazing to see the nonsense people will actually post for partisan reasons. 

Well, seeing how you are an expert on that subject, I will agree.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.7    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.5    5 years ago
g? He was an American citizen.  I know he was connected to Trump so he has no rights

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.2.10    5 years ago

'The Obama administration violated those rights.'

False

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.11    5 years ago

True.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.2.13  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.8    5 years ago
I am. I've been on this board for years watching people make nonsensical claims like you just did.

jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

It' simply  amazing to see people lose all self respect and embarrass themselves in service of the democrats.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif   So, I take it that your partisanship is ok with you? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

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...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Ender  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.2.10    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.2.15    5 years ago

What the what?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.13    5 years ago
investigated several times by several branches of the government including the FBI.

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? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.2.18  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.17    5 years ago
If you get off on being an exhibitionist, so be it.

My goodness............another expert keyboard warrior, eh?

smh

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  Tessylo    5 years ago

Durham is a partisan hack.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5    5 years ago

That's right throw some mud at him, so you can obscure whatever he finds.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago

The left has gotten real good at dissing things like this to help them sleep at night when it doesn't turn out their way. It's a preemptive attack................and quite pathetic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.1    5 years ago

Specifically the dishonest media likes to get out in front of stories to shape them. Let's see if they can get in front of Durham if he starts prosecuting people before handing in his report.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
5.2  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @5    5 years ago
Durham is a partisan hack.  

The evidence is there or it isn't.  Just like Mueller had no evidence that any American colluded with Russia and Democrats refused to accept his findings?

Be patient and wait, I know Mueller let you down.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
5.2.1  lib50  replied to  Sunshine @5.2    5 years ago

Mueller didn't find 'no collusion'.   There was plenty of collusion.  He just didn't take it further because of that charging a 'sitting president' bs. 

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @5.2.1    5 years ago
just didn't take it further because of that charging a 'sitting president' bs. 

Please stop spreading the deflecting propaganda. 

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
5.2.3  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    5 years ago

Since when are facts "deflecting propaganda?"

Why are facts such anathema to so many Trump supporters?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    5 years ago

Yes Sean please stop the deflecting propaganda 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  author  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Here's some of what we learned for the Horowitz Report (Part II):

  • A salacious and unverified dossier formed an essential part of the application to secure a warrant against a Trump campaign affiliate named Carter Page. This application failed to reveal that the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

  • The application cited a Yahoo News article extensively. The story did not corroborate the dossier, and the FBI wrongly claimed Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was not a source for the story.

  • Nellie Ohr, the wife of a high-ranking Justice Department official, also worked on behalf of the Clinton campaign effort. Her husband Bruce Ohr funneled her research into the Department of Justice. Although he admitted that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” this and the Ohrs’ relationship with the Clinton campaign was concealed from the secret court that grants surveillance warrants.

  • The dossier was “only minimally corroborated” and unverified, according to FBI officials.

    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:

    1. FBI and DOJ officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant.
    2. The DOJ “made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.”
    3. In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information that corroborated Steele’s reporting.
    4. The Page FISA warrant allowed the FBI to collect “valuable intelligence.”
    5. “Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.”
    6. The FBI conducted a “rigorous process” to vet Steele’s allegations, and the Page FISA application explained the FBI’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible.
    7. Steele’s prior reporting was used in “criminal proceedings.”

    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.”






    MZHphoto-300x300.jpg

    Our thanks to Molly Hemingway - (To be filed for the group)

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    5 years ago
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.

Page # please? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
6.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @6.1    5 years ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.1    5 years ago
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. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @6.1.2    5 years ago
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:

Reach her at  mzhemingway@thefederalist.com

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.3    5 years ago

Yet she's not the one that posted it here, is she? 

BTFW, the BS in the blockquote isn't in the report. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
6.1.5  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @6.1.4    5 years ago
Yet she's not the one that posted it here, is she? 

No, but that's not what you complained about in your comment 6.1.2 .

BTFW, the BS in the blockquote isn't in the report. 

It is Molly Hemingway's reporting in this article . That you feel that it's BS rests on you.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.5    5 years ago
No, but that's not what you complained about in your comment 6.1.2 .

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. 

That you feel that it's BS rests on you.

I KNOW it's BS because I read the report.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7  Tessylo    5 years ago

The Steele Dossier, has not been disproven.  Much of it has been verified.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
7.1  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @7    5 years ago
The Steele Dossier, has not been disproven.  

Allegations are to be at least verified not disproven.  With your standards we can say that Hunter Biden was selling access to his father.  Why has Biden not disproven this?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @7    5 years ago
eele Dossier, has not been disproven.  Much of it has been verified.  

There was a report released yesterday. You should read it. 

You basically have a choice.

 Like a toddler you can continue to make nonsensical assertions that have no basis in reality:

"The moon is made of cheese"

"No, It's made of rock.  Here's a book explaining what the moon consists of"

"The moon is made of cheese!"

 Or you can educate yourself and stop making ridiculous claims that even minimally informed people know are false.  

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
7.2.1  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2    5 years ago

And you can keep spreading the deflecting propaganda to keep trying to save the gov't of Putin's ass.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @7.2.1    5 years ago
And you can keep spreading the deflecting propaganda to keep trying to save the gov't of Putin's ass.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Is it really, really, really cold where you're at right now ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.2    5 years ago

Aboot 4 degrees F way up nort dere

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.2.3    5 years ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.6  Tessylo  replied to    5 years ago

WTF are you talking about loki?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8  Tessylo    5 years ago

You all repeating all your lies and all your deep state conspiracy theories doesn't make it true.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
8.1  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @8    5 years ago

There are no theories except for your Trump bullshit. Again Obama's FBI was found to be incompetent and negligent.  Any criminal charges will be coming soon so hang on to your TDS dear, you will need it to cope.  

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
8.1.1  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @8.1    5 years ago
Any criminal charges will be coming soon so hang on to your TDS dear, you will need it to cope.  

You guys have been screeching about this for years, and it hasn't happened yet. Pardon me for thinking that comment is total wishful thinking and idiotic conspiracy bullshit.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
8.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @8.1.1    5 years ago
You guys have been screeching about this for years, and it hasn't happened yet.

Democrats and the snowflakes have been screeching since 11/8/16.  

You'r pardoned.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @8.1.1    5 years ago

So true Katrix.  It's beyond tiresome 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Tessylo  replied to    5 years ago

You all bought into all the 'rights' bullshit

Don't you have work to do?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to    5 years ago
Yes but I finished it and I’m setting in the office with my beautiful wife.

Great for you.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
8.1.8  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.3    5 years ago
It's beyond tiresome 

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
9  Nerm_L    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
9.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Nerm_L @9    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @9    5 years ago
Horowitz's finding a lack of 'political bias' doesn't really answer any questions about political motivations. 

Actually he does and states clearly, multiple times that there were NO 'improper motivations'. READ MORE CAREFULLY. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @9.2    5 years ago

Even Comey said  intent is hard to prove...................................

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.2.1    5 years ago
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.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10  author  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

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."

 
 

Who is online




Hallux
Snuffy


42 visitors