(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

(12-12-2019 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 12:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Notwithstanding all the arm flapping over 'sufficient evidence', here is the nub of the entire Horowitz report captured in one single question and one single answer:

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

No matter the arm flapping, nor Popup Poster comments, that is the deep reality of the report.

That is staggering if you bother to actually look at that question and simple answer.

I think there are serious concerns regarding how many issues were identified in the FISA application.

I've just read through portions of the Executive Summary - does the report outline what that email was about and what alteration was made?

A lawyer with the FBI, Kevin Clinesmith, received information on the subject of the FISA order, Carter Page. The information noted that he had gathered intelligence about Russia for the CIA, and that Page was reliable.

This is information that would not help with the idea that Page was working with the Russians, in fact it cut directly against that notion.

Clinesmith altered the email conveying this information. He inserted the words “not a source” into that email, even though he had been told and informed that Page was a reliable source for the CIA.

He then passed the altered email on to the FBI agent whom was assigned to affirm under oath the FBI’s allegations to the FISA court.

That specific agent had previously related to Clinesmith that he wanted “a definitive answer to whether Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application.”

Clinesmith actively altered the email, he altered it to where it denoted a completely and unequivocally wrong answer, he altered it to support a position that was counter to the original information.

I think it is gd clear that Clinesmith definitively gave the agent an answer he knew was wrong. The facts point to nothing *but* a malacious intent; that active alteration to make something 'point a different way' is hard to do by fing accident.

Now Horowitz is absolutely clear that there is no evidence that this was done with a 'political intent'. But the intent to do wrongdoing is absolutely there. And with such intent, there is part and parcel evidence of a bad motive. What that motive is exactly, only Clinesmith knows. But the string of facts point to a bad motive.

Because remember, there is no satisfactory explanation present (Horowitz's words again) for that alteration, and for deliberately passing that alteration on to an agent that he specifically knows is responsible for actively affirming it to the FISA court.

But there is *direct* evidence that Clinesmith was aligned with the 'resistance' to Trump.

Quote:“I am so stressed about what I could have done differently,” he wrote Nov. 9, hours after Trump’s victory. “Viva la Resistance!” he texted on Nov. 22.

(12-12-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

You sure read more into the smoke than I do...

Edit: My comment about smoke had zero to do with the Trump campaign or the fairy tale about Russian collusion. I was referring to the unrelenting efforts by the left to get rid of Trump by any means, at any cost. In the backdrop of the three year impeachment hysteria and all the other efforts to overturn a legal election, this fits snugly within that narrative.

(12-12-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

Cute parsing.

I think there is evidence of bad motivation in continuing the investigation. All of the items listed as having 'no satisfactory explanation' were actions to further continue the investigation.

You are seemingly ignoring the second issue. The first issue you keep noting is that you are glad the 'FBI [didnt] improperly open[] the investigation." All the while you seemingly blithely ignore that the 17 items that are problems all happened to keep the investigation active --- I guess keeping an investigation that, while properly opened, ends of stinking like a polecat hit by a car alive isnt worth commenting on?

I mean, good fing god, Clinesmith moved heaven and earth to keep the investigation *alive* even after it reeked to high heaven.

Why zero comment on that, and all the adulation for 'thank god they didnt open it improperly'?

(12-12-2019 11:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

You sure read more into the smoke than I do...

17 acts --- none of them have a 'satisfactory explanation'. Yet still not even a notion of bias. Got it.

I think you need to join the FBI with that viewpoint.

(12-12-2019 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

Cute parsing.

I think there is evidence of bad motivation in continuing the investigation. All of the items listed as having 'no satisfactory explanation' were actions to further continue the investigation.

You are seemingly ignoring the second issue. The first issue you keep noting is that you are glad the 'FBI [didnt] improperly open[] the investigation." All the while you seemingly blithely ignore that the 17 items that are problems all happened to keep the investigation active --- I guess keeping an investigation that, while properly opened, ends of stinking like a polecat hit by a car alive isnt worth commenting on?

I mean, good fing god, Clinesmith moved heaven and earth to keep the investigation *alive* even after it reeked to high heaven.

Why zero comment on that, and all the adulation for 'thank god they didnt open it improperly'?

Ah yes, I completely ignore the FISA issues and offer "zero comment" on it.

Gosh, I wonder what I could have been referencing when I said:

"I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them."

"I think there are serious concerns regarding how many issues were identified in the FISA application."

I haven't read enough of the executive summary/report to understand whether or not the investigation would have continued without the Page FISA warrant. Maybe that is why I'm not offering a take on that specific issue (which was just brought up, btw).

The issues associated with the FISA application are real and significant - that email alteration was clearly done to keep the Page FISA app going. But I'll be the first to admit I don't have the knowledge to ***** about or applaud the FBI regarding continuing the overall investigation. So maybe, instead of trying to attack me, you try to have a conversation?

(12-12-2019 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

Cute parsing.

I think there is evidence of bad motivation in continuing the investigation. All of the items listed as having 'no satisfactory explanation' were actions to further continue the investigation.

You are seemingly ignoring the second issue. The first issue you keep noting is that you are glad the 'FBI [didnt] improperly open[] the investigation." All the while you seemingly blithely ignore that the 17 items that are problems all happened to keep the investigation active --- I guess keeping an investigation that, while properly opened, ends of stinking like a polecat hit by a car alive isnt worth commenting on?

I mean, good fing god, Clinesmith moved heaven and earth to keep the investigation *alive* even after it reeked to high heaven.

Why zero comment on that, and all the adulation for 'thank god they didnt open it improperly'?

Ah yes, I completely ignore the FISA issues and offer "zero comment" on it.

Gosh, I wonder what I could have been referencing when I said:

"I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them."

"I think there are serious concerns regarding how many issues were identified in the FISA application."

I haven't read enough of the executive summary/report to understand whether or not the investigation would have continued without the Page FISA warrant. Maybe that is why I'm not offering a take on that specific issue (which was just brought up, btw).

The issues associated with the FISA application are real and significant - that email alteration was clearly done to keep the Page FISA app going. But I'll be the first to admit I don't have the knowledge to ***** about or applaud the FBI regarding continuing the overall investigation. So maybe, instead of trying to attack me, you try to have a conversation?

So, to be clear, you think that there is a context such that it would be proper to applaud the FBI for lying and altering evidence to continue the investigation?

Seems pretty simple to me. There is NO context in ANY investigation that would make lying and altering evidence proper in order to continue an investigation. Period.

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Or in other words, the amount of satisfactory explanations Horowitz found in the 17 issues.

(12-12-2019 12:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

Cute parsing.

I think there is evidence of bad motivation in continuing the investigation. All of the items listed as having 'no satisfactory explanation' were actions to further continue the investigation.

You are seemingly ignoring the second issue. The first issue you keep noting is that you are glad the 'FBI [didnt] improperly open[] the investigation." All the while you seemingly blithely ignore that the 17 items that are problems all happened to keep the investigation active --- I guess keeping an investigation that, while properly opened, ends of stinking like a polecat hit by a car alive isnt worth commenting on?

I mean, good fing god, Clinesmith moved heaven and earth to keep the investigation *alive* even after it reeked to high heaven.

Why zero comment on that, and all the adulation for 'thank god they didnt open it improperly'?

Ah yes, I completely ignore the FISA issues and offer "zero comment" on it.

Gosh, I wonder what I could have been referencing when I said:

"I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them."

"I think there are serious concerns regarding how many issues were identified in the FISA application."

I haven't read enough of the executive summary/report to understand whether or not the investigation would have continued without the Page FISA warrant. Maybe that is why I'm not offering a take on that specific issue (which was just brought up, btw).

The issues associated with the FISA application are real and significant - that email alteration was clearly done to keep the Page FISA app going. But I'll be the first to admit I don't have the knowledge to ***** about or applaud the FBI regarding continuing the overall investigation. So maybe, instead of trying to attack me, you try to have a conversation?

So, to be clear, you think that there is a context such that it would be proper to applaud the FBI for lying and altering evidence to continue the investigation?

Seems pretty simple to me. There is NO context in ANY investigation that would make lying and altering evidence proper in order to continue an investigation. Period.

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Or in other words, the amount of satisfactory explanations Horowitz found in the 17 issues.

No, that is not at all what I was saying. To dig into that comment more, if there was sufficient evidence with respect to non-Page investigations to continue the overall investigations, then it would make sense to continue them. I believe the FISA issues were solely related to Carter Page.

I am in complete agreement that there is no way to spin that action as good or appropriate (I thought former comments made that clear).

But the investigation run by the FBI was not solely focused on Page.

(12-12-2019 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years. Where there is smoke...

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.

I think the IG report is a clear black eye for the FBI, and Comey can't really spin it to make it look good for them. Your comment about smoke would mean that there must have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but we found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that. In reality, when there is smoke there is a reason to investigate - as in, open an investigation into the Trump campaign and have the IG investigate the FBI's actions.

It could have been a lot worse for the FBI - there could have been evidence of the FBI improperly opening the investigation into the Trump campaign and the four associates or acting in a biased manner. We'll see what that other report coming out says, and if it suggests either of those things occurred.

You sure read more into the smoke than I do...

17 acts --- none of them have a 'satisfactory explanation'. Yet still not even a notion of bias. Got it.

I think you need to join the FBI with that viewpoint.

Have you never done a job that goes against a personal bias? It's pretty common for people to be able to act contra their internal biases, because that is their job. And that's why, unless there is compelling evidence of a conspiracy to throw out Trump because of political motivations, Hanlon's razor seems to make the most sense.

There was obviously smoke - that's why the IG report was written. The IG report obviously found serious issues. And the FBI now needs to act and understand how to prevent those issues from happening again.

(12-12-2019 12:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  17 acts --- none of them have a 'satisfactory explanation'. Yet still not even a notion of bias. Got it.

I think you need to join the FBI with that viewpoint.

Have you never done a job that goes against a personal bias?

I have done them all the time. It is actually a fiduciary duty of my profession.

Quote: It's pretty common for people to be able to act contra their internal biases, because that is their job.

You have your analysis bass-ackwards here. Their *job* includes to *not* do the 17 acts. Kind of specifically.

What the evidence tends to show, all 17 points, is that they *didnt* do their 'job'.

Quote: And that's why, unless there is compelling evidence of a conspiracy to throw out Trump because of political motivations, Hanlon's razor seems to make the most sense.

Hanlon's razor makes perfect sense for one or two specific acts. Not so much with 3 and 4. Kind if idiotic to ascribe 17 acts, all of which show a 'bad motive' (I mean, actively falsifying evidence *actually* requires a bad motive of some sort, in my ignorant viewpoint) to Hanlon's razor at that point.

Not I didnt say what the actual specific intent was; it might be they were simply pissed off because their blue pill didnt come in the mail that day.... And the IG is correct that intent cannot be ascribed. But the evidence of some sort of bad motivation (whatever the fk it might be) is simply beyond pale with 17 acts in total --- none of which have any 'acceptable explanation' to the IG's opinion. Seventeen.]

At seventeen points of what appear each to have a bad motivation, Hanlon's razor would seemingly be overwhelmed by Occam's razor. You think that all 17 issues happened due to 'just bad **** in the air'. I mean, that is what Hanlon's razor says.

17 independent acts of 'just bad ****'. Wow, you are talking about lottery winning numbers there in all honesty. Now, you put in the thesis of political motivation -- the entire (interconnected) 17 now look like a much simpler picture.

Again, your choice of Razor's -- Hanlon, or Occam (I prefer Gillette).

But please keep dancing on that 'just bad juju' idea.....

17-0 against you is not good in any activity.

(12-12-2019 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe the FISA issues were solely related to Carter Page.

I am not a legal expert like Lad, Tanq, and Numbers, but the phrase that keeps going through me head is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

(12-12-2019 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe the FISA issues were solely related to Carter Page.

I am not a legal expert like Lad, Tanq, and Numbers, but the phrase that keeps going through me head is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

I believe the FISA application for Page was separate from opening the investigation into the Trump campaign. Not sure how the information captured from that surveillance influenced future aspects of the Trump campaign case, or the three other cases.

But that's a very valid point regarding the reasons the FISA misconduct is troubling - using an investigation that was supported with fraudulent evidence is pretty damning and more than irresponsible, especially given how sensitive the target was.

(12-12-2019 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  17-0 against you is not good in any activity.

Not really clear that it's 17-0. Definitely 17 counts against. Does the IG cover if anything proper actually happened with respect to the FISA app?

But regardless, 17 obvious and significant issues, especially related to the FISA system is beyond troubling. Lots of civil liberty issues right there, that are seeming to get overshadowed because of the relation to the Trump campaign. The FBI better find a way to reform that process.

(12-11-2019 08:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 08:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  ... or are they?

They are not billing me. I thought it was a free seminar.

Very impressed with the engineer holding his own with the two legal eagles.

A friend on mine used to say, if you cannot be right, be stubborn.

Similarly, an old adage of courtroom advocacy is:
If you've got the facts on your side, pound the facts;
if you've got the law on your side, pound the law;
if you've got neither, pound the table.

(12-12-2019 02:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 08:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 08:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  ... or are they?

They are not billing me. I thought it was a free seminar.

Very impressed with the engineer holding his own with the two legal eagles.

A friend on mine used to say, if you cannot be right, be stubborn.

Similarly, an old adage of courtroom advocacy is:
If you've got the facts on your side, pound the facts;
if you've got the law on your side, pound the law;
if you've got neither, pound the table.

I thought it was 'scream and pound the table'.

(12-12-2019 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe the FISA issues were solely related to Carter Page.

I am not a legal expert like Lad, Tanq, and Numbers, but the phrase that keeps going through me head is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

I believe the FISA application for Page was separate from opening the investigation into the Trump campaign. Not sure how the information captured from that surveillance influenced future aspects of the Trump campaign case, or the three other cases.

But that's a very valid point regarding the reasons the FISA misconduct is troubling - using an investigation that was supported with fraudulent evidence is pretty damning and more than irresponsible, especially given how sensitive the target was.

Carter Page served as an initial pretext for Obama's FBI to surveil the Trump campaign.

To that end they took out an initial FISA warrant on him on the basis of the Democratic-paid for Steele dossier; they renewed that warrant three times.

They found nothing on him.

In fact, the FBI in that pursuit suppressed exculpatory evidence (and seemingly manufactured evidence) to maintain the amazingly high level of surveillance on him, and by default, anyone he associated with.

(12-12-2019 03:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe the FISA issues were solely related to Carter Page.

I am not a legal expert like Lad, Tanq, and Numbers, but the phrase that keeps going through me head is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

I believe the FISA application for Page was separate from opening the investigation into the Trump campaign. Not sure how the information captured from that surveillance influenced future aspects of the Trump campaign case, or the three other cases.

But that's a very valid point regarding the reasons the FISA misconduct is troubling - using an investigation that was supported with fraudulent evidence is pretty damning and more than irresponsible, especially given how sensitive the target was.

Carter Page served as an initial pretext for Obama's FBI to surveil the Trump campaign.

To that end they took out an initial FISA warrant on him on the basis of the Democratic-paid for Steele dossier; they renewed that warrant three times.

They found nothing on him.

In fact, the FBI in that pursuit suppressed exculpatory evidence (and seemingly manufactured evidence) to maintain the amazingly high level of surveillance on him, and by default, anyone he associated with.

Reading through the IG report, the initial pretext for the FBI to surveil the Trump campaign was Popodapolous - and the IG found that pretext to be sufficient. The report clearly states that Crossfire Hurricane, which was the investigation into coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russia, was built on that Popodapolous meeting. Further, you can read about the rationale to turn Crossfire Hurricane into a full investigation, and none of them are the Page FISA app. Heck, the initial Page FISA app was not submitted until Oct 2016, and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on 31 July 2016.

So how exactly was a FISA warrant two months after an investigation into the campaign was started, an initial pretext to spy on the campaign?

Now remember, the Horowitz report is, and cannot be, anywhere a full picture of the happenings.

The IG DOJ only holds investigative power over people employed at the DOJ, and documents that are held by DOJ. He has zero investigative power and/or authority over anything outside the 'walls' of the DOJ.

Durham, being a US Attorney, has the authority *and* ability to go well beyond the 'walls' of the DOJ. And he has been charged in doing so. The subpoena reach of his office, a grand jury, and any Federal badged investigators under him have the potential to go well beyond 'current employees' that Horowitz was limited to.

Even with those limitations, the Horowitz report is stunning in the grotesqueness of what transpired.

Barrs comments took center stage Tuesday; but to me the stunning comment was from Durham. Mind you that US Attorneys hardly *ever* make a public comment on ongoing investigations.

Quote:John H. Durham, a federal prosecutor whom Mr. Barr appointed to run a separate criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, backed Mr. Barr’s findings in his own highly unusual statement. “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 F.B.I. case was opened,” Mr. Durham said.

He also noted that he had access to more information than Mr. Horowitz did, an apparent reference to Mr. Durham’s trips to meet with foreign intelligence officials overseas and to his examination of any role the C.I.A. played in how the F.B.I. confronted Russia’s election interference in 2016.

Sourced from the all omniscient NY Times.

Specifically, even over the jubilation in the street by some (even here) of the Horowitz report on the 'cleanliness' of 'opening the investigation', I think it very telling what Durham said. Time will tell, I assume.