(12-13-2019 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-13-2019 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (12-13-2019 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (12-13-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: I don't think I can begin to describe the difference between an internal bias (which is natural) and manufacturing evidence or making intentionally false statements (which is criminal).
There is a difference between thinking Trump is a crook and looking for evidence to prove it, and in the absence of that, manufacturing such evidence.
I mean seriously, how is this any different than a cop who plants a gun or claims that the guy he shot had one?
What would the left be arguing if that had been the circumstances rather than this? That because the guy was a bully, that he deserved it so it was okay?
Wait, an FBI agent manufactured evidence that says Trump was a crook?
As opposed to the nitpick on what the evidence was directed it, perhaps the major focus is that evidence was manufactured in what is conceivably the most important investgation undertaken by the FBI in the last 70 years. But why let that get in the way of your extremely minor nitpicking point..........
Was evidence manufactured?
I know the email was edited, but it wasn't used as evidence. The email was in regards to Page's previous work as an informant.
That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?
In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.
The email was altered to present a radically different view of Page. Had Page been known by the agent affiming to the issue of what the email should have said, at the very least it would have set off alarm bells. And had the FISA court known the real contents, it likely would not have issued nor re-issued the warrant.
So yes, it was absolutely material. And personally whether something was altered, or made up out of whole cloth has zero difference. In the large scope of things or in the smaller scope of things.
In this case a material fact was changed. In the smaller scope, the action to influence the course of an investigation is repugnant to the extreme; it does not matter what friggin verb you use the simple fact remains that a vindicating arc was changed to present another view.
In the larger scope, the fact that the FBI itself did it is absolutely disgraceful. The actions of the FBI in particular have to be absolutely above reproach. So even if the stuff was changed and *not* even shown to make a difference, even that aspect to the extent it detracts from the objectivity of the organization, and in this case changes into a political act, is doubly atrocious.
As to what was manufactured, I suggest you go back a day or so to the outline of actions I brought forward. The answer is there.
And yes, changing evidence to reflect something that is not is absolutely manufacturing evidence; I dont care if you call it editing, making up, or tamopering -- the end result as to the outcome in front of the FISA court is absolutely repugnant, as is the organizational damage to the FBI overall even if the 'evidence' was not used.
I fail to see where the change in verbs changes either of those outcomes.
![[Image: I3nvdxZ.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/I3nvdxZ.png?1)
