I know time is short for many here, but you can read this report here

An item of note:

The TLDR:

Whack a Mole --- how did you like Clinesmith pleading guilty for creating evidence for the Carter Page FISA warrants?

(08-18-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Whack a Mole --- how did you like Clinesmith pleading guilty for creating evidence for the Carter Page FISA warrants?

Are you expecting that I would rally to his defense for altering a document relating to a warrant?

Or that we should just throws up our hands and say-- oh well, both sides!..?

What a weird question.

As opposed to someone's comments on the report (Miller above) how about exact quotes from the report:

Quote:(U) Volume 5 of the report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference is the last body of work relating to the Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This final volume brings an end to more than three years of investigative work. Bipartisan professional staff reviewed more than one million documents and interviewed more than 200 witnesses to produce over 1,000 pages of analysis. Volume 5 exhaustively reviews the counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities to the 2016 election, but never explicitly states the critical fact: the Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.

Quote:(U) The Trump campaign publicly and repeatedly promoted a policy of improving relations with Moscow which, in some ways, was a view not much different than the effort by the Obama administration to “reset” relations between the two countries. Such a policy does not itself constitute collusion or a counterintelligence threat. Volume 5 includes sections that address foreign policy actions taken by the Trump transition team in line with this policy, not because the Committee found any evidence that these foreign policy actions were the result of collaboration with the Russian Government, but to show that after an exhaustive investigation allegations of cooperation can be put to rest. Decisions taken were the result of a foreign policy viewpoint, not illicit Russian influence. We feel Volume 5 should have explicitly stated this.

Quote:(U) More than three and a half years later, the Trump administration’s record on Russia shows a consistent attempt to cooperate with Russia where possible, while responding firmly to Russia’s nefarious activity worldwide. For instance, under the leadership of President Trump, the administration effectuated the largest expulsion of Russian spies in U.S. history after Russian operatives poisoned Sergei Skripal in London, provided Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression, and led the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty-international agreements that the Russians have been violating for years and wish to preserve.

Quote:(U) While this Volume did not find evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russians, it does detail a stunning accounting of the FBl’s sloppy work and poor judgment. In 2016, the Democratic Party, using a series of arm’s length transactions, hired a foreign citizen to seek out dirt on a political opponent, provided by foreign sources. This Volume confirms that Christopher Steele used information gained from sources in Russia-some with direct ties to the Russian Government. That unverified, uncorroborated, foreign information was then actively circulated with the press to disparage a U.S. political candidate.

Quote:(U) Meanwhile, the FBI should have followed the advice of other intelligence agencies to view Steele’s reports skeptically, and the Bureau should have verified the methodology and the information before using it. Instead, the Bureau used the material in FISA applications and insisted on its inclusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Other IC agencies wanted to exclude the Dossier from the ICA because they had not verified its sources or its data. All Americans should be deeply troubled that the FBI was willing to accept and use Steele’s information without verifying its sourcing or methodology.

Quote:(U) Volume 5 is an important contribution to the historical record from which historians will someday draw. As is evident to those who read all five volumes of the Committee’s report, the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways but then-Candidate Trump was not complicit. After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.

Sounds like the report found that Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks) without actively colluding with Russia AND the FBI ****** up.

Side note, absolutely hilarious that a formal report used the term "dirt" as listed above.

(08-18-2020 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sounds like the report found that Trump and his campaign were dirty

THAT's what your get out of THIS:?

t does detail a stunning accounting of the FBl’s sloppy work and poor judgment. In 2016, the Democratic Party, using a series of arm’s length transactions, hired a foreign citizen to seek out dirt on a political opponent, provided by foreign sources. This Volume confirms that Christopher Steele used information gained from sources in Russia-some with direct ties to the Russian Government. That unverified, uncorroborated, foreign information was then actively circulated with the press to disparage a U.S. political candidate.

(08-18-2020 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sounds like the report found that Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks) without actively colluding with Russia AND the FBI ****** up.

Side note, absolutely hilarious that a formal report used the term "dirt" as listed above.

Perhaps that may be a viewpoint when you ignore many of the other portions, like some posted above.

(08-18-2020 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sounds like the report found that Trump and his campaign were dirty

THAT's what your get out of THIS:?

t does detail a stunning accounting of the FBl’s sloppy work and poor judgment. In 2016, the Democratic Party, using a series of arm’s length transactions, hired a foreign citizen to seek out dirt on a political opponent, provided by foreign sources. This Volume confirms that Christopher Steele used information gained from sources in Russia-some with direct ties to the Russian Government. That unverified, uncorroborated, foreign information was then actively circulated with the press to disparage a U.S. political candidate.

Weird, it's almost like you left off half of my statement...

Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

(08-18-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

This is a 1,000 page document that I don't care to read. All I can speak to is what you quoted.

Only one of them then turned that into quite literally a 'federal case'. It's one thing to place some allegation in the press... that happens every day. In a very small way, we're doing it right now. We're talking about engaging the FBI and Congress to investigate the issue. More to MY way of thinking, it's like the guy who aggressively accuses his girl of cheating to cover up the fact that he's cheating.

If you want to compare the two, I'd start there.

(08-18-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

Once a conspiracy theorist...

(08-18-2020 04:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

Once a conspiracy theorist...

Yeah, but but as a counterpoint he thinks that Flynn wasnt **** on by the FBI either. Even with a load of evidence to it.

Maybe it should read 'unfounded conspiracy theorist'.

(08-18-2020 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 04:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

Once a conspiracy theorist...

Yeah, but but as a counterpoint he thinks that Flynn wasnt **** on by the FBI either. Even with a load of evidence to it.

Maybe it should read 'unfounded conspiracy theorist'.

He still sees smoke...

More conspiracy theories from the GOP-led Senate report:

Quote:The Senate panel identifies Konstantin Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer employed by the GRU, the military intelligence agency behind the 2018 poisoning of the Russian double agent Sergei Skripal. It cites evidence – some of it redacted – linking Kilimnik to the GRU’s hacking and dumping of Democratic party emails.

Kilimnik worked for over a decade in Ukraine with Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager. In 2016 Manafort met with Kilimnik, discussed how Trump might beat Hillary Clinton, and gave the Russian spy internal polling data.

Quote:The fact that a Republican-controlled Senate panel established a direct connection between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence makes it harder for Trump and his supporters to allege that the investigation into possible collusion was a “witch-hunt” or “hoax” as the president has repeatedly claimed, in the remaining three months before the election.

Quote:The committee is dismissive of the dossier by the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, which alleged that the Kremlin had been cultivating Donald Trump for at least five years, but stops short of offering an opinion on whether the allegations within it are true. That dossier contained an allegation that Russia spied on Trump during a visit to Moscow in November 2013 and filmed him in his private suite at the Ritz-Carlton hotel with two prostitutes. Trump strenuously denies the claim.

However, the Senate report offers the most compelling account yet of what went on inside the hotel. It alleges that a suspected Russian intelligence officer is stationed permanently in the building and presides over a “network” of security cameras, some of them hidden inside guest rooms. The officer’s agency is redacted, but is likely to be the FSB, the spy agency Vladimir Putin headed, in charge of counter-intelligence.

The report says: “The committee found that the Ritz Carlton in Moscow is a high counterintelligence risk environment. The committee assesses that the hotel likely has at least one permanent Russian intelligence officer on staff, government surveillance of guests’ rooms, and the regular presence of a large number of prostitutes, likely with at least the tacit approval of Russian authorities.

Quote:The report says that Trump’s close friend Roger Stone was working closely with WikiLeaks in summer 2016. It suggests Stone was briefing Trump in real time, and that the Trump campaign was shaping its messages ahead of releases by WikiLeaks of Democratic emails stolen in Moscow by GRU state hackers.

It says: “Trump and senior campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior campaign officials on multiple occasions.”

Trump believed Stone was getting “inside information” from WikiLeaks, the committee said, adding that it wasn’t able to establish if this was indeed the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020...a-campaign

(08-18-2020 04:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

This is a 1,000 page document that I don't care to read. All I can speak to is what you quoted.

Only one of them then turned that into quite literally a 'federal case'. It's one thing to place some allegation in the press... that happens every day. In a very small way, we're doing it right now. We're talking about engaging the FBI and Congress to investigate the issue. More to MY way of thinking, it's like the guy who aggressively accuses his girl of cheating to cover up the fact that he's cheating.

If you want to compare the two, I'd start there.

2 of them --- High placed FBI attorney (Klinesmith?) pled guilty to forging documents and presenting those forged documents to the FISA court.

(08-18-2020 04:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

Quote:At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately."

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

This is a 1,000 page document that I don't care to read. All I can speak to is what you quoted.

Only one of them then turned that into quite literally a 'federal case'. It's one thing to place some allegation in the press... that happens every day. In a very small way, we're doing it right now. We're talking about engaging the FBI and Congress to investigate the issue. More to MY way of thinking, it's like the guy who aggressively accuses his girl of cheating to cover up the fact that he's cheating.

If you want to compare the two, I'd start there.

Again, seriously?

The senate intel report spells out that the Trump campaign (Roger Stone) told Wikileaks to dump the DNC emails (which the intel report spells out were stolen by Russia) when they found out about the Access Hollywood tape.

So we literally have a campaign official working with Wikileaks to use information stolen by a foreign government to influence the election.

You try and tell me I'm dodging and weaving when you won't even address the facts and wave this off because of how long the document.

This doesn't takeaway from the other findings of FBI conduct - I don't see why we must dismiss one in order to acknowledge the other.

Note that this is the Intelligence Committee reporting on an intelligence investigation.

Having worked directly or indirectly in intel and held a TS clearance for 22 years, I have a pretty good understanding of the limits of intel. Basically, intel cannot and does not prove anything. What I see here is speculation without proof. If you see proof, please point me to it.

(08-19-2020 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Note that this is the Intelligence Committee reporting on an intelligence investigation.

Having worked directly or indirectly in intel and held a TS clearance for 22 years, I have a pretty good understanding of the limits of intel. Basically, intel cannot and does not prove anything. What I see here is speculation without proof. If you see proof, please point me to it.

Well, we know when the Access Hollywood and DNC files dropped, and we have a first hand account of these interactions. Without knowing any other evidence, that seems pretty fricken proof positive.

Forget it - he is clinging bitterly to his smoky conspiracy theory.