No political bias but FBI made mistakes in probe of Trump 2016 campaign - watchdog

[candide]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

To be clear, at no time did the report state there was no political bias. 
 

Fact

It's a lie! And it's been already objected to you before with the same attached document as proof!

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

[riclag]

1 hour ago, candide said:

It's a lie! And it's been already objected to you before with the same attached document as proof!

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

 There is more testimony that came  out from the second senate meeting, Homeland security meeting ,with Mr. H on Fisa 

“We have been very careful in the connection with the FISA’s for the reasons you mentioned to not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz told Hawley. “As we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”

12

"Horowitz’s clarification comes after U.S. attorney John Durham released a statement saying his office did “not agree with” the report’s statements regarding the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe".

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/horowitz-pushes-back-on-claim-that-he-exonerated-fbi-of-political-bias-we-did-not-reach-that-conclusion/

 

  Mr. H was stymied he couldn't get testimony for various reasons,some declined to be interviewed ,some were not employed with the GOV anymore and he couldn't investigate out of the country. Enter Mr. Durham's criminal investigation ,He has mueller capabilities in investigating  the ,17 errors and omissions all against Mr. Trump, Holding back exculpatory evidence. Mr. H saying anyone who touched this is  not  vindicated. And lastly the viva le  resistance tripe that Mr. Klinsmith FBI lawyer spewed before he was on the case while criminally  changing emails from the CIA

[candide]

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

 There is more testimony that came  out from the second senate meeting, Homeland security meeting ,with Mr. H on Fisa 

“We have been very careful in the connection with the FISA’s for the reasons you mentioned to not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz told Hawley. “As we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”

12

"Horowitz’s clarification comes after U.S. attorney John Durham released a statement saying his office did “not agree with” the report’s statements regarding the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe".

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/horowitz-pushes-back-on-claim-that-he-exonerated-fbi-of-political-bias-we-did-not-reach-that-conclusion/

 

17 errors and ommisions all against Mr. Trump, Holding back exculpatory evidence. Mr. H saying anyone who touched this is  not  vindicated. And lastly the viva le  resistance tripe that Mr. Klinsmith FBI lawyer spewed before he was on the case while changing emails from the CIA

As far as I understand it's not different from what he wrote in the report. He "did not find evidence".

By the way, I did not link the right page, one must look here

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6571581-IG-Report-Exec-Summary.html#document/p7/a539083

[candide]

1 hour ago, candide said:

It's a lie! And it's been already objected to you before with the same attached document as proof!

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Sorry Mogandave, I mixed up different pages of the document and likely did not object it to you before. Apologies.

It does remain, however, that the report states they did not find evidence of political bias.

Right link here

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6571581-IG-Report-Exec-Summary.html#document/p7/a539083

[riclag]

13 minutes ago, candide said:

As far as I understand it's not different from what he wrote in the report. He "did not find evidence".

By the way, I did not link the right page, one must look here

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6571581-IG-Report-Exec-Summary.html#document/p7/a539083

As far as I understand it Mr. H in this new testimony in front of the Homeland security said he couldn't conclude political bias one way or the other  because 

" our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”As I mentioned before this is being criminally investigated 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/horowitz-pushes-back-on-claim-that-he-exonerated-fbi-of-political-bias-we-did-not-reach-that-conclusion/

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

Perhaps you should try stating your facts with more conviction?
 

Which of your stated “facts” do you see as significant? Please? Let’s take them one at a time. 
 

Russia interfered with the election. How is that Trump’s fault?

 

Trump hired Paul Manafort. So what?

 

Jr. met with “Russians” to get dirt on Hillary. So what?

 

What does pro-Russia campaign even mean? Remember the reset/button and the ‘80’s wanting their foreign policy back? Was that pro-Russia policy and sentiment? But really, how was it a pro-Russian campaign? In any event, it seems pretty subjective to be stated as a fact. 

Yes. the FBI is responsible for any number of things, yet they’re busy lying and falsifying documents to get FISA warrants and taking it upon themselves to give HRC a pass. 
 

Yes, the FBI (apparently) were justified in opening the investigation. They were not justified in lying and falsifying documents to pursue it further. 
 

So you reluctantly concede that Russia interfered in the election and the FBI was justified in investigating it and any links with the campaign they were trying to help.  That's a start.

 

Trump has hired a lot of people who turned out to be criminals.  People are judged by the company they keep.

 

A pro-Russian campaign means campaign speeches about how wonderful it would be to be friends with Russia (presumably by dropping the economic sanctions imposed on Russia after occupying Ukraine) and changing the Republican party platform before the convention to water down support for Ukraine.    This while he was negotiating a real estate deal in Moscow.   It illustrates why Presidents should put their holdings in a blind trust:  Clearly there was a conflict between US policy and Trump's financial interest, and his response was to change US policy to accommodate his interests.

 

"Jr. met with “Russians” to get dirt on Hillary. So what?"  Really?  You want to give Trump Jr a pass on breaking the law?

 

You omitted the fact about Trump's campaign benefiting from the Russian interference, and Trump telling people at his rallies to read the Wikileaks material obtained from the Russian hack.  That alone justified investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

 

You have a very short memory if you think the FBI gave Hillary Clinton a pass.  Comey's publicly opening and re-opening the investigation into her emails at key times during the election almost certainly got Trump elected.  Yet the FBI did  a good job of keeping its Russia investigation secret until after the election.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

To be clear, at no time did the report state there was no political bias. 
 

Fact

Did you read the article this thread is based on?  Not even the first paragraph?

 

" The U.S. Justice Department's internal watchdog said it found numerous errors but no evidence of political bias by the FBI when it opened an investigation into contacts between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia in 2016. "

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, riclag said:

As far as I understand it Mr. H in this new testimony in front of the Homeland security said he couldn't conclude political bias one way or the other  because 

" our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”As I mentioned before this is being criminally investigated 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/horowitz-pushes-back-on-claim-that-he-exonerated-fbi-of-political-bias-we-did-not-reach-that-conclusion/

 

Kind of the way the Mueller report couldn't conclude there was collusion with Russia.

[candide]

31 minutes ago, riclag said:

As far as I understand it Mr. H in this new testimony in front of the Homeland security said he couldn't conclude political bias because 

" our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”As I mentioned before this is being criminally investigated 

 

OK, it's true that he did not identify any explanation, so it does not exclude that there may be a political motivation, among other alternative explanations.

[riclag]

Just now, candide said:

OK, it's true that he did not identify any explanation, so it does not exclude that there may be a political motivation, among other alternative explanations.

He couldn't conclude  one way or the other on the fisa investigation because of unsatisfactory explanations . To be continued as Mr. Johnson said on the Homeland security committee , he will not rest until everything is answered.Mr. Durham will fill that void that hampered Mr. H from his limited capabilities 

[JHolmesJr]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

To be clear, at no time did the report state there was no political bias. 
 

Fact

Agreed...short of finding a FBI letterhead signed by Comey saying let's get Trump with every trick we've got, they've

done everything to suggest heavy bias against T's campaign.

 

[riclag]

20 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Agreed...short of finding a FBI letterhead signed by Comey saying let's get Trump with every trick we've got, they've

done everything to suggest heavy bias against T's campaign.

 

Horowitz also directly contradicted assertions regarding his conclusion of FBI exoneration, noting, “It’s unclear what the motivations [of the FBI] were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence? On the other hand, intentionally, and where in between? We weren’t in a position—with the evidence we had—to make that conclusion. But I’m not ruling it out.”

https://themarketswork.com/2019/12/18/horowitz-report-testimony-provide-historic-condemnation-of-fbis-surveillance-actions/

 

I don't know about you  but don't you think his agency was ill suited to investigate this. I remember when he was asked to investigate  and it was reported that he wouldn't have subpoena power ,convene grand juries, could only ask current  employees to be interviewed and no  prosecutor capabilities?

   

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Agreed...short of finding a FBI letterhead signed by Comey saying let's get Trump with every trick we've got, they've

done everything to suggest heavy bias against T's campaign.

 

If you took off your blinders you might be less paranoid.  During the election the FBI secretly investigated the Russian interference and publicly investigated the Clinton email issue.  After the email investigation was concluded it was then publicly reopened days before the election.  Don't you think this shows a heavy bias against HRC?

[JHolmesJr]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

If you took off your blinders you might be less paranoid.  During the election the FBI secretly investigated the Russian interference and publicly investigated the Clinton email issue.  After the email investigation was concluded it was then publicly reopened days before the election.  Don't you think this shows a heavy bias against HRC?

 

no, it illustrates comey's stupidity...they all thought she was going to win by a landslide.

Overconfidence and stupidity....thats mr comey.

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

no, it illustrates comey's stupidity...they all thought she was going to win by a landslide.

Overconfidence and stupidity....thats mr comey.

So in your unusual view of events, Comey was sabotaging both campaigns, and sabotaging the Clinton campaign much more blatantly, but he really wanted her to win.

 

Why?

[mogandave]

On 12/20/2019 at 1:48 AM, candide said:

Sorry Mogandave, I mixed up different pages of the document and likely did not object it to you before. Apologies.

It does remain, however, that the report states they did not find evidence of political bias.

Right link here

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6571581-IG-Report-Exec-Summary.html#document/p7/a539083

Stating they found no documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias is very different from saying there was no political bias. 
 

The scope of the investigation was very limited, and statements had to be taken at face value. 
 

So I’ll stand by my position that (contrary to all the headlines and commentators) at no time did the report state there was no political bias. 

Fact.

 

If you are honest I think you will agree. 

[mogandave]

On 12/20/2019 at 2:15 AM, heybruce said:

So you reluctantly concede that Russia interfered in the election and the FBI was justified in investigating it and any links with the campaign they were trying to help.  That's a start.

 

Why do you always have to lie and condescend? I never said the Russians did not interfere with the election. I don’t think I said the FBI was justified either. I only agreed that’s what the report said. That said, I have no reason to think they didn’t. 

 

 

On 12/20/2019 at 2:15 AM, heybruce said:

 

Trump has hired a lot of people who turned out to be criminals.  People are judged by the company they keep.

 

Was  Trump knowingly hiring criminals  and were any of the crimes related to his campaign?

 

But-but-but did Hillary hire a foreign national to work on her campaign? 

 

 

On 12/20/2019 at 2:15 AM, heybruce said:

 

A pro-Russian campaign means campaign speeches about how wonderful it would be to be friends with Russia (presumably by dropping the economic sanctions imposed on Russia after occupying Ukraine) and changing the Republican party platform before the convention to water down support for Ukraine.    This while he was negotiating a real estate deal in Moscow.   It illustrates why Presidents should put their holdings in a blind trust:  Clearly there was a conflict between US policy and Trump's financial interest, and his response was to change US policy to accommodate his interests.
 

 

Would it not be “wonderful” is we were friends with Russia? 
 

Again. I seem to recall a silly reset button that (I assume) was meant to mean everything was hunky-dory with Russia, no? Didn’t the ‘80’s call and want there foreign policy back? 

Did you get all worked up when Obama said on a hot mike: if Vladimir will give me some space during my re-election then I will be flexible on missile defense in Eastern Europe? 
 

So Putin eased off, and after Obama was re-elected he cancelled missile defense for the Czech Republic and Poland and Putin went into Crimea and Ukraine.

 

To be clear: If it turns out Trump is on Putin’s payroll I hope he’s hung publicly and they have a raffle for who pulls the handle and I’ll buy ten tickets and flip you for it if he wins.

 

On 12/20/2019 at 2:15 AM, heybruce said:

 

"Jr. met with “Russians” to get dirt on Hillary. So what?"  Really?  You want to give Trump Jr a pass on breaking the law?

 

You omitted the fact about Trump's campaign benefiting from the Russian interference, and Trump telling people at his rallies to read the Wikileaks material obtained from the Russian hack.  That alone justified investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
 

 

What dirt did jr get from the Russians? Was it illegal to meet with them? Was jr charged with a crime?

 

I don’t know that Trump’s campaign benefitted from the Russian meddling. It could have, but the way I understand it it was more about stirring up an lot of animosity than helping Trump.
 

Is it your position the Russians had a plan to get Trump elected, and then Trump was going to what? Open a bunch of hotels over there with treasury money while he laid around paying hookers to pee on him?
 

In any event, did Trump hire Russia to help him? He (apparently) knew nothing about it and had nothing  to do with it, correct? 

What’s wrong with telling people to read Wikileaks? Seems everyone loved Wiki up until then. 
 

And why did the DNC not turn their server over to the FBI? 

 

 

 

On 12/20/2019 at 2:15 AM, heybruce said:

 

You have a very short memory if you think the FBI gave Hillary Clinton a pass.  Comey's publicly opening and re-opening the investigation into her emails at key times during the election almost certainly got Trump elected.  Yet the FBI did  a good job of keeping its Russia investigation secret until after the election.

I think it’s you with the short memory. While Comey hurt her campaign, she should have been prosecuted for the server and Comey went on TV and and said she lacked intent, which was not a requirement. 
 

But it was Comey that cost her the election, how could it be that it was Russia? 
 

It was hilarious the way the left all hated Comey until Trump fired him, then he became the greatest law enforcement official the world has ever known. 
 

[candide]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Stating they found no documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias is very different from saying there was no political bias. 
 

The scope of the investigation was very limited, and statements had to be taken at face value. 
 

So I’ll stand by my position that (contrary to all the headlines and commentators) at no time did the report state there was no political bias. 

Fact.

 

If you are honest I think you will agree. 

I agree. It states that no evidence of political motivation was found, so it does not exclude that there may have been such motivation.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Why do you always have to lie and condescend? I never said the Russians did not interfere with the election. I don’t think I said the FBI was justified either. I only agreed that’s what the report said. That said, I have no reason to think they didn’t. 

 

 

 

Was  Trump knowingly hiring criminals  and were any of the crimes related to his campaign?

 

But-but-but did Hillary hire a foreign national to work on her campaign? 

 

 

 

Would it not be “wonderful” is we were friends with Russia? 
 

Again. I seem to recall a silly reset button that (I assume) was meant to mean everything was hunky-dory with Russia, no? Didn’t the ‘80’s call and want there foreign policy back? 

Did you get all worked up when Obama said on a hot mike: if Vladimir will give me some space during my re-election then I will be flexible on missile defense in Eastern Europe? 
 

So Putin eased off, and after Obama was re-elected he cancelled missile defense for the Czech Republic and Poland and Putin went into Crimea and Ukraine.

 

To be clear: If it turns out Trump is on Putin’s payroll I hope he’s hung publicly and they have a raffle for who pulls the handle and I’ll buy ten tickets and flip you for it if he wins.

 

 

What dirt did jr get from the Russians? Was it illegal to meet with them? Was jr charged with a crime?

 

I don’t know that Trump’s campaign benefitted from the Russian meddling. It could have, but the way I understand it it was more about stirring up an lot of animosity than helping Trump.
 

Is it your position the Russians had a plan to get Trump elected, and then Trump was going to what? Open a bunch of hotels over there with treasury money while he laid around paying hookers to pee on him?
 

In any event, did Trump hire Russia to help him? He (apparently) knew nothing about it and had nothing  to do with it, correct? 

What’s wrong with telling people to read Wikileaks? Seems everyone loved Wiki up until then. 
 

And why did the DNC not turn their server over to the FBI? 

 

 

 

I think it’s you with the short memory. While Comey hurt her campaign, she should have been prosecuted for the server and Comey went on TV and and said she lacked intent, which was not a requirement. 
 

But it was Comey that cost her the election, how could it be that it was Russia? 
 

It was hilarious the way the left all hated Comey until Trump fired him, then he became the greatest law enforcement official the world has ever known. 
 

"Was  Trump knowingly hiring criminals  and were any of the crimes related to his campaign?"

 

Did Trump, who bragged about hiring the best people, make any attempt to vet his hires?  Don't responsible employers do that?

 

"But-but-but did Hillary hire a foreign national to work on her campaign?"

 

No.  Washington based Fusion GPS hired Steele using money from the DNC.  All this was legal.

 

"Would it not be “wonderful” is we were friends with Russia? "

 

No, not while Russia is occupying other countries, sending assassins abroad, undermining elections in the US and other countries...

 

Other attempts to reset relations with Russia occurred when it was not undermining so many other countries.  And they weren't pushed by Presidents seeking to personally profit from Russia.

 

"What dirt did jr get from the Russians? Was it illegal to meet with them? Was jr charged with a crime?"

 

The old Sideshow Bob defense:  "Attempted murder?  How is that a crime?"  Jr didn't need to succeed in getting dirt on Clinton, the intent was a crime, and it was illegal.  Don Jr wasn't charged because Mueller concluded he couldn't prove Jr knew what he was doing was illegal.  Proving Don Jr knew anything would be a challenge.

 

"Is it your position the Russians had a plan to get Trump elected, and then Trump was going to what?"

 

Putin wanted to prevent Clinton from getting elected.  When Trump became the most serious challenger he did all he could to get Trump elected.  Trump was Putin's useful idiot.  Useful idiot's are difficult to control, but having an incompetent in the White House undermining the country's position in the world is reward enough.

 

"What’s wrong with telling people to read Wikileaks?"

 

What's wrong with a potential President telling people to read a website famous for publicizing classified information?  Does that need to be explained to you?

 

"And why did the DNC not turn their server over to the FBI? "

 

For the same reason the RNC and most businesses would not do so under similar circumstances.  The server was full of privileged and private information.  Surely someone who doesn't think Trump should publish his tax returns understands that.

 

"But it was Comey that cost her the election, how could it be that it was Russia?"

 

Comey alone might not have changed the election outcome.  Russia alone might not have changed the election outcome.  Comey and Russia combined probably changed the election outcome.
 

"It was hilarious the way the left all hated Comey until Trump fired him, then he became the greatest law enforcement official the world has ever known. "

 

Really?  When have I ever posted kind words about Comey?  When has anyone else?  Where do you get these ideas?