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

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, candide said:

  8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Coming from the New York Times the article doesn't surprise me.  They have tarnished their reputation to the point where I wouldn't believe a word they wrote.  They are simply no longer credible.

 

  5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Absolutely agree.  Nothing they did was unintentional and everything was thoroughly thought out.  The only mistake they made was betting on Hillary and therefore allowing themselves to become very sloppy.

 

For example.....

The New York Times has tarnished their reputation to the point where I wouldn't believe a word they wrote.  Substantiated:

 

https://tennesseestar.com/2019/11/07/leahy-calls-out-the-new-york-times-over-its-false-reporting-of-the-tennessee-star/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/new-york-times-takes-it-chin-after-asking-help-fin/

https://www.naturalnews.com/039959_New_York_Times_timeswatch_false_reporting.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controversies

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-times-issues-correction-after-trump-slams-it-for-false-reporting_2544271.html

https://spectator.org/more-fake-news-from-the-new-york-times/

https://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/08/16/nolte-new-york-times-admits-we-built-our-newsroom-around-russia-collusion-hoax/

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/watch-how-casually-false-claims-are-published-nyt-and-nicholas-lemann-edition/

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/fake-news-new-york-times-and-washington-post-sink-to-new-lows-with-false-reporting-on-trumps-transcript/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/fake-news-new-york-times-caught-making-false-quote-trumps-cpac-speech/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/08/in-the-main-it-was-not-true-comey-denounces-new-york-times-story/

https://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

 

As to the second post that one is much more complicated and time intensive to substantiate.  Since you obviously don't follow all the facts surrounding the Russia hoax (else you wouldn't be claiming my post as unsubstantiated) it would be a lot of work to gather all of the information and put it together.  Be patient.  Durham's investigation will make it all clear.

 

Shredding the New York Times' credibility was easy.  I had to stop sometime as there was much more.

 

Anything else, candide?

 

[candide]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The New York Times has tarnished their reputation to the point where I wouldn't believe a word they wrote.  Substantiated:

 

https://tennesseestar.com/2019/11/07/leahy-calls-out-the-new-york-times-over-its-false-reporting-of-the-tennessee-star/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/new-york-times-takes-it-chin-after-asking-help-fin/

https://www.naturalnews.com/039959_New_York_Times_timeswatch_false_reporting.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controversies

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-times-issues-correction-after-trump-slams-it-for-false-reporting_2544271.html

https://spectator.org/more-fake-news-from-the-new-york-times/

https://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/08/16/nolte-new-york-times-admits-we-built-our-newsroom-around-russia-collusion-hoax/

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/watch-how-casually-false-claims-are-published-nyt-and-nicholas-lemann-edition/

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/fake-news-new-york-times-and-washington-post-sink-to-new-lows-with-false-reporting-on-trumps-transcript/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/fake-news-new-york-times-caught-making-false-quote-trumps-cpac-speech/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/08/in-the-main-it-was-not-true-comey-denounces-new-york-times-story/

https://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

 

As to the second post that one is much more complicated and time intensive to substantiate.  Since you obviously don't follow all the facts surrounding the Russia hoax (else you wouldn't be claiming my post as unsubstantiated) it would be a lot of work to gather all of the information and put it together.  Be patient.  Durham's investigation will make it all clear.

 

Shredding the New York Times' credibility was easy.  I had to stop sometime as there was much more.

 

Anything else, candide?

 

Ok, the first claim is substantiated, it would be necessary to calculate the frequency of fake news over time, but it is beyond our capabilities.

About the second claim, you just recognised you have nothing to substantiate it.

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, candide said:

There's a difference between not finding anything and the general conclusion. There were some mistakes and irregularities, but nothing challenging the main conclusions.

The general conclusion is that Trump's conspiracy theory was largely debunked: the investigation was legal, no political bias, no conspiracy, no spy planted in his campaign, they did not use the Steele dossier to open the investigation, etc...

 

. . . . There were some mistakes and irregularities, . . . .

 

LOL. Discounting the severity using the softest possible language to describe serious failings, especially if purposeful.  Don't forget that singular "irregularity" of an FBI lawyer altering a document used for FISA application.  Nothing actually criminal in that, right?  You would view that as trivial if you were so victimized?  Omissions of exculpatory information are just a "mistake?"  That's how you would view it if it was done to you?  55555555555

 

I'm outta time for tonight but you'll get your money's worth tomorrow, candide.

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

. . . . There were some mistakes and irregularities, . . . .

 

LOL. Discounting the severity using the softest possible language to describe serious failings, especially if purposeful.  Don't forget that singular "irregularity" of an FBI lawyer altering a document used for FISA application.  Nothing actually criminal in that, right?  You would view that as trivial if you were so victimized?  Omissions of exculpatory information are just a "mistake?"  That's how you would view it if it was done to you?  55555555555

 

I'm outta time for tonight but you'll get your money's worth tomorrow, candide.

The general conclusion is clear: the investigation was legal and not politically motivated.

I don't deny the flaws that have been also stated, but it does not change the overall assessment and the fact that Trump's theory is debunked.

[candide]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Nothing to calculate, candide, in order to try and find a way to somehow excuse it.  Given the frequency it's unacceptable.  It should be a rare occurrence, certainly not to the extent to where you can pull up endless examples in a matter of minutes.

 

And as to the second claim, stating that I just recognized that I have nothing to substantiate it with is flat out lying since that is not what I stated at all.  Here you're just making things up.

 

I just don't get you libs.  How is it that lying comes so easily and naturally for you.

You did not substantiate the second claim I posted, sorry!

[rabas]

13 minutes ago, candide said:

The general conclusion is clear: the investigation was legal and not politically motivated.

I don't deny the flaws that have been also stated, but it does not change the overall assessment and the fact that Trump's theory is debunked.

Read the conclusion. It could not be proven illegal but the reasons why were missing, wrong, or unsatisfactory.

 

Another case of not-exonerated double speak? I think Durham will speak directly. He's not deep state.

 

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, candide said:

You did not substantiate the second claim I posted, sorry!

My exact words:

 

 

"As to the second post that one is much more complicated and time intensive to substantiate.  Since you obviously don't follow all the facts surrounding the Russia hoax (else you wouldn't be claiming my post as unsubstantiated) it would be a lot of work to gather all of the information and put it together."

 

Your exact words:

 

"About the second claim, you just recognised you have nothing to substantiate it."

 

Your exact words:

 

"You did not substantiate the second claim I posted."

 

You changed the language the second time to say that I did not substantiate my claim.  That is true.  The first time you said that I recognized I have nothing to substantiate it which is false.  Read what I wrote and show me where I say I have nothing to substantiate my claim?  It's not there.  So you made it up, which is the same as lying.

 

Again, I just don't get you libs.  The dishonesty is pathetic.

 

No different than Trump's call record where there is no quid pro quo but libs insist it's there.  They simply make it up.  So sad.

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, candide said:

Again, as I stated in post, I don't deny there were some flaws or their gravity. However it remains true that the overall assessment by the IG was that the investigation was legal and not politically motivated, and not the contrary, as Trumpers claim.

Trump's conspiracy theory was largely debunked: the investigation was legal, no political bias, no conspiracy, no spy planted in his campaign, they did not use the Steele dossier to open the investigation, etc

Check here, for example

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/09/inspector-generals-report-russia-key-takeaways-079030

 

Horowitz concludes there was predication.  Barr and Durham disagree.  They know better than Horowitz.

[candide]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Horowitz concludes there was predication.  Barr and Durham disagree.  They know better than Horowitz.

I was referring to the Horowitz report only. Barr and Durham don't agree with it. OK, feel free to adopt their position.

 

By the way, Barr seems to criticise the rules followed by the FBI, stating that it was an "intrusive investigation" into a presidential campaign based on the "thinnest of suspicions." Again, it is interesting to remind that the The FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) was changed by a Republican administration in 2008, allowing to open investigations on thinner suspicion than previously.

 

 

[Scott]

Troll, inflammatory, abusive posts and replies reported and removed.   Also, posts that violate the Fair Use Policy.  

 

Continue with the inflammatory remarks and you will get suspended.

 

[Tug]

Enough of trumps gaslighting and lies common on 2020!!!l

[heybruce]

On 12/10/2019 at 9:03 AM, Tippaporn said:

The New York Times has tarnished their reputation to the point where I wouldn't believe a word they wrote.  Substantiated:

 

https://tennesseestar.com/2019/11/07/leahy-calls-out-the-new-york-times-over-its-false-reporting-of-the-tennessee-star/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/new-york-times-takes-it-chin-after-asking-help-fin/

https://www.naturalnews.com/039959_New_York_Times_timeswatch_false_reporting.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controversies

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-times-issues-correction-after-trump-slams-it-for-false-reporting_2544271.html

https://spectator.org/more-fake-news-from-the-new-york-times/

https://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/08/16/nolte-new-york-times-admits-we-built-our-newsroom-around-russia-collusion-hoax/

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/watch-how-casually-false-claims-are-published-nyt-and-nicholas-lemann-edition/

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/fake-news-new-york-times-and-washington-post-sink-to-new-lows-with-false-reporting-on-trumps-transcript/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/fake-news-new-york-times-caught-making-false-quote-trumps-cpac-speech/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/08/in-the-main-it-was-not-true-comey-denounces-new-york-times-story/

https://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

 

As to the second post that one is much more complicated and time intensive to substantiate.  Since you obviously don't follow all the facts surrounding the Russia hoax (else you wouldn't be claiming my post as unsubstantiated) it would be a lot of work to gather all of the information and put it together.  Be patient.  Durham's investigation will make it all clear.

 

Shredding the New York Times' credibility was easy.  I had to stop sometime as there was much more.

 

Anything else, candide?

 

I looked at your first four sources (all of them from less than top-tier publications).  Three of them were opinion pieces that complained about opinion pieces and style of reporting, the fourth reported on a crowd size underestimate made by the NY Times that was later corrected. 

 

Nobody thinks the NY Times is perfect, only that it is a far more credible source of information than Fox News, right-wing websites, and Trump.  You have posted nothing to change that opinion.

[Catoholic]

lol --- tv ,,,  how dare you... lol

[candide]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

I looked at your first four sources (all of them from less than top-tier publications).  Three of them were opinion pieces that complained about opinion pieces and style of reporting, the fourth reported on a crowd size underestimate made by the NY Times that was later corrected. 

 

Nobody thinks the NY Times is perfect, only that it is a far more credible source of information than Fox News, right-wing websites, and Trump.  You have posted nothing to change that opinion.

To be frank I was too lazy to check his sources so I let down.

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

I looked at your first four sources (all of them from less than top-tier publications).  Three of them were opinion pieces that complained about opinion pieces and style of reporting, the fourth reported on a crowd size underestimate made by the NY Times that was later corrected. 

 

Nobody thinks the NY Times is perfect, only that it is a far more credible source of information than Fox News, right-wing websites, and Trump.  You have posted nothing to change that opinion.

55555555555

 

Choose your own poison, heybruce, and feel free to call it what it isn't.  Downplay their fake reporting all you like, just as they downplay the Horowitz report.  Facts are facts and the facts are that the New York Times reports falsely.

 

"Nobody thinks the NY Times is perfect, . . . "

 

555555555555

 

And I've stated as well that I wouldn't waste my time with Fox News, so I'm not making comparisons.

[Tippaporn]

Sen. Lindsey Graham on FBI surveilling the Trump campaign: “Let’s put it this way, if you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it is that bad?”

IG Michael Horowitz: “Absolutely.”

Graham: ”Is that spying?”

Horowitz: “It’s illegal surveillance.”

 

But, but, but the Horowitz reports says there was no spying and therefore Trump's claim he was being spied on is debunked.  Of course the left will use euphemisms and argue that illegal surveillance is not spying.

 

Why is the left not outraged?  Why does the left defend the indefensible?  I thought Americans were against illegal spying on other Americans.  Stunning that the American left is O.K. with it as long as they get their man, Trump, out of office.  The means justify the ends to them, even when the means are criminal.

 

Of all of the enlightened quotes by America's founding fathers this one strikes me as being the most applicable to the situation unfolding in the U.S. in our current time:

 

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."  Samuel Adams

 

When a great segment of people accept, condone, excuse and applaud corruption then they are what Adams describes as "a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

[Tippaporn]

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 on. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "That's correct. That's what occurred"

 

Is that what the MSM is downplaying with the use of the term "errors" to describe criminality?  Who here is fooled?

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Comey statement after the IG Horowitz report release:

 

“So it was all lies. No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America.”

 

Horowitz statement during testimony:

 

"I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this FISA."

 

I would not want to be in Comey's shoes.  He has no other choice than to continue to lie.  Few criminals simply give themselves up.

[Tippaporn]

Sen. Marsha Blackburn on Twitter:

 

"The fact that CNN and MSNBC refused to run Lindsey Graham's opening statement uninterrupted, but is now carrying Senator Feinstein's, is proof that political bias is not isolated to the FBI."

 

Amen.

[Tippaporn]

On 12/10/2019 at 8:35 PM, candide said:

There's a difference between not finding anything and the general conclusion. There were some mistakes and irregularities, but nothing challenging the main conclusions.

The general conclusion is that Trump's conspiracy theory was largely debunked: the investigation was legal, no political bias, no conspiracy, no spy planted in his campaign, they did not use the Steele dossier to open the investigation, etc...

 

. . . . they did not use the Steele dossier to open the investigation, etc...

 

Trump War Room tweet:

 

BOMBSHELL:

 

Inspector Horowitz admits that the warrant to spy on the Trump campaign was based "entirely" on information from the debunked Steele Dossier. The media continues to deny this fact!

 

What else have your sources gotten wrong, candide?  The future will tell?

[Tippaporn]

For those who want to check out independent researcher Techno Fog who has amassed a giant list of MSM reporters who swore the FBI did not use the Steele dossier and also claimed information in the Steele dossier was verified when in fact it wasn't.

 

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog

 

What does this say about the MSM?  The answer is a no-brainer for conservatives.  Simply stunning!

[candide]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

. . . . they did not use the Steele dossier to open the investigation, etc...

 

Trump War Room tweet:

 

BOMBSHELL:

 

Inspector Horowitz admits that the warrant to spy on the Trump campaign was based "entirely" on information from the debunked Steele Dossier. The media continues to deny this fact!

 

What else have your sources gotten wrong, candide?  The future will tell?

Ah! Ah! So you still believe the lies from Trump's tweets!????

Read lines 17 to 22 from the paragraph starting with " As we describe in chapter 3..."

[candide]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Comey statement after the IG Horowitz report release:

 

“So it was all lies. No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America.”

 

Horowitz statement during testimony:

 

"I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this FISA."

 

I would not want to be in Comey's shoes.  He has no other choice than to continue to lie.  Few criminals simply give themselves up.

So Trump was right when he claimed they tapped his wires? 

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

Ah! Ah! So you still believe the lies from Trump's tweets!????

Read lines 17 to 22 from the paragraph starting with " As we describe in chapter 3..."

Horowitz is stating that Crossfire Hurricane was opened on FFG information and not Steele's dossier.  Which may be correct.  My posts have been regarding the use of the Steele dossier in FISA applications.  Trump ain't lying.  They did spy on his campaign.

 

The FBI was well aware that Steele's dossier was rubbish yet they continued to apply for renewals to surveil.  At that point the surveillance would be considered illegal.  I have no idea how you would argue otherwise.  Nor do I understand why you would want to argue for illegal surveillance.  Does criminality justify the removal of Trump for you?

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

So Trump was right when he claimed they tapped his wires? 

Again, the surveillance via the FISAs were based on bogus information that the FBI knew to be bogus.  So of course "his wires were tapped."  Hopefully you understand that the term is referencing the surveillance methods of old.

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Horowitz is stating that Crossfire Hurricane was opened on FFG information and not Steele's dossier.  Which may be correct.  My posts have been regarding the use of the Steele dossier in FISA applications.  Trump ain't lying.  They did spy on his campaign.

 

The FBI was well aware that Steele's dossier was rubbish yet they continued to apply for renewals to surveil.  At that point the surveillance would be considered illegal.  I have no idea how you would argue otherwise.  Nor do I understand why you would want to argue for illegal surveillance.  Does criminality justify the removal of Trump for you?

Ok, but your post was replying to my statement "they did not use the steel dossier to OPEN the investigation", which was one of the main claims of Trump's conspiracy theory.

[Tippaporn]

Bill Barr, when asked point blank whether the Trump campaign was spied on he stated, "Most clearly spied upon."

 

Does anyone here seriously believe that Bill Barr would make this statement without factual evidence?

 

 

[candide]

 

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, the surveillance via the FISAs were based on bogus information that the FBI knew to be bogus.  So of course "his wires were tapped."  Hopefully you understand that the term is referencing the surveillance methods of old.

Quote from Trump. Is that what happened?

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

1:02 PM · 4 mars 2017·Twitter for Android

[candide]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Bill Barr, when asked point blank whether the Trump campaign was spied on he stated, "Most clearly spied upon."

 

Does anyone here seriously believe that Bill Barr would make this statement without factual evidence?

 

 

As far as I remember the IG stated that he talked about it with Barr and Barr did not provide any evidence. So It's a matter of 'faith' it seems.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Ok, but your post was replying to my statement "they did not use the steel dossier to OPEN the investigation", which was one of the main claims of Trump's conspiracy theory.

You are correct.  My apologies.  It's my belief, though, that whatever you believe Trump's "conspiracy theories" to be will be proven as fact in due time.  There exists enough evidence already.