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

[rabas]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You got me there. Those sources were unreputable. Just that they never stopped regurgitating the same stuff. 

Touché!  But I would not think the MSM is posting here on TV.  Maybe a reference?

 

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

A feeble, substanceless response.  Have you no counter arguments, refutations, counter facts, for any of the facts I've been posting this morning?

It was a legitimate question, which you apparently can't answer.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's an ongoing investigation.  Barr wouldn't need to provide any of his evidence to Horowitz.  Their investigations are separate.  They were not working together on the IG report.

 

There is so much evidence existing in the public realm which proves that the entire Russia hoax was a set up and a scam to 1) prevent Trump from acceding to the Presidency and when that failed 2) to remove him.  The term is harsh but not without merit:  It was treason.  Soon we will be in the justice phase.

Unbelievable that you and others think there is much evidence for this, and deny there is any evidence in the impeachment inquiry.

[mogandave]

The report did not exonerate anyone. 
 

It made it clear that they only lacked documentary evidence and direct testimony. 
 

  

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your sources include nonsense such as an excerpt of what Barr said during a Wall Street Journal CEO meeting.  I don't dispute that Barr said that, I simply maintain it is meaningless.

 

You may be impressed by your interpretation of events and determination of who is an isn't trustworthy, but no one else is.

Barr is the source.  No nonsense there.

 

So Barr stating that exculpatory information omitted from the FISA applications is meaningless?  Please, please explain this.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I read the section you indentified.  I didn't see anything against FBI regulations or that would not have been done in other investigations if the opportunity arose.  Perhaps you can point out what laws and regulations were violated.

Whitewashing the facts, are we?

[Eric Loh]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The FBI continued to apply for FISA renewals with full knowledge that the basis for which they submitted the original FISA application was groundless and you consider that a "nothing burger?"

 

Are you serious, mate?

FISA orders are for foreign intelligence purpose; it’s a tool and not a prosecutorial mechanism. In its 40 years existence, there always have been problems with its procedure. It has little to do with the crux of the IG report that there are no evidence of bias or improper consideration and investigation was conducted with inter gritty and reached the right answer. 
 

Yes there were significant errors in the conduct of this complex undertaking and these errors have to be identified and fixed. 

[gamb00ler]

9 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.

The Wiki article about NYT "controversies" discussed almost exclusively minor flaws or disagreements about publishing classified info the government preferred remain hidden.

 

A lot of bun and not much beef in most of those links.  Typical conspiracy theory menu.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It was a legitimate question, which you apparently can't answer.

Trump and Trump War Room are not one and the same, despite the fact that Trump War Room is managed by the 2020 re-election campaign.  You're trying to claim that you don't know the difference.  It was, in my opinion, an idiotic question because the difference is completely obvious.

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

When will actual facts finally convince you?

Hard when you quote Donald Trump Jr. 

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Unbelievable that you and others think there is much evidence for this, and deny there is any evidence in the impeachment inquiry.

The impeachment is a continuation of the Russia hoax.  Levy a charge, falsely, that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo where none existed, and then keep insisting it's true when it's not, until you believe the false charge is true.  No, I'm not falling for it.

 

The Dems have been trying to oust Trump even before day 1.  This is their last attempt to do so.

 

Believe what you want to believe, stevenl.  The truth of the facts will come out in due time.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

FISA orders are for foreign intelligence purpose; it’s a tool and not a prosecutorial mechanism. In its 40 years existence, there always have been problems with its procedure. It has little to do with the crux of the IG report that there are no evidence of bias or improper consideration and investigation was conducted with inter gritty and reached the right answer. 
 

Yes there were significant errors in the conduct of this complex undertaking and these errors have to be identified and fixed. 

These weren't simply procedural errors.  The facts belie that interpretation.

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

These weren't simply procedural errors.  The facts belie that interpretation.

The IG who Barr considers very highly disagrees with you.

[heybruce]

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Barr is the source.  No nonsense there.

 

So Barr stating that exculpatory information omitted from the FISA applications is meaningless?  Please, please explain this.

Barr's opinions do not change the fact that the investigation found no political bias.

 

The FBI investigation was not done perfectly, but there is no evidence that it was a political hit job.  If there was a FBI hit job it was against Hillary Clinton; the investigation of her was made public and then re-opened days before the election. 

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Whitewashing the facts, are we?

Unable to identify the misdeeds you implied are apparent, are you?

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump and Trump War Room are not one and the same, despite the fact that Trump War Room is managed by the 2020 re-election campaign.  You're trying to claim that you don't know the difference.  It was, in my opinion, an idiotic question because the difference is completely obvious.

I clearly lack your Trump fixation.  No, I did not know that the Trump War Room is something affiliated with his 2020 election campaign.  However that does not give its tweets any credibility.

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The impeachment is a continuation of the Russia hoax.  Levy a charge, falsely, that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo where none existed, and then keep insisting it's true when it's not, until you believe the false charge is true.  No, I'm not falling for it.

 

The Dems have been trying to oust Trump even before day 1.  This is their last attempt to do so.

 

Believe what you want to believe, stevenl.  The truth of the facts will come out in due time.

The truth is already out. Trump and mulvaney admitted it.

 

of course if you want an alternative truth you can wait for trumps team to give evidence. May be a long wait though.

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The impeachment is a continuation of the Russia hoax.  Levy a charge, falsely, that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo where none existed, and then keep insisting it's true when it's not, until you believe the false charge is true.  No, I'm not falling for it.

 

The Dems have been trying to oust Trump even before day 1.  This is their last attempt to do so.

 

Believe what you want to believe, stevenl.  The truth of the facts will come out in due time.

The "Russia hoax" again.  I take it you are denying all the evidence and the conclusions of all the US intelligence agencies, both the House and Senate investigations, and the Mueller investigation and insisting Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election.

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

These weren't simply procedural errors.  The facts belie that interpretation.

The procedural ‘errors’ lead to the fact that Trump officials meet the Russian which Carter Page denied for months. All good then. 

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

FISA orders are for foreign intelligence purpose; it’s a tool and not a prosecutorial mechanism. In its 40 years existence, there always have been problems with its procedure. It has little to do with the crux of the IG report that there are no evidence of bias or improper consideration and investigation was conducted with inter gritty and reached the right answer. 
 

Yes there were significant errors in the conduct of this complex undertaking and these errors have to be identified and fixed. 

Furthermore:

 

Barr is stating that the FBI, rather than give the Trump campaign intelligence briefings as they did with Clinton and Feinstein, wire up people to go into the Trump campaign to get information and when those sources came back with exculpatory information the FBI omitted that exculpatory information.  That is in Horowitz's report.  These are facts.

 

Christopher Steele was not the originator of the dossier information but the rather the aggregator of information from various sources.  The sources used, none of which were verified by the FBI as credible, tossed off the information they fed Steele as rumours, barroom talk and innuendo with zero corroboration.  When the FISA was up for renewal and the FBI had talked to Steele's sources and were told by them that their information was rubbish the FBI told the FISA court that the information provided by Steele's subsources was true.

 

These are facts, also.

 

Significant errors???  How is any of that an error???

 

Again, Horowitz's scope was limited and he insisted it was not within his perview to pass judgement on decisions made by the FBI.  To assume that the Horowitz report is the full story is foolish at best and highly misleading at worst.

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Furthermore:

 

Barr is stating that the FBI, rather than give the Trump campaign intelligence briefings as they did with Clinton and Feinstein, wire up people to go into the Trump campaign to get information and when those sources came back with exculpatory information the FBI omitted that exculpatory information.  That is in Horowitz's report.  These are facts.

 

Christopher Steele was not the originator of the dossier information but the rather the aggregator of information from various sources.  The sources used, none of which were verified by the FBI as credible, tossed off the information they fed Steele as rumours, barroom talk and innuendo with zero corroboration.  When the FISA was up for renewal and the FBI had talked to Steele's sources and were told by them that their information was rubbish the FBI told the FISA court that the information provided by Steele's subsources was true.

 

These are facts, also.

 

Significant errors???  How is any of that an error???

 

Again, Horowitz's scope was limited and he insisted it was not within his perview to pass judgement on decisions made by the FBI.  To assume that the Horowitz report is the full story is foolish at best and highly misleading at worst.

No evidence anyone was wired up.

 

Along with the rest of your nonsense post.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Barr's opinions do not change the fact that the investigation found no political bias.

 

The FBI investigation was not done perfectly, but there is no evidence that it was a political hit job.  If there was a FBI hit job it was against Hillary Clinton; the investigation of her was made public and then re-opened days before the election. 

"The FBI investigation was not done perfectly, but there is no evidence that it was a political hit job."

 

Are you immune to facts?  Why continue to use euphemisms which whitewash criminality?

 

Former FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, up for criminal charges, purposely altered an email to obfuscate the fact that Carter Page had been working with the FBI and to say that he was working for the Russians.  That is fact.

 

Is that what you consider "not done perfectly?'  There's no hint of a political hit job there?

 

You people are unbelievable when it comes to the rebuttals you offer.

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Unable to identify the misdeeds you implied are apparent, are you?

Huh?  I've been pointing them out in post after post.  Are you just pulling my leg?

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"The FBI investigation was not done perfectly, but there is no evidence that it was a political hit job."

 

Are you immune to facts?  Why continue to use euphemisms which whitewash criminality?

 

Former FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, up for criminal charges, purposely altered an email to obfuscate the fact that Carter Page had been working with the FBI and to say that he was working for the Russians.  That is fact.

 

Is that what you consider "not done perfectly?'  There's no hint of a political hit job there?

 

You people are unbelievable when it comes to the rebuttals you offer.

The IG who Barr holds in very high regard does not agree with you.

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I clearly lack your Trump fixation.  No, I did not know that the Trump War Room is something affiliated with his 2020 election campaign.  However that does not give its tweets any credibility.

Who says I have a Trump fixation, heybruce?  You just made that up.  There's no truth to it.  So why, heybruce?

 

I have an anti-corruption fixation.  Insofar as Trump is addressing that per his campaign promise I will support him in that effort.

 

Don't go around making things up about other posters, heybruce.

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The "Russia hoax" again.  I take it you are denying all the evidence and the conclusions of all the US intelligence agencies, both the House and Senate investigations, and the Mueller investigation and insisting Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.

Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

 

Don't try and fool me, heybruce.  You can't.

[rabas]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Who says I have a Trump fixation, heybruce?  You just made that up.  There's no truth to it.  So why, heybruce?

 

I have an anti-corruption fixation.  Insofar as Trump is addressing that per his campaign promise I will support him in that effort.

 

Don't go around making things up about other posters, heybruce.

Thank you!  You speak for a lot of people who are concerned about the long term degradation of the American system at the hands of dirty politicians. They can call me trumper as many times as the want. It is immaterial to me.

 

Like Nadler said today, we can't rely on elections. Geeze.

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No evidence anyone was wired up.

 

Along with the rest of your nonsense post.

Barr states that it's fact.  And you think your opinion is going to refute that?    Or simply waving off all of the other facts as nonsense without any proof to the contrary offered whatsoever?

 

What you claim as nonsense are indisputable facts.  Are you seriously going to stand your ground that facts are now nonsense?

 

55555555555555555

 

[Tounge Thaied]

Ahh... Right. Just made a few mistakes. Nothing to see here folks, government business, move along. Move along...

[Sujo]

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Barr states that it's fact.  And you think your opinion is going to refute that?    Or simply waving off all of the other facts as nonsense without any proof to the contrary offered whatsoever?

 

What you claim as nonsense are indisputable facts.  Are you seriously going to stand your ground that facts are now nonsense?

 

55555555555555555

 

The IG who Barr holds in high regard disagrees with you.