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

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

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.

Yes a lot of people are concerned. Hence impeachment.

 

You cannot only rely on an election when the president is doing all he can to interfere in that election. Thats what dictators do. That is what impeachment is for.

[Becker]

1 hour 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.

Yeah sure, let's call it that!

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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

BS

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Attorney General Barr at Wall Street Journal CEO Council Meeting

 

An informative interview by Bill Barr on Dec. 10th.  Jump to the 2:23 mark for his remarks about the Horowitz report.

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?467254-3/attorney-general-barr-wall-street-journal-ceo-council-meeting&start=143

 

"O.K., we're not going to talk to the campaign, we're going to send people in to the campaign, wire them up, and have them talk to the individuals.  That happened.  That happened in August, September, October.  And it all came back exculpatory."

 

Remember the FBI Oct. 26, 2017 letter responding to Charles Grassley's request asking if the FBI presented a counterintelligence briefing to the Trump campaign?  They wrote that a defensive briefing was given to both the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-10-26%20FBI%20to%20CEG%20(Trump%20Campaign%20Defensive%20Briefing,%20rec'd%2010-30).pdf

 

But it turned out that the FBI used that intelligence briefing to spy on the Trump campaign.

 

See V. ODNI Strategic Intelligence Briefing Provided to Candidate Trump, Flynn, and Another Campaign Advisor on page 340 in the Horowitz report.

 

For the libs here, do you understand what's happened?  Do you understand the gravity of the facts coming out?

 

I can't wait for Durham to finish his investigation.

 

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

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

 

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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

Can't keep track of your nonsense?  The series of posts and replies is above; identify the laws and regulations identified in "V. ODNI Strategic Intelligence Briefing Provided to Candidate Trump, Flynn, and Another Campaign Advisor on page 340 in the Horowitz report." that you claim were broken. Be specific, don't offer a general rant.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Becker said:

Yeah sure, let's call it that!

Is that it?  That's not even clever.

[SenorCJ]

Yes. This “yes” refers to an earlier question. Basically, I think that Barr works for Trump and not the American people. So sad ....

 

[heybruce]

1 hour 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.

As the report made clear, mistakes were made.  The investigation was not done perfectly.  How is that unclear to you?

 

The conclusion of the report is clear.  I don't care if you reached a different conclusion, I have greater faith in the professionals who know all the facts.

[heybruce]

1 hour 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.

You know the names of organizations in Trump's re-election effort but don't think you have a Trump fixation?  You are wrong.

 

If you had an anti-corruption fixation you would want to know why Trump won't release financial records, why his organization could only do business with a German bank notorious for money laundering, and you would be outraged at Trump's withholding of financial aid and political support until President Zelinsky publicly stated that Ukraine would conduct some BS conspiracy theory investigations.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

By using the term "Russian hoax" you identify yourself as someone who doesn't believe the intelligence agencies, the congressional investigations, and the Mueller report.  Such people are fools.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

 

Can't keep track of your nonsense?  The series of posts and replies is above; identify the laws and regulations identified in "V. ODNI Strategic Intelligence Briefing Provided to Candidate Trump, Flynn, and Another Campaign Advisor on page 340 in the Horowitz report." that you claim were broken. Be specific, don't offer a general rant.

We also learned that, because Flynn was expected to attend the first such briefing for the Trump campaign on Aug. 17, 2016, the FBI viewed that briefing as a possible opportunity to collect information potentially relevant to the Crossfire Hurrican and Flynn investigations.  We found no evidence that the FBI consulted with Department leadership or ODNI officials about this plan.

 

In other words, they sent people wired up to get information (spy) from the Trump campaign.

 

Now most normal people understand that.  Why you don't, and why you don't see what's wrong with it is beyond my powers.

 

But you call this nonsense?  All I can do is laugh at you, heybruce.  You're beyond my ability to rationalize with.

 

Identify the laws and regulations . . . . 

 

I don't play like a fiddle and it's not my job to educate you.  Besides, I ain't no lawyer and you know it so dispense with the silly demands.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

By using the term "Russian hoax" you identify yourself as someone who doesn't believe the intelligence agencies, the congressional investigations, and the Mueller report.  Such people are fools.

The Russian hoax refers to the charge levied against the Trump campaign that they were colluding with the Russians, which was proven false.  Hence the term Russian (collusion) hoax.  Has nothing to do with the general charge of Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. election.  But I think you're smart enough to know that and are thus just purposely conflating the two to make it appear as though I completely disagree with conclusions made by intelligence agencies and others.  And finally, thereby making it appear further that I'm some sort of nut job.

 

Nice try, heybruce.

[Becker]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The Russian hoax refers to the charge levied against the Trump campaign that they were colluding with the Russians, which was proven false.

Now that's just plain "incorrect" (I'm being polite here). The allegations were not proven false.

 

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

 

"The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity
The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton"
Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct"

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

We also learned that, because Flynn was expected to attend the first such briefing for the Trump campaign on Aug. 17, 2016, the FBI viewed that briefing as a possible opportunity to collect information potentially relevant to the Crossfire Hurrican and Flynn investigations.  We found no evidence that the FBI consulted with Department leadership or ODNI officials about this plan.

 

In other words, they sent people wired up to get information (spy) from the Trump campaign.

 

Now most normal people understand that.  Why you don't, and why you don't see what's wrong with it is beyond my powers.

 

But you call this nonsense?  All I can do is laugh at you, heybruce.  You're beyond my ability to rationalize with.

 

Identify the laws and regulations . . . . 

 

I don't play like a fiddle and it's not my job to educate you.  Besides, I ain't no lawyer and you know it so dispense with the silly demands.

The people they sent weren't "wired up" as you put it.  As was explained two paragraphs later the supervisor for Crossfire Hurricane wanted the chance to meet Flynn and see what kind of person he was.  There is nothing illegal, unusual, or suspicious about this.  Why does it drive you into a frenzy?

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Becker said:

Now that's just plain "incorrect" (I'm being polite here). The allegations were not proven false.

 

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

 

"The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity
The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton"
Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct"

From the vaunted New York Times no less.

 

Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

 

End of story.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The Russian hoax refers to the charge levied against the Trump campaign that they were colluding with the Russians, which was proven false.  Hence the term Russian (collusion) hoax.  Has nothing to do with the general charge of Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. election.  But I think you're smart enough to know that and are thus just purposely conflating the two to make it appear as though I completely disagree with conclusions made by intelligence agencies and others.  And finally, thereby making it appear further that I'm some sort of nut job.

 

Nice try, heybruce.

The Russian hoax was a term invented by Trump:

 

" Again and again, he insisted, Russian interference was a hoax — a fiction created by Democrats as an excuse for losing an election they should have won. "  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-russia-hoax-turns-out-to-be-real/2018/02/16/be3d174a-1346-11e8-9065-e55346f6de81_story.html

 

The investigation also looked into links between Russia and campaign officials, which it found.  It did not find sufficient evidence to prove there was active collusion, but it also did not prove none took place. 

 

But I'm glad you agree with the intelligence agencies; the Russians really did interfere with the 2016 election, and will interfere with the 2020 election.  Too bad Trump doesn't think this is a cause for concern.

[metisdead]

Some insulting bickering posts have been removed.  I recommend that some members review this forum rule:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

 

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From the vaunted New York Times no less.

 

Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

 

End of story.

Let me remind you about some recent posts where you pretty much said you think NYT is a fake news source.

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The people they sent weren't "wired up" as you put it.  As was explained two paragraphs later supervisor for Crossfire Hurricane wanted the chance to meet Flynn and see what kind of person he was.  There is nothing illegal, unusual, or suspicious about this.  Why does it drive you into a frenzy?

Per Bill Barr:

 

"O.K., we're not going to talk to the campaign, we're going to send people in to the campaign, wire them up, and have them talk to the individuals.  That happened.  That happened in August, September, October.  And it all came back exculpatory."

 

Refute that.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Per Bill Barr:

 

"O.K., we're not going to talk to the campaign, we're going to send people in to the campaign, wire them up, and have them talk to the individuals.  That happened.  That happened in August, September, October.  And it all came back exculpatory."

 

Refute that.

Refute what?  Cover-up General Barr gave a deliberately misleading description of the investigation.  We've come to expect such things from him. 

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

Let me remind you about some recent posts where you pretty much said you think NYT is a fake news source.

I figured since it's the libs choice for accredited news then you'll believe it.  But now you don't?

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Refute what?  Cover-up General Barr gave a deliberately misleading description of the investigation.  We've come to expect such things from him. 

No proof?

[Sujo]

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The Russian hoax refers to the charge levied against the Trump campaign that they were colluding with the Russians, which was proven false.  Hence the term Russian (collusion) hoax.  Has nothing to do with the general charge of Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. election.  But I think you're smart enough to know that and are thus just purposely conflating the two to make it appear as though I completely disagree with conclusions made by intelligence agencies and others.  And finally, thereby making it appear further that I'm some sort of nut job.

 

Nice try, heybruce.

False. The mueller report did find collusion. But didnt find conspiracy.

 

It even mentioned the trump tower meeting as collusion but did not charge trump jnr as he was too dumb to know.

[Sujo]

22 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Per Bill Barr:

 

"O.K., we're not going to talk to the campaign, we're going to send people in to the campaign, wire them up, and have them talk to the individuals.  That happened.  That happened in August, September, October.  And it all came back exculpatory."

 

Refute that.

False. Barr is lying. It never happened. 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

False. Barr is lying. It never happened. 

Proof?

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Proof?

Google it yourself.

 

Papadopolous, the jailbird, said the fbi asked him to wear a wire when he met with mifsud. But he declined.

 

Rosenstein suggested someone wear a wire when they met with trump but the suggestion was dismissed.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever anyone wore a wire. Barr is intentionally lying.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

False. The mueller report did find collusion. But didnt find conspiracy.

 

It even mentioned the trump tower meeting as collusion but did not charge trump jnr as he was too dumb to know.

From another liberal source of accredited information, the Washington Post:

 

On Russia collusion, Trump is right and George Stephanopoulos is wrong

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/18/russia-collusion-trump-is-right-george-stephanopoulos-is-wrong/

 

Another liberal source, NBC.  So take yer pick.

 

Mueller finds no proof of Trump collusion with Russia; AG Barr says evidence 'not sufficient' to prosecute

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-conclusions-trump-congress-attorney-general-william-barr-n986611

 

Just like with the Hillary loss, no Russian collusion will ever be accepted.

[Sujo]

Horowitz confirms no wires or anyone planted in trump campaign.

 

Even durham agreed the reason to start the investigation was legal.

 

https://ctmirror.org/2019/12/11/horowitz-tells-blumenthal-there-was-no-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign/

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From another liberal source of accredited information, the Washington Post:

 

On Russia collusion, Trump is right and George Stephanopoulos is wrong

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/18/russia-collusion-trump-is-right-george-stephanopoulos-is-wrong/

 

Another liberal source, NBC.  So take yer pick.

 

Mueller finds no proof of Trump collusion with Russia; AG Barr says evidence 'not sufficient' to prosecute

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-conclusions-trump-congress-attorney-general-william-barr-n986611

 

Just like with the Hillary loss, no Russian collusion will ever be accepted.

You really are not having much luck with the truth.

 

Collusion is not a crime. Mueller found lots of collusion but it didnt rise to the crime of conspiracy.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/07/23/what-congress-should-ask-mueller/

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Google it yourself.

 

Papadopolous, the jailbird, said the fbi asked him to wear a wire when he met with mifsud. But he declined.

 

Rosenstein suggested someone wear a wire when they met with trump but the suggestion was dismissed.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever anyone wore a wire. Barr is intentionally lying.

There is no evidence whatsoever anyone wore a wire as far as you know.  Barr obviously has evidence and he knows.  Therefore he stated it.  Do you seriously think he could get away with such a blatant lie?

 

Rosenstein has nothing to do with these incidents.  Rosenstein allegedly offered to wear a wire to record Trump back in the spring of 2017.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-wear-wire-25th-amendment.html

 

Barr's mention of FBI wired sources occurred in Aug., Sept., and Oct. of 2016.

 

Sujo, no way no how would I take what you're saying over what Barr is saying when you have no way of knowing in fact and have no evidence.  Considering the fact that you're mentioning Papadopolous and Rosenstein, both of which are completely unrelated, I'm not sure you know what the heck you're talking about.

 

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There is no evidence whatsoever anyone wore a wire as far as you know.  Barr obviously has evidence and he knows.  Therefore he stated it.  Do you seriously think he could get away with such a blatant lie?

 

Rosenstein has nothing to do with these incidents.  Rosenstein allegedly offered to wear a wire to record Trump back in the spring of 2017.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-wear-wire-25th-amendment.html

 

Barr's mention of FBI wired sources occurred in Aug., Sept., and Oct. of 2016.

 

Sujo, no way no how would I take what you're saying over what Barr is saying when you have no way of knowing in fact and have no evidence.  Considering the fact that you're mentioning Papadopolous and Rosenstein, both of which are completely unrelated, I'm not sure you know what the heck you're talking about.

 

You dont have to take my word. Take the word of the IG who barr holds in high regard.

 

If you refuse to accept the evidence before you then no point telling you facts.