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

[Sujo]

Heres another link. Mueller spent 200 pages on numerous collusion.

 

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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/

Sujo, the House investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Senate investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Mueller investigation concluded that there was no collusion.

 

Yet despite all of that, including the NBC and Washington Post pieces confirming no collusion, here you are insisting that there was, indeed, collusion.  If you are aware of proof positive collusion having occurred have you reported it to the Federal authorities?  Because they haven't found any.

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

You've produced no evidence and are claiming that Barr is lying in these interviews.  Shockingly you continue on.

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sujo, the House investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Senate investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Mueller investigation concluded that there was no collusion.

 

Yet despite all of that, including the NBC and Washington Post pieces confirming no collusion, here you are insisting that there was, indeed, collusion.  If you are aware of proof positive collusion having occurred have you reported it to the Federal authorities?  Because they haven't found any.

Wrong. The mueller report found many instances of collusion. I have provided links to prove that fact.

 

That you refuse to believe a fact is telling.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Heres another link. Mueller spent 200 pages on numerous collusion.

 

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

The article, after a lot of blah, blah, blah and the mention of some spurious facts about collusion and conspiracy it ends on this note:

 

"While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

 

Note the word "could."  In other words, certain facts could be construed as collusion.  But they might not necessarily be collusion in fact.  And they decided, pragmatically, that none of the facts which could be construed as collusion would ever be provable as such in a court of law.

 

In my opinion, you and others continue to believe that facts which could be construed as collusion are indeed collusion in fact.  Sorry to break it to you but it's over.  Final verdict:  no collusion.  Live with it.

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You've produced no evidence and are claiming that Barr is lying in these interviews.  Shockingly you continue on.

I provided evidence. Again you dont like facts. You seem to have an aversion to them.

[Tippaporn]

Just now, Sujo said:

Wrong. The mueller report found many instances of collusion. I have provided links to prove that fact.

 

That you refuse to believe a fact is telling.

You did not, I repeat, did not offer anything that proved that fact.  If collusion was provable they would have nailed Trump with it.  They didn't because it wasn't provable.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

The article, after a lot of blah, blah, blah and the mention of some spurious facts about collusion and conspiracy it ends on this note:

 

"While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

 

Note the word "could."  In other words, certain facts could be construed as collusion.  But they might not necessarily be collusion in fact.  And they decided, pragmatically, that none of the facts which could be construed as collusion would ever be provable as such in a court of law.

 

In my opinion, you and others continue to believe that facts which could be construed as collusion are indeed collusion in fact.  Sorry to break it to you but it's over.  Final verdict:  no collusion.  Live with it.

Wrong. Muellers report gives 200 pages on collusion.

 

Thete was collusion, fact.

 

Dont know why u are so hung up on collusion. Its the conspiracy they could not prove.

 

No conspiracy, lots of collusion. Its in the report.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You did not, I repeat, did not offer anything that proved that fact.  If collusion was provable they would have nailed Trump with it.  They didn't because it wasn't provable.

Wrong yet again. Cillusion is not a crime. So cannot nail him

 

Conspiracy is the.crime.

 

You really are grasping at straws and have a verybasic understanding of issues and evidence.

[Tippaporn]

BTW, this is no different than the current impeachment scam.  You have facts which can be construed in different ways.  Without actual hard proof, such as a recording in which Trump is discussing quid pro quo with another for instance, you are left with facts to be construed differently.  The Dems, while possessing zero, and I mean zero hard proof, have nothing other than the way they construe the available facts.  And since they hold the majority in the House, and since they despise Trump, and since they want to take Trump out, they will endlessly insist that they are construing the facts in such a way as to be representative of the truth and act on it by impeaching Trump solely because they have said majority.

 

My response:  55555555555555555555555555

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, this is no different than the current impeachment scam.  You have facts which can be construed in different ways.  Without actual hard proof, such as a recording in which Trump is discussing quid pro quo with another for instance, you are left with facts to be construed differently.  The Dems, while possessing zero, and I mean zero hard proof, have nothing other than the way they construe the available facts.  And since they hold the majority in the House, and since they despise Trump, and since they want to take Trump out, they will endlessly insist that they are construing the facts in such a way as to be representative of the truth and act on it by impeaching Trump solely because they have said majority.

 

My response:  55555555555555555555555555

Facts are facts. To you there may be alternative facts.

 

Do you know a really easy fast way trump could have got to the bottom of all this? Let his staff give evidence. It could have ended this so fast.

 

Trumps claim of no collusion is wrong.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/robert-mueller-testimony-key-takeaways-exoneration-indictment

[Becker]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, this is no different than the current impeachment scam.  You have facts which can be construed in different ways.  Without actual hard proof, such as a recording in which Trump is discussing quid pro quo with another for instance, you are left with facts to be construed differently.  The Dems, while possessing zero, and I mean zero hard proof, have nothing other than the way they construe the available facts.  And since they hold the majority in the House, and since they despise Trump, and since they want to take Trump out, they will endlessly insist that they are construing the facts in such a way as to be representative of the truth and act on it by impeaching Trump solely because they have said majority.

 

My response:  55555555555555555555555555

And after that very factual and mature response here is my response:

 

Link: Top Democratic Senators Feinstein & Durbin just trounced Lindsey Graham with an epic rebuttal at the Senate hearing with Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Wrong yet again. Cillusion is not a crime. So cannot nail him

 

Conspiracy is the.crime.

 

You really are grasping at straws and have a verybasic understanding of issues and evidence.

Collusion may or may not be a crime.

 

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

 

Conspiracy is most definitely a crime.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(civil)

 

And my opinion is still that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

No proof?

Proof of what?  That Barr distorts facts to accommodate Trump?  Didn't you already know that?

[heybruce]

1 hour 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.

Your first source is an opinion piece, meaning it states someone's opinion.  Your second source confirms what you have been repeatedly told; that insufficient evidence to prosecute is no proof of innocence.

[heybruce]

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sujo, the House investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Senate investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Mueller investigation concluded that there was no collusion.

 

Yet despite all of that, including the NBC and Washington Post pieces confirming no collusion, here you are insisting that there was, indeed, collusion.  If you are aware of proof positive collusion having occurred have you reported it to the Federal authorities?  Because they haven't found any.

Once again, insufficient evidence to prosecute does not prove there was no collusion.

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, Becker said:

And after that very factual and mature response here is my response:

 

Link: Top Democratic Senators Feinstein & Durbin just trounced Lindsey Graham with an epic rebuttal at the Senate hearing with Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Hardly a trouncing.  And certainly not epic.  A tad hyperbolic?

 

Most of the vid is Brian Tyler Cohen's, which I couldn't bear to watch as it's simply his opinion and how he assembles facts to paint a picture of his choosing.

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Proof of what?  That Barr distorts facts to accommodate Trump?  Didn't you already know that?

No, I didn't know that.  Proof that Barr distorts facts to favour Trump?  I mean, I can claim anything I want, too.

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your first source is an opinion piece, meaning it states someone's opinion.  Your second source confirms what you have been repeatedly told; that insufficient evidence to prosecute is no proof of innocence.

Neither is insufficient evidence to prosecute proof of guilt.  The argument goes both ways.  No hard proof, though.  And without that you cannot arrive at a guilty verdict.

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, insufficient evidence to prosecute does not prove there was no collusion.

And once again, neither does it prove guilt.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Neither is insufficient evidence to prosecute proof of guilt.  The argument goes both ways.  No hard proof, though.  And without that you cannot arrive at a guilty verdict.

 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And once again, neither does it prove guilt.

I never posted that guilt was proven.  You posted that it was proven there was

no collusion.  Specifically;

 

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

 

"Sujo, the House investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Senate investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Mueller investigation concluded that there was no collusion."

 

The investigations did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute.  That doesn't prove no collusion.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, I didn't know that.  Proof that Barr distorts facts to favour Trump?  I mean, I can claim anything I want, too.

You haven't been following events, have you?

 

' “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote, according to the Post. '

' “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations,” the Post quoted Mueller as writing. '   https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller-idUSKCN1S62WD

 

Barr is a Trump sycophant.  One of many.  Trump likes to surround himself with sycophants.

[Sujo]

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Collusion may or may not be a crime.

 

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

 

Conspiracy is most definitely a crime.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(civil)

 

And my opinion is still that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Do you need it with pictures in a coloring book.

 

Fact. Mueller confirmed there was collusion.

Fact. Collusion is not a crime.

Fact. Conspiracy is a crime.

Fact. Mueller found the instances of collusion did not rise to the crime of conspiracy.

 

You stated there was no collusion. That is manifestly incorrect as muellers testimony proves.

 

 

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I never posted that guilt was proven.  You posted that it was proven there was

no collusion.  Specifically;

 

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

 

"Sujo, the House investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Senate investigation concluded that there was no collusion.  The Mueller investigation concluded that there was no collusion."

 

The investigations did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute.  That doesn't prove no collusion.

Its opposite. Mueller did find collusion. Just not conspitacy. He stated that in evidence.

[candide]

Barr is a sycophant but also a smart guy.

 

He only made personal comments. No official DOJ position has been published. As remarked by the IG, the Justice Department was given an opportunity to provide a response to the report’s conclusions, but it didn't.

[JHolmesJr]

I felt a bit sorry for Howorwitz at yesterday's hearings.

Even though he is an Obama appointee, you could tell 

he was pretty shaken up by the evidence he has uncovered.

Because it's basically fallen to him to tell the American people

that the law enforcement agency they held in such high regard

was behaving like an unlawful resistance unit against Trump. And the 

last president who they admired for his silken prose and statesmanship 

could very likely be involved in starting it all.

 

We all know the FBI is/was dirty at the time....and a thorough overhaul is needed

or nobody is going to respect them ever again.

 

But now we need to ask ourselves...what did Obama know and when did he know it?

In Durham we trust (for now).

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

I felt a bit sorry for Howorwitz at yesterday's hearings.

Even though he is an Obama appointee, you could tell 

he was pretty shaken up by the evidence he has uncovered.

Because it's basically fallen to him to tell the American people

that the law enforcement agency they held in such high regard

was behaving like an unlawful resistance unit against Trump. And the 

last president who they admired for his silken prose and statesmanship 

could very likely be involved in starting it all.

 

We all know the FBI is/was dirty at the time....and a thorough overhaul is needed

or nobody is going to respect them ever again.

 

But now we need to ask ourselves...what did Obama know and when did he know it?

In Durham we trust (for now).

Barr supports horowitz, thinks he is the big covfefe. 

 

Durham agreed with horowitz that the opening of the investigation was correct. Did you watch his evidence at all? Obviously not.

[Sujo]

29 minutes ago, rabas said:

It proves exactly zip. I searched my house today and did not find sufficient aliens to drive a spaceship.

 

They found many instances of collusion. 

[riclag]

      Horowitz investigation is just the prelude to  the FBI violations of the FISA! Durham has Mueller powers, he's able to ask anybody ,go anywhere convene grand juries and prosecute , unlike Mr. H who was very limited to who he could interview,Horowitz open the can of worms! 

 

 

  Feb,2018 "It’s incredible to think of how many FBI and Justice Department officials would have touched the multiple applications to wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — allegedly granted, at least in part, on the basis of unverified and thus prohibited information — if normal procedures were followed".

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

After that first FISA app ,the three others were all illegitimate and perhaps  illegal in my opinion ! They all violated the woods procedures, by with holding exculpatory evidence. The FBI has skirted these procedures in the past according to this article.

 

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

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/horowitz-testifies

[candide]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

So Durham has already disagreed with the IG conclusion while the investigation is still ongoing. Like a judge already decided on a guilty verdict while the trial is on. 

Actually, Barr and Durham can take advantage of not being bound by their report. Whatever they say now, they can always claim later that it was according to the state of information available at that particular time.