Judiciary Democrats go after GOP ‘whistleblowers’ in FBI probes

[Scott]

House Judiciary Democrats claimed Friday that three witnesses who have spoken to Republicans as part of the GOP investigation into politicization at the FBI have offered no evidence of wrongdoing by the law enforcement agency.  

 

They also said the witnesses were connected to committee Republicans through people with deep ties to former President Trump. 

 

 

Republicans have asserted that they’ve spoken to “dozens and dozens” of whistleblowers as part of their probe, but the committee Democrats said the trio of witnesses it had identified had little firsthand knowledge about the FBI and were instead advancing conspiracy theories.  

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3882670-judiciary-democrats-go-after-gop-whistleblowers-in-fbi-probes/

[candide]

Paid fake whistleblowers, also known for diffusing conspiracy theories.... Exactly what can be expected from Jim Jordan.

[placeholder]

Of course, the lack of serious witnesses shouldn't be surprising at all. After all, William Barr lent John Durham an extraordinary level of support in his quest to unearth a deep state conspiracy in the Justice Dept against Donald Trump. His quest continued unimpeded under the Biden administration. His search for evidence to support that conspiracy theory ended in utter failure. Do Republican members of this committee truly believe that they can unearth facts not found by a professional prosecutor who had been given the funds and time to investigate this issue?

 

As for Hunter Biden, the United States Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, who was appointed by Trump and is in charge of the investigation of Hunter Biden, was one of the few prosecutors retained by the Biden administration. What sort of cover-up can he rationally be accused of in this case?

 

To deflect from their failure on these fronts, the Republicans have already made noises about demanding that the Justice Dept. share what evidence they have amassed in their investigation of Donald Trump. And, if it happens, the Justice Dept would certainly refuse. It would be strange if the courts were to side with the Republicans in this case since it would clearly encroach on the executive branches ability to conduct criminal investigations. But despite their probably failure in the courts,  it would certainly generate lots of charges of a cover-up. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by placeholder

[SunnyinBangrak]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Of course, the lack of serious witnesses shouldn't be surprising at all. After all, William Barr lent John Durham an extraordinary level of support in his quest to unearth a deep state conspiracy in the Justice Dept against Donald Trump. His quest continued unimpeded under the Biden administration. His search for evidence to support that conspiracy theory ended in utter failure.

quote "His search for evidence to support that conspiracy theory ended in utter failure."

 

To remind ourselves, the "conspiracy theory" you refer to was the claim by Trump that the Russia Collusion investigation was a hoax concocted by Hillary Clinton to distract from her email server nightmares. The conspiracy theory was proven true in the Robbie Mook court case when he confirmed it DID come from Hillary after all. So your claim that the Durham investigation ended in utter failure is totally false, it ended up with another democrat conspiracy theory being debunked.

 

 "The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon.

Mr. Mook testified as a witness in special counsel John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, the lawyer accused of lying to the FBI"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

quote "His search for evidence to support that conspiracy theory ended in utter failure."

 

To remind ourselves, the "conspiracy theory" you refer to was the claim by Trump that the Russia Collusion investigation was a hoax concocted by Hillary Clinton to distract from her email server nightmares. The conspiracy theory was proven true in the Robbie Mook court case when he confirmed it DID come from Hillary after all. So your claim that the Durham investigation ended in utter failure is totally false, it ended up with another democrat conspiracy theory being debunked.

 

 "The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon.

Mr. Mook testified as a witness in special counsel John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, the lawyer accused of lying to the FBI"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

Utterly false. The Durham investigation was a criminal investigation. It was founded to look for a criminal conspiracy in the Justice Dept. against Donald Trump in the Russia investigation.. Both William Barr and John Durham explicitly stated that they weren't satisfied with Inspector General Horowitz conclusion that while there was certainly evidence of foul-ups in the Justice Dept. investigation of the Russia investigation, no criminal intent or activity was found to be at play. Barr authorized Durham to re-investigate. Durham utterly failed to come up with any evidence of criminal activity or intent at the Justice Dept. even though the pair of them even went to such extreme lengths as traveling to Europe to personally pressure foreign intelligence services into revealing criminal evidence  they Durham and Barr contended they were concealing  in the case.

A criminal prosecutor is supposed to find evidence of crimes and prosecute according. . Was any member of the Hillary Clinton campaign convicted or even indicted  by Durham's team in respect to conspiring with the Justice Dept. The only indictments of any sort that were brought against the Clinton team failed utterly. In fact, the cases were judged to be so weak, that members of Durham's team quit rather than continue. 

As for the Russia-Trump connection being invalid, this is not the case. Both  a Republican's Senate Committee disagreed and  the Mueller investigation never concluded this was the case. William Barr was actually castigated by a Federal judge for misrepresenting the findings of the Mueller investigation.

Edited March 4, 2023 by placeholder

[riclag]

whistleblower, an individual who, without authorization, reveals private or classified information about an organization, usually related to wrongdoing or misconduct. Whistleblowers generally state that such actions are motivated by a commitment to the public interest.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/whistleblower

 

Sounds like this whistleblowers!

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

whistleblower, an individual who, without authorization, reveals private or classified information about an organization, usually related to wrongdoing or misconduct. Whistleblowers generally state that such actions are motivated by a commitment to the public interest.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/whistleblower

 

Sounds like this whistleblowers!

We know what a whistleblower is thank you.

 

We also know what conspiracy is.

 

And we are being presented with yet another GOP fake investigation.

 

 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

whistleblower, an individual who, without authorization, reveals private or classified information about an organization, usually related to wrongdoing or misconduct. Whistleblowers generally state that such actions are motivated by a commitment to the public interest.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/whistleblower

 

Sounds like this whistleblowers!

These so-called whistleblowers have only conspiracy theories to peddle. No first hand testimony to relate about alleged private information or classified information.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We know what a whistleblower is thank you.

 

We also know what conspiracy is.

 

And we are being presented with yet another GOP fake investigation.

 

 

More nonsense just like the dems .The world is all to familiar with the lefts dismissive rhetoric when it comes to the rights concerns! We have seen it documented on the twitter files, Horowitz ,durham investigations.

One would be naive or completely obtuse to deny the  fbi has a suspect history!

Long history ,unfortunately talking about it would be off topic! 

Edited March 4, 2023 by riclag

[placeholder]

Just now, riclag said:

More nonsense 

There's specific evidence in this article that these so called "whistleblowers" are just purveyors of conspiracy theories. They were not privy to inside information. Yet you offer no evidence to contradict the claim that this is a fake investigation.

[Chomper Higgot]

49 minutes ago, riclag said:

More nonsense just like the dems .The world is all to familiar with the lefts dismissive rhetoric when it comes to the rights concerns! We have seen it documented on the twitter files, Horowitz ,durham investigations.

One would be naive or completely obtuse to deny the  fbi has a suspect history!

Long history ,unfortunately talking about it would be off topic! 

Put all this evidence in a court of law under oath and penalty of perjury.

 

 

[candide]

9 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

quote "His search for evidence to support that conspiracy theory ended in utter failure."

 

To remind ourselves, the "conspiracy theory" you refer to was the claim by Trump that the Russia Collusion investigation was a hoax concocted by Hillary Clinton to distract from her email server nightmares. The conspiracy theory was proven true in the Robbie Mook court case when he confirmed it DID come from Hillary after all. So your claim that the Durham investigation ended in utter failure is totally false, it ended up with another democrat conspiracy theory being debunked.

 

 "The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon.

Mr. Mook testified as a witness in special counsel John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, the lawyer accused of lying to the FBI"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

You are confusing two things, the media leak and the FBI investigation. It has been mentioned to you several times, so you may well do it intentionally.

 

According to the testimony, Hillary Clinton approved leaking the Alfa Bank information to the media. The media is not the FBI.

 

However, the trial has shown that the FBI rejected this information as not reliable and did not use it. (On top of it, the investigation started before the meeting with Sussman).

Proof below:

FBI agent at Sussmann trial says he rejected Alfa-Bank claims within days

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/fbi-agent-at-sussmann-trial-bureau-rejected-alfa-bank-claims-within-days

 

 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

More nonsense just like the dems .The world is all to familiar with the lefts dismissive rhetoric when it comes to the rights concerns! We have seen it documented on the twitter files, Horowitz ,durham investigations.

One would be naive or completely obtuse to deny the  fbi has a suspect history!

Long history ,unfortunately talking about it would be off topic! 

What don't you understand about the fact that William Barr and John Durham Durham could find no evidence of any  action inspired by animosity taken by the FBI or justice department against Trump.

[SunnyinBangrak]

18 hours ago, riclag said:

One would be naive or completely obtuse to deny the  fbi has a suspect history!

The general public and voters are not so naive. The trust is gone, say the majority of republicans AND democrats 

 

"61% Believe Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot.

 Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans, as well as 57% of both Democrats and unaffiliated voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/61_believe_feds_helped_incite_capitol_riot

 

 As for attacking the whistleblowers, I remember when even mentioning Adam Schiff's whistleblower pal Eric Ciaramella was enough to get you dinged from the internet(because all whistleblowers must be protected was the narrative). Now the democrats are freely doing exactly what they banned us from doing? Nice.

[candide]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The general public and voters are not so naive. The trust is gone, say the majority of republicans AND democrats 

 

"61% Believe Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot.

 Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans, as well as 57% of both Democrats and unaffiliated voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/61_believe_feds_helped_incite_capitol_riot

 

 As for attacking the whistleblowers, I remember when even mentioning Adam Schiff's whistleblower pal Eric Ciaramella was enough to get you dinged from the internet(because all whistleblowers must be protected was the narrative). Now the democrats are freely doing exactly what they banned us from doing? Nice.

As explained in the OP, they are fake whistleblowers!

[Tug]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The general public and voters are not so naive. The trust is gone, say the majority of republicans AND democrats 

 

"61% Believe Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot.

 Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans, as well as 57% of both Democrats and unaffiliated voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/61_believe_feds_helped_incite_capitol_riot

 

 As for attacking the whistleblowers, I remember when even mentioning Adam Schiff's whistleblower pal Eric Ciaramella was enough to get you dinged from the internet(because all whistleblowers must be protected was the narrative). Now the democrats are freely doing exactly what they banned us from doing? Nice.

Naa donald failed in his bid to destroy the law enforcement agency he did try and they’re certainly gun shy after his relentless slanders as for the fake whistle blowers if all you have is slander politics I guess that’s what you gotta go with pretty pathetic in my personal opinion 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The general public and voters are not so naive. The trust is gone, say the majority of republicans AND democrats 

 

"61% Believe Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot.

 Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans, as well as 57% of both Democrats and unaffiliated voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/61_believe_feds_helped_incite_capitol_riot

 

 As for attacking the whistleblowers, I remember when even mentioning Adam Schiff's whistleblower pal Eric Ciaramella was enough to get you dinged from the internet(because all whistleblowers must be protected was the narrative). Now the democrats are freely doing exactly what they banned us from doing? Nice.

It's a good thing that Rasmussen isn't a politically biased organization. 

"Republican-leaning pollster Rasmussen invoked a quote attributed to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in a Twitter thread Sunday suggesting Vice President Pence could attempt to overturn the results of the presidential election...

At that moment, the Presidency will be in his hands.

And there is nothing stopping Pence, under the (plenary and unappealable) authority vested in him as President of the Senate, from declining to open and count the certificates from the six disputed states."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen-quotes-stalin-in-discussing-us-election/

 

Here's a link to a discussion of how Rasmussen devises questions designed to get the answers they want:

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/2018-07/116034.pdf

 

What whistleblowers? These are not whistleblowers. These are conspiracy mongers who have no first hand knowledge of what claim. Also, they are being funded by right wing organizations.

Edited March 5, 2023 by placeholder

[Credo]

15 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

 

<snipped>

 As for attacking the whistleblowers, I remember when even mentioning Adam Schiff's whistleblower pal Eric Ciaramella was enough to get you dinged from the internet(because all whistleblowers must be protected was the narrative). Now the democrats are freely doing exactly what they banned us from doing? Nice.

To put it into a context you can understand, just because they IDENTIFY as whistleblowers doesn't mean they are whistleblowers.

[Phoenix Rising]

On 3/4/2023 at 11:43 AM, riclag said:

More nonsense just like the dems .The world is all to familiar with the lefts dismissive rhetoric when it comes to the rights concerns!

What concerns are those? Too many people of colour around? Uppity blacks? Not enough weapons for whites? 

[ozimoron]

Whistleblowers almost always are connected with an organisation they are exposing and always have first hand information. Otherwise their information is not credible and is of little use.