22 hours ago, mr_hunt said:

the rubio report proved that cheeto & his crooked campaign are a bunch of disgusting commies!  

Still relevant for Comrade Drumpf

17 minutes ago, toolg said:

Manafort, Stone, Cohen, Flynn, Papadopolous, Butina and all the Russians who fled the country... Then there was a whole impeachment trial at the beginning of the year.

but we keep hearing this was all lies and nothing more than a witch hunt. 

7 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

but we keep hearing this was all lies and nothing more than a witch hunt. 

Turns out there really are a lot of witches.

Quote

The Department of Justice in 2017 narrowed the scope of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, cutting short a probe into President Trump’s business ties to Moscow, The New York Times reported.

Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein limited the investigation to exclude those ties without telling the FBI, according to the Times. Andrew McCabe, who served as deputy FBI director at the time, told the newspaper that Rosenstein did not tell him that he was limiting the probe, leading McCabe to believe special counsel Robert Mueller would investigate the president's business connections. McCabe added that he would have tasked the FBI with that aspect of the inquiry had he known Mueller would not investigate it.

"We opened this case in May 2017 because we had information that indicated a national security threat might exist, specifically a counterintelligence threat involving the president and Russia,” McCabe told the Times. "I expected that issue and issues related to it would be fully examined by the special counsel team. If a decision was made not to investigate those issues, I am surprised and disappointed. I was not aware of that.”

 

When he installed Mueller as special counsel in May 2017, Rosenstein gave him the mandate of investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government” and the Trump campaign.

In private, however, Rosenstein directed Mueller to limit his investigation to any lawbreaking in connection with Russian election interference, the Times reported, citing former law enforcement officials.

Journalist Jeffrey Toobin, who first reported the conversation for a book, wrote that Rosenstein warned Mueller against a "fishing expedition” similar to Ken Starr's investigation into President Clinton.

 

"This is a criminal investigation. Do your job, and then shut it down,” Toobin quotes Rosenstein as saying.

As a result, Mueller built a team that predominantly investigated crimes rather than national security threats, McCabe told the Times, even though it was "first and foremost a counterintelligence case.”

The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

 

Trump bending over backwards to protect Putin. 

48 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Trump bending over backwards to protect Putin. 

 Give me a Fing break.  F this dude 

Follow the money....

Russians were pouring money into USA in 2016. I wonder why?

Secret CIA: Putin "probably directing" disinformation campaign against Biden, supporting Trump

Probably? It's most likely. Trump administration knows Russia is interfering in the election again and they're doing all they can to hide it. Giuliani is working with Derkach.

Russia will flood social media with "Trump really won” nonsense starting on election night

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

Russia will flood social media with "Trump really won” nonsense starting on election night

Are you suggesting Putin will try for a color revolution on behalf of Trump?

The dossier that led to the Russian investigation was Russian disinformation.  What a surprise.

"In connection with your Committee's investigation of these matters and ongoing hearings, you have been asking us to accelerate this process and to provide any additional information relating to the reliability of the work of Christopher Steele and the so-called 'Steele dossier,' as long as its release would not compromise U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing criminal investigation," Barr wrote.

"A footnote in the Inspector General's report contains information, which up till now has been classified and redacted, bearing on the reliability of the Steele dossier," Barr wrote. "The FBI has declassified the relevant portion of the footnote, number 334, which states that 'the Primary Sub-source was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his or her contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.'"

19 hours ago, The_Omega said:

The dossier that led to the Russian investigation was Russian disinformation.  What a surprise.

 

 

aaaaaand silence

14 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

aaaaaand silence

It's because of zuke's track record. The poor lonely boy who cried wolf. Plus there was no link, which he never includes for obvious reasons.

Zuker is trying to relitigate something that has been discussed as nauseum.

The dossier was a small part of the Russia investigation.

Look through the prosecutions related to the investigation. There was plenty of predicate for the Russia investigation with or without the Steele Dossier.

14 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Zuker is trying to relitigate something that has been discussed as nauseum.

The dossier was a small part of the Russia investigation.

Look through the prosecutions related to the investigation. There was plenty of predicate for the Russia investigation with or without the Steele Dossier.

Just so I'm clear, you support starting unlawful investigations and providing false evidence to federal courts to collect warrants as long as the outcome services your views politically.  Right?

If Republicans had done this to an incoming Obama administration it would have been called the political crime of the century.

22 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Just so I'm clear, you support starting unlawful investigations and providing false evidence to federal courts to collect warrants as long as the outcome services your views politically.  Right?

If Republicans had done this to an incoming Obama administration it would have been called the political crime of the century.

There was nothing unlawful about it. That's simply a lie. It had more than sufficient predicate to open an investigation with or without the dossier.

The dossier was one part of a larger set if evidence put forward for a FISA warrant. It was not THE reason the warrant was approved. And the investigation didn't hinge kn one FISA warrant.

Even the IG report did not contest the investigation's predicate.

16 hours ago, The Norseman said:

aaaaaand silence

White House talking points aren’t really worth responding to. The next one that contains any factual information will be the first one 

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

Just so I'm clear, you support starting unlawful investigations and providing false evidence to federal courts to collect warrants as long as the outcome services your views politically.  Right?

If Republicans had done this to an incoming Obama administration it would have been called the political crime of the century.

You do realize that the dossier was first utilized by the Cruz campaign right?

7 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

There was nothing unlawful about it. That's simply a lie. It had more than sufficient predicate to open an investigation with or without the dossier.

The dossier was one part of a larger set if evidence put forward for a FISA warrant. It was not THE reason the warrant was approved. And the investigation didn't hinge kn one FISA warrant.

Even the IG report did not contest the investigation's predicate.

A lie?  They altered emails to obtain the FISA warrant.  That's unlawful, is it not?

41 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

A lie?  They altered emails to obtain the FISA warrant.  That's unlawful, is it not?

One email was "altered" in a way that didn't change the facts, and the IG also concluded that nothing they uncovered undercut that the investigation had a solid basis for proceeding.

In their explanation of the allegations against Clinesmith, prosecutors indicated that Clinesmith altered a June 2017 email that was used in one of the Page surveillance renewals. The alteration followed a discussion with colleagues about whether Page had a history as a CIA source.

Clinesmith, in internal messages, indicated that he believed Page was a "subsource” but never a source, and when a superior asked if he had it in writing, Clinesmith forwarded an email from a CIA liaison but added his own words to it to underscore his view that Page was "not a source.”

After Barr's witch hunt turned over every stone in the investigation, the most egregious thing they found was someone adding a clarifying statement to a forwarded email containing what the lawyer believed to be a factual statement.

And they found nothing to indicate the investigation was somehow targeting Trump, or that the investigation was without predicate.

15 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

One email was "altered" in a way that didn't change the facts, and the IG also concluded that nothing they uncovered undercut that the investigation had a solid basis for proceeding.

In their explanation of the allegations against Clinesmith, prosecutors indicated that Clinesmith altered a June 2017 email that was used in one of the Page surveillance renewals. The alteration followed a discussion with colleagues about whether Page had a history as a CIA source.

Clinesmith, in internal messages, indicated that he believed Page was a "subsource” but never a source, and when a superior asked if he had it in writing, Clinesmith forwarded an email from a CIA liaison but added his own words to it to underscore his view that Page was "not a source.”

After Barr's witch hunt turned over every stone in the investigation, the most egregious thing they found was someone adding a clarifying statement to a forwarded email containing what the lawyer believed to be a factual statement.

And they found nothing to indicate the investigation was somehow targeting Trump, or that the investigation was without predicate.

Where did you dredge this subsource nonsense up?  Everything I've read says that the charge against Clinesmith is for literally changing the wording in a CIA email that said Page was a "source" to "not a source".  Thus falsifying the document to obtain the FISA warrant.  

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/former-fbi-attorney-pleads-guilty-durham-398605

3 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Where did you dredge this subsource nonsense up?  Everything I've read says that the charge against Clinesmith is for literally changing the wording in a CIA email that said Page was a "source" to "not a source".  Thus falsifying the document to obtain the FISA warrant.  

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/former-fbi-attorney-pleads-guilty-durham-398605

The quote I posted was literally from that politico article

 

19 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The quote I posted was literally from that politico article

 

Funny, then, that you chose text from your article that softens the point.  Here's what the article says in the first few paragraphs. 

You intentionally altered an email to add the language ‘and not a source’ with regard to Individual No.1 and you knew that that statement was not in fact true?” asked Boasberg, an Obama appointee.

A pause followed while Clinesmith consulted with his attorneys. The ex-FBI employee surfaced a short time later to try to clarify his stance.

"Sir, at the time, I believed that the information I was providing in the email was accurate but I am agreeing that the information I entered into the email was not originally there and I inserted that information,” Clinesmith said.

"In other words, you agree you intentionally altered the email to include information that was not originally in the email?” the judge asked.

"Yes, your honor,” Clinesmith replied.

33 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Funny, then, that you chose text from your article that softens the point.  Here's what the article says in the first few paragraphs. 

You intentionally altered an email to add the language ‘and not a source’ with regard to Individual No.1 and you knew that that statement was not in fact true?” asked Boasberg, an Obama appointee.

A pause followed while Clinesmith consulted with his attorneys. The ex-FBI employee surfaced a short time later to try to clarify his stance.

"Sir, at the time, I believed that the information I was providing in the email was accurate but I am agreeing that the information I entered into the email was not originally there and I inserted that information,” Clinesmith said.

"In other words, you agree you intentionally altered the email to include information that was not originally in the email?” the judge asked.

"Yes, your honor,” Clinesmith replied.

Did I ever contest that? What's funny is you prefer to fixate on the one transgression they found when combing through the investigation with a fine tooth comb and ignore the conclusions that:

1. There was no politically motivated conspiracy to target Trump

2. The investigation was warranted and justified

I'm not a legal expert but I'd also be pretty surprised if Clinesmith's alteration made a bit of difference in the application. The only impact would be that the judge may request some kind of confirmation that Page's behavior isn't consistent with his role as an informant.

That is what the IG found. Not that there was a politically motivated investigation intended to harm Trump, not that there was no basis for starting the investigation. They found that  a lawyer made what appears to be an inconsequential alteration to an email. Doesn't mean the guy isn't guilty of a crime - he clearly is. But the practical impact of that crime was negligible.

The investigation was warranted. And it uncovered a lot of criminal activity on the part of individuals within and in close proximity to Trump's campaign.

3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Did I ever contest that? What's funny is you prefer to fixate on the one transgression they found when combing through the investigation with a fine tooth comb and ignore the conclusions that:

1. There was no politically motivated conspiracy to target Trump

2. The investigation was warranted and justified

I'm not a legal expert but I'd also be pretty surprised if Clinesmith's alteration made a bit of difference in the application. The only impact would be that the judge may request some kind of confirmation that Page's behavior isn't consistent with his role as an informant.

That is what the IG found. Not that there was a politically motivated investigation intended to harm Trump, not that there was no basis for starting the investigation. They found that  a lawyer made what appears to be an inconsequential alteration to an email. Doesn't mean the guy isn't guilty of a crime - he clearly is. But the practical impact of that crime was negligible.

The investigation was warranted. And it uncovered a lot of criminal activity on the part of individuals within and in close proximity to Trump's campaign.

Whether or not the investigation was politically motivated is really not the point.  What matters is whether or not the investigation should have even taken place at all.  The FISA court itself has publicly stated it's disapproval of the way this investigation was derived and conducted.  So, they would disagree with your assessment that Clinesmith types of omissions were not impactful in their decision to issue warrants. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fisa-court-slams-fbi-conduct/index.htm

Still with this?