Who do we believe in the FBI Spying reports?

This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony

it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.

THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

they accomplished their goal and the rubes eat it up.

it's pretty genius really. just lie like crazy, be crooks, play the victim and claim God is directing Trump/Republicans.

independentusa said:

This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony

Click to expand...

Understand, the IG has different objectives and marching orders than Durham and Barr as investigators. as Horowitz said in his report:

"Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation"

Click to expand...

In other words his job was to evaluate the procedural aspects of the investigation.

Durham, an investigator looking a possible criminal activity says:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Click to expand...

The FBI had reason to begin doing surveillance, not 'spy' on the Trump campaign. The FBI conducted counterintelligence operations just like they are supposed to. The FBI took what they had to the FISA court, and showed it to the judges there who reviewed everything. Based on that, they granted the FBI a FISA Warrant to obtain more information legally.

In May 2016, George Papadopolous made comments to a diplomat which found their way back to the FBI. That was what first kicked off the investigation into the Trump campaign, not the Steele dossier. The attempt by an undercover agent to find out more information occurred several months after that. Then they found others in the campaign with close associations to Russian oligarchs. Through the monitoring of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates they ultimately revealed a slew of inappropriate contacts and potential information brokering that fell short of the legal benchmark of cooperative conspiracy.

independentusa said:

This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony

Click to expand...

I form my opinions off the facts in the report and the explainations Horowitz gives to explain his conclusions.

From what it sounds it like its a case of both sides thinking the worst about the other.

At the very least Trump is owed a formal appology from the intelligence community for their incompetence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Every Republican argument is based around the nonsensical notion that a series of career public servants are part of some massive conspiracy against Donald Trump and we shouldn't trust them, but we should believe people like the President and his appointees who provably lie to us all the time.

The FBI doesn't spy, they surveil.

Don't be fooled by Repugs bending the vocabulary to bolster their narrative.

Trump was wrong, wow, that’s crazy.

Why would the Swamp lie to us?

:thumbs:

HumblePi said:

The FBI had reason to begin doing surveillance, not 'spy' on the Trump campaign. The FBI conducted counterintelligence operations just like they are supposed to. The FBI took what they had to the FISA court, and showed it to the judges there who reviewed everything. Based on that, they granted the FBI a FISA Warrant to obtain more information legally.

In May 2016, George Papadopolous made comments to a diplomat which found their way back to the FBI. That was what first kicked off the investigation into the Trump campaign, not the Steele dossier. The attempt by an undercover agent to find out more information occurred several months after that. Then they found others in the campaign with close associations to Russian oligarchs. Through the monitoring of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates they ultimately revealed a slew of inappropriate contacts and potential information brokering that fell short of the legal benchmark of cooperative conspiracy.

Click to expand...

They spoke a bit about it on the news today, video in link.

A long-awaited report into the origins of the Russia probe found no evidence of a political conspiracy against President Trump.

But the Justice Department’s inspector general criticized the FBI’s handling of wiretap applications used in the early stages of the investigation.

William Brangham reports and Judy Woodruff talks to John Carlin, former assistant attorney general for national security.

Click to expand...

DOJ inspector general finds Russia probe was appropriately opened — but Barr disagrees | PBS NewsHour

It is amazing how Barr is more concerned about the President’s feelings than the facts. It has abundantly clear Barr does not have the people’s best interest in mind whatsoever.

CaughtInThe said:

it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.

THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

they accomplished their goal and the rubes eat it up.

it's pretty genius really. just lie like crazy, be crooks, play the victim and claim God is directing Trump/Republicans.

Click to expand...

it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.

THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

Yep

The deplorables news source. Tell them what they want to believe is true.

CaughtInThe said:

it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.

THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

they accomplished their goal and the rubes eat it up.

it's pretty genius really. just lie like crazy, be crooks, play the victim and claim God is directing Trump/Republicans.

Click to expand...

Trumpsterism is replete with victim hood. It is a core value of lower class white resentment.

TomFitz said:

Trumpsterism is replete with victim hood. It is a core value of lower class white resentment.

Click to expand...

this whole era is about the color of a white male's skin. many feel like their birthright was stolen by blacks and Mexicans and women and they are fighting mad and are using religion, two liars on radio, a crook from New York City and gerrymandering to try to get back what they think is rightfully theirs.

interestingly, i'm a man and have that same white skin and have never been jealous of others like that. i guess it's because our parents worked the crap out of us (me and my siblings) and we just wake up and have gone to work and built things like companies and careers for 50-70 years.

independentusa said:

This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony

Click to expand...

With respect, he did NOT say there was no spying. He said that the investigation had a reason to be launched. He went on to say that the FISA Warrants were granted in part because of omissions and inaccuracies.

"Omissions and inaccuracies" is French for "lying". When the lying a-holes rigging the system are rigging the system, it's illegal. Omissions and inaccuracies in any document that is sworn to be complete and accurate is a felonious commission of perjury.

I've heard on TV news that the FBI alone has made 40 changes to its processes due to the IG Report which is only an internal audit of compliance with policies.

Your analysis is slanted and corrupted.

Here is some actual information that might help you:

IG report blames FBI rules for allowing Trump campaign surveillance - Washington Times

<snip>
But he delivered a scathing evaluation of those standards and the other FBI rules surrounding those kinds of decisions, saying he was stunned to learn the bureau can launch a sensitive investigation on a political party’s presidential nominee without any serious top-level approval or Justice Department oversight.

The FBI launched its Trump investigation in late July 2016 after the bureau received a tip from an Australian diplomat that a Trump campaign figure had let slip that there was a chance the campaign could coordinate with Russia to release dirt on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Horowitz said given the “low threshold” FBI rules had for launching an investigation, the bureau did not violate its policies. It was “a discretionary judgment call left to the FBI,” the probe found, and only later did the FBI clue in its masters at the Justice Department on the move.

When the FBI recruited sources to meet with Trump campaign figures to try to get them to leak what they knew, the bureau again did not get Justice Department approval, the audit found.

“We therefore believe that current department and FBI policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability when such operations potentially implicate sensitive, constitutionally protected activity, and that requiring department consultation, at a minimum, would be appropriate,” Mr. Horowitz wrote.

Mr. Horowitz said that in addition to a lack of rules, there was also a lack of training, with agents sometimes not knowing what was in bounds and what wasn’t.

In perhaps the biggest hiccup, agents made 17 significant errors in their effort to get a secret warrant from the court, set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page.
<snip>

Juvenal asked, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Answers are not all that easy to come by, especially in these days of disinformation.

independentusa said:

This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony

Click to expand...

The IG report did not conclude the FBI actions were above board.

You don't know the mission and scope of the review

For those interested in knowing:

US&THEM said:

It is amazing how Barr is more concerned about the President’s feelings than the facts. It has abundantly clear Barr does not have the people’s best interest in mind whatsoever.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

ocean515 said:

The IG report did not conclude the FBI actions were above board.

You don't know the mission and scope of the review

For those interested in knowing:

"Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation, or specific judgment calls made during the course of an investigation, where those decisions complied with or were authorized by Department rules, policies, or procedures."​

Click to expand...

Do you understand the Department’s rules, policies and procedures are written to coincide within the federal laws they are sworn to enforce?

In order for someone to be charged criminally Durham will have to show intent. Intent matters.

code1211 said:

What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Barr is appeasing Trump with his ridiculous statements.

rickc said:

it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.

THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

Yep

The deplorables news source. Tell them what they want to believe is true.

Click to expand...

Does it really matter if the Democrat-Socialists tampered with the election by spying on opposition campaigns legally or illegally?

Any case of election tampering by the in-power party on the opposition party using government people, agencies and power seems like a violation of the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law.

Finding a lack of ethics in the Democrat-Socialist party is so common today that Democrat-Socialists don't even seem to mind- maybe don't even notice anymore...

This by itself should be distressing for you. I assume, though, that you feel no distress. That is sad for you.

US&THEM said:

Barr is appeasing Trump with his ridiculous statements.

Click to expand...

What are the statements that you consider to be ridiculous?

Please link to the quotes.

US&THEM said:

Do you understand the Department’s rules, policies and procedures are written to coincide within the federal laws they are sworn to enforce?

In order for someone to be charged criminally Durham will have to show intent. Intent matters.

Click to expand...

Stay tuned. I appears you worst fears will be realized.

ocean515 said:

Stay tuned. I appears you worst fears will be realized.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. Also I’m willing to bet McCabe wins his lawsuit too. Strozk will probably get his job back.

code1211 said:

What are the statements that you consider to be ridiculous?

Please link to the quotes.

Click to expand...

For Barr using the word “ spying” is just dishonest.