Inspector general report says FBI had ‘authorized purpose’ to investigate Trump campaign’s Russia ti

[digitusmedius]

According to some posters, the IG report was supposed to be EPIC. Does not sound epic to me.

It certainly has been an epic FAIL for the Cult of Dirtbag.

 

[Ikari]

According to some posters, the IG report was supposed to be EPIC. Does not sound epic to me.

Don't worry, they'll spin a narrative about it. If there's one thing the Trumpeteer cultists are good at, it's inventing new narratives to explain why reality isn't what they claim it to be.

 

[digitusmedius]

No collusion.

:lamo

 

[digitusmedius]

Fair. Hard to reach a complete conclusion without being able to examine the complete set of facts. Sure looks like about 1/2 or more might have been out of Horowitz's reach, and within Durham's and Barr's reach.

Never give up hope that Dirtbag's lies might come true, right?

 

[digitusmedius]

Sorry-- Durham's comment was hardly political. He dissagrees with there being no criminal activity involved.

You should be sorry for misstating what Durham has been saying. Last week, in fact, he stated publicly that he had no reason to suspect that the DoJ investigation into the 2016 Russian election interference was politically motivated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barrs-handpicked-prosecutor-tells-inspector-general-he-cant-back-right-wing-theory-that-russia-case-was-us-intelligence-setup/2019/12/04/17e084dc-16a9-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html. Now he seems to be falling into line with Barr. He's got some 'splainin' to do.

 

[Athanasius68]

If Barr has the evidence he should get off his fat ass and present it, or keep his mouth shut until he can. In the meantime he's undermining his IG, the process itself, and working like heck to throw the DoJ as an institution under the bus to protect his corrupt client, Trump. Barr is simply a disgrace. He's torching any notion of the DoJ under his leadership being anything other than a GOP reelection arm and defense team for Trump.

Evidence of what?

Look at whats going on now-- Trump has been claiming that that the origin of the Russia probe was nonsense (he didn't do it) and it was politically motivated ect.
Horowitz is basically finding a very thin reed to start an investigation.
Barr, meanwhile, is saying that exculpatory evidence was ignored-- essentially that the mistakes made all seemed to work against Trump.
Meanwhile, we are impeaching a president because of the claim that he was interested n a politically motivated investigation.
So what are the standards? Are candidates for president immune from being investigated? Are the standards for being investigated the same as everyone else? Or should there be a higher standard for an incumbent president to investigate, and to think about investigating his or her political rivals?

 

[Athanasius68]

You should be sorry for misstating what Durham has been saying. Last week, in fact, he stated publicly that he had no reason to suspect that the DoJ investigation into the 2016 Russian election interference was politically motivated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barrs-handpicked-prosecutor-tells-inspector-general-he-cant-back-right-wing-theory-that-russia-case-was-us-intelligence-setup/2019/12/04/17e084dc-16a9-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html. Now he seems to be falling into line with Barr. He's got some 'splainin' to do.

The two aren't necessarily exclusive

 

[digitusmedius]

The two aren't necessarily exclusive

Durham's in a vice. He's allegedly got this reputation of being a tough, fair and completely incorruptible prosecutor and yet Barr's doing his level best to compromise him. He must be able to see this so it'll be a real test of his honor if, in the end, he refuses to be used politically by Barr and Trump.

 

[digitusmedius]

Evidence of what?

Look at whats going on now-- Trump has been claiming that that the origin of the Russia probe was nonsense (he didn't do it) and it was politically motivated ect.
Horowitz is basically finding a very thin reed to start an investigation.

Horowitz's report says just the opposite of that.

Barr, meanwhile, is saying that exculpatory evidence was ignored-- essentially that the mistakes made all seemed to work against Trump.

Horowitz found nothing whatsoever to support that lie.

Meanwhile, we are impeaching a president because of the claim that he was interested n a politically motivated investigation.
So what are the standards? Are candidates for president immune from being investigated? Are the standards for being investigated the same as everyone else? Or should there be a higher standard for an incumbent president to investigate, and to think about investigating his or her political rivals?

It is illegal for a President to order a politically motivated investigation especially in an election year of a political opponent. This is what dictators do to stay in power. Such an candidate could be investigated if the DoJ determines that candidate may be doing something illegal--i.e., the reason the Trump campaign was properly investigated in 2016. But on top of that it is illegal for any candidate, incumbent president or challenger--to solicit a foreign nation to provide any "thing of value" to that candidate. The only reason I can think of for Trump supporters refusal to understand that very clear situation is a cult mentality.

Y

 

[Athanasius68]

Durham's in a vice. He's allegedly got this reputation of being a tough, fair and completely incorruptible prosecutor and yet Barr's doing his level best to compromise him. He must be able to see this so it'll be a real test of his honor if, in the end, he refuses to be used politically by Barr and Trump.

How so? Durham has a wider mandate

 

[Athanasius68]

Horowitz's report says just the opposite of that.

That is the case. He said the evidence met the threshhold to investigate.

Horowitz found nothing whatsoever to support that lie.

What "lie?" Horowitz said there were numerous mistakes in how the FBI went about its business.
Barr is noting that the mistakes seemed to only work in one direction.

It is illegal for a President to order a politically motivated investigation especially in an election year of a political opponent.

Hello! That is what happened in 2016. Trump was investigated. We just had a report on it.
Meanwhile, we still have Biden on tape saying what he said. And we still have H Biden working where he had worked.

This is what dictators do to stay in power. Such an candidate could be investigated if the DoJ determines that candidate may be doing something illegal--i.e., the reason the Trump campaign was properly investigated in 2016.

Trump said in the transcript he would have Barr coordinate with Zelensky's people. That should satisfy the DOJ end of the concern.

But on top of that it is illegal for any candidate, incumbent president or challenger--to solicit a foreign nation to provide any "thing of value" to that candidate. The only reason I can think of for Trump supporters refusal to understand that very clear situation is a cult mentality.

The failure to not understand that is probably because we all saw Mrs Clinton seek out foreign aid from a foreigner (the UK) who in turn got information from other foreigners (Russians of all people).

 

[JasperL]

Horowitz's report says just the opposite of that.

Horowitz found nothing whatsoever to support that lie.

It is illegal for a President to order a politically motivated investigation especially in an election year of a political opponent. This is what dictators do to stay in power. Such an candidate could be investigated if the DoJ determines that candidate may be doing something illegal--i.e., the reason the Trump campaign was properly investigated in 2016. But on top of that it is illegal for any candidate, incumbent president or challenger--to solicit a foreign nation to provide any "thing of value" to that candidate. The only reason I can think of for Trump supporters refusal to understand that very clear situation is a cult mentality.

That's been explained about 100 times to that poster, and he won't acknowledge that an official DoJ investigation is fine - it requires a predicate, which was the purpose of the IG inquiry just concluded and the Barr/Durham efforts. The reason for it to be done by DoJ is those opening the investigation can be held accountable. We see that in action as we speak.

What's not OK is demanding that a foreign government do that job on behalf of the President as coordinated through his thug personal attorney, Rudy, whose duty isn't to the United States but to himself, his client (Trump in this case) and whichever other criminal thugs were paying Rudy who knows what for who knows what services.

So he knows it, will ignore you, and repeat the same...lie that equates the two again and again and again, and again, and again, and again.

 

[eohrnberger]

the only reason that Barr and Durham come under such withering attack from some is because those same people think they may actually have a case they can prove.

I'm willing to wait and see what results from their investigation.

 

[jnug]

I hope there is some discussion in today's hearing regarding the possibility of separating the Domestic Intelligence gathering function of the FBI and the Criminal Investigation function into two agencies instead of one.

The FBI has really not handled its dual role well IMO and this is certainly true since 9/11 when it became the Islamic Terrorism FBI. Separate the two functions and tighten up all the requirements and document control and protocols for what would then be a new Domestic Intelligence gathering agency.

This is surely a much more radical fix than I think anybody on Senate Judiciary or anybody else is thinking about. However I think it is long overdue and the actual path to far better and far more efficient management and functioning of Domestic Intelligence gathering.

 

[digitusmedius]

How so? Durham has a wider mandate

Well, that's BS.

 

[digitusmedius]

Hello! That is what happened in 2016. Trump was investigated. We just had a report on it.
Meanwhile, we still have Biden on tape saying what he said. And we still have H Biden working where he had worked.

1. Hunter Biden resigned from Burisma on Oct. 31 last. In the entire time he was on the board there was no evidence he did anything improper while on the board and all the cases against Burisma by the UK and the EU had long been dropped.

Trump said in the transcript he would have Barr coordinate with Zelensky's people. That should satisfy the DOJ end of the concern.

In fact, it's the very basis for concern. For the USAG, an appointee by the suspect, i.e., Trump, who sees his job as the personal prosecutor for Trump to involve himself in this matter is as corrupt on the surface as it could get.

The failure to not understand that is probably because we all saw Mrs Clinton seek out foreign aid from a foreigner (the UK) who in turn got information from other foreigners (Russians of all people).

That is hilarious. In all this trumpist pissing and moaning about how he was a victim of the DoJ and FBI in 2016 there was not a single hint that there was an investigation into his corruption with Russia while Comey was continually ****ting all over Clinton. Trump is president now because of that assistance from the FBI and DoJ more than anything else.