Who do we believe in the FBI Spying reports?

[TamleeB]

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.

Horowitz statement about the FBI, :" I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this".

 

[Hypothetical]

Have you read the report in its entirety? Has anyone here?

I listened to the hearing, or at least 90% of it.

 

[snakestretcher]

I listened to the hearing, or at least 90% of it.

Not quite the same thing though, is it. It's like reading the synopsis on the back cover of a novel-it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[TamleeB]

The IG found no political bias.

The IG found no "documented" political bias in the "opening" of the case. He could NOT determine bias one way or the other on the following three FISA warrants applications

 

[ocean515]

Not quite the same thing though, is it. It's like reading the synopsis on the back cover of a novel-it doesn't tell the whole story.

It was the same thing. What make you say it wasn't?

BTW, congrats on your Nation making the right moves to secure it's future.

 

[ocean515]

The IG found no "documented" political bias in the "opening" of the case. He could NOT determine bias one way or the other on the following three FISA warrants applications

Don't forget, he also testified that the actions taken, the egregious violations of policy and protocols, would be illogical to conclude were the result of synchronized incompetence, but had to have been motivated by a single cause and objective.

Meaning, a political motivation, which he didn't deny under questioning.

 

[code1211]

The IG found no political bias.

He only found evidence to pursue that indicates that bias existed.

It's not his job to find bias. It's his job to check compliance to policy and procedure- just like any other auditor.

When he said that there were 17 omissions or mistakes all accruing to damage Trump in the filing of the FISA warrant, that is really something.

The chances of 17 binary dicisions all cutting the same way randomly are more than 130,000 to 1 against.

As a footnote to all of this, the judges at the Nuremberg Trials never cited the Nazis for showing "political bias" against Jews. Some things don't need to be cited to be obvious.

 

[US&THEM]

He only found evidence to pursue that indicates that bias existed.

It's not his job to find bias. It's his job to check compliance to policy and procedure- just like any other auditor.

When he said that there were 17 omissions or mistakes all accruing to damage Trump in the filing of the FISA warrant, that is really something.

The chances of 17 binary dicisions all cutting the same way randomly are more than 130,000 to 1 against.

As a footnote to all of this, the judges at the Nuremberg Trials never cited the Nazis for showing "political bias" against Jews. Some things don't need to be cited to be obvious.

You are unbelievable, the IG reported 4 separate times there was no political bias.

As for your pathetic footnote it is a desperate argument, if the FBI wanted to damage Trump, they would have leaked and arrested Carter Page.

 

[Divine_Wind]

What prompted the approval of the application for the warrant by FISA AFTER the FISA Court had rejected it originally when it lacked the inclusion of the Steele Dossier?

What needed to be faked in the application by the FBI to get the approval when they had firm evidence that the entire Dossier was crap and had no basis in fact?

These are serious questions that address the abuse of power by the Obama Administration and the exercise of government power to attack the campaign of the opposition candidate.

This is banana republic stuff and it really, really happened right here in the good ol' USA. There are various people that need to be in jail for their role in this.

When people are faced with the choice to either spend the rest of their lives in jail or "flip", we'll be able to at least gauge the degree of their blind loyalty.

With luck, we'll be able to follow the money right up the chain of command. Sooner or later, "I was only following orders" will start to wear a little thin.
[/URL]
[/LIST]

If that was true, why hasn’t Barr ordered arrests?

 

[marke]

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

We allowed Mueller to hand pick 17 Hillary supporters and former associates to run a 3 year hostile investigation of Trump. The least we can do is allow a legitimate investigator to investigate why justice officials lied to a FISA court in order to obtain warrants to spy on Trump.

 

[Excast]

Horowitz statement about the FBI, :" I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this".

The FBI is a predominantly Republican entity that was led by Republicans throughout recent history.

Are we to believe that this Republican entity, led by lifelong Republican James Comey, a man who announced investigations into Hillary Clinton and publicly criticized her while not doing the same with Trump, was part of some massive attempt to undermine the Trump campaign/administration? It simply isn't born out by the reality of what transpired. Did some people inside the FBI have issues with Trump? Definitely. So did many of the people in Congress who now pretend he is awesome, even though they once called him ignorant, cowardly, dangerous, and worse.

 

[TamleeB]

The FBI is a predominantly Republican entity that was led by Republicans throughout recent history.

Are we to believe that this Republican entity, led by lifelong Republican James Comey, a man who announced investigations into Hillary Clinton and publicly criticized her while not doing the same with Trump, was part of some massive attempt to undermine the Trump campaign/administration? It simply isn't born out by the reality of what transpired. Did some people inside the FBI have issues with Trump? Definitely. So did many of the people in Congress who now pretend he is awesome, even though they once called him ignorant, cowardly, dangerous, and worse.

Once again...Horowitz statement: " I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this". Ironically, James Comey believes he was vindicated of any wrongdoings. The IG says otherwise. Comey is a sanctimonious ass. I thought it was telling that there were many areas yesterday in which the IG could not comment, because of ongoing investigations. It will be interesting to see the results of John Durham's criminal investigation.

 

[Trump]

The FBI is a predominantly Republican entity that was led by Republicans throughout recent history.

Are we to believe that this Republican entity, led by lifelong Republican James Comey, a man who announced investigations into Hillary Clinton and publicly criticized her while not doing the same with Trump, was part of some massive attempt to undermine the Trump campaign/administration? It simply isn't born out by the reality of what transpired. Did some people inside the FBI have issues with Trump? Definitely. So did many of the people in Congress who now pretend he is awesome, even though they once called him ignorant, cowardly, dangerous, and worse.

I will stand by what Durham investigation uncovers...Will You?

 

[code1211]

You are unbelievable, the IG reported 4 separate times there was no political bias.

As for your pathetic footnote it is a desperate argument, if the FBI wanted to damage Trump, they would have leaked and arrested Carter Page.

Auditors don't assign meanings. If nobody said in clear language, "I am biased", then the auditor, Horowitz, cannot report any bias. Their actions tell the story, but the Auditor can only report the actions.

Without bias, in your view, they made one decision after another to torpedo Trump, his campaign and his election chances.

In each of the 17 consecutive decisions involving mistakes and omissions, they made a choice between playing it straight or rigging the outcome.

In 17 consecutive binary choices, they chose in every instance to rig the outcome. The chances of this being random are greater than 130,000 to 1 against.

When Diane Feinstein had a Chinese Communist Spy as a driver for 20 years, the FBI let her know. With Trump, they kept their intel secret and launched a counter intel investigation against Trump.

Why are you and so many others so anxious to defend this implementation of a police state in the USA?

The FBI was undoubtedly unfair in the ways they proceeded on these issues regarding Hillary and Trump in exactly the same situation. With Hillary, there was cooperation and with Trump, there was harassment and violations of Bill of Rights rights.

What happened under the corrupt Obama Administration needs to be exposed for what it was and there need to be strong leashes placed on the dogs that are given so much power as police in our society.

Incidentally, the use of the word "dogs" applies only to the rabidly corrupt and corrupting agents that pervert our justice system for their own motives absent ethics in their conduct.

I both respect and am grateful for the awesome job done by most public servants, particularly our police, in difficult circumstances. Their excellence only serves to accentuate the extreme disappointment in the conduct of Obama's Thugs.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The right wing usually resorts to fallacy and especially, appeals to ignorance. I have to argue and quibble every Thing, with the Right Wing.

 

[code1211]

If that was true, why hasn’t Barr ordered arrests?

The Grand Jury has been impaneled.

Operating by the Rule of Law may seem novel after 8 years of the Obama Administration, but this is the way it's supposed to work.

First, the crime is identified, THEN the criminal is sought.

I realize that under Obama, the Stalin approach was embraced. Still a return to Constitutionally protected rights might be fun for a few more years.

Pardon Our Interruption
<snip>
Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953.

Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).
<snip>

 

[US&THEM]

Auditors don't assign meanings. If nobody said in clear language, "I am biased", then the auditor, Horowitz, cannot report any bias. Their actions tell the story, but the Auditor can only report the actions.

Without bias, in your view, they made one decision after another to torpedo Trump, his campaign and his election chances.

In each of the 17 consecutive decisions involving mistakes and omissions, they made a choice between playing it straight or rigging the outcome.

In 17 consecutive binary choices, they chose in every instance to rig the outcome. The chances of this being random are greater than 130,000 to 1 against.

When Diane Feinstein had a Chinese Communist Spy as a driver for 20 years, the FBI let her know. With Trump, they kept their intel secret and launched a counter intel investigation against Trump.

Why are you and so many others so anxious to defend this implementation of a police state in the USA?

The FBI was undoubtedly unfair in the ways they proceeded on these issues regarding Hillary and Trump in exactly the same situation. With Hillary, there was cooperation and with Trump, there was harassment and violations of Bill of Rights rights.

What happened under the corrupt Obama Administration needs to be exposed for what it was and there need to be strong leashes placed on the dogs that are given so much power as police in our society.

Incidentally, the use of the word "dogs" applies only to the rabidly corrupt and corrupting agents that pervert our justice system for their own motives absent ethics in their conduct.

I both respect and am grateful for the awesome job done by most public servants, particularly our police, in difficult circumstances. Their excellence only serves to accentuate the extreme disappointment in the conduct of Obama's Thugs.

The Inspector general did not conduct an audit, it was an investigation.

 

[Divine_Wind]

The Grand Jury has been impaneled...<Obama/Stalin rant snipped as off topic>

Awesome. It's only taken over 3 years, but I'm content to let the Wheels of Justice grind forward.

 

[US&THEM]

The Grand Jury has been impaneled.

Operating by the Rule of Law may seem novel after 8 years of the Obama Administration, but this is the way it's supposed to work.

First, the crime is identified, THEN the criminal is sought.

I realize that under Obama, the Stalin approach was embraced. Still a return to Constitutionally protected rights might be fun for a few more years.

Pardon Our Interruption
<snip>
Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953.

Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).
<snip>

You a big InfoWars guy?

 

[danielpalos]

The Right Wing has nothing but the moral turpitude of wilful blindness and appeals to ignorance to further that Cause.

 

[eohrnberger]

Do all the people Trump smeared and accused of treason get an apology for his wild assed unsubstantiated public accusations?

Still waiting for the Democrats and their medias ass kissers and boot lickers to apologize for the Russian collusion hoax.
Would seem that this ought to come first.

 

[eohrnberger]

From the report. Document page #313 -



So the Horowitz didn't find that the FBI tasked anyone to infiltrate Trump's campaign or try to co-opt anyone in Trump's campaign. They did, however, use "spies" to interact with campaign staff.

Two pages further in the report we are told how these "not spies" interacted with Trump campaign people and who they interacted with -



Page and Manafort were also discussed. Strozk and Priestap were made aware of these contacts.

So, while there may not have been any FBI sources placed into the Trump campaign or recruited from within the campaign it would be incorrect to state that the campaign was not spied on by the FBI.

The question is still open whether the FBI had a sufficient predicate to initiate this investigation, surveillance, spying. This is the question that Barr raised in his congressional testimony, and this is the question that the Barr / Durham will appear to be answering, apparently with criminal charges.

That the IG report comes back with lots of problems, and clear FISA court fraud, and that Durham's investigation was changed to a criminal one, doesn't speak to at all to everything being above board in the FBI on this. It in fact speak to exactly the opposite, to the level of federal criminal charges appear likely to be brought.

The DNC propaganda 'news' media is working over time distorting, lying, cherry picking the IG's report clearly at the behest of their DNC masters, and it is this that some here mindlessly parrot.

Interesting to note the timing of the House's impeachment climax, and it's timing with the IG's report.
Hmmm. As if it's also serving as a massive distraction / redirection.

 

[jnug]

With all due respect unless you can point to the specific elements of "spying" having occurred here, its not spying.

Surveillance, illegal or otherwise is not spying or espionage. If the FBI sent in undercover agents to learn about the Trump Campaign strategy intending to steal it, THAT WOULD BE SPYING. Looking for Russian Contacts is not spying, its surveillance.

Spying comes from the French "Espionage". If a competing company sends undercover agents into your company in order to learn your trade secrets and then use them against you or for their own benefit (same dif) that is INDUSTRIAL OR CORPORATE ESPIONAGE OR INDUSTRIAL OR CORPORATE SPYING. If the FBI went into the Trump Campaign intending to learn their campaign strategy or possibly steal their proprietary polling data and then turn them over to the Clinton campaign THAT would have been spying.

I have not seen anything that suggests that the FBI was looking for Trump's Campaign strategy or any of the other assets of the Trump campaign like their proprietary polling data, then steal it, then turn it over to the Clinton Campaign or anybody else for that matter.

Spying is spying and surveillance, legal or not is surveillance.

 

[eohrnberger]

The only distinction between the two is in the predication of the surveillance. While initial interactions may have been warranted they continued through Trump's nomination and until after Trump was inaugurated. Through that time frame, according to the report, the FBI could have and should have known that their basis for the investigation had been seriously eroded due to inaccurate, incomplete and unsubstantiated source information.

And took that same material, even though they knew it was 'inaccurate, incomplete and unsubstantiated', and used it to extent the FISA warrant 3 times.

Clearly, this is unacceptable putting the best possible spin on it, and more honestly it is seriously criminal, committing such fraud on the FISA court.

Either way, it's not good for those involved, so Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, and probably others whom we don't know yet.

 

[eohrnberger]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Just for fun, though, why not quote the part of the IG Report referenced in my post that is contradicted by the report?

The IG cited specifically 17 omissions and mistakes made by the FBI as it did not gain approvals from its overseers at the DOJ in applying for FISA Warrants.

ALL of the 17 errors worked against Trump and in favor of conducting the illegitimate, First Amendment violating, investigation in their effort to interfere in the 2016 election.

So in 17 cases of making a choice to either violate the rights of Trump or not, the FBI made 17 choices that violate the rights of Trump. What are the odds this could be an accident. Like flipping a coin and having it come up tails 17 straight times?

Not at all hard to figure out. The odds of making 17 straight choices in a binary consideration that all fall on one side of the line are greater than 131,000 to 1 against.

Those odds were not stated in the IG Report. The 17 straight Errors and 0missions were. Hell, one guy even intentionally lied adding to that total. However many lies he included raise those odds exponentially. Literally.

You may want to read it since you have no clue.

What are the odds of flipping a coin heads (or tails) 5 times in a row? 6 times? | Yahoo Answers

Hmm.
The Democrats in the White House during 2016 using federal government agencies to meddle in the 2016 election. A fair summary.
The Democrats accuse Republicans (and others) of meddling in the 2016 election.

Rule of thumb based on experience:
Whenever Democrats accuse someone of something, look where they are doing the same thing, first.