Declassified intel ties Soros to Clinton's Russiagate plan for FBI to 'put more oil into the fire'

[eohrnberger]

Clinesmith's actions are covered in the report that you claim is a cover-up by the "DC Swamp" and Clinesmith's actions are not a conspiracy. Individuals make unethical decisions all the time, but coordinating efforts is a different matter.

None of this changes the fact that Clinesmith altered evidence, a significant violation of both law and FBI regulations, and that the DC Swamp just slapped his wrist in response, just as they always do with their own.

The example your provided is a press release from a conservative group.

This still doesn't change the facts I pointed out above.

The fact that it reads like a news article and appears on AP News website shouldn't be taken to mean it meets AP news standards or qualifies as news.

Its on the AP web site. AP made the decision to publish it, so this is just a red herring your throwing up there.

I hope you're aware of what's going on. If you are/were aware, I think it would be more ethical to link it in a form that more clearly reveals the source.

If you need more examples from a variety of other sources which make the same criticism, here you go.

D.C. Bar yet to disbar ex-FBI attorney guilty of altering doc to wiretap Trump campaign adviser​

D.C. Bar yet to disbar ex-FBI attorney guilty of altering doc to wiretap Trump campaign adviser

U.S. government prosecutors are seeking prison time for Clinesmith, who will be sentenced Friday

justthenews.com

​

Ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith given probation after guilty plea in Special Counsel John Durham probe​

Ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith given probation after guilty plea in John Durham probe

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service Friday after pleading guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

www.foxnews.com

​

Ex-Senate Intel gatekeeper James Wolfe sentenced to two months in prison, despite DOJ push for two-year term​

James Wolfe, the high-level Senate intelligence staffer who pleaded guilty in October to lying to investigators probing systemic leaks of classified information, was sentenced Thursday to two months in prison, plus four months of supervised release -- well under the two-year term prosecutors had aggressively sought.​

Ex-Senate Intel gatekeeper James Wolfe sentenced to two months in prison, despite DOJ push for two-year term

James Wolfe, the high-level Senate intelligence staffer who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators probing systemic leaks of classified information earlier this year, was sentenced Thursday to two months in prison -- well under the two-year prison sentence prosecutors had sought.

www.foxnews.com

​

Accused in Justice Dept.'s Upper Echelon, and Innocent Until Scot-Free​

By Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations, March 25, 2020​

Accused in Justice Dept.'s Upper Echelon, and Innocent Until Scot-Free | RealClearInvestigations

Above, a crime lab depicted in the trailer for 1959's

www.realclearinvestigations.com

​

 

[exoplanet]

None of this changes the fact that Clinesmith altered evidence, a significant violation of both law and FBI regulations, and that the DC Swamp just slapped his wrist in response, just as they always do with their own.

So you have no evidence of the "DC Swamp", and your response is to make the judge a part of the conspiracy as well? Figures. Your proof of the "DC Swamp" appears to consist entirely of accusing people of being involved in it.

FTR, he made a false statement, he did not alter evidence.

ts on the AP web site. AP made the decision to publish it, so this is just a red herring your throwing up there.

Well, so long as we are all aware it was basically nothing more than an opinion piece and not an attempt at factual reporting, I suppose it doesn't matter for this argument. It seems poor form to me though and worrisome that won't acknowledge the potential for deception even when it is explained to you.

If you need more examples from a variety of other sources which make the same criticism, here you go.

This is just a grab bag of stuff that is all over the place. Make an argument and support it.

 

[eohrnberger]

So you have no evidence of the "DC Swamp", and your response is to make the judge a part of the conspiracy as well? Figures. Your proof of the "DC Swamp" appears to consist entirely of accusing people of being involved in it.

How come DC swamp creatures, if they even get charged, appear to get minimalist penalties and sentences?

FTR, he made a false statement, he did not alter evidence.

Umm, no.

FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation

www.justice.gov

He altered evidence submitted to the FISA court.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan

Well, so long as we are all aware it was basically nothing more than an opinion piece and not an attempt at factual reporting, I suppose it doesn't matter for this argument. It seems poor form to me though and worrisome that won't acknowledge the potential for deception even when it is explained to you.

Such hubris from you, when you didn't even know the facts of the Clinesmith case.

This is just a grab bag of stuff that is all over the place. Make an argument and support it.

No, it goes to pattern, the pattern which was my point.

 

[exoplanet]

How come DC swamp creatures, if they even get charged, appear to get minimalist penalties and sentences?

Define "DC Swamp creatures", "minimalist penalties", and show how that's true. Then maybe there is a question to be answered.

He altered evidence submitted to the FISA court.

I guess these things are not mutually exclusive depending on context, but his literal charge is making a false statement (as you should know) and the charges for evidence tampering (for example) are generally more serious and require a higher bar of proof.

Such hubris from you, when you didn't even know the facts of the Clinesmith case.

I'm not sure why expecting something beside press releases and opinion pieces shows pride, but you do you I guess.

No, it goes to pattern, the pattern which was my point.

You're having a conversation with yourself here and not explaining yourself in a way that can be verified or falsified. Make specific allegations and support them. You know, like people do in a debate format.

 

[eohrnberger]

Define "DC Swamp creatures",

The "DC Swamp" refers to the perceived culture of corruption and influence from special interests and lobbyists in Washington, D.C. It is often used as a metaphor by politicians to describe the need to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and political corruption. Wikipedia, niche-canada.org​

DC Swamp Creatures are people in the DC swamp.

"minimalist penalties", and show how that's true. Then maybe there is a question to be answered.

Your own statement below, about 'charges for evidence tampering (for example) are generally more serious'.

Cleinsmith did, in fact, alter evidence.

I guess these things are not mutually exclusive depending on context, but his literal charge is making a false statement (as you should know) and the charges for evidence tampering (for example) are generally more serious and require a higher bar of proof.

I'm not sure why expecting something beside press releases and opinion pieces shows pride, but you do you I guess.

As I posted, it goes to show pattern.

You're having a conversation with yourself here and not explaining yourself in a way that can be verified or falsified. Make specific allegations and support them. You know, like people do in a debate format.

If you think so, then why do you continue to respond?
That you are responding already shows that it isn't so.

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[NOLA Dude]

A whistleblower report declassified last week suggests that Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts to manufacture evidence tying Donald Trump to alleged Russian hacking in 2016 were deeper than previously known – as were Obama administration efforts to conceal them.

According to the report, a former senior U.S. intelligence analyst who investigated alleged Russian attempts to breach state voting systems during the 2016 election suspected the breaches may have been "related to activities" of the computer contractors involved in the Alfa Bank hoax, who were accused of manipulating Internet traffic data.

In that well-publicized case, a Clinton campaign lawyer worked with federal computer contractors and the FBI to create suspicions that Russia was communicating with Donald Trump through a secret server shared by Alfa Bank of Russia and Trump Tower in Manhattan.

The anonymous whistleblower – who served as the deputy national intelligence officer for cyber issues in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from 2015 to 2020 – told Special Counsel John Durham he stumbled onto "enigmatic" data while leading the investigation of alleged Russian cyber activity for the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He said that his discovery took place in December 2016 when President Obama ordered the ICA.

After examining state-reported breaches of election networks, the whistleblower said, "It seemed only brief interaction was occurring – in some cases, no unauthorized access, or even attempted access, was detected on 'victim' systems." Though the suspicious activity initially was attributed to Russian actors, further analysis raised doubts.

But when he brought his findings to his boss, ODNI's national intelligence officer for cyber issues, he was ordered to stop investigating and not include his findings in the final ICA draft.
https://www.realclearinvestigations...ton_campaign_to_fake_russia_hack_1127658.html

 

[exoplanet]

The "DC Swamp" refers to the perceived culture of corruption and influence from special interests and lobbyists in Washington, D.C. It is often used as a metaphor by politicians to describe the need to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and political corruption. Wikipedia, niche-canada.org
DC Swamp Creatures are people in the DC swamp.

So lobbyists and special interests? What does that have to do with the FBI?

If you think so, then why do you continue to respond?

I keep hoping that you will clarify when I explain how little you are actually communicating. Maybe that is a false hope.

 

[eohrnberger]

So lobbyists and special interests? What does that have to do with the FBI?

You asked for a definition, I gave you one.

FBI agents engaged the power of their position to further their own personal politics.
That's not what they should be doing.
They can have any personal political positions or opinions all they want. They can support those during their off hours.
They CANNOT and MUST NOT use their positions to further their personal politics.

I keep hoping that you will clarify when I explain how little you are actually communicating. Maybe that is a false hope.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Weird. They shifted from China to Russia on a dime.

 

[eohrnberger]

Weird. They shifted from China to Russia on a dime.

Geez. Complaining about a letter which hadn't been sent yet, one which you shouldn't even have access to, now there's someone with an intelligence deficit.

 

[exoplanet]

You asked for a definition, I gave you one.

Not really. As you explained it, Trump seems to be "in the DC Swamp" to me. I presume you don't think he's a swamp creature though.

FBI agents engaged the power of their position to further their own personal politics.
That's not what they should be doing.
They can have any personal political positions or opinions all they want. They can support those during their off hours.
They CANNOT and MUST NOT use their positions to further their personal politics.

I understand that's your allegation and you that you really have a strong personal opinion on that.
You haven't really shown very much though and certainly nothing systemic.

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[eohrnberger]

Not really. As you explained it, Trump seems to be "in the DC Swamp" to me. I presume you don't think he's a swamp creature though.

Trump has been, and remains, an outsider to the DC swamp as well as the entrenched political elites, which have been failing the nation and its people's for decades already. You can see this in their conserted efforts to delegitimize, undermine him and his presidency and his admin with their constant smear campaigns and hoaxes, as enabled by their compliant and complicit MSM propagandists.

You should take note that the electorate is so sick and tired of the DC swamp as well as the entrenched political elites to have voted him in.

I understand that's your allegation and you that you really have a strong personal opinion on that.
You haven't really shown very much though and certainly nothing systemic.

I think you need to look further.

 

[exoplanet]

Trump has been, and remains, an outsider to the DC swamp as well as the entrenched political elites, which have been failing the nation and its people's for decades already. You can see this in their conserted efforts to delegitimize, undermine him and his presidency and his admin with their constant smear campaigns and hoaxes, as enabled by their compliant and complicit MSM propagandists.

You should take note that the electorate is so sick and tired of the DC swamp as well as the entrenched political elites to have voted him in.

The POTUS in his second term is an "outsider" and not part of the political elite? Ok...

It doesn't look like you can define the DC Swamp in any way besides "people that Trump doesn't like". That's why it's impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the "Swamp" - because its a fictional, amorphous term that shifts for political convenience on Trump's whims.

I think you need to look further.

And see the "pattern"?

 

[Atomic Kid]

No.
What I'm saying that the claim of "the Mueller investigation was staffed with people from both parties" isn't accurate, or is at least not taking into account the heavily left leaning representation of it's members.

Mueller: Republican. Rosenstein: Republican. Comey: Republican. McCabe, who Trump appointed, was a Republican. All of the judges who signed off on the FISA warrants on Carter Page were appointed by Republican Presidents. Political affiliation does not in itself prove political bias. Not to mention, DOJ policy and federal law prohibit hiring or promoting people based on political affiliation. Mueller placed people on his team who had previously demonstrated their professional skills and whose judgment he trusted.

We've already seen Comey's Trump political views with his FISA warrant based largely on the Steel Dossier fabrication, which was extended time and time again to continue the FBI surveillance on an political opposition presidential campaign.

That's an outright blatant lie. The Steele Dossier played a very minor role in the FISA warrant applications. There were many other historical instances of Carter Page's interactions with Russian intelligence, government officials, and business oligarchs to reasonably justify the concern that he may be acting as a foreign agent for Russia. That's why the Trump Campaign dropped him like a hot potato because that is what he had become due to his reckless ambitions before the FBI submitted their FISA warrant application.

We've already seen how Strzok, Page, and McCabe's personal anti-Trump political views has influenced and compromised the investigation they oversaw, begging to keep Crossfire-Hurricane open when consensus among the other agents working it was that there was nothing there, and that 'insurance policy' (the Russian Collusion hoax?)

Neither Strzok, Page, nor McCabe was overseeing the Special Counsel investigation. Rosenstein was the one charged with oversight. Do you want to know who said he feared "that there may be no big there, there"? That was Strzok expressing his reluctance to join Mueller's investigation team because he feared the team wouldn't find anything noteworthy. Despite his initial misgivings, he appreciated the gravity of the investigation, saying it was destined to be among the most important of their lives, and encouraged Page to join the probe. This is just another glaring example of your ignorance of the facts. But you know what? That is what we have come to expect from you.

As for the "insurance policy" text, Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point in worrying about an election Trump was bound to lose. That, despite the odds against a Trump victory, there was reason not to be complacent about that possibility, and he gave an example. The odds of you dying before the age of 40 are very much against that possibility. But you probably bought insurance at that age because dying so young with a family would be a huge disaster.

In summary, we have seen personal politics and furthering their personal political agenda affect and change how they performed their duties, which it should never have.

No, we haven't seen that all. The Bipartisan Senate Committee found no evidence that political bias had affected the duties of those performing the investigation. The DOJ Inspector General's report found no evidence that political bias influenced the FBI's investigation. Durham also conceded he had found no evidence of political bias in the FBI investigation, but then switched to portraying the FBI as a victim of witnesses with malevolent intent to deceive them. That change in tactic failed dramatically in the courtroom, with juries taking only mere minutes to dismiss the charges.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Try to keep up. This is what I was responding to:

Manafort and Papadopoulos were convicted in 2019 and 2018. Who was the head of the government at that time?

And who was it that pardoned Manafort? Come on. You know the answer, go ahead and say it.

 

[eohrnberger]

The POTUS in his second term is an "outsider" and not part of the political elite? Ok...

Yes. Still and always will be.

It doesn't look like you can define the DC Swamp in any way besides "people that Trump doesn't like". That's why it's impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the "Swamp" - because its a fictional, amorphous term that shifts for political convenience on Trump's whims.

In spite of the provided definition. Let me guess: You like to hear yourself talk?

And see the "pattern"?
View attachment 67584022

How about just looking a little closer to investigative reporting which doesn't confirm your immediate biased reaction?
You know, perhaps, other points of view? Other facts which don't confirm you immediate bias?
Or maybe you don't know of those?

 

[exoplanet]

Yes. Still and always will be.

I have no idea what you mean by "political elite" or "outsider" then. It seems more like branding that you like that anything that could form the basis for a meaningful definition.

In spite of the provided definition. Let me guess: You like to hear yourself talk?

You didn't provide a definition that made any sense. Like I said, the given definition would include Donald Trump.

How about just looking a little closer to investigative reporting which doesn't confirm your immediate biased reaction?
You know, perhaps, other points of view? Other facts which don't confirm you immediate bias?
Or maybe you don't know of those?

I'm here for other points of view, but you haven't said anything concrete. There are million rabbit holes I could spend multiple lifetimes on researching and this would be a really dumb place to start that sort of journey. I'm here for debate. Any meaningful debate requires people to articulate their own points of view. I can't debate those authors, but I can debate you.

 

[eohrnberger]

I have no idea what you mean by "political elite" or "outsider" then. It seems more like branding that you like that anything that could form the basis for a meaningful definition.

You didn't provide a definition that made any sense. Like I said, the given definition would include Donald Trump.

I'm here for other points of view, but you haven't said anything concrete. There are million rabbit holes I could spend multiple lifetimes on researching and this would be a really dumb place to start that sort of journey. I'm here for debate. Any meaningful debate requires people to articulate their own points of view. I can't debate those authors, but I can debate you.

My having not posted so called 'rabbit holes', which you believe them to be, and your summary rejection of evidence which you don't like, there's not going to be use continuing.

I guess we're done here.

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[exoplanet]

My having not posted so called 'rabbit holes', which you believe them to be, and your summary rejection of evidence which you don't like, there's not going to be use continuing.

I guess we're done here.

Evidence for what?
You can’t seem to progress beyond making vague generalizations about shadowy groups. I don’t see anything that could be proven true or false.
I’m not dismissing evidence, I’m pointing out the lack of a coherent argument that evidence might or might not back up.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Wow. It just keeps getting worse.

 

[eohrnberger]

Evidence for what?
You can’t seem to progress beyond making vague generalizations about shadowy groups. I don’t see anything that could be proven true or false.
I’m not dismissing evidence, I’m pointing out the lack of a coherent argument that evidence might or might not back up.

Fine. Whatever.