• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty in first criminal case arising from review, sources say

If this is the Durham "bombshell" we were being told about earlier this morning, it's just a dud. Michael Horowitz (DoJIG) informed the country of this back in December 2019 in his congressional testimony. Nothing new or surprising to see here.
 
Mr Person said:
You know the game: any little thing they can find supposedly discredits the entire investigation and thus nothing Trump in fact do matters. Inviting and knowingly receiving Russian interference in the election without alerting authorities doesn't matter, nor do 14 instances of obstruction of justice laid out in detail. Someone dishonestly treated part of the support for one warrant for Carter Page, so it means the whole thing was a sham.

But somehow, the inference of guilt based on individual wrongdoing doesn't go the other way. Roger Stone and so many others going down as part of the cover-up attempt is not read to discredit the entirety of Trump's defense.



And remember: even if you've said a hundred times on DP that if anyone did anything criminal they should be punished, you are still going to be assumed to support criminal wrongdoing unless you specifically condemn it at their demand.
Click to expand...

One peripheral guilty person in FBI = proof of widespread anti-Trump conspiracy within the entire FBI.

Nine Trump associates convicted of various crimes = no biggie.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Neither was the idea that "you knew about Clinesmith for over a year".
Click to expand...

As moronic a deflection as it is dishonest: the entire subject of the OP is you trying to make a bunch of partisan hay from the fact of Clinesmith pleading guilty. What he is expected to plead guilty to was already covered in Horowitz's report.
 
Lutherf said:
This was a referral from Michael Horowitz, the IG that did the report on the Page FISA applications.
Click to expand...

We learned about this 9 months ago when Horowitz testified in the House. No bombshell here. Sorry.
 
Mr Person said:
As moronic a deflection as it is dishonest: the entire subject of the OP is you trying to make a bunch of partisan hay from the fact of Clinesmith pleading guilty. What he is expected to plead guilty to was already covered in Horowitz's report.
Click to expand...

Do you think he acted on his own when he falsified the document?
 
Cardinal said:
So they got that ex-FBI lawyer we already knew about for over a year.

Um....congrats?
Click to expand...

Jack Fabulous said:
A year ago people like you were still bellowing at the top of their lungs that the Steel Dossier was largely verified and only a "peripheral" piece of evidence used to obtain the warrant.
Click to expand...

Cardinal said:
Do you have Tourette's or something? Not once is the Steel Dossier mentioned in your article.
Click to expand...

Jack Fabulous said:
Neither was the idea that "you knew about Clinesmith for over a year".
Click to expand...

Cardinal said:
Why would the article mention me? You have no idea where you intended to go with this thread, do you.
Click to expand...

Jack Fabulous said:
Stop trying to derail the thread, please.
Click to expand...

Derail? He made the innocuous and true remark that we've known about this for a year, since Horowitz broke it. The only new thing is the decision to plead guilty.

First you whatabout to something some unidentified person supposedly said about the Steele Dossier.

Now you're retreating to complaining that he's trying to derail the thread by reminding you that we already knew about its subject?


File under hackish evasions.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Do you think he acted on his own when he falsified the document?
Click to expand...

Hey, it's your anti-Trump grand conspiracy theory, you tell us. Then provide evidence for your answer.
 
Cardinal said:
...says the guy who blurted out "Steel Dossier!...*twitch*" for no reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The Steel Dossier is an integral piece of the FISA warrant against Carter Page just as Clinesmith's falsifying a document is.

Does this hurt your feelings or something?
 
Lutherf said:
No. This isn't a process crime by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

It's less than a process crime. It's middlingly less bad than jaywalking.
 
Cardinal said:
Hey, it's your anti-Trump grand conspiracy theory, you tell us. Then provide evidence for your answer.
Click to expand...

How about you? Since you took it upon yourself to jump on a post not directed at you... do you think he acted alone?
 
The lawyer changed the document to say that the Page guy WAS NOT a CIA informant when Page was a CIA informant.

That seems like a small thing.
 
digitusmedius said:
We learned about this 9 months ago when Horowitz testified in the House. No bombshell here. Sorry.
Click to expand...

It isn't a bombshell and I've been pretty clear about that. It is, however, a seroius prosecution. The question now is whether Clinesmith just decided to do this out of the blue or if he did it as part of a conspiracy. What do you think the odds are that he just pulled this idea out of thin air as some kind of lark?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The Steel Dossier is an integral piece of the FISA warrant against Carter Page just as Clinesmith's falsifying a document is.

Does this hurt your feelings or something?
Click to expand...

Again, I can only assume you have Tourettes since the Steel Dossier wasn't mentioned anywhere (well, except by you, of course). Just because you have "Steel Dossier" permanently tattooed to the inside of your skull doesn't mean it's relevant here.
 
Mr Person said:
Derail? He made the innocuous and true remark that we've known about this for a year, since Horowitz broke it. The only new thing is the decision to plead guilty.

First you whatabout to something some unidentified person supposedly said about the Steele Dossier.

Now you're retreating to complaining that he's trying to derail the thread by reminding you that we already knew about its subject?


File under hackish evasions.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to add about Clinesmith, Carter Page, or the FISA warrant or is your only interest here personal attacks and ad homs?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
How about you? Since you took it upon yourself to jump on a post not directed at you... do you think he acted alone?
Click to expand...

It's your thread and your anti-Trump grand conspiracy theory, so you tell us. Then provide evidence for your answer.
 
Cardinal said:
Again, I can only assume you have Tourettes since the Steel Dossier wasn't mentioned anywhere (well, except by you, of course). Just because you have "Steel Dossier" permanently tattooed to the inside of your skull doesn't mean it's relevant here.
Click to expand...

No opinion about Clinesmith acting on his own, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom