FBI agent: Never was evidence of Russia collusion but Mueller team had 'get Trump' goal

[Athanasius68]

The pattern of the extreme right is to react to "no charges" against Hillary or resulting from 36 Benghazi "hearings", or against Obama - Biden Admin., save for Greg Craig's "not guilty" jury verdict, nor any charges or NY State action against the Clinton Foundation, as if absence of any charges or NY or any other state civil action such as the forced closing of the Trump Foundation, is predictably, that the absence of any charges is somehow compelling proof of the severity of the crimes these demonized "lefties" have so far escaped all acountability for committing.

How is that different from claiming obstruction as to the reason why Mueller, The House and Senate failed to show a Trump/Russia conspiracy in 2016?

Truly, Trump has managed to herd his followers into a "facts free" alternate dimension. I may have missed it, but did the entire debate pass by the other night without Trump making a single mention of Obamagate nonsense or Barr-Durham "investigation", now in its 17 month with no one charged.... the patsy who is accused of altering the meaning of an email is accused of an alleged offense arising from the IG Horowitz investigation, not an outcome of Durham's "efforts".

That's how it works:
Democrats are innocent until proven guilty.
Republicans are guilty until proven innocent.

"...On Twitter, Mr. Strzok accused Mr. Kohl of “materially misrepresenting” his actions.
Separately, in a letter docketed on Monday night, a lawyer for Mr. Strzok told Judge Sullivan that someone had altered handwritten notes by his client in one of the recent batches of internal materials turned over to Ms. Powell — adding two dates to them that he did not write, including one that suggested a White House meeting happened earlier than it did.

Oh-- So Strzok is alleging a "crime" without evidence, slandering law enforcement community ect ect ect?

 

[post]

Empty wheel bullshit, Not clicking that horse manure.

LOL !
This, just in! I do not see any OTHER reliable source, aside from emptywheel, educating the public to this extent, as to the mendacity of this fraud that is the Trump corrupted, Barr led DOJ.

Bill Barnett's Second Gratuitous Swipe at the Mueller Investigation Collapses | emptywheel

FBI Agent William Barnett's complaints about his Mueller team colleagues thus far have only discredited his own credibility.

www.emptywheel.net

 

[post]

Well, we now know that the FBI had received intelligence from Russian sources claiming hat Clinton was behind the whole conspiracy narrative.
Was that investigated as being a result Russian campaign penetration into the Clinton campaign? Never heard about it.

Again, Crossfire Hurricane was not about investigating Russian efforts to infiltrate th Trump campaign. It was about investigating the Trump campaign for conspiring with Russian efforts to screw with the election.

As dissenting intelligence specialists confirm, the opposite of what you ardently believe is what the record indicates.

Aside from you and your ilk, do you expect anyone not of the Trump cult believes Ratcliffe was informing you of something of actual substance related to Hillary Clinton?

Consider that Flynn's assistant, KT Macfarland, a former Fox News talking head who described herself as a personal friend of Trump,
requested at least two additional FBI interviews as her original 302 "fell apart".

It's Not the Four Year Old Counterintelligence Investigation intro Trump We Need to Be Most Worried About -- It's the Ones Bill Barr May Have Killed | emptywheel

Mike Schmidt's publicity tour has set off a debate about what happened to the counterintelligence investigation into Trump back in 2017. A far more urgent question is what Bill Barr did to counterintelligence investigations implicating Trump this year.

www.emptywheel.net

"......
We’ve since seen transcripts that show Mike Flynn telling Sergey Kislyak in real time that Trump was aware of the communications between the two (and John Ratcliffe is withholding at least one transcript of a call between the men).

FLYNN: and, you know, we are not going to agree on everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, you know and, and be smart about it and, uh, uh, keep the temperature down globally, as well as not just, you know, here, here in the United States and also over in, in Russia.
KISLYAK: yeah.
FLYNN: But globally l want to keep the temperature down and we can do this ifwe are smart about it.
KISLYAK: You’re absolutely right.
FLYNN: I haven’t gotten, I haven’t gotten a, uh, confirmation on the, on the, uh, secure VTC yet, but the, but the boss is aware and so please convey that. [my emphasis]

Certainly, Russia would have reason to believe that Flynn’s efforts to undermine sanctions were directed by Trump.


In January, a sentencing memo that was delayed so it could be approved by the entire chain of command at DOJ, explained why all this was significant.

Any effort to undermine the recently imposed sanctions, which were enacted to punish the Russian government for interfering in the 2016 election, could have been evidence of links or coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia. Accordingly, determining the extent of the defendant’s actions, why the defendant took such actions, and at whose direction he took those actions, were critical to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.
[snip]
It was material to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation to know the full extent of the defendant’s communications with the Russian Ambassador, and why he lied to the FBI about those communications.

Flynn’s forgetfulness about whether Trump ordered him to undermine sanctions went to the core question of whether Trump worked with Russia in their efforts to throw him the election.


And that sentencing memo was the moment when Billy Barr threw two different lawyers — one a lifetime associate of his — into the project of creating a false excuse to undermine the prosecution of Flynn. More recently, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall told the DC Circuit that Barr had secret reasons for overturning the prosecution.

The Attorney General of course sees this in a context of non-public information from other investigations.
[snip]
I just want to make clear that it may be possible that the Attorney General had before him information that he was not able to share with the court and so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the Executive Branch.
[snip]..."

 

[OpportunityCost]

As dissenting intelligence specialists confirm, the opposite of what you ardently believe is what the record indicates.

Aside from you and your ilk, do you expect anyone not of the Trump cult believes Ratcliffe was informing you of something of actual substance related to Hillary Clinton?

Consider that Flynn's assistant, KT Macfarland, a former Fox News talking head who described herself as a personal friend of Trump,
requested at least two additional FBI interviews as her original 302 "fell apart".

"......
We’ve since seen transcripts that show Mike Flynn telling Sergey Kislyak in real time that Trump was aware of the communications between the two (and John Ratcliffe is withholding at least one transcript of a call between the men).




Certainly, Russia would have reason to believe that Flynn’s efforts to undermine sanctions were directed by Trump.


In January, a sentencing memo that was delayed so it could be approved by the entire chain of command at DOJ, explained why all this was significant.




Flynn’s forgetfulness about whether Trump ordered him to undermine sanctions went to the core question of whether Trump worked with Russia in their efforts to throw him the election.


And that sentencing memo was the moment when Billy Barr threw two different lawyers — one a lifetime associate of his — into the project of creating a false excuse to undermine the prosecution of Flynn. More recently, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall told the DC Circuit that Barr had secret reasons for overturning the prosecution.

Repeating supposition from your source, which I will no longer click because its never sourced well, is just creating an echo chamber of bullshit. Link to reliable sources, your empty wheel nonsense gets not one more click from me.

Larger problem, even in the linked transcripts, Flynn never discusses sanctions with Russia. You can infer such but you have to ignore context and what foreign policy they wanted moving forward with Russia.

 

[OpportunityCost]

LOL !
This, just in! I do not see any OTHER reliable source, aside from emptywheel, educating the public to this extent, as to the mendacity of this fraud that is the Trump corrupted, Barr led DOJ.

Bill Barnett's Second Gratuitous Swipe at the Mueller Investigation Collapses | emptywheel

FBI Agent William Barnett's complaints about his Mueller team colleagues thus far have only discredited his own credibility.

www.emptywheel.net

So you are killing the messenger when it doesn't agree with your narrative----I thought Whistleblowers were to be protected, not targeted?

 

[pamak]

Well, we now know that the FBI had received intelligence from Russian sources claiming hat Clinton was behind the whole conspiracy narrative.
Was that investigated as being a result Russian campaign penetration into the Clinton campaign? Never heard about it.

Again, Crossfire Hurricane was not about investigating Russian efforts to infiltrate th Trump campaign. It was about investigating the Trump campaign for conspiring with Russian efforts to screw with the election.

Again, you imply that the FBI just started the investigation of the Trump campaign simply because of what they heard from Russian sources. This is wrong. They got multiple similar messages, including from allies (Australians- Papadopoulos) and from other cases such as Flynn's and Manafort's lobbying activities. Now, which close associates of Clinton had close ties to Russia?

And the term "Russian sources" is vague because you do not differentiate among the different Russian sources. The CIA right now probably uses Russian sources which have been recruited to provide the US with Russian secrets. Steele did something similar with his Russian sources. These sources are not working for the interests of the Russian governments( even though moles may be government employees). So, one cannot ue the generic term "Russian sources" to group together every Russian citizen. Some Russian source work for the west and other Russian sources work for their country.

 

[Athanasius68]

QUOTE="post, post: 1072745839, member: 3468"]
As dissenting intelligence specialists confirm, the opposite of what you ardently believe is what the record indicates.

Aside from you and your ilk, do you expect anyone not of the Trump cult believes Ratcliffe was informing you of something of actual substance related to Hillary Clinton?

[/QUOTE]

Ratcliffe was clear: The FBI did not verify that which they had. What matters is what they had-- information stating that Russian intelligence believe Mrs. Clinton was behind the whole Trump/Russia conspiracy theory.
So-- either"
1. Russia had infiltrated the Clinton campaign by the summer of 2016.

or

2. Russia was just throwing out BS about Clinton in the hopes that American or its allied intelligence agencies would pick up on it and actions based upon it.

You rejected the former. Which is ok. But if it is all just "lies" what else did Russia spread lies about?
And now we know that the FBI has known since Dec 2016 that Steele's main source for his dossier was a guy the FBI had investigated for being a Russian agent, or at least connected with Russian intelligence.

We’ve since seen transcripts that show Mike Flynn telling Sergey Kislyak in real time that Trump was aware of the communications between the two (and John Ratcliffe is withholding at least one transcript of a call between the men).

We have known for about, oh three years, that Flynn was directed by the campaign to communicate with Kisylak.
Why wouldn't they? That was Flynn's job.

Certainly, Russia would have reason to believe that Flynn’s efforts to undermine sanctions were directed by Trump.

"Undermine"? Kisylak was asked that Russia not overreact. Was the objective by Obama for Russia to go crazy?

Flynn’s forgetfulness about whether Trump ordered him to undermine sanctions went to the core question of whether Trump worked with Russia in their efforts to throw him the election.

So the quid pro quo was to protect a couple dozen low level Russian diplomats and a couple of weekend retreats? Kind of a steep downturn from helping out those Russian oligarchs we used to hear about as the reason.

And that sentencing memo was the moment when Billy Barr threw two different lawyers — one a lifetime associate of his — into the project of creating a false excuse to undermine the prosecution of Flynn.

In other words, discovering that reasonable doubt exists.
Its part of the ethics of a prosecutor-- can't just throw mud on the wall and see what sticks.

More recently, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall told the DC Circuit that Barr had secret reasons for overturning the prosecution.

That isn't what he said. But in any event, there are no such things as secret evidence in a criminal trial.[/QUOTE]

 

[Athanasius68]

Again, you imply that the FBI just started the investigation of the Trump campaign simply because of what they heard from Russian sources. This is wrong. They got multiple similar messages, including from allies (Australians- Papadopoulos) and from other cases such as Flynn's and Manafort's lobbying activities. Now, which close associates of Clinton had close ties to Russia?

Its not against the law to lobby-- its certainly not evidence of a conspiracy.
Nor is Russia seeking to screw with the election.

And the term "Russian sources" is vague because you do not differentiate among the different Russian sources. The CIA right now probably uses Russian sources which have been recruited to provide the US with Russian secrets. Steele did something similar with his Russian sources. These sources are not working for the interests of the Russian governments( even though moles may be government employees). So, one cannot ue the generic term "Russian sources" to group together every Russian citizen. Some Russian source work for the west and other Russian sources work for their country.

Yep-- its vague. In other words, we don't know whether in fact Steele was played by Russian intelligence. Maybe Russia did indeed spread lies about the Clinton campaign being responsible for the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory.
So-- since we don't know-- can't very well prosecute somebody criminally when we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was even a conspiracy.

 

[pamak]

Yep-- its vague. In other words, we don't know whether in fact Steele was played by Russian intelligence. Maybe Russia did indeed spread lies about the Clinton campaign being responsible for the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory.
So-- since we don't know-- can't very well prosecute somebody criminally when we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was even a conspiracy.

But the point remains that the FBI still had not only the right but the rsponsibility to open an INVESTIGATION about these claims and when people like Flynn choose to lie during interview, the FBI can and SHOULD prosecute them for their lies. Same with Papadopoulos!

 

[joko104]

If the truth every got in the way of a lie for most Democrats I can't think of an example.

 

[American]

Then you should be happy with investigating the Trump family for all the dealings they said they were not going to do but did any way and then lied about for the last 4 years.

You're welcome to start an entire thread on this statement, and prove your case. Good luck.

 

[American]

But the point remains that the FBI still had not only the right but the rsponsibility to open an INVESTIGATION about these claims and when people like Flynn choose to lie during interview, the FBI can and SHOULD prosecute them for their lies. Same with Papadopoulos!

No they didn't, they lied and made up the entire story, then lied some more to justify an investigation to a judge.

 

[pamak]

No they didn't, they lied and made up the entire story, then lied some more to justify an investigation to a judge.

Your claims have been thoroughly debunked. Papadopoulos DID plead guilty. And we have a long thread discussing the Flynn case which also shows that the FBI had every reason to investigate Flynn too (.https://debatepolitics.com/threads/appeals-court-denies-michael-flynn-and-justice-departments-effort-to-end-his-case.417016/page-19) The issue of mishandling FISA applications (in 2017) for Page does not change the fact that the FBI had valid reasons to open an investigation. The same IG who critticized the FBI for the FISA procedures, also said that the FBI had valid reasons to open the investigation

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

There is zero question about what Comey and his bunch did, at this point, and that Obama knew all about it. Stop trying to deny what's common knowledge.

Looks like the timely truth will be coming out soon. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...llusion-hillary-clinton-email-probe-documents

 

[Integrityrespec]

Nope, he was the guy who handled the investigation into Flynn

“ In subsequent discovery filings, we noted that beginning in January 2020, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri has been conducting an ongoing review of the FBI investigation that led to charges in this case. ECF Docs. 181-1, 187-1, 210-1, 230-1 and 235-1. Pursuant to that continuing review, an interview was recently conducted of the former case agent, SA William Barnett, who handled the counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn, and was thereafter assigned to the Special Counsel’s Office investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. The FBI 302 of that interview is affixed hereto as Exhibit 1.

More and more evidence that the democrats, Hillary and her campaign, the FBI and the intelligence agencies as well as Obama knew the collusion accusations and the evidence was false and completely fabricated but let is go.

 

[Athanasius68]

But the point remains that the FBI still had not only the right but the rsponsibility to open an INVESTIGATION about these claims and when people like Flynn choose to lie during interview, the FBI can and SHOULD prosecute them for their lies. Same with Papadopoulos!

If whatever is said is not "material" to anything, then, no, the relevant law doesn't support such a prosecution.

 

[pamak]

If whatever is said is not "material" to anything, then, no, the relevant law doesn't support such a prosecution.

What you said is an obvious statement that finds both of us in agreement. Our disagreement is about the materiality of Flynn's lie and the arguments that Flynn and Barr make to claim that his lie was not material to investigation

 

[Athanasius68]

What you said is an obvious statement that finds both of us in agreement. Our disagreement is about the materiality of Flynn's lie and the arguments that Flynn and Barr make to claim that his lie was not material to investigation

Which is a decision of the prosecutor-- not the courts.

 

[pamak]

Which is a decision of the prosecutor-- not the courts.

We disgaree about the role of the prosecutor and the freedom the judge has to accept the prosecutor's claim. So, do not present as a fact your claim that the immateriality or not of the lie that Flynn told the investigators is solely determined by the prosecution's decision

Second, even if one accepts that a certain decision depends soley on what a prosecutor says, it does not mean that one cannot debate if it is correct or not. So, it makes no sense to clam such decision is correct because the proper decision maker says so.