READ: The FBI's surveillance warrants for Carter Page

[zimmer]

...and Steele's confidential sources in Russia that he's built over the years. The FBI had worked with Steele before and had verified him and his sources as credible.

Is he credible?

They knew the dossier was not credible right out of the gate... yet Obama’s FBI used it to get FISA’s.

Like a 3rd World ****hole Banana Republic.

Thanks Obama.

 

[zimmer]

Of course Steele is credible. And, thus far, nothing in the Dossier has been shown to be false.

All the RW whining about him is just smoke and mirrors.

Still sticking to that story?

Tell me... after all these lies to you from your party and its Goebbels Media... you still have faith in them?

 

[zimmer]

...or a cover up.

Now... who tried to cover what up?

And had Clinton won... would we have learned about this festering, rancid, perverted abuse of a political machine?

Or would the deep state have gotten worse?

 

[zimmer]

This thread is an excellent example of two realities. There’s the facts crowd and then there are trumpies.

The bar for a warrant is low. This one met that bar.

Would you like to alter that statement?

 

[zimmer]

What's wrong with you.

Please go back and read your posts...

And those of your side on this thread...

 

[Moot]

They’ve discredited themselves...

Durham will fill in the lacunae and bring charges.

Horowitz asked both Barr and Durham if they had any relevant evidence to add or that would alter the IG report and they both said..."no".

See 3:23...

 

[Moot]

Now... who tried to cover what up?

And had Clinton won... would we have learned about this festering, rancid, perverted abuse of a political machine?

Or would the deep state have gotten worse?

There is no deep state.

 

[zimmer]

There is no deep state.

Would you like to issue a correction for the dozens of false statements regarding Trump, FISA, the Goebbels Media, etc.? An apology?

Don’t you feel duped? Like a sucker? Foolish? Dumb?
###

Amazon link below:

Robot Check

NYT Columnist Admits Deep State Exists...To Protect Us From Trump
Listen to the Article!

8791 Shares Tweet 140 Print
By Kyle Drennen | October 7, 2019 4:34 PM EDT
Appearing on NBC’s Today show on Monday, New York Times columnist James B. Stewart hawked his new book, Deep State, by hailing bureaucrats undermining the Trump administration as noble public servants “protecting the Constitution” and the American people from the President. He denounced any criticism of the “deep state” as “very dangerous.”

“The disclosure of a second whistleblower with firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine has led to new accusations by the President that the so-called ‘deep state’ is seeking to undermine his presidency,” co-host Savannah Guthrie declared as she introduced Stewart. She then asked her guest: “And his central allegation is that there are people inside these government agencies actively working against him. What did you find?”

Stewart admitted: “Well, you meet these characters in my book, and the fact is, in a sense, he’s right. There is a deep state...”

NYT Columnist Admits Deep State Exists...To Protect Us From Trump

Democrats' Deep-State Denial Morphs Into Deep-State Salute

For years, Democrats and liberal commentators mocked and derided the notion of an American "deep state" fundamentally opposed to President Trump as a baseless conspiracy theory. But then something funny happened. In the space of a few weeks, the same people have decided not only that there really is an unelected coterie of unfireable Washington bureaucrats working behind the scenes to undermine the president and overturn the 2016 election results, but also that it’s a good thing.

Democrats' Deep-State Denial Morphs Into Deep-State Salute | RealClearPolitics!

 

[Common Sense 1]

Horowitz asked both Barr and Durham if they had any relevant evidence to add or that would alter the IG report and they both said..."no".

See 3:23...

Lets think about that for just a minute. Maybe, just maybe because there is an active criminal investigation in progress.
A sitting Grand Jury. So the AG would not speak of that now! Nice try but a fail.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 9, 2019
Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham | USAO-CT | Department of Justice

 

[Moot]

Would you like to issue a correction for the dozens of false statements regarding Trump, FISA, the Goebbels Media, etc.? An apology?

Don’t you feel duped? Like a sucker? Foolish? Dumb?
###

By Kyle Drennen | October 7, 2019 4:34 PM EDT
Appearing on NBC’s Today show on Monday, New York Times columnist James B. Stewart hawked his new book, Deep State, by hailing bureaucrats undermining the Trump administration as noble public servants “protecting the Constitution” and the American people from the President. He denounced any criticism of the “deep state” as “very dangerous.”

Amazon link below:

Robot Check

Not sure what your point is. The book praises those who undermine the Trump administration as "patriots" and "heroes". The reviews are mixed.

 

[Moot]

Lets think about that for just a minute. Maybe, just maybe because there is an active criminal investigation in progress.
A sitting Grand Jury. So the AG would not speak of that now! Nice try but a fail.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 9, 2019
Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham | USAO-CT | Department of Justice

That's not what Horowitz said. Horowitz testified under oath that said he asked both Barr and Durham if they had any relevant information that he needed to add or correct in his report and they both said no. So someone is lying...and the only ones that didn't testify under oath and had a motive to lie are Barr and Durham. So as it stands, I'm putting my money on the IG report as the only objective and unbiased report on the matter.

 

[trouble13]

What i would like to know from Horowitz is what was the adequate predicate that he determined was sufficient reason to launch the investigations. He says he found no evidence of political bias, which is an extraordinarily generous assement, but he did not explain what evidence they had that justifies the survialiance that took place. I guess what i want to know is what is the standard or threshhold that's required because it seems rather low.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

That's not what Horowitz said. Horowitz testified under oath that said he asked both Barr and Durham if they had any relevant information that he needed to add or correct in his report and they both said no. So someone is lying...and the only ones that didn't testify under oath and had a motive to lie are Barr and Durham. So as it stands, I'm putting my money on the IG report as the only objective and unbiased report on the matter.

I would not call his report unbias. I think he clearly had a bias to protect the reputation of the dept. Which is fine, i have no contention over the FBI having an advocate to defend themselves. I just wouldnt call it unbias.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Moot]

I would not call his report unbias. I think he clearly had a bias to protect the reputation of the dept. Which is fine, i have no contention over the FBI having an advocate to defend themselves. I just wouldnt call it unbias.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The justice Department has a long standing feud with the FBI...so anything they say could be considered bias, too. Especially, if the disparaging remarks comes from bias Barr.

Anyway, there were plenty of things the report found wrong with the FBI handling of the investigation, but political bias wasn't one of them.

 

[trouble13]

The justice Department has a long standing feud with the FBI...so anything they say could be considered bias, too. Especially, if the disparaging remarks comes from bias Barr.

Anyway, there were plenty of things the report found wrong with the FBI handling of the investigation, but political bias wasn't one of them.

I think thats the important part, what they got wrong. Regardless of the motives, something they csnt prove, the focus should be on the mistakes.

How did they happen and what can we do to prevent reoccurrences is two questions we need answers for. We also need accountability for those responsible.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Moot]

I think thats the important part, what they got wrong. Regardless of the motives, something they csnt prove, the focus should be on the mistakes.

How did they happen and what can we do to prevent reoccurrences is two questions we need answers for. We also need accountability for those responsible.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I assume by "we" you mean the FBI. Before the report even came out, Wray said the department was making the IG report's recommended changes.

 

[eohrnberger]

Lets think about that for just a minute. Maybe, just maybe because there is an active criminal investigation in progress.
A sitting Grand Jury. So the AG would not speak of that now! Nice try but a fail.

It certainly doesn't make sense to jeopardizing an ongoing criminal case by having an IG report reveal too much or the wrong things before that criminal investigation is ready to go public.

The IG's scope is limited to just the DOJ / FBI, and also to current federal employs of these agencies, and, federal employs of these agencies have a right to not talk to the IG. None of these restrictions apply to Durham, so Durham is likely to be working from a position of more information than the IG was.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 9, 2019
Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham | USAO-CT | Department of Justice

"we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened"

Professional disagreements over cases a that level of legal practice is far from uncommon, in fact, it's more often the case than not. So, nothing unusual.

 

[trouble13]

I assume by "we" you mean the FBI. Before the report even came out, Wray said the department was making the IG report's recommended changes.

Well yes includes the fbi, congress, the courts, the doj, its all part of we.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Gondwanaland]

Don't know if this has been pointed out yet, the thread is rather long. But this was an interesting revelation on the so-called 'pee tapes'.... turns out they knew from pretty much the start that that part of the Steele Dossier was utter bullcrap.

interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting ... he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting." For one example, while Steele claimed Trump's supposed sexual activities at the Moscow Ritz Carlton had been "confirmed by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump's alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was 'rumor and speculation.'"

Horowitz report deconstructs the Steele dossier

 

[RAMOSS]

Don't know if this has been pointed out yet, the thread is rather long. But this was an interesting revelation on the so-called 'pee tapes'.... turns out they knew from pretty much the start that that part of the Steele Dossier was utter bullcrap.

Horowitz report deconstructs the Steele dossier

Ok You got a far right opinion piece from a news paper that is extremist, and unreliable. Is that supposed to be significant?

 

[Gondwanaland]

Ok You got a far right opinion piece from a news paper that is extremist, and unreliable. Is that supposed to be significant?

Can't address the facts, huh? Not surprised.

 

[vesper]

So much is redacted? It's going to be difficult to understand what the true story is unless the entire document can be read.

But we do know the findings of Horowitz's investigation and the FBI lied to the FISC about Page and others. And that they did heavily rely on the Trump dossier.

Free Beacon has released a new montage of reporting over the past months that were down right lies often pushed by Democrat congress critters and what Horowitz revealed about the FISA abuse by the bad actors in the FBI and DOJ. It is just too good not to share.