Reactions To The IG Report Released Today
[guest post by Dana]
If you’re interested, consider this an open thread about the release of the IG Report, which can be found here.
The voluminous report, released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, identified 17 separate inaccuracies across three surveillance applications, effectively inflating the justification for monitoring former foreign policy adviser Carter Page starting in the fall of 2016.
Horowitz, nevertheless, concluded the FBI was legally justified in launching its inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and that there was no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations.”
Reactions:
Attorney General William Barr on Monday rejected a key conclusion of an investigation conducted by his own agency’s watchdog that a probe into Russian interference into the 2016 election was justified.
Barr…called the FBI’s investigation into Moscow’s interference “intrusive” and said it had been launched “on the thinnest of suspicions” — even though the Justice Department’s inspector general report released Monday concluded that the overall probe was justified and not motivated by politics.
“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr said.
Barr added that “the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.”
***
U.S. Attorney John Durham said Monday he disagrees with the Justice Department inspector general’s conclusion that the FBI was justified in 2016 when it launched an investigation into President Trump’s campaign.
Mr. Durham was tasked by Attorney General William P. Barr earlier this year to oversee a separate investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. His investigation is covering much of the same territory as Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.
[…]
Mr. Durham says he’s reached a different conclusion.
“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,” Mr. Durham said in a statement.
Mr. Durham noted the inspector general’s authority was limited to information within the Justice Department, while his investigation found information from “other persons and entities both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”
***
President Trump said Monday the findings of an inspector general’s report on the FBI’s surveillance of his 2016 campaign were “far worse than what I ever thought possible.”
The president told reporters at the White House that he’s been briefed on Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s conclusions. The report found multiple errors and uncorroborated claims in the FBI’s applications for surveillance warrants, but said there was no political bias evident.
“It’s a disgrace what’s happened with the things that were done to our country,” Mr. Trump said. “They fabricated evidence and they lied to the courts. This was an attempted overthrow and a lot of people were in on it, and they got caught.”
He called it “a very sad day … probably something that’s never happened in the history of our country.”
(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I thank Dana for writing this post. I lack the energy to weigh in at length. I think Allahpundit sums up the whole thing best: “Today the dominant emotion in every major player in this saga should be humility, but we can’t find an ounce of it among them collectively.”
I predicted long ago that the IG would find the investigation was properly predicated. I also predicted that it would find mistakes by the FBI, because (as I said) an IG always finds mistakes. But I admit to being surprised and dismayed at the extent of the FBI’s failures to disclose important information in the Page FISA applications.
This reminds me in some ways of the Mueller report. Because of the wild and absurd heightened expectations by partisans (Trump was engaged in an active criminal conspiracy with Russia! The FBI planned a coup), the big headline ends up being that the absurd expectations didn’t pan out. If the media gave us the “collusion hoax” then Trump gave us the “coup hoax” and even though no sane person believed either, the big story ends up being that the hoax is a hoax. But in each case, the big dopey headline obscures what should be the real story. For the Mueller report, the real story should have been Trump’s rampant corrupt obstruction. For the IG report, the real story should be an incredibly slipshod and unprofessional handling of a critical FISA application — and that description is being very charitable.
Trump has spent three years undermining the rule of law. If the IG is to be believed, the FBI just contributed its own heaping helping of reasons to worry about the rule of law.
Where, again, is the humility?
Hello.
Dana (643cd6) — 12/9/2019 @ 11:44 amIG Report is out. Haven’t read the entire thing yet, but theconclusions is pretty clear.
The first is below but summarizes as “The investigation was properly predicated as was not started based on the steele dossier”
The 2nd is that the FBI really stacked the deck for the Fisa application.
The 3rd is that there’s no evidence it was politically motivated.
I look forward to seeing some procedural changes to address the issues in the 2nd point above and protect all of our civil liberties. But I don’t expect that will happen. It’s sad really. Barr could issue guidance to the FBI today to address some of these issues.
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 11:52 amThe Durham statement really bothers me.
If he has evidence put it forward where we can see it.
if he doesn’t he has no business speaking.
Making a vague statement at this point that’s not supported by available facts serves no purpose beyond the administrations political goals.
Any of the lawyers / LEO here available to weigh in on if his statement was proper?
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 11:55 amDurham and Barr(Barr also issued a statement) are saying that the investigation was based on a thin record.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/9/2019 @ 11:57 amSammy, i’ll take that seriously when the people who say it take it seriously. AFAIK neither Sessions nor Barr have taken any steps to address the DOJ procedures around what constitutes a reasonable suspicion. Since Barr doesn’t act like he means it, I don’t think Barr means it.
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 11:59 amIt’s like when some celebrity takes a private Jet to a conference on climate change. Why would I believe they mean what they say when they don’t act like it?
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:00 pmSimple thought experiment (which, of course, can never be proven one way or the other).
If the exact same quantum of evidence implicated the Hillary Clinton campaign, would an investigation have been launched? Would a FISA warrant have been sought?
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:01 pmComey’s big speech about emails right before the election makes me think it would. Mcabe’s big leak was actually damaging to Hillary…doesn’t look to me like the FBI loved her. Looks to me like she was very good at being corrupt.
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:04 pmBTW, I have not read the report, but what about the part regarding the FISA warrant application and leaving out critical information?
That, in my mind (maybe because I am a lawyer) is serious. Misleading a court, especially a secret court, to get a warrant is a more serious problem than starting an investigation based on flimsy evidence.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:12 pmHammered them about that, rightfully so. But I see it that starting an investigation on a pretext and without proper basis is bad. Also, for all the loud noises about spying, no one has alleged that the information gathered was misused in some way.
It looks like the FBI really thought they had a legitimate need for an investigation, followed the rules for the most part, and didn’t present a full picture to the FISA court.
Time123 (c9382b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:25 pmHammered them about that, rightfully so.
If I was a judge on the FISA court, I would be plenty steamed.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:31 pmThe Dow is up; unemployment is down; the holidays are here and the folks in flyover country are fat and happy– but what’s with this 10-cent light bulb…
See Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 for details.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:33 pmWhy? From what I know they almost never turn down a warren request.
Time123 (de0f5d) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:34 pm“McCabe’s big leak was actually damaging to Hillary…doesn’t look to me like the FBI loved her.”
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:04 pm
McCabe sat on the emails found on Carlos Danger’s laptop, and more honest types in the FBI took note. This forced the leak, so as to get ahead of a storyline that McCabe was covering for her.
At the conclusion of the FBI interview with Hillary, one agent called her “Mrs. President.”
Munroe (4ae3dd) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:43 pmWhy? From what I know they almost never turn down a warren request.
Because the courts trust the government to be professional. Same thing happens when they apply for a regular warrant.
If it turns out that the trust was misplaced, then they are going to have a problem.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:50 pm@14, bold claim. I missed that in the last IG report. Can you quote the relevant passage?
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:51 pmBL, my point is that the trust is misplaced and the system does not protect our right to privacy. My evidence for the assertion is the extremely low rate of rejection by the FISA court. It’s not actually zero, but it’s very close.
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:53 pm10. Time123 (c9382b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:25 pm
This is very important. Also, they didn’t get any politically useful information.
And were trying to avoid getting that.
The FBI wanted to get along with both political parties.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:55 pmJames Comey
@Comey
So it was all lies. No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America. https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-the-truth-is-finally-out-the-fbi-fulfilled-its-mission/2019/12/09
__ _
Stephen Miller
@redsteeze
“James Comey did nothing wrong” – A Washington Post Perspective by James Comey.
__ _
Laurence Watkins
@thelarrywatkins
·
Worked for Katie Hill
__ _
4MANGANG
harkin (337580) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:59 pm@garyjf75
·
We thought they spied on two Americans, we now know it was FOUR. James Comey’s FBI ignored guidelines and rules in spying on Trump’s campaign in 2016. Within one week of the investigation opening, the FBI was surveilling the campaign and four specific individuals associated
_
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/837996746236182529
Good times.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/9/2019 @ 1:48 pmI think Durham needs to wait until all his work is wrapped up in a bow before he will release his full findings
steveg (354706) — 12/9/2019 @ 2:06 pmIf you read his statement carefully, he points towards the fact that his investigation is wider and deeper than the IG’s report. The IG plays slow pitch softball and Durham is Major League hardball.
When the IG says he couldn’t find x,y or z, it only means that x,y,z weren’t where his rules allowed him to look. Durham can follow his leads as far and as deep as the evidence requires.
This IG report is pretty damning. There must be institutional overhauling to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/9/2019 @ 2:30 pm@22 going on three years without so much as talking about reforms to the FISA court.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/9/2019 @ 2:40 pmBut at least the investigation was properly founded and not influenced by political bias.
Looks like more CYA! The deep state knows how to protect its own.
asset (037eeb) — 12/9/2019 @ 2:54 pm23
On technical basis, there was a low bar to initiate the investigations.
Why?
Because there were no policies to address opening up an investigation of a rival political opponent.
The issue is if was properly predicated…not that all the “i’s” and t’s” were dotted/crossed.
The former is sorely lacking and deeply troubling… the latter re-enforces the mantra that any prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
How’s this for a conundrum?
If you have issues with Trump asking foreign powers to investigate is political rival for what you believe for political purposes…why aren’t you outraged by the Obama administration investigating their political rivals based on the flimsiest of “evidence”?
At least with Ukraine, you have strong evidence in Hunter Biden’s role and Joe Biden’s public admission. Whereas the massive counterintel investigation by the Obama administration against political comapaing of opposing party was started solely on tip from foreign government, and nothing else according from the IG report. Within days of that , 4 campaign officials targeted and picked because they’d been to Russia or talked to Russians. Talk about flimsy evidence!!
Yes, the IG stated that it was technically possible thanks to the “low threshold” the FBI has for counterintel investigations. He did state that he was “concerned” and about the “intrusive investigation” techniques that could impact constitutionally protect activiy”.
I mean, think about where the IG is coming from… he’s not going to throw bombs and left and right on his own agency. But, what’s stated there is really bloody damning and I’m still trying to absorb it all.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:06 pmI give it a 6 out of 10
mg (8cbc69) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:27 pmand expect nothing from barr and his cronies from ruby ridge
@25
1. The IG exists specifically to investigate and criticize their own agency.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:28 pm2. According the IG that evidence you don’t like is sufficient to start an investigation. If we don’t like that we can change the laws, or the DOJ procedures. I keep pointing out that Trump has not even tried to do so.
3. Your formulation that this was against political comapaing of opposing party ignores that the IG found no evidence that political bias impacted the investigation.
4. At least with Ukraine, you have strong evidence in Hunter Biden’s role and Joe Biden’s public admission. This is not a factually accurate characterization. The prosecutor in question was fired because he was corrupt and was not investigating wrongdoing.
5. The ask wasn’t to investigate, it was to announce an investigation.
6. There’s no evidence submitted yet that the white house was actually interested in fighting corruption. They’ll say it on the news, but no one has testified to it under oath.
@25, you’re right that there are no special protections for people associated with political campaigns. They’re covered by the same rules as your or I. As they should be.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:29 pmBarr and Dunham are right to disagree. The IG Report is narrowly focused and didn’t want to say the FISA warrant was not justified UNLESS they had a specific clear evidence to the contrary.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:42 pmIG Report was like this:
Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe did you let politics influence your decisions?
No.
Well, there you have it. No evidence of political bias!
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:44 pm“why aren’t you outraged by the Obama administration investigating their political rivals based on the flimsiest of “evidence”?”
This didn’t happen, the report explicitly says so.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:45 pm@25
True. But the IG report is very pendandent and very dry report. There’s not going to be a section in there that says “Bombshell Here!!” “Bombshell There!!”.
I’m not arguing otherwise.
He found political bias… but couldn’t prove that the actions taken was caused by bias. That’s the distinction. Furthermore, the IG isn’t best equipped to determine that as he could only interview current officials in the DOJ. (ie, no interview with McCabe/Strozk/Comey/etc). Durnham would have to be the individual to ascertain that.
The prosecutor *was* looking into Burisma.
So, yes, that is a factually accurate charaterization.
It’s factually accurate that Hunter Biden was on the board of director. That, in itself, isnt that a big deal.
The big deal was that Joe Biden was the point person of all things Ukraine under Obama. THAT, at the very least, appears to have corrupt conflict of interest, even if he does nothing that impacted his son’s company. Hell, several states department reported that “this looks bad”.
It was both.
Sonland/Rudy wanted the public announcement as a means to hold Ukraine accountable.
We have their words… up to us to determine if we believe them.
There ought to be some policy that says “make damn sure that you have something, or there will be a political backlash” to some effect.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:51 pmUm… report says the investigation was opened by a tip from friendly foreign power and FISA warrants was sourced by Steele Dossier.
Yeah… those are the flimsiest of evidences possible.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:55 pmWhembly, I appreciate the discussion but i think we’re making a mistake to keep adding points. So I’m gong to pick 1 thing and dive into that. I just wanted to be clear about why so you didn’t think I was ignoring your other comments for no good reason.
The IG report is supposed to be dry, factual and thorough. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The point is to hold people who break internal rules accountable and identify where there are gaps in the rules & procedures. The IG stated clearly several times that they had no evidence of political bias.
Here’s what the IG said about interviews. It looks like they were able to talk to almost everyone they wanted to.
Time123 (6e0727) — 12/9/2019 @ 4:08 pm@43 I don’t disagree with you regarding that the IG is supposed to be dry, factual and thorough.
Here’s the caveat, he only has jurisdiction within the DOJ and only with those still working. Those outside of the DOJ the IG doesn’t have subpoena power to compel testimony.
Comey and Strokz refused to request continuation of security clearance, so the interviews with those two would be incomplete as the IG wouldn’t be able to interview them on classified information.
So, while the whole report is pretty damning, it’s not a criminal investigation. That will come if/when Barr/Durnham continue their investigation, and both their statements today alludes that the IG will not have the last word. (which I don’t think anything will happen to be honest, but they’re prosecutors who does have subpoena power and can empanel grand jury).
But from what I’ve read, and seen online, this report is really damning and it’s unfortunate. It’ll take a generation, at least, for the FBI/DOJ to clean this stain off their reputations.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/9/2019 @ 4:19 pm“Um… report says the investigation was opened by a tip from friendly foreign power and FISA warrants was sourced by Steele Dossier.”
“investigating their political rivals” implies bias. “Obama administration” implies direction from Obama himself or senior leadership.
Beyond that, I have the same opinion as Time123, there’s been no initiative to curtail the power of these sorts of warrants, so it sure feels like it’s only a problem when the “wrong” people get investigated.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/9/2019 @ 4:23 pmFrom what I’ve read in the report the investigation was proper and the fisa application was badly done. If there’s evidence to support the claims of a “coup” or the “deep state” being out to get Trump it still hasn’t been provided.
Haven’t read much online because I expect most pundits had their conclusions written beforehand and don’t
Time123 (ded883) — 12/9/2019 @ 4:38 pmIn 2016 what the FBI was actually trying to do was to satisfy the Democrats while doing nothing to anger the Republicans if they won.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/9/2019 @ 4:39 pmWasn’t the first FISA rejected? For a court that almost never rejects anything. Then the FBI put their “sourced” material into the application to get it approved, neglecting to mention where and how it came about.
NJRob (8fe6b0) — 12/9/2019 @ 4:54 pmSo my take from this is that
1. The FBI met the standards.
2. The standards are low.
3. The Trump administration and Congress have done nothing to attempt to increase the required standards.
Which leads me to…
4. The outrage isn’t based on the low standards (though they may be), it’s entirely based on who was being investigated, so it’s just the usual political noise.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:12 pmBarr’s rejection of the IG conclusion smells like the misleading spin he put on the Mueller report before it came out. . I don’t trust this lapdog AG.
Paul Montagu (c32cf0) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:14 pm@12…
Fred (056bb0) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:21 pmThe stock market seems like a strange metric. It has gone up under every President in the last 60 years except for the younger Bush. It did pretty good under Obama.
https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1204193531172139008
This is lit.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:26 pm“bold claim. I missed that in the last IG report. Can you quote the relevant passage?”
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/9/2019 @ 12:51 pm
Pages 7-9. Dig for it yourself.
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o20180413.pdf
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/andrew-mccabe-collusion-obama-justice-department-clinton-campaign/
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:27 pm‘If there’s evidence to support the claims of a “coup” or the “deep state” being out to get Trump it still hasn’t been provided.’
Time123 (ded883) — 12/9/2019 @ 4:38 pm
Viva le Obliviousness.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:35 pmTime123
steveg (354706) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:36 pmThe IG report noted it could not question Comey because Comey was no longer an employee of the FBI and he decided not to renew his security clearance so the IG had no power to compel him to answer questions or take the 5th. The US Attorney can
Couple the violations found in the Appendix of the report with the NSA violations of privacy rights of US citizens as set forth in the FISA Court’s April 26, 2017 order and opinion which the Court characterized as “widespread” and which created a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” and you’ve got some serious shenanigans going on.
Walter Cronanty (f48cd5) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:44 pm@47, thank you, i’d missed that in my first read.
Time123 (653992) — 12/9/2019 @ 5:57 pmWhere did it note that? Comey said he cooperated with the IG. The report said that Comey was interviewed. The weird thing in the report is that you can do all kinds of word searches, but not for “Comey”.
Paul Montagu (c32cf0) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:06 pmNever mind. Found it. Still weird about the word searches.
Paul Montagu (c32cf0) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:22 pmNo sentient being wants the corrupt criminal traitor cretin Trump for President. If Deep State was out to deep-six him, I praise them and thank them for all their efforts on behalf of our country and for the human race. I am only sorry that they did not succeed.
(I apologize for the double post, but everybody on this thread seems to be missing the forest for the trees.)
nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:33 pmProof that this report is damning: My local left wing newspaper totally ignored it. Not one news article.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:37 pm“ If Deep State was out to deep-six him, I praise them and thank them for all their efforts”
I praise you for admitting it.
__ _
Robby Soave
@robbysoave
The FBI got important information wrong over and over again but still spied and snooped as much as it wanted… How is this good news for the FBI?
__ _
Kris Kinder
@kris_kinder
·
“Mistakes were made we will do better”
__ _
Libertarian Film
@libertarianfilm
·
It was the same with the Lois Lerner using the IRS to go after conservative groups, and experiencing “crashes” on six servers that destroyed the evidence. It was just a lot of “mistakes,” that’s all, no cover-up.
__ _
Jerry Bohl, Jr.
harkin (337580) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:43 pm@jr_bohl
.
…. and the Progressives STILL want to put them in charge of confiscating guns?
__
Kim Strassel’s tweetstorm:
Her oped is here (behind paywall):
whembly (c30c83) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:52 pmhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/a-trail-of-fbi-abuse-11575938300?shareToken=st64c149b436bb463e8aa02a65e112095a
The funny thing is, at the time, the Trump campaign denied, in the strongest possible terms, that Carter Page had anything to do with them:
Trump camp backs away from adviser suspected of Kremlin ties
(emphasis added)
If you were trying to “investigate a U.S. presidential campaign,” wouldn’t you investigate someone who was actually, uh, involved with it?
In truth, Barr’s description of this as “an investigation of a political campaign” is a flat-out lie whose sole purpose is to keep the faithful in the desired state of perpetual grievance and perceived persecution.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:55 pmRachel Bovard
@rachelbovard
·
Today we learned that the gov’t can easily manipulate info to justify surveillance on you. And also, the gov’t lied to us for years about the war in Afghanistan while spending a trillion dollars and sending our friends and family to die there.
Banner day.
__ _
Meanwhile……
Paul Sperry
harkin (337580) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:02 pm@paulsperry_
BREAKING: ABC, NBC and CBS all switch back to regular programming, stop covering impeachment hearings live as Republican committee members show video evidence of Biden & son’s quid pro quo and lay out reasons House is investigating the wrong man
__ _
‘The funny thing is, at the time, the Trump campaign denied, in the strongest possible terms, that Carter Page had anything to do with them
….
In truth, Barr’s description of this as “an investigation of a political campaign” is a flat-out lie whose sole purpose is to keep the faithful in the desired state of perpetual grievance and perceived persecution.’
Dave (1bb933) — 12/9/2019 @ 6:55 pm
It’s a lie, because the Trump campaign is truthful. Awesome!
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:04 pm…. and the Progressives STILL want to put them in charge of confiscating guns?
Why should a man who has a gun worry about somebody confiscating it? If you’re scared that somebody can take your gun away, you’re probably not the kind of person who should have one in the first place.
And let me tell you something else, folks. Until 2016, the corrupt criminal traitor cretin Trump believed that the only people who should have guns are the ones who could afford to “donate” $100,000 to the New York Police Department Athletic League, and that’s a fact you can take to Deutsche Bank.
Cute squirrel, though.
nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:04 pmWhat’s this– the third multi-hundred page report this year from these bureaucratic jerkoffs?
Imagine. The tale of a trillion dollar, now 18 year long war, sold to Americans AGAIN by a pack of lying jackals being relegated to a below-the-fold story– thanks to the paper jockeying, idiotic infighting between two major political parties who fail to compromise and which fewer and fewer voters actually belong to. Neither representing the best interests of the U.S., just the few special interests who bought them. Imagine no more. They’ve done more damage to America in the past four decades than any adversary could have dreamed. This year Pair-Of-Deuces-Putin isn’t just smiling– he’s laughing.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:18 pm54/@59. Apparently neither of you have seen that video of the real nutty squirrel doing dry mass shooting runs in San Diego who was tipped to the coppers. ‘Course he hasn’t actually committed any shooting crime — he insists the video, made in a SD hotel room- was just “art” — from his jail cell after arrest.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:24 pmGun laws are a filter for the harmless.
nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:29 pm“16) He straightforwardly lays out facts. Those facts produce a pattern of FBI playing the FISA Court–overstating some info, omitting other info, cherrypicking details. Americans can look at totality and make their own judgment as to “why” FBI behaved in such a manner.”
lol
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:30 pmI agree with you about the “bureaucratic jerkoffs” and their make-work to justify their phony-baloney jobs, at the same time that the corrupt criminal traitor cretin is cutting off food stamps to the unemployed.
nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2019 @ 7:55 pmNobody calling this a complete exoneration of the FBI yet?
Jerryskids (702a61) — 12/9/2019 @ 8:03 pmComey has proven himself to be either a liar or a fool. Reading the IG report, he’s the most clueless Director of the FBI – ever. Just signed off on FISA warrants without even reading them. So he says.
Just let his low level staffers investigate Trump without really caring what was going on. So he says. Steele dossier? Never heard of it.
To Comey that’s vindication.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/9/2019 @ 8:19 pmYeah the FBI are “Bureaucrats” Like the Army and Navy. Just Government workers – with guns. Fat, lazy soldiers. They need the discipline of the Free Market. And If only we had a private enterprise FBI looking for a “for profit” everything would be OK.
rcocean (1a839e) — 12/9/2019 @ 8:22 pmUPDATE BY PATTERICO: I thank Dana for writing this post. I lack the energy to weigh in at length. I think Allahpundit sums up the whole thing best: “Today the dominant emotion in every major player in this saga should be humility, but we can’t find an ounce of it among them collectively.”
I predicted long ago that the IG would find the investigation was properly predicated. I also predicted that it would find mistakes by the FBI, because (as I said) an IG always finds mistakes. But I admit to being surprised and dismayed at the extent of the FBI’s failures to disclose important information in the Page FISA applications.
This reminds me in some ways of the Mueller report. Because of the wild and absurd heightened expectations by partisans (Trump was engaged in an active criminal conspiracy with Russia! The FBI planned a coup), the big headline ends up being that the absurd expectations didn’t pan out. If the media gave us the “collusion hoax” then Trump gave us the “coup hoax” and even though no sane person believed either, the big story ends up being that the hoax is a hoax. But in each case, the big dopey headline obscures what should be the real story. For the Mueller report, the real story should have been Trump’s rampant corrupt obstruction. For the IG report, the real story should be an incredibly slipshod and unprofessional handling of a critical FISA application — and that description is being very charitable.
Trump has spent three years undermining the rule of law. If the IG is to be believed, the FBI just contributed its own heaping helping of reasons to worry about the rule of law.
Where, again, is the humility?
Patterico (115b1f) — 12/9/2019 @ 9:09 pmI don’t know if he is still reading, but I just unmoderated Haiku and narciso. Haiku asked a while back where I would be when the IG report came out. I’m right here, and you can be too. I made some correct predictions but so did he. We both got some things wrong too. If Comey and Trump can’t show humility, or even basic honesty, let’s show them we can do better here.
Patterico (115b1f) — 12/9/2019 @ 9:13 pmThis place sure is more enjoyable with the Col. and narciso.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:16 amAnd happyfeet.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:17 amI’d bet dollars to donuts horrowitz and wray have finished a couple bottles of 1959 Dom Perignon after releasing the report.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:20 amrip Pete Frates
mg (8cbc69) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:39 amice bucket challenge for ALS was a huge hit
Patterico, good comment on the post.
Time123 (b0628d) — 12/10/2019 @ 4:49 am@45,
You said “McCabe sat on the emails found on Carlos Danger’s laptop, and more honest types in the FBI took note. This forced the leak,”
it’s clear that McCabe leaked information. There’s no evidence that it was to cover up misdeeds on his part and it’s just as likely he was motivated to protect his reputation at the expense of Hillary Clinton.
Once again, your claims are backed up by available evidence.
Time123 (b0628d) — 12/10/2019 @ 4:52 amHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi is introducing the Chairs of various committees. I think she called Adam Schiff the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee! C BS started pre-coverage; NBC, which had te TODAY show on, a regular segment, did not break in until later.
There will be two impeachment articles; Abuse of power, meaning that Donald Trump used the powers of
his office for personal gain, and Obstruction of Congress.
Nadler speaks first. He says Trump sees himself as above the law.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:11 amNadler spoke alittle and introduced Schiff, who spoke a little, in general terms about what the aticles were and how they can’t wait (court proceedings take time and then other privilege can be claimed and more delay) and this would allow Trump to cheat in another election by seeking foreign help.
And then, when Schiff finished speaking, they left the room. The other chairs didn’t speak – they were just there for decoration. And they didn’t take any questions.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:25 am75. Time123 (b0628d) — 12/10/2019 @ 4:52 am
That’s what it was. He wanted to pretend to have wanted a further investigation of Hillary. But that could have been to cover up the fact that his attitude was the exact opposite.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:27 am27. Time123 (d54166) — 12/9/2019 @ 3:28 pm
That’s probably correct – Viktor Shokin had already stalled investigations related to Burisma (and much else) but it isn’t solidly established as true. And of course the spin given to Trump (and accepted by the Wall Street Journal editoral board within the past few days) was that he was. Although he told Giuliani in a phone call on January 23, 2019 that he’d stopped the investigations the previous year (2015) because of the pre-Yovanovich U.S. Ambassador, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, who told him to be very careful (that it had to be handled with kid gloves) and he says he decided to just do nothing because of that.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/ex-ukraine-prosecutor-claims-he-was-told-to-back-off-biden-linked-firm-probe-report
This is kind of different from contemporary reports
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ambassador-upbraids-ukraine-over-corruption-efforts/27271294.html
Giuliani went to Ukraine this past week to see him to get an update or clarification of his story.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:43 amIt could have been. But no evidence of that has been presented. No peers told the IG that they had confronted him about sitting on the laptop. No text messages between other agents stating that suspicion or even complaining that it was taking too long.
Time123 (b0628d) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:46 amPresident Trump tweets today:
“I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI…”
Once again…. if he can’t turn you into his vampire, he will just have to eliminate you.
noel (f22371) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:46 amFor an Administration that endlessly claims that they aren’t being treated “fairly”, they sure do like to demand that investigations align with their pre-determined results. Or else.
AG Barr is a quick study.
noel (f22371) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:55 amI don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me.
nk (dbc370) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:00 amHa, ha, ha ……ha! You don’t know what report ANYBODY was reading, you corrupt criminal traitor, because YOU did not read it either, you illiterate cretin.
Barr said: “The F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,”
Thinnest of suspicions? Now that’s funny. Barr and Rudy have spent a year running around the world trying to validate Russian conspiracy theories.
noel (f22371) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:07 am”Once again, your claims are backed up by available evidence.”
Time123 (b0628d) — 12/10/2019 @ 4:52 am
Thanks for the kudos!
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:10 amIt wasn’t Russia. It was Ukraine! That is what they want us to believe.
Because a couple leaders in Ukraine didn’t care for Trump’s pro-Russia political campaign? Somehow that is equivalent to Russia systematically interfering in the 2016 election. All of the Trump Administration’s own intelligence agencies say Russia did it but no… it’s Ukraine!
noel (f22371) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:26 amThe more I think about it, the focus of most of the commentary is on the wrong issue.
An “investigation” can mean no more than searching through public records (of which there are now plenty easily available because of the internet), and talking to people willing to talk to you. Journalists can conduct an “investigation.” You could investigate me by reviewing my firm’s website, Googling my name, and reviewing the cases I have been involved in. The standard for that is appropriately low.
It is where you get a warrant to tap someone’s phones and otherwise go through their private affairs – which, let us not forget, is protected by the Fourth Amendment – that there is a heightened need for scrutiny and honesty. That is in fact what the Fourth Amendment demands “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation” and issued by a neutral magistrate.
The FBI mislead a secret court to get information protected by the Fourth Amendment. If that is not viewed as serious wrongdoing, regardless of whether they were out to get the Orange man or just overzealous, then our Constitutional system is in trouble.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:36 amnoel @86. Thing is, noel, you see, the daffodil can take on Ukraine which is already under attack by Putin. The cowardly bully boy cannot take on Putin. Heck, he (and it’s doubtful ze deserves the pronoun) can’t even take on Putin, Erdogan, Kim, or the Taliban. Because he is an overcooked noodle, a cowardly weakling who knows that the secret to winning is to pick fights only with those who are weaker than you.
nk (dbc370) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:44 amIt is. That’s because Trump and his army of idiots oversold the likely conclusion: THEY WILL PROVE IT WAS A COUP!!!
As I said, it’s like the folks in the media who wildly oversold Mueller’s likely conclusion as TRUMP IS A KNOWING AND PAID RUSSIAN AGENT!! Then, when the report details areas of troubling behavior, people ignore it because the headline is: Your Wild Speculation About What This Report Would Show Turned Out To Be Wrong.
Patterico (115b1f) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:50 am“It is. That’s because Trump and his army of idiots oversold the likely conclusion: THEY WILL PROVE IT WAS A COUP!!!”
Viva le Straw Man.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:01 amEven if they could get all Senate Democrats and half of Republican Senators to vote to convict and remove Trump, there’d still be a President Pence in the White House.
That’s one stupid “coup”.
noel (f22371) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:05 amForget Trump for a moment. I know, I know, it’s like the ache of hemorrhoids. But focus.
Look at what this report, and the earlier OIG report, say about the FBI. Look at the blatant errors (if not actual bias). The IG report is talking about doing an audit on Woods procedures, going back fifteen years. FIFTEEN YEARS. Do you think that looks good for the fibbies?
Whether you have Donald Trump’s face tattooed on your chest or you use a picture of him for a dartboard, the damage done to the FBI’s credibility is astonishing. Couple this with the Whitehurst lab scandal, and I’m amazed we get any convictions with fed involvement.
Capsaicin Addict (041266) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:07 amThe ask on July 25 was most definitely for an investigation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
And it was pointed out yesterday by the Democratic counsel that Zelensky had actually agreed to this in the call, as I have been saying. In fact he said before the call (and I should say to everything that Trump seemed to want)
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:10 am@90 you’ve been commenting for a while now about how they’re out to get Trump and Misurd and it’s a political hit job. At no point has any investigation backed up your claims. They’ve showed the FBI to be bad at protecting our rights, but haven’t found the animus that you’ve been alleging.
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:14 amHey Dana, a request:
Please do a post about the news media’s collective meltdown on the new Eastwood film Richard Jewell.
There seems to be an orchestrated attempt to convince people not to watch it.
harkin (337580) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:15 am@Patterico & BL, another problem is that Trump, his allies, and their supporters don’t seem to care, at all, about systemic reform. The abuses of process by the FBI are a problem ONLY so far as they negatively impact Trump. Absent that, Trump is silent and his supporters are fine with the complete lack of action in this area.
also, sorry about my Typo in 94.
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:18 amNow we have to ask another question: If President Zelensky was so ready to agree to an investigation into Burisma, why then didn’t he go ahead?
The answer is that Acting Ambassador William Taylor intervened and said Ukraine had, and needed to keep, bipartisan support in the United States, and they shouldn’t anger the Democrats.
So now Zelensky has stopped, for the moment, any inquiry into Burisma:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-president-holds-back-on-probe-linked-to-impeachment-inquiry-11575490990
By Thomas Grove
Dec. 4, 2019 3:23 pm ET
… For the Zelensky administration, Burisma and the allegations around it have become so wound up in U.S. politics that it has decided to hold off taking any actions for now, fearing proceeding would damage Ukraine’s bipartisan support in Washington, according to officials and other politicians.
“Burisma has become so political, that unlike other similar situations, upholding the rule of law has its costs,” said Igor Novikov, adviser to Mr. Zelensky on U.S. affairs.
Members of the Hose Judiciary Committee seem to get the New York Times, but they don’t look so much at the Wall Street Journal. They;’re slow, all of them, and the counsels also, at getting the facts.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:19 amTime123 @96. This is correct. Of course they may think people associated with Trump were the only ones ever harmed by a bad FISA process. The FBI Director though, seems to be thinking of making a few modifications in what they do.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:22 amAccording to Sondland, Trump told him in early September that Zelensky himself should want these investigations.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:22 am91. noel (f22371) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:05 am
But it might help Joe Biden.
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:24 amSammy, you wrote
Is there evidence submitted to support the part in bold? Testimony or documentary evidence? It contradicts sworn testimony and while it might be plausible, if it’s true there should be supporting evidence. Absent that I’m gong to place credence on sworn testimony when there’s a conflict. rump has in the past praised subordinates for stating that it’s OK to lie to the media. Given that there’s no reason to accept un-sworn statements when there’s no good reason they couldn’t testify under oath.
I’m not trying to be snarky, you have a lot of detail about these issues. But from what I’ve seen the evidence supports that the request for an investigation was a pretext to get an announcement that would be damaging to Trump’s political rival.
Look at what the big theme the low bar to start an investigation in the FBI is in the IG report? You’re telling me that you actually believe that if Trump wanted an investigation for legitimate reasons he couldn’t get the DOJ to start one?
Time123 (a7a01b) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:30 amIt is. That’s because Trump and his army of idiots oversold the likely conclusion: THEY WILL PROVE IT WAS A COUP!!!
@Patterico & BL, another problem is that Trump, his allies, and their supporters don’t seem to care, at all, about systemic reform. The abuses of process by the FBI are a problem ONLY so far as they negatively impact Trump. Absent that, Trump is silent and his supporters are fine with the complete lack of action in this area
This may all be true, but why should that matter. Is everything now to be evaluated on whether it helps or hurts Trump? Is the agenda set by Trump and his coterie?
As far as I can see, the Constitution was raped. That should be cause for alarm, whether or not bias against Trump was involved.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:49 am@102 BL, I think we agree. My point is that Trump and his supporters don’t care about that.
Time123 (b0628d) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:51 amI’ll be seeing it this weekend. First movie I’ve gone to see in a while.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:56 amThere was also a book written about the Richard Jewell case, reviewed in the Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-suspect-review-collateral-damage-11573515975
Sammy Finkelman (fb61e5) — 12/10/2019 @ 9:34 am“As far as I can see, the Constitution was raped. That should be cause for alarm, whether or not bias against Trump was involved.”
This sort of thing happens all the time. Why wasn’t it a problem before now? What remedies have been proposed? Trump and Trump supporters only care because Trump was caught up, and will cease to care once things have moved on.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 10:26 am“ the role of luck in breaking big cases,”
I will never forget the neighborhood dragnet and search for the Boston Marathon Bomber, with cops screaming at locals while they worked house to house, to not drop their hands or they would shoot them.
Meanwhile, outside the search perimeter, the bomber was caught because a lady looking out her window saw someone climbing in to a covered boat in her backyard.
harkin (337580) — 12/10/2019 @ 10:46 am”This sort of thing happens all the time.”
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 10:26 am
Like, for example….?
Munroe (4ae3dd) — 12/10/2019 @ 11:09 am“Like, for example….?”
The vast majority of FISA warrants are granted. Do you think the government was uniquely sloppy in regards to Carter Page?
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 12:09 pm”The vast majority of FISA warrants are granted. Do you think the government was uniquely sloppy in regards to Carter Page?”
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 12:09 pm
Yes — but let’s assume No.
The point, of course, which you’ve just verified is that they didn’t necessarily need to be sloppy.
And sorry, but FISA warrants that get an opposition campaign “caught up” (your words) do not “happen all the time.”
Munroe (4ae3dd) — 12/10/2019 @ 12:43 pm@110
I think you missed this part
Time123 (cd2ff4) — 12/10/2019 @ 1:04 pmBarr’s full statement said not one word about Putin and his “sweeping and systematic” efforts to attack our election, which is why his statement is fundamentally misleading. It was less an investigation into the Trump campaign and more about Putin and whether or not he infiltrated the Trump campaign, and it’s fairly incredible that he would say “no” to something like Operation Crossfire Hurricane, given the breadth of Putin actually. Barr has only made it clearer that he’s prioritizing Trump over our national security.
Paul Montagu (055027) — 12/10/2019 @ 1:18 pmAnd Barr only made it worse when he contradicted the IG by insinuating that the FBI did its work in bad faith, undermining and bad-mouthing an organization and its 37,000 employess. It’s contemptible and condemnable. Barr is a sh*tty American.
Time123 (cd2ff4) — 12/10/2019 @ 1:04 pm
That’s the fun and exciting part of prosecutorial discretion, isn’t it?
You have a low threshold that would justify investigations of a vast pool of individuals, and you get to pick and choose. And if you choose person A, and take a pass on person B — hey, threshold met, no bias!
Tell me Time123, go back three years (before all the texts, the dossier, etc.) and tell me what you would’ve said a biased investigation would look like. I’m truly interested.
Munroe (4ae3dd) — 12/10/2019 @ 1:37 pmBen Wittes reminds us that the complaints–from Trump on down–about the FBI’s work wasn’t about procedural errors and the sloppy use of evidence, it was a LOT worse (link).
All of that was debunked by the IG.
Paul Montagu (055027) — 12/10/2019 @ 1:47 pm“All of that was debunked by the IG.”
Paul Montagu (055027) — 12/10/2019 @ 1:47 pm
If only.
But hey… exoneration(!!), eh? You with me, Paul?
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 1:57 pm“Tell me Time123, go back three years (before all the texts, the dossier, etc.) and tell me what you would’ve said a biased investigation would look like. I’m truly interested.”
Let me turn this around on you. Knowing all the contact that Trump campaign officials had with Russia, what would an unbiased investigation look like?
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:22 pm@113, The bias you asked about? They didn’t find evidence of it. If the evidence comes up later I’m happy to change my opinion, but if there was a conspiracy against trump for political reasons I’d expect some evidence.
Are you open to the possibility that this is how Cops treat people (in this case Carter Page) that they think are guilty and not anything special about Trump?
Honestly trying to answer your question with limited time.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:30 pm”Let me turn this around on you. Knowing all the contact that Trump campaign officials had with Russia, what would an unbiased investigation look like?”
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:22 pm
So, now this sort of thing doesn’t “happen all the time”? Make up your mind.
They could’ve found a pretext to investigate any campaign, certainly Clinton’s and Sanders’. An unbiased investigation would not focus on one only.
You can answer my question now.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:34 pm‘Trump has spent three years undermining the rule of law…’
Three years??
Where ‘ya been? Trump’s been undermining, circumventing, bending, compromising and breaking the ‘rule of law’ in all walks of life – be it in civil society or simple family discipline dictums from Daddy, military school commandants or banking regs– even wedding vows, all his life.
He’s “the bad boy everybody loves or to loves to hate:” JR Ewing. Better people than those who work in Congress have tried to reign him in.
Catch him if you can– but he’s gonna beat the rap[s.] And remember, he carries grudges.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/10/2019 @ 2:41 pmWell, if I had to choose between your whatabouting and you putting words in my mouth, I’ll take the former, because then at least you’re not making sh*t up.
Paul Montagu (055027) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:02 pm@118, the did investigate Clinton’s campaign and they did so in a way that likely impacted the election.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:16 pm“So, now this sort of thing doesn’t “happen all the time”? Make up your mind.”
I’ll use small words.
1) The Trump campaign was in contact with Russia.
2) The FISA courts are rubber stamps.
3) FISA court actions are secret.
Therefore
4) It’s routine to surveil anyone who has “questionable” contacts, because the bar is low and nobody will find out if you’re wrong.
“They could’ve found a pretext to investigate any campaign, certainly Clinton’s and Sanders’. An unbiased investigation would not focus on one only.
You can answer my question now.”
You are assuming that launching an investigation is inherently biased, which isn’t true.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:29 pm”the did investigate Clinton’s campaign and they did so in a way that likely impacted the election.”
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:16 pm
This is a tired argument, and a whaddabout.
(And anyway, the choices were 1) indict or 2) announce “no prosecutor would bring such a case”. Which one worked out better for Hillary? Was there a third choice?)
We’re talking about foreign ties to campaigns, and an investigation predicated on that. This was focused on one campaign when any or all could’ve been investigated.
You haven’t answered my question about what a biased investigation would look like. Paint me a picture.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:31 pm“Paint me a picture.”
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bureau-investigation-fbi
Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:37 pmAll this “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”, or is it “How many Cossacks can dance on an orange?” Convicted international money launderer Manafort and cretin Junior bringing Russian government agent Natalia Veselnnitskaya to Trump Tower in hopes of getting dirt on Hillary gave the FBI probable cause to stage a full-out SWAT raid on “the Trump campaign”. And shoot its dog.
nk (dbc370) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:42 pmThere’s this too:
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:43 pmhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Inquisition
No, it’s a direct reply to the question you asked about investigating Clinton or Sanders. You asked, I answered.
I’ll answer your question.
It would have testimony and / or documentary evidence showing bias.
It would fail to meet the standards to start an investigation.
It would show that the biased investigators fabricated the evidence upon which the investigation was predicated or that there was no such evidence.
Now, my question was; “Are you open to the idea that this is how cops treat you when they think you’re guilty and not specific to Trump?” Meaning they cut corners and ignore holes in their case / exculpatory evidence.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:56 pmDavid French, per The Dispatch (no link):
It’s not a good thing when the errors are so bad in a “profoundly sensitive and high-profile investigation” that the IG’s next job is to audit the “entire FBI FISA process”. We can actually thank the Mueller investigation that started all this.
There’s not a lot to like when it comes to Rosenstein, but he did land the plane. The GOP made its bed on our 2020 nominee, and I’m not optimistic about who the Dems will pick. It’ll be Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich 2.0.
Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 12/10/2019 @ 4:02 pm‘Now, my question was; “Are you open to the idea that this is how cops treat you when they think you’re guilty and not specific to Trump?” Meaning they cut corners and ignore holes in their case / exculpatory evidence.’
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:56 pm
No. Since you don’t think the Hillary investigation is a whaddabout: Was the reason they cut corners for her because they didn’t think she was guilty?
The IG investigated both. In a vacuum, they can both be contorted into unbiased investigations. Taken together, that stance is ludicrous.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 4:12 pmDavid French at The Dispatch = Treadmill To Oblivion by Fred Allen.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/10/2019 @ 5:35 pm@129
1. I think we’re using ‘whatabout’ differently. When I use the term I mean it in this way
2. The latest IG report needs no analysis or contortion to say that if found no bias in the decision to launch the investigation. It makes that conclusion directly more than once.
3. Your position seems un-falsifiable. Two separate investigations failed to prove your assertion. Now you’re combining them and saying that together they support your assertion.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 5:57 pmTime123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 5:57 pm
You didn’t answer my question.
Was the reason they cut corners for her because they didn’t think she was guilty?
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:10 pmI don’t know and I don’t feel like researching to come up with an opinion.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:22 pmtime123,
I can’t recall a single instance Munroe answered one of my questions directly, and not with some sarcastic whatabout. It’s very amusing to see Munroe assume the mantle of Grand Inquisitor.
Trump will certainly not be convicted by the GOP, and then we get to hear that he was ‘exonerated’. Same crap we heard when Mueller’s report showed Trump committed so many crimes but couldn’t be indicted.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:29 pm”I don’t know and I don’t feel like researching to come up with an opinion.”
Time123 (d54166) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:22 pm
Yeah, that would be a tough one.
Strzok altered the language so as to justify dismissing the charges against Hillary.
Kevin “Viva le Resistance” Clinesmith altered a document on a Carter Page FISA renewal.
Hard to square both with your @127. Best not to try.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 6:52 pm“Strzok altered the language so as to justify dismissing the charges against Hillary.”
Is Strzok responsible for Hillary not being indicted? Was Comey powerless to change it back?
“Kevin “Viva le Resistance” Clinesmith altered a document on a Carter Page FISA renewal.”
Would the FISA warrant have been refused if Clinesmith didn’t make the change?
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:06 pmWhy is it eternally “But Hillary…” with you guys.
Why didn’t Trump indict Hillary like he promised?
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:07 pm”Is Strzok responsible for Hillary not being indicted? Was Comey powerless to change it back?
Would the FISA warrant have been refused if Clinesmith didn’t make the change?”
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:06 pm
Comey wasn’t powerless. In fact, he went along. Your point?
Hard to answer about the FISA warrant. If a cop plants evidence, does it matter whether the perp would’ve been arrested anyway? Why would you ask this?
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:12 pm@137: We’re back to whaddabout now. Sorry, lost track.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:15 pm“In fact, he went along. Your point?”
What’s your point? If Comey went along, what difference does it make who made the change?
“Why would you ask this?”
Try to keep up, I made this point @122.
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:21 pmThis is spin.
Horowitz did not exonerate the Deep State at all… he merely found no documentary or testimonial evidence of an admission of bad faith or political bias, while finding oodles of other serious problems.
That’s not the same as there is no bias…ever.
I mean, the Obama DOJ leadership under investigation are not stupid. There isn’t going to be a smoking gun or documentary evidence that says “of course we’re doing this for political reasons”. I mean, give them some credit here…they wouldn’t straight-up admit to conspiracy to the IG. Ergo, the IG simply stated “No evidence found.”
But the IG doesn’t “draw conclusions” in the same way as a prosecutor does using subpoenas and impaneled grand juries.
But you and I (including Barr and Durnham for that matter!) can look at this and say: Man… if it walks like a duck… acts like a duck… then by golly its a duck!
whembly (c30c83) — 12/10/2019 @ 7:42 pm“This is spin.
Horowitz did not exonerate the Deep State at all… he merely found no documentary or testimonial evidence of an admission of bad faith or political bias, while finding oodles of other serious problems.”
No, this is spin.
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/10/2019 @ 8:46 pm123. Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 3:31 pm
Yes, of course. Choice 3) would be: Don’t recommend a prosecution and don’t announce it.
That would have allowed it to be speculated she could be indicted after the election – in fact that she could be elected and indicted after the election but before the inauguration.
Choice 4) was announce the investigation is closed without saying anything more. That would have suggested a cover-up which would also be suspected of having been ordered from on high.
Choice 2) was highly irregular. But Comey and Loretta Lynch pretended it was regular. This was what Bill and Hillary Clinton wanted, unless the investigation could not be closed. Then they’d prefer 5) continue the investigation in secret. Bill Clinton devised a test to tell him whether or not there was a RICO investigation going on: He’d arrange to accidentally get an opportunity to meet the Attorney General, and if she avoided him like the plague, it meant there was a RICO investigation going on (in which he would be a target of the investigation.) If she didn’t, it meant there was not because she would not have been warned not to meet him.
A planned meeting she would always avoid, while a meeting at some event, she couldn’t avoid. Their planes being at an airport at the same time was perfect.
It having been established that there was no RICO investigation going on, Hillary quickly agreed to an interview (this was just before it would be too close to the election to say anything) and Comey went public with his planned speech which had bee awaiting her FBI interview which she had constantly postponed till then.
Later on, when Hillary emails were discovered t be on Anthony Weiner’s laptop (which got looked at because he was sexting with a North Carolina girl under 16) Comey was trapped by his promise to inform Congress if the investigation was re-opened. He re-opened it and then closed it again 3 days before the election. The emails were scanned without any human being looking at them, so if there was evidence of a crime there no one would see it.
Then in May, 2017 Comey testified that the emails had been put on Anthony Weiner’s laptop by Huma Abedin in preparation for printing. This was not true: The FBI had to correct the testimony and the next thing you knew Trump fired Comey. But this turned out to be a coincidence.
Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90) — 12/10/2019 @ 9:16 pmIGs are not prosecutors. It isn’t his job to guess at the motivations of FBI employees. Only that he didn’t find smoking gun/documented evidence that says “we’re politically motivated to take out Trump.”
Unfortunately only prosecutors could do that (ie, indictments) and a court trial to convict.
So, yes, it *is* spin to to claim that the IG said there were no bias. It’s just that the IG (who doesn’t have subpoena power) didn’t find any documented bias.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/10/2019 @ 9:16 pm#143
That’s the proper action.
Only reason to announce anything is to indict that subject of the investigation, and let the indictment tell the story. Otherwise… shut up.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/10/2019 @ 9:19 pm“Yes, of course. Choice 3) would be: Don’t recommend a prosecution and don’t announce it.”
Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90) — 12/10/2019 @ 9:16 pm
Not possible. Everyone knew there was an investigation, the outcome of which was highly anticipated st the time.
To announce nothing and not prosecute would’ve fed speculation, which would’ve helped no one.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/10/2019 @ 9:43 pm“IGs are not prosecutors. It isn’t his job to guess at the motivations of FBI employees. Only that he didn’t find smoking gun/documented evidence that says “we’re politically motivated to take out Trump.””
What, other than documentation or testimony, would constitute evidence of bias?
“Unfortunately only prosecutors could do that (ie, indictments) and a court trial to convict.”
Convict of what? Felony Bias?
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/10/2019 @ 10:24 pmWhembly wrote
1. The IG can compel testimony from DOJ employees who can be fired/disciplined for a ‘lack of candor’ which, from my understanding penalizes withholding information.
2. The IG can, and do, recommend prosecution if if the find reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken.
They we very clear that they didn’t fine evidence of what you’re asserting. You’re free to continue asserting it, but I have to ask if there’s any level of investigation that will satisfy you?
Trump made the claim that ‘Obama Spied on him and tapped his phones’ because the “deep state” was out to get him.
We now know from the IG report that Obama and DOJ leaders weren’t involved in the decision making, that the investigation targeted Carter page, that the investigation was properly predicated, that there is no evidence of political bias in the decision to investigate and that the FISA process was not followed properly.
We also know that the tip that started the investigation came after the hack of the DNC and there was reason to believe Russia was interfering in our election and that the FBI didn’t make their investigation into Carter Page public, or leak anything about it.
It’s fine if you want to continue to believe things without evidence, but it puts you in the same intellectual camp as the Trump critics who say that Trump did conspire with Russia and Mueller just didn’t find the evidence.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/11/2019 @ 2:17 amYou didn’t ask “What happened” you asked “Why”
Your comment here addresses “what.” Out of courtesy i answered your question. You’re now changing the question and implying that I’m being intellectually dishonest for not answering what you didn’t ask.
Do you have any evidence that there’s a deep state conspiracy out to get Trump?
Time123 (d54166) — 12/11/2019 @ 2:24 am148
Key point here: IG cannot compel testimony from former employees. It can only be voluntary.
Fusion GPS refused to participate.
Hell. James Comey explicitly refused to re-up his security security so that the IG would be prevented to investigate certain aspect under classified setting (note here IG could NOT compel Comey).
So, right there you know the IG’s investigations is at the very least, incomplete.
Only a real prosecutor (ie, Durham) could compel Comey.
Of course. But both of your points here supports my assertions that IGs are not prosecutors with the full bevy of investigatory powers with subpoena and grand juries.
Either I’m not doing a good job making my point, or you are willfully being pedantic to deflect. I really hope its the former…
Let me try again: IG could not find bias doesn’t mean there wasn’t any…especially in light of the fact that the IG couldn’t not subpoena the subjects of the investigation. More importantly, and both Barr and Durham took the extrodinary step to publicly announce that they disagreed with the IG’s conclusion of no bias. Both Barr and Durham has access to far more information than the IG would dream of.
Simply an investigation from a proper prosecutor.
Trump made the claim that ‘Obama Spied on him and tapped his phones’ because the “deep state” was out to get him.
We now know from the IG report that Obama and DOJ leaders weren’t involved in the decision making, that the investigation targeted Carter page, that the investigation was properly predicated, that there is no evidence of political bias in the decision to investigate and that the FISA process was not followed properly.
We also know that the tip that started the investigation came after the hack of the DNC and there was reason to believe Russia was interfering in our election and that the FBI didn’t make their investigation into Carter Page public, or leak anything about it.
It’s fine if you want to continue to believe things without evidence, but it puts you in the same intellectual camp as the Trump critics who say that Trump did conspire with Russia and Mueller just didn’t find the evidence.
Time123 (d54166) — 12/11/2019 @ 2:17 am
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:59 am***crap press submit by accident and previous post is all jacked up…sorry!***
148
Key point here: IG cannot compel testimony from former employees. It can only be voluntary.
Fusion GPS refused to participate.
Hell. James Comey explicitly refused to re-up his security security so that the IG would be prevented to investigate certain aspect under classified setting (note here IG could NOT compel Comey).
So, right there you know the IG’s investigations is at the very least, incomplete.
Only a real prosecutor (ie, Durham) could compel Comey.
Of course. But both of your points here supports my assertions that IGs are not prosecutors with the full bevy of investigatory powers with subpoena and grand juries.
Either I’m not doing a good job making my point, or you are willfully being pedantic to deflect. I really hope its the former…
Let me try again: IG could not find bias doesn’t mean there wasn’t any…especially in light of the fact that the IG couldn’t not subpoena the subjects of the investigation. More importantly, and both Barr and Durham took the extrodinary step to publicly announce that they disagreed with the IG’s conclusion of no bias. Both Barr and Durham has access to far more information than the IG would dream of.
Simply an investigation from a proper prosecutor.
That’s incorrect. The IG points out that Comey and McCabe knew about it. The IG mentioned that there were communication to the whitehouse.
The IG clearly supports the claim that the Trump campaigned was spied on.
Yes, the IG said that only because because the bar was very LOW. That’s not an endorsement that opening the investigation was kosher. The IG commented multiple “concerns” of that standard.
which I already commented earlier.
My big beef with this part is that the government knew by Jan 2017 that the Steele dossier was unsubstantiated, and yet they allowed that to cloud the Trump administration to this day.
Furthermore, the question no one seems to be asking that I think it’s vitally important: Is this normal? Or is this unique and we got bit hard by Murphy’s Law?
The fact that Carter Page was targetted, while at the same time a different agency was using him as an asset and that the FBI knew about that and yet chose to NOT disclose it to the courts? Please tell me what you think about that?
I’m going to purposely ignore your last paragraph…otherwise, our host would have no choice but to delete my post.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 7:15 amWhembly, thank you for the reply. I appreciate the time and I’m not trying to be obstinate. I’m gong to focus on what seems to be the heart of our disagreement.
you wrote
We agree with the portion in bold. Lack of evidence doesn’t prove something didn’t happen.
Here’s where we disagree. I feel that given the amount of work that’s gone into investigating it’s reasonable to assume that some evidence would have been found. A lot of time and energy by competent investigators has gone into finding the wrongdoing alleged by Trump and his supporters. So far they’ve come up with almost nothing malicious (This investigation found a significant wrongdoing by a lawyer who helped prepare the FISA warrant but that’s it.). Given the severity of the accusations I expect there to be some evidence to support them.
Also, we know that some of the things that were alleged have been disproved by this investigation. For instance Trump claimed that the Steele dossier was the basis for the investigation into members of his campaign. This report disproves that. It was a tip from an Ally. Trump alleged that this investigation was unprecedented and baseless. The IG confirmed that starting this investigation was consistent with past investigations and properly predicated. Trump alleged that this was fabricated by Strzok and Page. The IG confirms that they were part of the team, but that there was consensus on how to proceed. Trump alleged that Obama was involved. The IG actually faults the FBI for not making leadership in the DOJ aware of what they were doing. The report shows that the FBI did not respect the rights of the subject in applying for a FISA warrant and that members of the team weren’t even aware of the what the rules were. If also found a (hopefully soon to be prosecuted) lawyer falsified information.
you wrote
What I think you mean by this is that the prosecutor has more and better tools to conduct their investigation. I don’t think this is completely correct. I think they have different tools. but IANAL and welcome feedback if I’m wrong.
My understanding is that the IG can compel active employees to give a statements and that they can be punished for failing to be forthright. Spin, obfuscation, holding back information can all be punished as a lack of candor. Further the IG’s findings will include information not just about wrongdoing, but also about if people performed their duties in a way that differences for process and/or past practice as well as flaws in the institutional processes.
A prosecutor can’t compel the subject of an investigation to give a statement if they’re in legal jeopardy and there’s no expectation that they will volunteer information even if they do. A prosecutor is supposed restrict their statements to an indictment. This means that if the investigation were legal, but didn’t follow existing processes for starting an investigation, the IG would identify that, but a prosecutor would not. This means that they can’t force Comey to make a statement if he’s the subject of an investigation.
I’m fine with having both investigations, I think there’s enough to substantiate a criminal investigation. But given how much of what’s alleged has been shown false I think it’s more likely than not that we won’t find evidence of any deep state conspiracy from Durham.
Time123 (daab2f) — 12/11/2019 @ 7:51 amWe cross posted.
Time123 (daab2f) — 12/11/2019 @ 7:53 amFinished reading your edit, and it doesn’t change my point. Few things to respond to.
McCabe and Comey were both FBI not DOJ.
I don’t want to parse words, but when you say ‘spied’ I assume you mean something consistent with “monitored for illicit purposes”. If you don’t can you help me understand what you do mean? If you do, why do you say that? The purpose of the surveillance was in furtherance of a lawful investigation.
Going back to who knew what here’s what the IG said in the exec summary.
This is from Page 76 of the report. Apparently the IG was able to interview Comey.
So, Lynch and Yates answered question to the IG about this and made statements that could be refuted with 3rd party evidence. I believe it’s a crime to lie to the IG.
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:10 amI didn’t see the IG address any concerns about the standard. Only that they wanted to make sure the reader knew it was a low one. Haven’t read it all so I may have missed it. Can you point me to it?
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:12 amI think this is how law enforcement will roll when they think you’re guilty. I don’t think they did something special against Carter Page.
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:13 amI think it’s crap and that the system needs to be reformed.
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:14 amI’m sorry for the way I worded that. I was rude. The point I was trying to make is that the bar of proving something didn’t happen is incredibly high and people can always modify the theory like this to claim “It happened, they just hid the evidence.”
Time123 (daab2f) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:17 amYou didn’t ask “What happened” you asked “Why”
Time123 (d54166) — 12/11/2019 @ 2:24 am
You posed this @127:
“Are you open to the idea that this is how cops treat you when they think you’re guilty and not specific to Trump?” Meaning they cut corners and ignore holes in their case / exculpatory evidence.
In one instance, for pol#1, they go out of their way to cut corners to push the case forward, as you describe.
In another instance, for opponent of pol#1, they go out of their way cutting corners to dismiss.
What or Why — don’t care. Can you jibe that with your @127? In what world does this not point to bias?
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:20 am@Time123, thank you for that.
I think you’re right about our disagreement.
Maybe this will help where I’m coming from…
I really don’t care about Trump. I know he’s imperfect and I know he exhibit qualities that shouldn’t go anywhere near the oval office. However, both the Kavanaugh hearing and the Covington Kid fiasco simply broke me. So, I’m transactionally(sp?) supporting Trump (and the GOP really) because I don’t believe the current crop of Democrats deserves to be anywhere near to levers of power. I’ve accepted that Trump will be the presidential candidate going forward as there’s no good way to put that genie back in the bottle.
That’s why, I’m sure, it looks like I’m a MAGA-frothing cultist to you. That’s fine.
But, honestly, what I really care about is this: what norms are being destroyed in the zeal to stop Trump?
I’m seeing the following:
-Court is being weaponized with the use of nationwide injunctions
-The rage mob (riots after elections, dog-piling on Convington kids)
-despicable bad-faith accusations during SCOTUS hearings
-weaponized Advise & Consent to stringing out appointed positions
-advocating to criminalize gutter politics
-now the bad faith impeachment inquiry
-I’m sure there are others, but all of this coming inbound “stream of consciousness” style.
Trump will not be POTUS forever… but, the precedents will remain. Just imagine the above being used on Democrat administrations when those rules are applied to them.
And it *will* be applied to them. Bad-faith crap begets bad-faith. That’s fundamental in all politics.
Just look at the Reid Rule.
Its amazing that anything gets done in government… doesn’t it?
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:28 am155
I remember reading it. I’ll see if I can find it. I’m watching the Horowitz hearing, and he restated his concerns about the low standard about opening such investigation with no governing policies to notify leadership that an investigation was opened on a political compaign.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:31 am156
In Jan 2017 they literally knew that the dossier was unsubstantiated, so none of the FISA warrants should’ve ever by issued. They literally knew Page wasn’t guilty, the report lists out numerous exculpatory information.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:33 am@159,
Okay I’ll bite.
wrt to the investigation of Carter Page I think the people who worked at the FBI honestly thought people in the Trump campaign were working with Russia around the stolen DNC emails. I think this was a very reasonable suspicion at the time. If they wanted to use the carter page investigation to harm Trump I would expect them to have leaked it to the press or used the information gathered to harm Trump is some way. So far as I know they did neither.
wrt to the Clinton email server I think the people doing the investigation didn’t feel they had a case they could prove in court but wanted to insulate the FBI from claims of bias so they made an announcement about what a corrupt secretive dumb ass she is. Remember the alleged crime wasn’t using a private server to evade transparency, it was mishandling classified information. If they wanted to help Clinton i don’t think Comey would have made the statement he did. Also, if they were dishonest that they didn’t have a case I would expect Session, Whitaker, or Barr to have brought charges. I take the lack of charges as an admission that the initial decision not to charge was correct.
I’m open to the idea that there was a conspiracy to help Clinton and harm Trump. But i need some evidence beyond a plausible theory of how the facts fit together.
I might agree with you if the IG had said that the investigation of carter page
-was opened based without a proper basis.
-was run by a single person, or small group that had a clear bias.
-had ignored internal objections that it was not proceeding properly
-had passed information gained in the investigation to the Clinton Campaign
-had been used in ways that harmed the Trump campaign
-had testimony or documentary evidence that decisions were made for biased reasons
So far as I know the IG report has none of these things, and makes clear that some of them didn’t happen.
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:47 amYou seem like a reasonable person that disagrees with me but is honest about why. I suspect I’d like you if we ever met.
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:49 amTrump will not be POTUS forever… but, the precedents will remain. Just imagine the norms he violated being used by Democrat administrations and how they will use that to push their agenda.
Trump is dramatically increasing the power of the president and not accomplishing many conservative goals while he does it. Mostly culture war stuff that isn’t that important to me. I’m really worried about what someone competent might do under the new norms.
Also, fwiw, i think the impeachment is fully justified based on the evidence provided to date.
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:54 amWe can deal with our domestic squabbles. It’s all in the family. It’s our foreign enemies, rivals, and competitors that the orange is selling us out to, in a shrinking and increasingly more dangerous world, that we need to really worry about.
nk (dbc370) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:58 am@165
Touché.
However, I don’t view Trump’s transgressions any worst than prior presidencies… and he’s even CHECKED by the courts quite a bit. I’m not really seeing any major “precedent” setting actions that are problematic.
One that is up in the air, for me, is his withdrawl from the Paris Accord and the Iran Deal. Yes, that does make future efforts harder when the following administration can rescind it. My hope is that it signals to everyone that such agreement ought to go through Senate ratification process for legitimacy. But, what it does as far as norms, I’m not sure we’ve fully scoped it out.
Well… I disagree.
Back to the IG, care to look at this? The author hits on the stuff I’ve been banging about:
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 9:15 amhttps://thefederalist.com/2019/12/11/the-ig-report-didnt-come-close-to-debunking-the-idea-the-fbi-was-politically-biased/
That’s a solid hit.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 9:21 am@Time123
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 9:26 amPlease also read this:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/
Author is definitely not a Trump supporter…
Back to the IG, care to look at this? The author hits on the stuff I’ve been banging about:
If political bias is enough of a reason to shut down an investigation, then why is Durham, or anyone selected by Barr, being allowed to investigate?
kishnevi (496414) — 12/11/2019 @ 9:44 am…and the bias is what?
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 9:56 amBarr is not investigating people who he thinks committed crimes.
kishnevi (496414) — 12/11/2019 @ 9:59 amBarr is investigating people who he thinks are enemies of Trump.
@169
Thank you for that link. He makes a lot of excellent points.
One of the things I saw there in the comments is that “bias” has two meanings. It could mean (a) political bias to get Trump and/or Republicans and (b) policing bias to “get the perp” regardless of the facts.
It appears that the latter form of bias is what happened.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 12/11/2019 @ 10:17 am@172
That’s what you think…but you’ve yet to provide anything to substantiate that.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 10:24 amYou apparently missed this
kishnevi (496414) — 12/11/2019 @ 10:25 amhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/10/ag-william-barr-slams-fbi-russia-investigation-contradicts-ig-report/4389462002/
No I didn’t miss that.
I want the DOJ to investigate how the Russian-collusion counter-intel was conducted.
The IG’s report by Horowitz was just over the FISA applications, which is a small part of the whole ordeal.
whembly (fd57f6) — 12/11/2019 @ 10:48 amW, thank you for the links.
Time123 (b87ded) — 12/11/2019 @ 12:09 pmI think I look at it like this:
There’s reasonable cause to suspect political bias against Trump on the part of the DOJ.
That justifies investigation.
Some of those investigations have been completed and have not produced evidence to support the theory. Some of what’s been revealed has refuted specific parts of the alleged wrongdoing. This weakens the overall theory of the case.
Whembly, Barr is asserting there was “bad faith” without any evidence there was bad faith.
Kishnevi (ac9a89) — 12/11/2019 @ 1:28 pm178
How do you know he doesn’t have the evidence?
whembly (c30c83) — 12/11/2019 @ 2:40 pmHow do you know he doesn’t have the evidence?
If there was, it would have been found by the IG.
But notice, “bad faith” presumes that there was no real basis for the investigation. Whereas in reality there was ample justification for it.
Kishnevi (ac9a89) — 12/11/2019 @ 2:55 pmNo, the IG necessarily wouldn’t have found it. The IG isn’t a prosecutor.
There’s a distinction I’m trying to make.
Yes, there’s an extremely low bar that allows the FBI to open up a counter-intel investigation. That doesn’t mean that there was “ample justification”.
That’s where Barr/Durham will get to make that determination.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:02 pmIt better be the determination Trump wants them to make because with “[any other] kind of attitude, [they] will never be able to fix the [DOJ], which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!”
nk (dbc370) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:11 pmWhembly, what was publicly known about Trump’s business ties with Russia was more than enough justification. If the FBI thought it had to go through hoops and contortions to justify an investigation, then the FBI is truly incompetent and full of fools.
Barr of course is doing his best make everyone forget that pertinent fact.
Kishnevi (dc4324) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:13 pm183
But we’re not talking about Trump’s business ties…we’re talking about Carter Page’s FISA warrants that allow the intelligence apparatus to spy on Page, and any contacts Page made with the campaign.
This IG report confirmed that the FBI opened a counter-intel, based on the ridiculously low standards (technically, correct), but ignored exculpatory information that would’ve shut down the investigation soon after (FISA court wouldn’t have granted warrant had they known).
whembly (c30c83) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:18 pmThis right here, is what Durham is working with that turned the investigation into a criminal investigation.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:19 pmAnd the email in question is something like 0.01% of the material “used as a basis for a sworn statement to the court”.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:24 pmBut we’re not talking about Trump’s business ties…we’re talking about Carter Page’s FISA warrants that allow the intelligence apparatus to spy on Page, and any contacts Page made with the campaign.
That’s the point. If the FBI didn’t realize Trump’s ties to Russia by themselves justified investigating him, then the FBI is a bunch of fools.
Kishnevi (dc4324) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:25 pm’And the email in question is something like 0.01% of the material “used as a basis for a sworn statement to the court”.‘
Dave (1bb933) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:24 pm
You pulled that out of your behind.
But, whether 0.01%, or 100%, the motive and intent is the same. It makes zero difference.
And, if the former, we’re hiring some truly dumb agents to lead investigations.
Munroe (4ae3dd) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:32 pmThis is specifically what was involved with the altered email (from the executive summary):
Page was obviously not, in fact, working for some other government agency while he was talking to Russians in 2016, so while the information shouldn’t have been omitted, it is immaterial to the justification for the FISA warrant.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:45 pmAs part of the FISA application, the FBI had to show the court that they had probable cause that Carter page was not only an ‘Agent of Foreign Power’… they must ALSO show probably cause that Page will break US laws as well.
Had the FISA court knew that Page was previously a CIA asset, who literally helped the FBI to prosecute another Russian individual, they wouldn’t have granted the warrant.
FBI miserably failed here.
whembly (c30c83) — 12/11/2019 @ 6:55 pmThe CIA does not investigate or prosecute foreign spies in the US. If he had been involved in prosecution of the Russian spy, he would have been working for the FBI (he wasn’t).
But regardless, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who has worked with the CIA in the past is off-limits for a counter-intel investigation?
LOL.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/11/2019 @ 7:08 pmA note on Carter Page. JustSecurity has a good searchable timeline, and I checked out the one involving the guy. Herewith:
April 8, 2013
I suspect that the FBI also thought Mr. Page an idiot.
Late January 2016
In March, Trump identified five people on his foreign policy team, one of whom was Page. In the months between his joining the Trump campaign and his trip to Russia, Mr. Page lobbied multiple folks in the campaign for a Trump trip to Russia.
July 7, 2016
During the July 2016 GOP convention
The one change to the GOP platform during the convention was about Ukraine. Convenient.
August 5, 2016
Ten days later, the story broke about Manafort and the “black ledger”, showing the millions of cash payments he received from a pro-Putin political party in Ukraine.
Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 12/11/2019 @ 7:35 pmMaybe it’s just me, but without even getting into the Steele dossier and acknowledging that Page is an idiot, there was enough suspicion for the FBI to investigate the guy, maybe even get a warrant on him.
Here’s an interesting passage from the IG report (page 128), indicating that the FBI treated Page and Papadopoulos differently because they had probable cause for one, but not for the other. It blows up the myth that the FBI was engaged in some kind of J. Edgar Hoover-style dirty tricks campaign:
In short, they were doing their jobs responsibly.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:17 pmYou guys arguing with Rodentia Rectalis Trumpensis are silly. You don’t share the same frame of reference as them. You do not love Donald J. Trump with all hearts, and all your minds, and all your souls. You might as well be arguing with the ordinary Rodentia Gerbillinae. It does not matter what the FBI or the FISA court did, what procedures they followed, or what basis they had for it. They acted against the interests of Donald J. Trump! There can be no justification for that! It had to be because they were human scum, cucks, Vichy, Deep State, Democrats, traitors, the enemies of the American people, who wanted Hillary to be President!
nk (dbc370) — 12/11/2019 @ 8:45 pmThe FBI is corrupt. Has been for more than a decade. Gotten much worse under Comey’s leadership. Comey and his cabal, were interfering in the 2016 elections.
This is not the first time the FBI has been slapped back because of abuse using FISA tools
The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance audit on/around March 9th, 2016, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May 1st, 2016.
While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) “about query” option, and went to the extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on April 18, 2016 (keep these dates in mind).
Two separate FISA judges, covering two separate time frames have reviewed 702 searches. Each of these Judges found more that 85% of those 702 searches lacked proper predicate. These searches were undertaken by private contractors (think Fusion GPS) under direct supervision, of the FBI. Comey, and Wray have done nothing to clean up this abuse of 4th Amendment protections.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/23/the-obama-use-of-fisa-702-as-a-domestic-political-surveillance-program/comment-page-4/
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/12/2019 @ 4:26 am194. You failed to notice the initial Carter Page FISA requested was refused by the FBI OGC. Hence the motivation to lie in the application. Even criminals know enough not to revisit the site of the same crime.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/12/2019 @ 4:32 amExcept a two-year investigation by an Inspector General didn’t prove that. It is provable that the Attorney General is corrupt, and so is his boss.
Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 12/12/2019 @ 5:23 am198. The IG report does not make such a declaration. Horowitz was force repeatedly to explain to Democrats and the committee, he would not make the declarations they were wanting.
17 lies to the secret FISA Judge. Dozens of people knowingly pushing those lies. Not a single soul thought enough of the behavior to alert the IG. This is not a few bad actors, this is a culture of corruption cultivated in the FBI over decades.
AG Barr. Not a single instance of questionable actions. Not a one. You don’t like him doing his job. Looking into the predicate of Crossfire Hurricane. The IG said acceptable predicate existed. He did not verify the underlying premise. The IG lacks tools to investigate other agencies, or foreign governments. Both, we know were involved in this corrupt investigation.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:01 amWhembly, one thing I do want to follow up on is your assertion that the cause to investigate Page was extremely thin.
I disagree.
1. A crime had been committed. (Hacking of the DNC server)
2. There was a theory of the crime (Russia did it)
3. There was a tip from a source that Carter Page said he had information. (Carter was bragging to an Australian diplomat while drinking at a bar)
4. Carter Page’s history with Russia made it plausible that he might be contacted by people involved.
5. Carter Page’s work at that time provided a motive for him to be receptive.
From there the FBI badly misused the FISA process. You and I agree on that. But are you really saying that 1-5 don’t provide a reasonable justification to investigate?
To use a less charged example; If an oil exploration company is hacked and the data is being leaked in a targeted way by some environmental group though Wikileaks would you really say the police shouldn’t investigate an Environmental studies professor with loose ties to that organization if they told a friend in the bar they were involved?
To take out all the color: When a crime is committed and there is a suspect, should the police investigate a person of interest with ties to that suspect when a 3rd party tells them the person of interest claimed some level of involvement with the crime?
Time123 (441f53) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:20 am@198, You wrote:
This is not correct.
Iowan,
Time123 (441f53) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:23 amWhat do you mean by this? What premise are you talking about?
Time123 tell me exactly what the predicate was. I’m not getting into a back and forth talking paste each other. State the predicate.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/12/2019 @ 7:17 amiowan2, I believe the exact predicate was #3, but don’t have time to look up the exact wording from the report. I’m not planning to argue with you, i just hadn’t seen the a contrast between predicate and premise.
1. A crime had been committed. (Hacking of the DNC server)
Time123 (441f53) — 12/12/2019 @ 7:32 am2. There was a theory of the crime (Russia did it)
3. There was a tip from a source that Carter Page said he had information. (Carter was bragging to an Australian diplomat while drinking at a bar)
4. Carter Page’s history with Russia made it plausible that he might be contacted by people involved.
5. Carter Page’s work at that time provided a motive for him to be receptive.
105. The book was reviewed by the wall Street Journal on Tuesday, November 12, 2019.
Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/12/2019 @ 3:08 pm203. It was a leap to assume that the possibly Russian related source was telling Carter Page the truth, and that the dirt on Hillary were the same DNC emails that had been hacked (everybody would assume that the Russian source was referring to the deleted clintonmail.com emails, which in fact, Russia never had, but people were believing might had been hacked.)
I thought it was Papadoupolous that was the predicate for the investigation.
Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/12/2019 @ 3:16 pm203. Who told Page?
We have to believe Page possesed this knowledge by osmosis. Nope, who told him? Better yet, why didn’t Horowitz interview the single person that launched the FBI surveillance of a Presidential campaign? The two year long Mueller investigation? Never interviewed the claimed source of the investigation. Horowitz, and Mueller avoided like the plague, the FBI source of their investigation to learn who provided Page with his information. Pages source would be more valuable to the investigation.
iowan2 (e9c145) — 12/12/2019 @ 5:16 pmHorowitz did not investigate the predicates veracity. He trusted the FBI was honest with the information provided. The same FBI that lied 17 times on FISA warrant applications.
Horowitz could on;y interview people employed by the Department of Justice, I think.
Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/12/2019 @ 5:19 pmIowan2, I should have written Papadapalous, not Page. That was my mistake.
GP testified that it was Mifsurd.
the IG reports that he found no evidence that Mifsurd was working with the FBI.
The FBI interviewed Mifsud and he denied providing that information to GP.
Quotes are below it’s all in the report data linked. Your assertions are factually incorrect.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 12/12/2019 @ 5:38 pmWell, they would have to believe that unless they investigated to determine where the knowledge came from. Which is exactly what they did.
But if you read Chapter 3 of the report, you would know that the friendly government report came 4 days after WikiLeaks released hacked emails, and was based on a conversation in May where Papadopoulos (not Page) told the FFG person that “the Trump campaign ‘received some kind of a suggestion from Russia’ that it could assist the campaign by anonymously releasing derogatory information about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Carter Page was in Moscow a couple weeks before the WikiLeaks dump, on a Russian-sponsored trip. He was also the subject of another, on-going counterintelligence investigation, run out of the SDNY US Attorney’s office, in the course of which he admitted frequent contacts with known Russian intelligence operatives, which began in April 2016 (Horowitz, page 61 et seq.). Remember that opening both investigations required only “an articulable factual basis” for suspicion, not probable cause.
They interviewed Steele, didn’t they?
I think the correct reason is that Horowitz’s job was not to investigate whether information the FBI received was accurate. It was to determine whether the FBI and Justice Dept. followed proper procedures with the information they did receive.
In any case, there was no “surveillance of a Presidential campaign”. Suggesting otherwise is untruthful.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:06 pmSo now that it’s been proven that the DNC dossier was a sham and known as such since January 2017 by the FBI, intelligence officials and the government, what should we do to those who kept pushing a lie they knew was false?
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:06 pm‘In any case, there was no “surveillance of a Presidential campaign”. Suggesting otherwise is untruthful.’
Dave (1bb933) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:06 pm
I think Halper and Azra Turk really did want to pick Papadopoulos’s brain about foreign policy stuff. LOL
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:15 pmYou mean the guy that was the subject of a properly predicated investigation?
Time123 (d54166) — 12/12/2019 @ 7:03 pm”You mean the guy that was the subject of a properly predicated investigation?”
Time123 (d54166) — 12/12/2019 @ 7:03 pm
Whether properly predicated or not (and I think not), it was surveillance. Suggesting otherwise would be untruthful.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/12/2019 @ 7:20 pm208 Mifsud denied having advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of DNC
emails and denied passing any offers or proffers to Papadopoulo
So what? Nobody knew Russia was in possesion of the DNC emails. No proof has emerged that Russia was involved. Assange says he did not recieve them from Russia.
The larger point is, Mifsud didn’t have to know anything. Just plant the idea with Papadop, and have him repeat it. And so he did. Why would anybody believe what the FBI told the IG. The are perfectly fine lying to FISC judges, lying about the investigation would be nothing but standard protocol
All of this bears out Horowitz did not, or could not dig any deeper to the predicate of the investigation, he knows nothing about it, and with the lies of the FBI, less than nothing.
And the part about Horowitz not finding any documents to support Mifsud was working with the FBI? Of course not. The foriegn agents were being handled by England, Italy, and maybe a third EU agency, as a favor to Brennen, and Clapper. No finger prints. Is everyone aware that the head of MI6 resigned the day after Trump was elected? And, the entire Management of Italy’s spook agency resigned when Mueller got started? Just a happy coincidence.
That is what I pointed out in my original post.
iowan2 (e9c145) — 12/13/2019 @ 10:49 amHorowitz discovered the FBI had recordings of Papadop talking to those Non-spies. The recording provide exculpatory evidence of Papadops innocence. The FBI never brought that information forward, like the law would require. But the FBI is not bound by law.
iowan2 (e9c145) — 12/13/2019 @ 10:52 amSurveillance of an individual suspected of wrongdoing, not a Presidential campaign.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/13/2019 @ 11:31 amYou are woefully ignorant, or intentionally misrepresenting the fact.
The spying was not just Page. Two hops from Page.
Everyone that Page communicated with, phone, text, e mail, instant messaging, etc. Was also sucked into the net, along with all the people those from the first hop communicated with. To say the “campaign” was not spied on, ignores all those attached to campaign that were spied on.
iowan2 (ca76f8) — 12/14/2019 @ 7:07 am