Post-Mueller investigation investigations and indictments

[Walter Sobchak]

All Americans should be able to agree that James Comey is the villain here. He meddled in the 2016 election in ways that harmed both candidates—and he did it only for opportunism—for personal gain. Once again, the FBI is a dark element in American history, a threat to American democracy and civil rights.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller...al-11553468801

And when is Andrew McCabe going to be indicted for lying to the Department of Justice about leaking to the Wall Street Journal (I.e., his obstruction of justice)? Of course McCabe’s leaks hurt Hillary not Trump. And the leaks and McCabe’s lies about them are not disputed.

Someone is getting nervous.

Embedded Tweet

[Walter Sobchak]

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

The Dems' spying on Americans is getting out of hand:

Embedded Tweet

And then there is Schiffhead's recent spying on committee members and members of the press:

Embedded Tweet

The NSA/CIA needs to be splintered "in a thousand pieces" and "scattered to the winds". (Hey, maybe the CIA will assassinate Drumpf too.)

[frank ryan]

The Dems' spying on Americans is getting out of hand:

Embedded Tweet

And then there is Schiffhead's recent spying on committee members and members of the press:

Embedded Tweet

The NSA/CIA needs to be splintered "in a thousand pieces" and "scattered to the winds". (Hey, maybe the CIA will assassinate Drumpf too.)

Stop being crazy. You’ve read too many infowars staff’ tweets.

[Uncle Ted]

Stop being crazy. You’ve read too many infowars staff’ tweets.

Do you know what is crazy, Frank?

We know now that dumbass Brennan lied to congress:

Embedded Tweet

And that other dumbass Clapper lied to everyone:

Embedded Tweet

And the dumb f*cks at the FBI lied to the FISA court:

Embedded Tweet

And 'altered' evidence:

Embedded Tweet

And used that "work of fantasy" steele dossier that the CIA thought was the same as an "internet rumor":

Embedded Tweet

This is starting to get good, Frank... Much better than that impeachment sh*tshow the Dems are putting on. And Barr is going to release some more:

Embedded Tweet

God bless Bill Barr.

[frank ryan]

The IG report found the investigation and was justified and found no political bias. I challenge you to stay away from twitter for two weeks, and read regular new sources.

[Uncle Ted]

The IG report found the investigation and was justified and found no political bias. I challenge you to stay away from twitter for two weeks, and read regular new sources.

Frank, you are missing the forest for all the trees...

The IG Report Is a Huge Blow to the FBI's Credibility. Why Is It Being Treated Like Vindication?

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General released its highly anticipated report on the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign's Russia connection on Monday.

Make no mistake: The report chronicles serious wrongdoing with respect to the FBI's surveillance of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, and is ultimately a damning indictment of the the nation's top law enforcement agency. All Americans should have serious concerns about the FBI's respect for constitutional principles, ability to carefully evaluate conflicting information, and its competency in general.
[...]
As Scott Shackford explained in his post on this subject, the report by Michael Horowitz found 17 "serious performance failures" relating to warrants obtained by the FBI through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment (FISA) courts for the purposes of monitoring Page. The FISA warrant, which was reauthorized three times, contained false and misleading information about Page. It omitted that he had previously disclosed his Russian contacts to a government agency; it overstated the government's confidence in the Christopher Steele dossier and ignored Steele's own doubts about one of his sources; it declined to mention that Page had said he and Paul Manafort had "literally never met"; and in general it ignored information that rendered unlikely the theory that Page was a Russian asset.

These are alarming failures. They undercut the government's position that FISA courts are a sufficient guardian of Americans' civil liberties, and that the FBI is capable of responsibly exercising the vast powers granted to it. No one should feel confident that a court would block the FBI from engaging in surveillance, even if the information was flawed or faulty.
[...]

https://reason.com/2019/12/09/ig-rep...e-trump-media/

"Don't trust FBI... FBI is asshole!"



The FISA court needs to be shutdown for allowing spying on American citizens and the FBI needs to be gutted to restore its reputation.

[frank ryan]

Also Bob Barr is an embarrassment to public service. He's interested in running interference for Trump, and not serving his country. That's evidenced by his misrepresenting the findings of the Mueller report and the shenanigans he's pulling with the IG report.

Also, having a philosophical problem with FISA courts and warrants etc, is a lot different from buying Trump's deluded victim stance perspective that he was illegally harassed by crooked FBI agents.

Ted, notice how you only bitch about the government officials and agencies that Trump does?

[Eddie]

What little I've read of the executive summary (who's got time to read it all?!?) I've come to the conclusion that neither side will get what they want from the IG report. It isn't the smoking gun that Trump says it is, showing that he's the subject of some conspiracy, and it isn't completely exculpatory of the FBI and their actions either.

Which really, if I'm being honest with myself, is no big surprise. I've worked with law enforcement enough to know that they have no problem telling half-truths and lying to subjects of their investigation or interrogation. So it doesn't surprise me if they cut some corners or provided incomplete or inaccurate information in seeking the FISA warrants. Way too often the end justifies the means. And I have no trouble believing that Trump isn't completely clean of wrongdoing.

This whole impeachment and the potential upcoming Senate trial should has been interesting so far. Put me in the camp of believing it's going to backfire on the Dems.

[Uncle Ted]

Also Bob Barr is an embarrassment to public service. He's interested in running interference for Trump, and not serving his country. That's evidenced by his misrepresenting the findings of the Mueller report and the shenanigans he's pulling with the IG report.

Also, having a philosophical problem with FISA courts and warrants etc, is a lot different from buying Trump's deluded victim stance perspective that he was illegally harassed by crooked FBI agents.

Ted, notice how you only bitch about the government officials and agencies that Trump does?

Frank, I have always bitched about the FBI... I have seen up close and in person how the sausage is made there.

[frank ryan]

What little I've read of the executive summary (who's got time to read it all?!?) I've come to the conclusion that neither side will get what they want from the IG report. It isn't the smoking gun that Trump says it is, showing that he's the subject of some conspiracy, and it isn't completely exculpatory of the FBI and their actions either.

Which really, if I'm being honest with myself, is no big surprise. I've worked with law enforcement enough to know that they have no problem telling half-truths and lying to subjects of their investigation or interrogation. So it doesn't surprise me if they cut some corners or provided incomplete or inaccurate information in seeking the FISA warrants. Way too often the end justifies the means. And I have no trouble believing that Trump isn't completely clean of wrongdoing.

This whole impeachment and the potential upcoming Senate trial should has been interesting so far. Put me in the camp of believing it's going to backfire on the Dems.

Not exactly, the IG report was clear on the primary points of concern: political bias and justification. They found errors and some mistakes.

I don’t think they have a choice to do anything but impeach, regardless of political fallout. Trump’s behaviors are objectively egregious. You can’t ignore this shit. I think impeachment damages Trump. He may still win, but it won’t be because he is impeached. He’s also willing to do whatever he can, including solicit foreign help (that’s not in dispute) multiple times to get a leg up. Never underestimate a paranoid narcissist.

Thanks for your take btw.

[Eddie]

Not exactly, the IG report was clear on the primary points of concern: political bias and justification. They found errors and some mistakes.

Just curious - what do you mean by not exactly?

I agree that the IG report was clear that they did not find political bias or that the investigation and FISA warrants were politically motivated as far as the FBI is concerned. That said - it does indicate that they should've been more clear about the Steele dossier and its origin - in particular the fact that it began as a politically driven investigation by Hillary and the DNC.

But from what I understood from the parts that I read - and the piece I'm referring to above referring to the FBI's actions - the FBI didn't exactly follow the requirements in order to get the warrants. Which has me wondering if they would've gotten them in the first place if they HAD followed the requirements. I know that the impeachment trial isn't a criminal proceeding, but I can't help but wonder if the FBI's mistakes could've resulted in any information gathered as a result of the FISA warrant being thrown out anyway.

Here's what I was referring to as the FBI not meeting requirements and/or following protocol - straight from the IG report:

Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate." We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. We found that the problems we identified were primarily caused by the Crossfire Hurricane team failing to share all relevant information with OI and, consequently, the information was not considered by the Department decision makers who ultimately decided to support the applications.

This is on page viii of the executive summary. Just paraphrasing - it goes on to say that there were 7 significant inaccuracies or omissions (whether they were left inaccurate or omitted accidentally or on purpose - I have no idea):

1 - Omitted info the FBI had received from another agency letting them know that Page had been approved as an "operational contact".

2 - Overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting.

3 - Omitted information relevant to the reliability of a key Steele sub-source.

4 - Incorrectly assessed that Steele had not directly provided his information for a Yahoo News article (which I'm assuming was used as a secondary source/confirmation for the information, when it actually was just a repeat of the original source?)

5 - Omitted Papadopoulos's "consensually monitored statement" that the Trump campaign was not collaborating with the Russians or with anyone at Wikileaks to release emails.

6 - Omitted Page's "consensually monitored statements" that he had never met Manafort and that Manafort hadn't responded to any of his emails - contrary to the FBI theory that Page was a intermediary between Manafort and the Russians in some conspiracy.

7 - Included "consensually monitored statements" by Page that the FBI thought supported their theory that he was a Russian agent, while omitting other statements Page made that did not support their theory.

If that information had been included, would the FBI have been able to get their FISA warrant? Who knows - but that seems like some pretty significant information for a judge to consider in light of the allegations they were said to be investigating.

Which isn't to say that Trump isn't what he is. That just supports my initial posting that the FBI is not entirely clean in their actions. This isn't just making a mistake or forgetting to fill out the right form. If the FBI is getting warrants to spy in people based on bad info - that's wrong.

Obviously we can debate what should be done with the information they gained - which is a different discussion. But I don't want the FBI to be able to grab warrants based on inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported information. That's just wrong.

[frank ryan]

Just curious - what do you mean by not exactly?

I agree that the IG report was clear that they did not find political bias or that the investigation and FISA warrants were politically motivated as far as the FBI is concerned. That said - it does indicate that they should've been more clear about the Steele dossier and its origin - in particular the fact that it began as a politically driven investigation by Hillary and the DNC.

Political bias and justification were the reasons the IG got involved. GOP concerns were invalidated. Steele was hired by political operatives, and I think a GOP rival hired him before the dems did, and I guess that's helpful for context, but doesn't speak to Steele's work, which despite what Ted/4chan/FoxNews tell you has held up pretty well.

The IG report also showed that Steele and Ivanka have been casual friends for quite a while. That'll be conviently ignored by those who Trump as poor picked on martyr.

[creekster]

Before any of you make sweeping assertions about what the IG report concluded and what that means you really ought to pay attention to it more carefully. Look at the methodology section at the beginning. You will see that the standard the IG applied was that if the FBI could offer any legal or discretionary reason for an act or conduct, regardless of whether that reason was the most likely or most plausible, they did not question it. They also made no evaluation of whether discretionary conduct was reasonable or could have been avoided or the desired result achieved in a better or less intrusive way. IOW, if the FBI could offer ANY explanation that was legal and acceptable, the IG accepted it uncritically. That is a very, very low bar and not at all the standard being used by the Judiciary Committee in its articles of impeachment. To the contrary, they are evaluating the president's conduct without considering his own explanation at all. If you accept Trump's positions, ignoring perhaps how poorly he often frames them, there would be no articles of impeachment. My point is that the IG report's conclusions are put in the very best possible light for the FBI and the DOJ. So when the IG does that and then still finds many unanswered questions and problems, I think it creates a lot of concerns.

Here is what they say, in part:

Our role in this review was not to second-guess
discretionary judgments by Department personnel
about whether to open an investigation, or specific
judgment calls made during the course of an
investigation, where those decisions complied with or
were authorized by Department rules, policies, or
procedures. We do not criticize particular decisions
merely because we might have recommended a
different investigative strategy or tactic based on the
facts learned during our investigation. The question we
considered was not whether a particular investigative
decision was ideal or could have been handled more
effectively, but rather whether the Department and the
FBI complied with applicable legal requirements,
policies, and procedures in taking the actions we
reviewed or, alternatively, whether the circumstances
surrounding the decision indicated that it was based on
or incomplete information, or considerations
other than the merits of t he investigation. If the
explanations we were given for a particular decision
were consistent with legal requirements, policies,
procedures, and not unreasonable, we did not conclude
that the decision was based on improper considerations
in the absence of documentary or testimonial evidence
to the contrary.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

[myboynoah]

Before any of you make sweeping assertions about what the IG report concluded and what that means you really ought to pay attention to it more carefully. Look at the methodology section at the beginning. You will see that the standard the IG applied was that if the FBI could offer any legal or discretionary reason for an act or conduct, regardless of whether that reason was the most likely or most plausible, they did not question it. They also made no evaluation of whether discretionary conduct was reasonable or could have been avoided or the desired result achieved in a better or less intrusive way. IOW, if the FBI could offer ANY explanation that was legal and acceptable, the IG accepted it uncritically. That is a very, very low bar and not at all the standard being used by the Judiciary Committee in its articles of impeachment. To the contrary, they are evaluating the president's conduct without considering his own explanation at all. If you accept Trump's positions, ignoring perhaps how poorly he often frames them, there would be no articles of impeachment. My point is that the IG report's conclusions are put in the very best possible light for the FBI and the DOJ. So when the IG does that and then still finds many unanswered questions and problems, I think it creates a lot of concerns.

Well, what exactly are the President's positions? It appears to me that he wanted to enlist a foreign government to provide campaign benefit to him personally. Not true? And he withheld tangible USG goods in order to get that foreign government to provide that benefit. Not true? That is impeachable to me.

Or are you saying that the President would explain his positions differently? And that without that personal explanation, then we can't come to any real conclusions?