A bloodclot away from the presidency

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Milo » Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:22 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:10 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:10 pm
Doc wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:54 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:36 pm
Doc I am unable to recall when you weren't promising a bunch of indictments laid against prominent Democrats.

Don't you wonder when it will actually happen?
There has been a guilty plea by the guy THAT WROTE THE FISA REQUEST for spying on Carter Page. With those FISA requests additional request were made.

That is a clear indication that the entire Russia gate BS was an atempted coup by the FBI. The public statements of Brennan and Clapper (when they were saying in closed hearing of Adam Schiff's House intel committee that they knew of no evidence of Trump Russian collusion) shows they along with the MSM were playing ball with the coup attempt.


The leak of the chief editor of the NYT admitting that Russia Trump collusion was BS that needed to be replaced with "racism" says a lot as well.

The MSM Especially the White House press corp(that includes in its ranks zero republicans) keeps demanding that Trump condemn white supremacy

They even LIE. Editing videos to make Trump sound like a racist. FOR EXAMPLE here are two clips from Trump's comments on the Charlottesville protests.

They even LIE Edited videos to make Trump sound like a racist.

What Associated Press posted of Trump's statement:




The clip of what Trump ACTUALLY SAID that the AP edited out:






Barr has stated that the investigation Durham is conducting has greatly expanded. There has been one key guilty plea agreement with the stipulation of full cooperation with investigators. He is not the first to take an agreement. If the truth ever comes out the democrats as a party and politicians are finished as well as a lot of other people and institutions.

Barr wants this all to come out after Trump has won the election as it will have much more credibility after. IE Why would Trump allow the investigation once he has won the election when he would have little to gain by doing so at that point?

And Trump is going to win. You said you ever in favor of Reagan. I am presuming that was in 1980. If so you should remember that every poll said Carter was going to win by a land slide. Until election night and carter was losing so badly he conceded the election at 9 eastern time before the polls were even closed on the west coast. The People that voted for Reagan felt a great deal of motivation to vote while Carter supporters did not.

What the polls ignored then, is the same thing they are ignoring now. The enthusiasm of Trump supporters with the complete lack of enthusiasm of Biden supporters. The only way the Biden can win is if there is massive fraud. Like in Orange county California in 2018 when six Republicans went to bed winners then woke up in the morning to find out the harvested ballots went majorly against them and all 6 lost.
So no indictments.
I already showed you beyond any doubt there was a major guilty plea. You are refusing to acknowledge it.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- ... -hurricane

FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation
That's what you call major? Someone who altered email for an application to renew a warrant that would have been approved anyway, as part of an investigation that was already investigated by the Inspector General and found to be justified?

Worth noting that this guilty plea was a result of the IG report, not the subsequent histrionics sponsored by Trump quislings, so this isn't even new.

So I certainly acknowledge that the IG report found flaws in the investigation, a year ago.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4661
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Doc » Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:03 pm

Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:22 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:10 am

I already showed you beyond any doubt there was a major guilty plea. You are refusing to acknowledge it.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- ... -hurricane

FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation
That's what you call major? Someone who altered email for an application to renew a warrant that would have been approved anyway, as part of an investigation that was already investigated by the Inspector General and found to be justified?

Worth noting that this guilty plea was a result of the IG report, not the subsequent histrionics sponsored by Trump quislings, so this isn't even new.

So I certainly acknowledge that the IG report found flaws in the investigation, a year ago.
Yes considering that the entire investigation/wiretapping of the Trump campaign by Obama Administration Intel services was based on those very same fraudulent FISA requests. IG Horowitz has no power to arrest or criminally charge anyone so it is hardly surprising that Durham is acting on the IG report that by law the IG cannot follow up on.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Milo » Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:08 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:22 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:10 am

I already showed you beyond any doubt there was a major guilty plea. You are refusing to acknowledge it.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- ... -hurricane

FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation
That's what you call major? Someone who altered email for an application to renew a warrant that would have been approved anyway, as part of an investigation that was already investigated by the Inspector General and found to be justified?

Worth noting that this guilty plea was a result of the IG report, not the subsequent histrionics sponsored by Trump quislings, so this isn't even new.

So I certainly acknowledge that the IG report found flaws in the investigation, a year ago.
Yes considering that the entire investigation/wiretapping of the Trump campaign by Obama Administration Intel services was based on those very same fraudulent FISA requests. IG Horowitz has no power to arrest or criminally charge anyone so it is hardly surprising that Durham is acting on the IG report that by law the IG cannot follow up on.
The IG clearly found that the FISA requests were not fraudulent.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4661
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Doc » Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:18 pm

Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:08 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:22 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:10 am

I already showed you beyond any doubt there was a major guilty plea. You are refusing to acknowledge it.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- ... -hurricane

FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation
That's what you call major? Someone who altered email for an application to renew a warrant that would have been approved anyway, as part of an investigation that was already investigated by the Inspector General and found to be justified?

Worth noting that this guilty plea was a result of the IG report, not the subsequent histrionics sponsored by Trump quislings, so this isn't even new.

So I certainly acknowledge that the IG report found flaws in the investigation, a year ago.
Yes considering that the entire investigation/wiretapping of the Trump campaign by Obama Administration Intel services was based on those very same fraudulent FISA requests. IG Horowitz has no power to arrest or criminally charge anyone so it is hardly surprising that Durham is acting on the IG report that by law the IG cannot follow up on.
The IG clearly found that the FISA requests were not fraudulent.
How do you figure that Milo?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Milo » Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:24 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:18 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:08 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:22 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:10 am

I already showed you beyond any doubt there was a major guilty plea. You are refusing to acknowledge it.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- ... -hurricane

FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used for FISA Application During "Crossfire Hurricane" Investigation
That's what you call major? Someone who altered email for an application to renew a warrant that would have been approved anyway, as part of an investigation that was already investigated by the Inspector General and found to be justified?

Worth noting that this guilty plea was a result of the IG report, not the subsequent histrionics sponsored by Trump quislings, so this isn't even new.

So I certainly acknowledge that the IG report found flaws in the investigation, a year ago.
Yes considering that the entire investigation/wiretapping of the Trump campaign by Obama Administration Intel services was based on those very same fraudulent FISA requests. IG Horowitz has no power to arrest or criminally charge anyone so it is hardly surprising that Durham is acting on the IG report that by law the IG cannot follow up on.
The IG clearly found that the FISA requests were not fraudulent.
How do you figure that Milo?
Because it did not say so.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4661
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Doc » Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:50 pm

Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:24 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:18 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:08 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:22 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:10 am

I already showed you beyond any doubt there was a major guilty plea. You are refusing to acknowledge it.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- ... -hurricane

That's what you call major? Someone who altered email for an application to renew a warrant that would have been approved anyway, as part of an investigation that was already investigated by the Inspector General and found to be justified?

Worth noting that this guilty plea was a result of the IG report, not the subsequent histrionics sponsored by Trump quislings, so this isn't even new.

So I certainly acknowledge that the IG report found flaws in the investigation, a year ago.
Yes considering that the entire investigation/wiretapping of the Trump campaign by Obama Administration Intel services was based on those very same fraudulent FISA requests. IG Horowitz has no power to arrest or criminally charge anyone so it is hardly surprising that Durham is acting on the IG report that by law the IG cannot follow up on.
The IG clearly found that the FISA requests were not fraudulent.
How do you figure that Milo?
Because it did not say so.
It said every but the word "fraud". Claiming they found the request were not fraudulent is really a stretch Milo. Like it is a stretch to go from a FBI attorney PLEADING GUILTY to Perjury (a form of Fraud on the FISA court ) to "Just because the IG found nothing there is no there there. There is much there in the guilty plea and the IG report.

The FBI is under obligation to follow the woods procedures. Under those procedures and because of the threat to civil liberties the FBI is required under penalty of perjury(again a form of fraud) to disclose all information related to the case in the FBI's (Or DOJ's) possession. Clinesmith (the guilty FBI lawyer) FAILED to disclose to the FISA court that Carter Page was a CIA informant. FAILED to disclose that the Steel dossier was paid for AND PROMOTED TO THE FBI by the Hillary campaign. FAILED to disclose that the person that supplied most of the information for the FISA application is a known russian spy. (Known since 2009 or 2010 when he was outed as a spy)Making the dossier Russian Intelligence disinformation.
"The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the Department, including by then DAG Yates for the init ial FISA application and first renewal, and by then Acting Attorney General Boente and then DAG Rosenstein for the second and third renewals, respectively. However, as we explain later, the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to inform Department officials of significant information that was available to the team at the time that the FISA applications were drafted and filed. Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications. While we do not speculate whether Department officials would have authorized the FBI to seek to use FISA authority had they been made aware of all relevant information, it was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise them of such critical information so that they could make a fully informed decision
.
Steele's handling agent told us that when Steele provided him with the first election reports in July 2016 and described his engagement with Fusion GPS, it was obvious to him that the request for the research was politically motivated. The supervisory intelligence analyst who supervised the analytical efforts for the Crossfire Hurricane team (Supervisory Intel Analyst
"

Here are the "errors" listed by th eOG
As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to t he FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:
1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship wit h Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and t hat Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of w hich overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application ;
2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that St eele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,"Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;
3. Omitted informat ion relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 re lied upon in the application), namely that ( 1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and " m a en a e in some em bellishment" and (2)
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared h is election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in t he Woods File- Steele had told t he FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;
5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associ ated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;
6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had " literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was par t icipating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
7. I ncluded Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those stat em ents contradicted t he claims in Report 94 that Page ix had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperat ion with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these fa ilures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. The failure to provide accurate and complete information to the OI Attorney concerning Page's prior relationship with another U.S. government agency (item 1 above) was particularly concerning because the OI Attorney had specifically asked the case agent in late September 2016 whether Carter Page had a current or prior relationship with the other agency. I n response to that inquiry, the case agent advised t he OI Attorney that Page's relationship was "dated" ( claiming it was when Page lived in Moscow in 2004-2007) and "outside scope." This representation, however, was contrary t o information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016, wh ich stated that Page was approved as an "operational contact" of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow). Moreover, rather than being "outside scope," Page's status with the other agency overlapped in time with some of the interactions between Page and known Russian intelligence officers that were relied u pon in the FISA applications to establish probable cause. Indeed, Page had provided information to the other agency about his past contacts w ith a Russian Intelligence Officer (Intelligence Officer 1), which were among the historical connections to Russian intelligence officers that the FBI relied upon in t he first FISA application (and subsequent renewal applications). According to the information from the other agency, an employee of t he other agency had assessed that Page "candidly described his contact w ith" Intelligence Officer 1 to the other agency. Thus, the FBI relied upon Page's contacts with Intelligence Officer 1, among others, in support of its probable cause statement in t he FISA application, while failing to disclose to OI or the FISC that ( 1) Page had been approved as an operational contact by the other agency during a five-year period that overlapped w ith allegations in the FISA application, (2) Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals, and (3) the other agency's employee had given a positive assessment of Page's candor. Further, we were concerned by the FBI's inaccurate assertion in the application that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal

What was it Gobbels said? "Accuse your opposition of that which you are guilty" Something like that anyway.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Milo » Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:54 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:50 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:24 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:18 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:08 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:22 pm


That's what you call major? Someone who altered email for an application to renew a warrant that would have been approved anyway, as part of an investigation that was already investigated by the Inspector General and found to be justified?

Worth noting that this guilty plea was a result of the IG report, not the subsequent histrionics sponsored by Trump quislings, so this isn't even new.

So I certainly acknowledge that the IG report found flaws in the investigation, a year ago.
Yes considering that the entire investigation/wiretapping of the Trump campaign by Obama Administration Intel services was based on those very same fraudulent FISA requests. IG Horowitz has no power to arrest or criminally charge anyone so it is hardly surprising that Durham is acting on the IG report that by law the IG cannot follow up on.
The IG clearly found that the FISA requests were not fraudulent.
How do you figure that Milo?
Because it did not say so.
It said every but the word "fraud". Claiming they found the request were not fraudulent is really a stretch Milo. Like it is a stretch to go from a FBI attorney PLEADING GUILTY to Perjury (a form of Fraud on the FISA court ) to "Just because the IG found nothing there is no there there. There is much there in the guilty plea and the IG report.

The FBI is under obligation to follow the woods procedures. Under those procedures and because of the threat to civil liberties the FBI is required under penalty of perjury(again a form of fraud) to disclose all information related to the case in the FBI's (Or DOJ's) possession. Clinesmith (the guilty FBI lawyer) FAILED to disclose to the FISA court that Carter Page was a CIA informant. FAILED to disclose that the Steel dossier was paid for AND PROMOTED TO THE FBI by the Hillary campaign. FAILED to disclose that the person that supplied most of the information for the FISA application is a known russian spy. (Known since 2009 or 2010 when he was outed as a spy)Making the dossier Russian Intelligence disinformation.
"The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the Department, including by then DAG Yates for the init ial FISA application and first renewal, and by then Acting Attorney General Boente and then DAG Rosenstein for the second and third renewals, respectively. However, as we explain later, the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to inform Department officials of significant information that was available to the team at the time that the FISA applications were drafted and filed. Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications. While we do not speculate whether Department officials would have authorized the FBI to seek to use FISA authority had they been made aware of all relevant information, it was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise them of such critical information so that they could make a fully informed decision
.
Steele's handling agent told us that when Steele provided him with the first election reports in July 2016 and described his engagement with Fusion GPS, it was obvious to him that the request for the research was politically motivated. The supervisory intelligence analyst who supervised the analytical efforts for the Crossfire Hurricane team (Supervisory Intel Analyst
"

Here are the "errors" listed by th eOG
As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to t he FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:
1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship wit h Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and t hat Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of w hich overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application ;
2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that St eele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,"Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;
3. Omitted informat ion relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 re lied upon in the application), namely that ( 1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and " m a en a e in some em bellishment" and (2)
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared h is election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in t he Woods File- Steele had told t he FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;
5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associ ated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;
6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had " literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was par t icipating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
7. I ncluded Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those stat em ents contradicted t he claims in Report 94 that Page ix had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperat ion with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these fa ilures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. The failure to provide accurate and complete information to the OI Attorney concerning Page's prior relationship with another U.S. government agency (item 1 above) was particularly concerning because the OI Attorney had specifically asked the case agent in late September 2016 whether Carter Page had a current or prior relationship with the other agency. I n response to that inquiry, the case agent advised t he OI Attorney that Page's relationship was "dated" ( claiming it was when Page lived in Moscow in 2004-2007) and "outside scope." This representation, however, was contrary t o information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016, wh ich stated that Page was approved as an "operational contact" of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow). Moreover, rather than being "outside scope," Page's status with the other agency overlapped in time with some of the interactions between Page and known Russian intelligence officers that were relied u pon in the FISA applications to establish probable cause. Indeed, Page had provided information to the other agency about his past contacts w ith a Russian Intelligence Officer (Intelligence Officer 1), which were among the historical connections to Russian intelligence officers that the FBI relied upon in t he first FISA application (and subsequent renewal applications). According to the information from the other agency, an employee of t he other agency had assessed that Page "candidly described his contact w ith" Intelligence Officer 1 to the other agency. Thus, the FBI relied upon Page's contacts with Intelligence Officer 1, among others, in support of its probable cause statement in t he FISA application, while failing to disclose to OI or the FISC that ( 1) Page had been approved as an operational contact by the other agency during a five-year period that overlapped w ith allegations in the FISA application, (2) Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals, and (3) the other agency's employee had given a positive assessment of Page's candor. Further, we were concerned by the FBI's inaccurate assertion in the application that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal

What was it Gobbels said? "Accuse your opposition of that which you are guilty" Something like that anyway.
But knowing all that, the IG report found it was a legitimate operation.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4661
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Doc » Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:32 am

Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:54 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:50 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:24 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:18 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:08 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:03 pm


Yes considering that the entire investigation/wiretapping of the Trump campaign by Obama Administration Intel services was based on those very same fraudulent FISA requests. IG Horowitz has no power to arrest or criminally charge anyone so it is hardly surprising that Durham is acting on the IG report that by law the IG cannot follow up on.
The IG clearly found that the FISA requests were not fraudulent.
How do you figure that Milo?
Because it did not say so.
It said every but the word "fraud". Claiming they found the request were not fraudulent is really a stretch Milo. Like it is a stretch to go from a FBI attorney PLEADING GUILTY to Perjury (a form of Fraud on the FISA court ) to "Just because the IG found nothing there is no there there. There is much there in the guilty plea and the IG report.

The FBI is under obligation to follow the woods procedures. Under those procedures and because of the threat to civil liberties the FBI is required under penalty of perjury(again a form of fraud) to disclose all information related to the case in the FBI's (Or DOJ's) possession. Clinesmith (the guilty FBI lawyer) FAILED to disclose to the FISA court that Carter Page was a CIA informant. FAILED to disclose that the Steel dossier was paid for AND PROMOTED TO THE FBI by the Hillary campaign. FAILED to disclose that the person that supplied most of the information for the FISA application is a known russian spy. (Known since 2009 or 2010 when he was outed as a spy)Making the dossier Russian Intelligence disinformation.
"The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the Department, including by then DAG Yates for the init ial FISA application and first renewal, and by then Acting Attorney General Boente and then DAG Rosenstein for the second and third renewals, respectively. However, as we explain later, the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to inform Department officials of significant information that was available to the team at the time that the FISA applications were drafted and filed. Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications. While we do not speculate whether Department officials would have authorized the FBI to seek to use FISA authority had they been made aware of all relevant information, it was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise them of such critical information so that they could make a fully informed decision
.
Steele's handling agent told us that when Steele provided him with the first election reports in July 2016 and described his engagement with Fusion GPS, it was obvious to him that the request for the research was politically motivated. The supervisory intelligence analyst who supervised the analytical efforts for the Crossfire Hurricane team (Supervisory Intel Analyst
"

Here are the "errors" listed by th eOG
As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to t he FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:
1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship wit h Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and t hat Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of w hich overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application ;
2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that St eele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,"Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;
3. Omitted informat ion relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 re lied upon in the application), namely that ( 1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and " m a en a e in some em bellishment" and (2)
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared h is election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in t he Woods File- Steele had told t he FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;
5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associ ated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;
6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had " literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was par t icipating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
7. I ncluded Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those stat em ents contradicted t he claims in Report 94 that Page ix had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperat ion with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these fa ilures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. The failure to provide accurate and complete information to the OI Attorney concerning Page's prior relationship with another U.S. government agency (item 1 above) was particularly concerning because the OI Attorney had specifically asked the case agent in late September 2016 whether Carter Page had a current or prior relationship with the other agency. I n response to that inquiry, the case agent advised t he OI Attorney that Page's relationship was "dated" ( claiming it was when Page lived in Moscow in 2004-2007) and "outside scope." This representation, however, was contrary t o information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016, wh ich stated that Page was approved as an "operational contact" of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow). Moreover, rather than being "outside scope," Page's status with the other agency overlapped in time with some of the interactions between Page and known Russian intelligence officers that were relied u pon in the FISA applications to establish probable cause. Indeed, Page had provided information to the other agency about his past contacts w ith a Russian Intelligence Officer (Intelligence Officer 1), which were among the historical connections to Russian intelligence officers that the FBI relied upon in t he first FISA application (and subsequent renewal applications). According to the information from the other agency, an employee of t he other agency had assessed that Page "candidly described his contact w ith" Intelligence Officer 1 to the other agency. Thus, the FBI relied upon Page's contacts with Intelligence Officer 1, among others, in support of its probable cause statement in t he FISA application, while failing to disclose to OI or the FISC that ( 1) Page had been approved as an operational contact by the other agency during a five-year period that overlapped w ith allegations in the FISA application, (2) Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals, and (3) the other agency's employee had given a positive assessment of Page's candor. Further, we were concerned by the FBI's inaccurate assertion in the application that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal

What was it Gobbels said? "Accuse your opposition of that which you are guilty" Something like that anyway.
But knowing all that, the IG report found it was a legitimate operation.
Under the woods rules any withholding of information is the same thing as perjury. Information was certainly withheld. If you said "well my rules makes it ok to rob a bank" Then you would be saying the same thing that the FBI has said. Ignorance of the law is no excuse nor is making a regulator process that does not follow the law. Another question would be when was this process put into place? When Obama loosened the restriction on unmasking people in FISA reports?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Milo » Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:15 pm

I have made the point a tiresome number of times: the Republicans keep investigating investigations: because they didn't get the result they wanted.

This is why Trump is threatening to fire Barr on an almost daily basis now, even Barr has to respect some rules or face Bar sanctions, if not criminal ones, but in Trump's world of sleazy deals you just make it up.

Barr knows that Trump can't protect him from everything, and even if he could, Trump can't be trusted to piss on anyone if they were on fire and he just slammed a six pack.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4661
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: A bloodclot away from the presidency

Post by Doc » Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:35 pm

Milo wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:15 pm
I have made the point a tiresome number of times: the Republicans keep investigating investigations: because they didn't get the result they wanted.

This is why Trump is threatening to fire Barr on an almost daily basis now, even Barr has to respect some rules or face Bar sanctions, if not criminal ones, but in Trump's world of sleazy deals you just make it up.

Barr knows that Trump can't protect him from everything, and even if he could, Trump can't be trusted to piss on anyone if they were on fire and he just slammed a six pack.
The Democrats the Clinton and the FBI et al have done nothing at all but stone wall. Just like Twitter and Facebook are now stone walling on info getting out that Joe Biden is a corrupt thug
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply