IG Report: Consequential or a Whitewash?

[Setton]

23 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The judge does realize that those crimes committed by Gates and Manafort are for crimes from 10 years ago and have nothing to do with the Trump campaign?  Or did she even care about that fact?  The Mueller investigation could have dug up crimes you committed in the past.  Everyone is guilty of perjury and process crimes.  It just takes time to find the right one.

Spoken like a true cultist. 

No. Not everyone has committed crimes in the past, just because you have. 

[RoofGardener]

Well, we're now on to page 8 of this thread. 

It might be useful to ask a question at this juncture. 

Has anyone here actually READ the IG Report ? 

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, we're now on to page 8 of this thread. 

It might be useful to ask a question at this juncture. 

Has anyone here actually READ the IG Report ? 

To quote a number of Trump supporters in this thread:

Why would we? Our favourite talking head has already told us what's in it? 

[skliss]

On 12/18/2019 at 1:09 AM, RavenHawk said:

The economy is booming under Trump due to tax cuts and gutting unnecessary regulation 

This made me wonder......could it be that there are members of Congress now losing money from lobbyists because they are failing to keep these things intact? We all know about the double dealings that go on...maybe its why they are so frantic to get him out. Most issues usually have money at their base...maybe this does too.

[RoofGardener]

20 minutes ago, Setton said:

To quote a number of Trump supporters in this thread:

Why would we? Our favourite talking head has already told us what's in it? 

Oh.. well.. that's alright then  

[ExpandMyMind]

46 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, we're now on to page 8 of this thread. 

It might be useful to ask a question at this juncture. 

Has anyone here actually READ the IG Report ? 

Not the report, but here are the highlights, if you're interested:

Quote

Page III. On Opening the Main Investigation.

'We concluded that Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision.'

Page IV. On Opening Four Individual Investigations of Page, Manafort, Papadapoulous and Flynn.

'We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.'

Page VI. On FISA of Carter Page

'We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.'

Page XVII. On Usage of Confidential Human Sources and Undercover Employees.

'Finally, we also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.'

And a Bonus on Page II. On Steele Dossier playing no role whatever in the Predication of the Investigation

'These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.'

Via a Reddit comment.

It basically destroyed every conspiracy that was concocted in Trump's defence. Obliterated would actually be a more accurate description.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Not the report, but here are the highlights, if you're interested:

Via a Reddit comment.

It basically destroyed every conspiracy that was concocted in Trump's defence. Obliterated would actually be a more accurate description.

True. Technically speaking very little was found of recorded bias. Because no one says on the record, "I falsified documents because I hate Trump.".

Similarly there was no documentation found directly stating requirement of Quid Pro Quo by Trump with Ukraine, but that didnt stop the Ds from a purely political vote of impeachment, now did it.

Clearly Strozk and others were bias, and in positions to influence the investigation, and potentially the election. Those are facts, if not evidence of guilt.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

True. Technically speaking very little was found of recorded bias. Because no one says on the record, "I falsified documents because I hate Trump.".

Similarly there was no documentation found directly stating requirement of Quid Pro Quo by Trump with Ukraine, but that didnt stop the Ds from a purely political vote of impeachment, now did it.

Clearly Strozk and others were bias, and in positions to influence the investigation, and potentially the election. Those are facts, if not evidence of guilt.

They found no evidence, no simply 'no testimony' of wrongdoing. Everything about it, apart from the Carter Page-CIA omission, was on the up-and-up. That's what the report discovered.

You can't continue with baseless claims about there being no justification for the investigation when there is not only no evidence that it was unjustified, but plenty of evidence that it was entirely justified. Well, I mean you can, but you'd be wrong.

[+DieChecker]

22 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They found no evidence, no simply 'no testimony' of wrongdoing. Everything about it, apart from the Carter Page-CIA omission, was on the up-and-up. That's what the report discovered.

You can't continue with baseless claims about there being no justification for the investigation when there is not only no evidence that it was unjustified, but plenty of evidence that it was entirely justified. Well, I mean you can, but you'd be wrong.

Here's what it says....

That's not " Everything on the up and up. You want me to post 2, 3, 5, 10.... more examples of not " on the up and up"??

That says Deeply Troubled. That says "Antithical to the core values"!!

Probably you thought I wouldnt go read it and you could just try to create "The Truth" by just wanting it to be true?

Edited December 19, 2019 by DieChecker

[Golden Duck]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, we're now on to page 8 of this thread. 

It might be useful to ask a question at this juncture. 

Has anyone here actually READ the IG Report ? 

I admit, I was distracted by the use of the backformation "administrating".

It is curious that the report says Papadopoulos was the Trump Campaign's foreign policy advisor. Trump himself said he was a low level volunteer. How would you characterise someone running their mouth to a foreign ambassador?

Anyway, the FBI has owned it and fixing it.

 

[Golden Duck]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Here's what it says....

That's not " Everything on the up and up. You want me to post 2, 3, 5, 10.... more examples of not " on the up and up"??

That says Deeply Troubled. That says "Antithical to the core values"!!

Probably you thought I wouldnt go read it and you could just try to create "The Truth" by just wanting it to be true?

Where are those screenshots from?

[ChrLzs]

8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, we're now on to page 8 of this thread. 

It might be useful to ask a question at this juncture. 

Has anyone here actually READ the IG Report ? 

Yes.

There's a couple of very good summaries above - is there anything in particular you need to know, or wish to dispute?

 

To Diechecker, as you should know, you need to cite anything you quote, so that others can:

1. Verify it is correctly quoted

2. Check all the surrounding context to see what might have been NOT included...

3. Allow a full discussion in the context of the entire report and its conclusions.

May I suggest that given you have not cited the quotes you posted, it's the height of hypocrisy to tell others:

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

you thought I wouldnt go read it and you could just try to create "The Truth" by just wanting it to be true?

I (and others I'm sure) would be happy to address your specific concerns in context, AFTER you do what you should have done.

 

BTW, it seems rather odd that you would quote all that, but not explain your point?  It has already been acknowledged that the FBI accept that there were procedural issues.  Unlike certain parties and politicians, they admit errors, fix them and move on.

But do elaborate on how those errors affect the overall conclusions.

 

 

Added - Also, please post TEXT quotes, not images.  It makes it impossible/difficult to find the quote or to break it into segments in order to address items.

If not sure how to do that, ask.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Setton]

8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Oh.. well.. that's alright then  

Apparently so... 

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Where are those screenshots from?

The official AG Report.

Want the link?

Edit: I went first to Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_report_on_FBI_and_DOJ_actions_in_the_2016_election

And there found the link to the actual report.

Reference #1

Quote

ReferencesEdit

1. ^ ^a b c "A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election". Office of the Inspector General. DOJ OIG.

Sorry I did not post a link earlier.

Specifically from page xi and xii of the summery at beginning of report.

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by DieChecker

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

The official AG Report.

Want the link?

@ChrLzsposted the link.  I'm searching the pdf on my phone and it won't find 'antithetical'.

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

To Diechecker, as you should know, you need to cite anything you quote, so that others can:

1. Verify it is correctly quoted

2. Check all the surrounding context to see what might have been NOT included...

3. Allow a full discussion in the context of the entire report and its conclusions.

May I suggest that given you have not cited the quotes you posted, it's the height of hypocrisy to tell others:

I (and others I'm sure) would be happy to address your specific concerns in context, AFTER you do what you should have done.

Sorry. I've responded to Golden Duck with the link.

Quote

BTW, it seems rather odd that you would quote all that, but not explain your point?  It has already been acknowledged that the FBI accept that there were procedural issues.  Unlike certain parties and politicians, they admit errors, fix them and move on.

But do elaborate on how those errors affect the overall conclusions.

Added - Also, please post TEXT quotes, not images.  It makes it impossible/difficult to find the quote or to break it into segments in order to address items.

If not sure how to do that, ask.

I was responding to GD because of his response to a post I made. He said...

19 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They found no evidence, no simply 'no testimony' of wrongdoing. Everything about it, apart from the Carter Page-CIA omission, was on the up-and-up. That's what the report discovered.

No evidence of wrongdoing, and everything was on the up and up.

Interesting that you are chiding me, but allowing obvious bluster from GD. He implied he'd read the report and knew what he was talking about, but that seemed not the case when I read it.

I've not read the whole thing. Basically just speed read the summery. But theres no way this can be said to be evidence of everything on the ip and up.

I was also accused of making baseless accusations, to which I believe the Report shows my accusations were simply not baseless, but actually factual. 

[+DieChecker]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

@ChrLzsposted the link.  I'm searching the pdf on my phone and it won't find 'antithetical'.

I posted an edit. The text I posted is from xi and xii, of the summery at beginning of report. 

[Golden Duck]

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I posted an edit. The text I posted is from xi and xii, of the summery at beginning of report. 

I ended up finding it. You're quoting Oversight and Review Division 18-04.

I was searching Oversight and Review Division 20-012.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/fbi.htm#2019

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Golden Duck

[Golden Duck]

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

bluster from GD

???

[Farmer77]

18 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I've not read the whole thing. Basically just speed read the summery. But theres no way this can be said to be evidence of everything on the ip and up.

Thats relative. Everything is a bit broad because of the Carter Page edit I do believe however it is evidence of the investigation overall being on the up and up as it relates to corruption/political bias.  The FBI definitely showed their asses but  Hanlons Razor  is a concept that I have discovered is true 99.9% of the time in life:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."^[1]

 

On a side note viewing personal life through that lens is an awesome way to lower your blood pressure.

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Thats relative. Everything is a bit broad because of the Carter Page edit I do believe however it is evidence of the investigation overall being on the up and up as it relates to corruption/political bias.  The FBI definitely showed their asses but  Hanlons Razor  is a concept that I have discovered is true 99.9% of the time in life:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."^[1]

 

On a side note viewing personal life through that lens is an awesome way to lower your blood pressure.

Well, yeah, theres no actual evidence of corruption. But everyone should admit it still isnt good. There might not be evidence, but there's plenty of stink.

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I ended up finding it. You're quoting Oversight and Review Division 18-04.

I was searching Oversight and Review Division 20-012.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/fbi.htm#2019

 

So were we talking two different reports? 

Probably if we're going to talk about a Report we should all be more specific. 

[ExpandMyMind]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

No evidence of wrongdoing, and everything was on the up and up.

Interesting that you are chiding me, but allowing obvious bluster from GD. He implied he'd read the report and knew what he was talking about, but that seemed not the case when I read it.

I've not read the whole thing. Basically just speed read the summery. But theres no way this can be said to be evidence of everything on the ip and up.

I was also accused of making baseless accusations, to which I believe the Report shows my accusations were simply not baseless, but actually factual. 

Sorry, I should clarify. The argument being made by Trump and his sycophants was that the investigation was started based on nothing or fabricated evidence. It was that I was referring to, which has been roundly debunked. The IG investigation found that it had a solid base and was entirely justified.

On 12/19/2019 at 3:01 PM, DieChecker said:

That's not " Everything on the up and up. You want me to post 2, 3, 5, 10.... more examples of not " on the up and up"??

That says Deeply Troubled. That says "Antithical to the core values"!!

Probably you thought I wouldnt go read it and you could just try to create "The Truth" by just wanting it to be true?

You realise that 'we'll stop it' refers to Democrats and not the agents personally, as evidenced by them doing literally nothing to stop it. It specifically mentions that neither of those agents were in a position to actually have an effective influence on the investigation.

Also, the investigation also found texts from Republican agents who were clearly anti-Hillary, yet no one is claiming that those agents actually helped Trump to win an election or even that they did anything to affect any investigations.

It also found evidence of agents who were

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well, yeah, theres no actual evidence of corruption. But everyone should admit it still isnt good. There might not be evidence, but there's plenty of stink.

If that were the standard, Trump would be long gone.  Even I would rather Trump still be in office if there is not sufficient evidence. 

[acidhead]

Trump meets Obama at the White House

November 10, 2016