Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

IG Report: Consequential or a Whitewash?

229 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

South Alabam

They knew Carter Page was a CIA asset and had reported his contacts with Russian officials. The FBI lawyer in charge of helping to obtain the FISA warrant knew that, and altered his email from the CIA, where it stated yes he was a CIA asset, to no, he was not a CIA asset, and ran to the FISA court anyway.  IG Horowitz uncovered this by comparing the sent email to the received email. And that guy is in serious trouble.

Edited by South Alabam
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp
42 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yes and the FBI has wholly owned the mistakes they made and are accepting the recommendations to remedy them, as a professional organization should.

Further, Mr. Deep State apologist, those so-called "mistakes" made by the FBI include a number of felonies.

Do you believe simply "owning up" to making a mistake should keep these idiots from facing charges?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
10 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Further, Mr. Deep State apologist, those so-called "mistakes" made by the FBI include a number of felonies.

Do you believe simply "owning up" to making a mistake should keep these idiots from facing charges?

So is Obama ever going to answer for wire-tapping Trump's family and his hotels when he was a Presidential candidate or do we just pretend that didn't happen? There is dirt on both sides but the dirt on the Democrat side seems to be consistently more serious yet with less consequences for those involved. Funny how that works.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
8 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

So is Obama ever going to answer for wire-tapping Trump's family and his hotels when he was a Presidential candidate or do we just pretend that didn't happen? There is dirt on both sides but the dirt on the Democrat side seems to be consistently more serious yet with less consequences for those involved. Funny how that works.

There will be no real consequences for the Dems from Horowitz.  Few expected any from him.  If they face none from Durham and Barr, there will be trouble.  Sooner or later, there will be a reckoning.  People are tired of this crap.

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

VERY unwise...but you'll do it anyway...right?

He and others here will do so because they already know they're never going to admit being wrong.  The top echelon from the Obama administration could be perp-walked to prison cells and they'd go to their graves saying it was "partisan".  Hell, they'd go around calling them "political prisoners" as though they were martyrs to the cause.  That's the level of nuttery we've gotten to.  I don't care about how idiots view this, I just want to see justice done and these scum held liable in a meaningful way.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
18 minutes ago, and then said:

He and others here will do so because they already know they're never going to admit being wrong.  The top echelon from the Obama administration could be perp-walked to prison cells and they'd go to their graves saying it was "partisan".  Hell, they'd go around calling them "political prisoners" as though they were martyrs to the cause.  That's the level of nuttery we've gotten to.  I don't care about how idiots view this, I just want to see justice done and these scum held liable in a meaningful way.

See above for best example ever of projection.  The tell-tale signs are when it is all about claims of bias - no actual claims are referred to, and no refutations are offered, the projectionist merely calls others idiots and similar...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Further, Mr. Deep State apologist, those so-called "mistakes" made by the FBI include a number of felonies.

Do you believe simply "owning up" to making a mistake should keep these idiots from facing charges?

As someone who works within similar systems I understand the context matters.  There really isnt a blanket answer to your question.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

So is Obama ever going to answer for wire-tapping Trump's family and his hotels when he was a Presidential candidate or do we just pretend that didn't happen? There is dirt on both sides but the dirt on the Democrat side seems to be consistently more serious yet with less consequences for those involved. Funny how that works.

Trump hired an admitted advisor to the Kremlin to his campaign to become POTUS.

The only answer Obama has to give for investigating that is "youre welcome".

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 hours ago, hacktorp said:

There is plenty of denial coming from the FBI and your proclaiming them to be somehow absolved because they've only now, after having the evidence shoved in their faces, managed to issue a weak apology is hilarious on your part.

Further, Horowitz' job was extremely narrow in its focus and did not allow him to fully investigate the predicates used to launch the Russia investigation against Trump.  That's Barr and Durham's job and they indicate things are just beginning to heat up.

So, you are unwise to pull a "Comey" at this point and declare anything "dead" or any of these Obama administration idiots "vindicated" this early in the game.

VERY unwise...but you'll do it anyway...right?

Oh this is definitely a both things are true scenario. The conspiracy theory IS dead, however I also have no doubt that eventually you will get the political prosecutions you want based on said conspiracy theory. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

So, what's this thread about?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So, what's this thread about?  

Fakes.

(Fake news, Fake reports, Fake Attorney General, Fake Presidency, Fake Congress, Fake Senate, Fake USA...  It's all fu faked.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I don't know why you hate the Constitution so much but I'll bet if you took the time to actually learn about it and America you would be much less angry.

I'm talking about facts while you're ranting about feelings and tinfoil conspiracy lunacy.

This is so sad.  This comment is totally and completely disconnected from all reality.  This is a clear symptom of TDS.  The Left accuses someone of the wrong they do.  Don’t the articles of impeachment also fit the Progs in the House?  Of course it does.  That should be a major clue as to the legitimacy of this attempted coup.  The only facts you know are the ones you fantasize in your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
6 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

So is Obama ever going to answer for wire-tapping Trump's family and his hotels when he was a Presidential candidate or do we just pretend that didn't happen?

Did it happen?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
10 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That should be a major clue as to the legitimacy of this attempted coup. 

Lets just go ahead and start with this one. When you dont have even a basic grasp on the words you are using it kind of puts you at a disadvantage. This by definition is not a coup.

 

14 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Don’t the articles of impeachment also fit the Progs in the House?  Of course it does.

Not if you have an ounce of intellectual integrity.  

BUT i will meet you halfway and say OK then go ahead and start the impeachment process against them in addition to Trump.

14 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

  The only facts you know are the ones you fantasize in your head.

I asked and then this the other day but he didnt answer so Ill ask you. Do you know how much psychological projection you guys actually do? (thats the term you were trying to get at above)

I know Trump does it , but do you know you're doing it, or do you actually believe the things you're parroting?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
7 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yes and the FBI has wholly owned the mistakes they made and are accepting the recommendations to remedy them, as a professional organization should.

Let’s see, there are some 17 separate incidents of abuse and Horowitz calls it simple neglect and not treason?  Something just doesn’t pass the smell test.  Even if this was some perfect storm of mindless neglect, for the FBI to own up would require wholesale firings and a few indictments.

 

You know what howorowitz still didn't say?

He copped out.  He didn’t want to become a target of the Left.  He was CYB.

 

That the investigation was started under false pretenses or that it was politically biased in any way. 

Actually, he did say that it was started under false pretenses.  He said that before the Dossier, the FBI had decided not to spy on Carter Page.  Then when the Dossier was available, the FBI began spying.

 

The conspiracy theory is still dead hack. 

I’m afraid that the Left are pushing their CT in full force.  And according to Al Green, they’ll keep repeating until they find something to stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Let’s see, there are some 17 separate incidents of abuse and Horowitz calls it simple neglect and not treason?  Something just doesn’t pass the smell test.  Even if this was some perfect storm of mindless neglect, for the FBI to own up would require wholesale firings and a few indictments.

Yeah youve had your media screaming unrealistic expectations at you about this for 2 years now. Im not surprised you cant accept the results.

2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Actually, he did say that it was started under false pretenses.  He said that before the Dossier, the FBI had decided not to spy on Carter Page.  Then when the Dossier was available, the FBI began spying.

Sigghhhh go ahead and quote him saying it was started under false pretenses. "Your"  interpretation of his words is great and all but please provide the quote where he said it started under false pretenses. Ill gladly admit I was wrong.

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

He copped out.  He didn’t want to become a target of the Left.  He was CYB.

Keep on cheering on that dictatorship, you just might get it :tu:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Ravenhawk, like Farmer I'd really like to see the 17 "incidents of abuse", so we can judge your claim that they are 'treason'ous and Horowitz is unjustifiably calling them 'neglect'.

You are also quite specific about Horowitz saying it was "under false pretences".  Please quote that part.  I found this bit:

Quote

We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign.

(CHS being a 'confidential human source' ie spy or undercover agent) 

So how do you reconcile that with your claim?

Here's the report by the way:

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

...how's about you QUOTE, in future.  Page numbers, thanks.

If you'd rather not answer fully and properly, well, I think some conclusions may be drawn....

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
33 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah youve had your media screaming unrealistic expectations at you about this for 2 years now. Im not surprised you cant accept the results.

Sigghhhh go ahead and quote him saying it was started under false pretenses. "Your"  interpretation of his words is great and all but please provide the quote where he said it started under false pretenses. Ill gladly admit I was wrong.

Keep on cheering on that dictatorship, you just might get it :tu:

 

Quote

... The Report also details instances in which certain FBI personnel, at times during the 2016-2017 period reviewed by the OIG, did not comply with existing policies, neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, or otherwise failed to meet the standard of conduct that the FBI expects of its employees — and that our country expects of the FBI. We are vested with significant authorities, and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure that these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Anything less falls short of the FBI’s duty to the American people.

...

Finally, we will review the performance and conduct of certain FBI employees who were referenced in the Report’s recommendations — including managers, supervisors, and senior officials at the time. The FBI will take appropriate disciplinary action where warranted. Notably, many of the employees described in the report are no longer employed at the FBI.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-director-christopher-wray-response-to-inspector-general-report

Can you imagine a public servant accepting that high standards are expected of public office?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Ravenhawk, like Farmer I'd really like to see the 17 "incidents of abuse", so we can judge your claim that Horowitz is unjustifiably calling them 'neglect'.

I haven’t looked at all of them and I doubt I will but they are all covered in the report.  The 17 are referenced on Pages: xiii, 378, and twice on 413.  It’s not my claim, watch the hearing.  Here’s a good clip (the first 20 secs are key):

 

 

But even if they are all some innocuous set of inconsistencies, it is still a massive break down of leadership and procedure.  Someone is responsible.

 

You are also quite specific about Horowitz saying it was "under false pretences".  Please quote that part.  I found this bit:

You’ll notice that Horowitz states that they “did not find”.  They never said “that it did not happen”.  I don’t think he was just blowing smoke, that was from the limit of scope of his investigation.

 

So how do your reconcile that with your claim?

I don’t have to.  One flows from the other.  In fact my comment was just paraphrasing Horowitz.  I recall the clip but I can’t find it.  I'm not going to worry about it.

 

...how's about you QUOTE, in future.  Page numbers, thanks.

I’m not in the habit of going through 6+ hours of testimony just to placate you.

 

If you'd rather not answer fully and properly, well, I think some conclusions may be drawn....

You had to phrase it like that so that if you don’t like my answer, you can disparage it?  That is so disingenuous.  If you don't like my answer, tough $-hit!  That is just truth speaking to corruption.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
11 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Here’s a good clip

Cruz cant even get two minutes in without lying :lol:

He does it good though. He starts out asking if the court was advised the dossier was paid for specifically by Clinton or the DNC, which it wasnt, but between making that statement twice he slips in that it was an oppo research dump intimating the court wasnt advised of that BUT THEY WERE. No Clinton wasnt named but they were told it came from a political opponents research.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

@RavenHawk That video is an awesome example of the propaganda tactics being used on you guys. I went to find a link showing that the FISA court was told the dossier was oppo research and ironically found it in this article:

The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked  

Quote

One official with knowledge of the matter told The Post that the DOJ made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the FISC which revealed "the research was being paid for by a political entity."

"No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion" other than that the dossier's production was carried out "at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump," they added.

 

Yes Cruz' talking point has been dead for over a year now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Quote

The FISA application, dated Oct. 21, 2016, says a “U.S. Person” (Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS) told “source #1” (Steele) that a “U.S.-based law firm” (Perkins Coie) “had hired” Simpson “to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia,” referring to Trump, according to the Democratic memo.

FISA application, Oct. 21, 2016: The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

It is nice to see conservatives finally start to be worried about government overreach.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: FISA – utilized to OK FBI surveillance of 2016 Trump campaign – is unconstitutional

Quote

The Constitution requires probable cause of crime to be demonstrated to a judge before the judge can sign a search warrant. That was the law of the land until FISA came along. FISA set up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and it authorized the judges on that court to issue search warrants based on a lower standard of probable cause.

Isn't that contrary to the Constitution? Yes, it is. But a challenge has never reached a non-FISC federal court because the government has never used evidence that it admits was obtained from a FISC warrant in a criminal case for fear that a federal court will invalidate the FISA standard.

It gets worse.

Because FISC meets in secret, and because only government lawyers appear before it, we have a dangerous recipe: Secrecy and no defense counsel produce tyranny. That combination has the standard for issuing search warrants sliding even further down the slope of tyranny and absurdity.

FISA established probable cause of foreign agency as the standard that government lawyers must meet. That morphed into probable cause of foreign personhood. That morphed into probable cause of speaking to a foreign person. And that morphed into probable cause of speaking to any person who has ever spoken to a foreign person. All of this happened in secret.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
15 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Pelosi’s gravitas will long outlive clownish Trump.

 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

He copped out.  He didn’t want to become a target of the Left.  He was CYB.

Umm... CYB ? I'm assuming that isn't the Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank ? 

What does it mean ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 

Umm... CYB ? I'm assuming that isn't the Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank ? 

What does it mean ? 

CYB is "Cover your Butt".  It's a tamer version of CYA and not as fun as BYOB.

 

We need to have a Farmer drinking game.  Every time he espouses a falsehood, everyone takes a shot.  Every time he makes a lame insult, everyone takes a shot.  Those that he attempted to insult, take two shots.  Every time he invokes TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), everyone takes two shots.  It won't take too long before everyone has passed out.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.