ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 8 of 32
« First < 45678 910111218 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>The IG report on FISA has dropped. Here's the link to a PDF version
Just Passin' By 12:09 PM 12-09-2019
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
[Reply]
BanHam 02:08 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
It's not irrelevant at all. It's the reason why Crossfire Hurricane was begun.

The decision to open the investigation was made by Bill Priestap, who was Strzok’s supervisor, after he spoke with the FBI Director, general counsel and other top agency leaders.

Anyway, since Strzok didn't make the decision to open the investigation, I suppose that Priestap was/is an anti-Trumper too, and allowed his bias to affect the decision to open the investigation?



Well, you have to prove guilt, right? Can you prove that? I mean, at all?


The IG Report is a simple 'tee-up' for Durham.

The proof is in there, and Durham will provide substantial and additional proof:



[Reply]
Donger 02:09 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by BanHam:
The IG Report is a simple 'tee-up' for Durham.

The proof is in there, and Durham will provide substantial and additional proof:


We'll see, comrade.
[Reply]
MagicHef 02:09 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
It's not irrelevant at all. It's the reason why Crossfire Hurricane was begun.

The decision to open the investigation was made by Bill Priestap, who was Strzok’s supervisor, after he spoke with the FBI Director, general counsel and other top agency leaders.

Anyway, since Strzok didn't make the decision to open the investigation, I suppose that Priestap was/is an anti-Trumper too, and allowed his bias to affect the decision to open the investigation?



Well, you have to prove guilt, right? Can you prove that? I mean, at all?
1) The claim is that Strozk did not affect the start of the investigation. That's it. He did affect the start of the investigation, in fact he was directly involved in the decision. Stop trying to introduce irrelevant information and evaluate the claim on its own.

2) I'm not trying to prove guilt. Again, I'm only disputing the claim. This time the claim is that they didn't act out of political bias, when in reality we only know that there isn't documentary or testimonial evidence that they did act out of political bias. Surely you can see the difference.
[Reply]
Donger 02:10 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by Ninerfan11:
Libs are now calling Durham a Trump stooge lol.
Do you wonder why Barr and Durham chose to perk up?
[Reply]
mlyonsd 02:12 PM 12-09-2019
The difference between Horowitz and Durham is one will prove themselves in a court of law.
[Reply]
Donger 02:13 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
1) The claim is that Strozk did not affect the start of the investigation. That's it. He did affect the start of the investigation, in fact he was directly involved in the decision. Stop trying to introduce irrelevant information and evaluate the claim on its own.

2) I'm not trying to prove guilt. Again, I'm only disputing the claim. This time the claim is that they didn't act out of political bias, when in reality we only know that there isn't documentary or testimonial evidence that they did act out of political bias. Surely you can see the difference.
1) Yes, I know. The fact that Strozk did not make the decision to open the investigation isn't irrelevant at all. Quite the contrary.

2) Good, because you haven't at all. The claim is that they found no evidence of it. And yes, of course I see the difference. They looked hard and low, and found none.
[Reply]
MagicHef 02:17 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
1) Yes, I know. The fact that Strozk did not make the decision to open the investigation isn't irrelevant at all. Quite the contrary.

2) Good, because you haven't at all. The claim is that they found no evidence of it. And yes, of course I see the difference. They looked hard and low, and found none.
1) The fact that he did not make the decision is irrelevant to whether or not he affected the decision. We know he affected the decision, as he was directly involved.

2) That was not the claim. The claim was that they didn't act out of political bias.

"Hard and low"? :-)
[Reply]
patteeu 02:17 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
NEW: in a rare statement,US Attorney John Durham says:
"Based on the evidence collected to date,&while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the IG that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”


I guess he doesn't want his work to speak for itself.
Durham is known to be a silent investigator. That he thought it important enough to speak out on this point shouldn’t be dismissed so cavalierly. But your reaction to all of this is sadly predictable.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 02:17 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by :
We also found the quantity of omissions and inaccuracies in the applications and the obvious errors in the Woods Procedures deeply concerning. Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information....
:-)
[Reply]
Donger 02:19 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
1) The fact that he did not make the decision is irrelevant to whether or not he affected the decision. We know he affected the decision, as he was directly involved.

2) That was not the claim. The claim was that they didn't act out of political bias.

"Hard and low"? :-)
I'll agree with that.

Yes, hard and low. You think Horowitz' investigation, which began in early 2018 IIRC, was shallow?
[Reply]
Donger 02:21 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Durham is known to be a silent investigator. That he thought it important enough to speak out on this point shouldn’t be dismissed so cavalierly. But your reaction to all of this is sadly predictable.
Of course. I'm sure it was of his own volition.

My reaction to all this? That it's a big nothingburger? That all the Trumper predictions have not come fruition?

So, it's awesome. I don't see why it's sad at all.
[Reply]
MagicHef 02:22 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
I'll agree with that.

Yes, hard and low. You think Horowitz' investigation, which began in early 2018 IIRC, was shallow?
No, I wasn't disagreeing. Is "hard and low" a British saying? Typically one would say "high and low".
[Reply]
Donger 02:23 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
No, I wasn't disagreeing. Is "hard and low" a British saying? Typically one would say "high and low".
:-)

Not that I know of. No, I just made a mistake.
[Reply]
patteeu 02:24 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Where's patteeu?

Here's the full statement from Barr:

“The Inspector General found the only information relied on to open the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation was supplied to the FBI by a friendly foreign government (FFG). I want to emphasize that this FFG did the right thing in supplying that information; the FFG has acted at all times just as we would hope a close ally would. We are grateful that we have such friends. What was subsequently done with that information by the FBI presents a separate question.”
Right now I’m reading through your embarrassing takes. I subscribe to MagicHef’s newsletter for his solid analysis though, if you’re curious about my reaction to the report.
[Reply]
Donger 02:26 PM 12-09-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Right now I’m reading through your embarrassing takes.
What embarrassing takes?

Good to see Barr's comment on the genesis of the FBI investigation though, eh? Just like Nunes.
[Reply]
Page 8 of 32
« First < 45678 910111218 > Last »
Up