Originally Posted by Donger:
Durham's statement included that his inquiry was criminal?
Do you really need confirmation? I mean really the IG found they altered/falsified evidence presented to the FISA Court. SOMEONE intentionally lied to the court. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Do you really need confirmation? I mean really the IG found they altered/falsified evidence presented to the FISA Court. SOMEONE intentionally lied to the court.
It would be nice, yes. Wouldn't like to have it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shields68:
No. I think it would be inappropriate for them to deny or confirm the purpose of the investigation before indictments/report is made.
But really you do not think this is criminal: CIA to FBI-page is our asset his contacts with Russia are on our behalf.
FBI to court: Page is not a CIA asset. There is no reason he should have had those Russian contacts.
There is no way changing that email, knowing it is going to be used in court is not illegal.
Okay. I guess we disagree.
Do you think that Durham and Barr's statements were also inappropriate? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Okay. I guess we disagree.
Do you think that Durham and Barr's statements were also inappropriate?
I think they were very concise and were done to correct false statements in the media and vague statements taken out of context in the report. They had a duty not to let any potential jurors be corrupted by the press false reporting.
Donger will be blindsided by criminal charges the same way he's been blindsided by the Nunes memo being validated at the expense of the fraudulent Schiff memo, finding out the dossier was bullshit, and learning but not accepting that Trump and his campaign weren't involved in collusion or obstruction. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shields68:
I think they were very concise and were done to correct false statements in the media and vague statements taken out of context in the report. They had a duty not to let any potential jurors be corrupted by the press false reporting.
You saying the above is not illegal?
There weren't any false statements in the media. Not that I recall anyway. The report was released and the conclusions within it were reported.
Barr and Durham just didn't agree with those conclusions.
No, I don't think them doing what they did was illegal. I asked you if you thought it was inappropriate. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Donger will be blindsided by criminal charges the same way he's been blindsided by the Nunes memo being validated at the expense of the fraudulent Schiff memo, finding out the dossier was bullshit, and learning but not accepting that Trump and his campaign weren't involved in collusion or obstruction.
Blindsided? No, I wouldn't be. Trumpers have been quite vocal that it's going to happen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
There weren't any false statements in the media. Not that I recall anyway. The report was released and the conclusions within it were reported.
Barr and Durham just didn't agree with those conclusions.
No, I don't think them doing what they did was illegal. I asked you if you thought it was inappropriate.
Sure there was false statements. CNN and the left media were widely reporting that IG found no political bias. It is clear in IG's testimony he felt there was either gross negligence or political bias. The press was down playing that and given a large segment of the population the perception that it was minor mistakes and not done for political reasons. That seems to be what both Durham and Barr pushed back about.
I was asking you if the FBI guy who altered the evidence did anything illegal? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Sure there was false statements. CNN and the left media were widely reporting that IG found no political bias. It is clear in his testimony he felt there was either gross negligence or political bias. The press was down playing that and given a large segment of the population the perception that it was minor mistakes and not done for political reasons. That seems to be what both Durham and Barr pushed back about.
I was asking you if the FBI guy who altered the evidence did anything illegal?
IIRC, they reported that Horowitz found no political bias in the opening of the investigation. Which he didn't.
They both said that they didn't agree with his conclusions. So, I presume that they HAVE found evidence that the investigation was opened because if bias. They better, anyway.
The Clinesmith guy? Certainly improper. I don't know if it was/is illegal. [Reply]
