An early peek at some of John Durham's report

[oeb11]

Facts mean nothing to DPST's !

[WTF]

Trump has made every accusation a Deep State Conspiracy Theory.


.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by WTF

Trump has made every accusation a Deep State Conspiracy Theory.


.

Really? Hows that new avatar working fer ya' fella?

mahahahahahahahahahahhaa

[oeb11]

Trump has made every accusation a Deep State Conspiracy Theory.


ah huh, ah huh,
DPST's are great at blanket, unsupportable accusations they then take for "Narrative Truth"!


David hyde Pierce has a place on a couch for folks with TDS!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Papadopoulos had been told of the possible dirt by Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor.

And we are just supposed to ignore who this professor was? I've seen reporting that Mifsud did work for the FBI. Will we find out that this was true and then conclude that he had nothing to do with Western Intelligence? He sure as hell worked for somebody or how would he know what the Russians had. A good guess on his part?

with regard to Horowitz, I'm not surprised that he soft pedaled the fbi misconduct in his report. he's obviously trying to shield them from the legal repercussion of their actions using soft language attributing them to mistakes.


Misfud... do we have a case of Russian collusion??? If he's not CIA or FBI asset, then he must be a russian asset!!

[oeb11]

Ask H.... - an expert on collusion with Russians!!!

[Munchmasterman]

So you don't believe anyone who says something you don't like?

Comments below in blue are my responses.

He was somebodies asset and do we really think our US Intelligence agency can admit someone is an asset? Uh! I think that's kind of against the rules

They said he wasn’t an asset. Do you have any proof he was? Link? "somebodies" is misspelled.


So we are suppose to believe that 4 FISA warrants were aproved, each one needing more pertinent, reliable information than the previous one to keep going and at the end of 4 warrants, no case was brought against Carter Page? I can smell the stink from here.

Believe anything you want. There weren’t 5 warrants so they hit a dead end. That can happen after 1 warrant or 7 warrants. Not every FISA warrant results in charges
You spelled approved and supposed wrong

"Troubling misconduct" but it wasn't due to their obvious bias? Do I have that about right? Sounds to me like Horowitz doesn't understand the meaning of bias. Maybe the Senate can bring in an expert witness on how bias, deep seated bias can affect ones actions and the likelihood that such bias can't be so easily dismissed.

Your opinion. Which comes from your deep-seated bias. You question everyone's motives except trump's. Everyone has bias of some kind. Do you have evidence of lies by anyone in this article? Do you have any links that prove the levels of biased facts make these reports false?

Uh, I think they call that in legal terms "hiding exculpatory evidence" and is most assuredly against the law but I guess if it was merely an "oversight" on 4 applications, well, we can just let that go with a black mark on your record and no prosecution.

Your opinion. Omissions are omissions, not necessarily “hiding exculpatory evidence”. I don’t recall seeing what the omissions were other than not saying some of the dossier info needed further investigation in some of the later applications.

"Relying on a network of sources and subsources, Steele claimed he had information on connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He passed that information to the FBI.
When FBI agents interviewed one of Steele’s subsources, they found Steele’s information — which he had said was raw intelligence in need of further investigation — was not entirely reliable, people familiar with the matter said. And Horowitz determined in the draft of his report that the FBI failed to convey as much in some of the later applications to surveil Page, the people said.

Those omissions, while significant, were apparently not so egregious as to convince Horowitz to conclude that the renewal applications should have been rejected. It would be unusual for the inspector general to sit in judgment over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s determinations, because his job is to review how the information was gathered and presented to the court, not whether the FISA court should have approved or rejected specific applications."

And that violates federal election law and in simple lay terms, Hillary asked a foreign country, Russia, through a foreign national, Steele, to interfere in the 2016 election. HELLO!!!

In simple lay terms, you are wrong. Do you have a link?
I do.

Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law — and the Steele dossier likely didn’t

"Consider two different points of contact between Russian nationals and people working for the two major-party presidential campaigns in 2016.
There’s the meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower, in which Donald Trump Jr., campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met with a lawyer with connections to the Russian government. The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, apparently proceeded to outline how a businessman facing questionable criminal charges in Russia allegedly made donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Then there’s the hiring of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Trump on behalf of a research firm paid by a law firm working for Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Steele’s research involved talking to Russian government officials about what Trump and his campaign might have done, which Steele then compiled into reports that were eventually shared with federal law enforcement officials.
Most of the political conversation has centered on the impropriety and possible illegality of the first point of contact while not raising similar concerns about the second. President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance — the real collusion — was between Clinton’s campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele.

Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton’s campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower — and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.
At issue is a federal statute stipulating that foreign nationals cannot contribute to political campaigns. That law, though, doesn’t just bar cash donations.
“The statute’s written very, very broadly,” said Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel under Barack Obama who now teaches at New York University Law School. “It applies to promises of support — promises express or implied. It applies to independent expenditures, meaning those with express advocacy. It applies to any expenditure, meaning those that may not be express advocacy expenditures but are for the purpose of influencing the federal election. It applies to disbursements. It is extremely broad.”
The law was first passed in 1966. It was strengthened in 1974 and, under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, in 2002. It bars any contribution, even a small-donor contribution, from a noncitizen and puts strict limits on the involvement of foreign individuals or organizations. Further, and importantly, the law prohibits any American from aiding any of the above efforts. We noted last week that “collusion” can be another word for “conspiracy,” and that those aiding a Russian effort to provide illegal assistance or soliciting that assistance could be held criminally liable.
In the case of the Trump Tower meeting, Veselnitskaya came to the United States with information that was pitched to the Trump team (Trump Jr. specifically) as damaging to Clinton. That was something of legal value, even if the campaign didn’t find it useful.
“They’re spending money both to acquire the information. They’re spending money to distribute the information. They clearly didn’t walk from Moscow,” Bauer said.
And, of course, it’s not as though the Trump campaign suddenly found an unexpected manila folder of information slipped under its door.
“The Trump campaign invited them to come. It was a proposition that was offered, and it was accepted,” Bauer said, referring to the exchange of messages between Trump Jr. and music publicist Rob Goldstone that set up the meeting itself — an email exchange that indicated the offer was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
“The law prohibits Americans from soliciting foreign nationals’ assistance,” he added. “The solicitation provision is very broad. You don’t have to specifically say, ‘I really would like you to do X’; you could indicate, since they’ve already said they want to help you out, that you’re open for business. That you actually want their support.”
AD

Bauer notes that the “conspiracy to defraud the United States” charge filed against the Russians involved in attempts to manipulate Americans over social media “was built around the concealment of this activity from regulators that prevented the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the provisions” of the statute above. Others, he argued, might similarly be charged in the same way. (As The Post reported on Sunday, Trump has expressed some concern that his son may have unwittingly crossed legal lines with his actions during the campaign.)
So why doesn’t all of this apply to the pathway linking Clinton, the law firm, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele? For a few key reasons.
One argument is that, since Steele is not a U.S. citizen, he would be barred from involvement in the campaign as surely as the Russians should have been. Lawrence Noble, former chief counsel for the FEC, explained the difference in the situations over email.
AD

“Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” Noble wrote. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.” Clinton’s campaign had paid Fusion GPS directly; it’s a campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution. Since it’s not a contribution, the FEC allows it.
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to see what links might exist between Trump and Russian actors. Those connections, built during his service for the British government, were why he was valuable to Fusion GPS. It’s akin to a campaign looking to investigate an opponent’s history of real estate deals in Mexico: Hiring a Mexican firm that’s familiar with the available records would be perfectly legal, if the firm were paid with legally raised campaign contributions.
“I think there is something fundamentally different about the interference when it comes from a foreign government, as opposed to a foreign national individual or even business,” Noble added. “The campaign finance law doesn’t explicitly make that distinction, but it does implicitly show up in some FEC decisions regarding individuals. For example, a foreign national individual can undertake volunteer activity for a campaign, while a government can’t.”
AD

Bauer noted that, since foreign nationals aren’t entitled to the same constitutional protections as Americans, it was rare for the campaign prohibitions to be tested. But the question of whether even a small contribution to a campaign could be made by a foreign national was at the center of lumen v. Federal Election Commission, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. In that case, a D.C. Circuit Court panel determined that such contributions could not be allowed because “it is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”
The majority opinion in that case was written by Brett Kavanaugh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-likely-didnt/

AGAIN! Failure to include exculpatory evidence in a warrant that says at the top ( I'm told" ) does not include any evidence that has not been verified. None of what Steele reported relative to Trumps action or in-actions in this case, was ever verified. You would think a FISA judge might be interested in knowing that.

How many times do you get to hide exculpatory evidence before you see a pattern of deception?

Again? How many times can you misrepresent the context and content of the article before we see a pattern of deception? This is telling what the omissions from above are. Stop pretending this is a separate occurrence from the above.

The evidence or lack there of seems to have been falsly presented. I don't see how anybody could see it any other way.

I agree with Horowitz. It also says it’s not his job to determine if the court should or shouldn’t have approved the warrant.

"Falsly" should be spelled falsely and "there of" should be one word.

Sure, how could anybody conclude from that harmless piece of information that this person was incapable of an honest investigation.

Exactly. It’s your opinion he can’t. What evidence do you have to support your view conclusively?

And why is it that Horowitz seems to fall for this crap every time?

In his opinion, it’s not crap. In this case, his opinion counts and yours doesn’t.

And we are just supposed to ignore who this professor was? I've seen reporting that Mifsud did work for the FBI. Will we find out that this was true and then conclude that he had nothing to do with Western Intelligence? He sure as hell worked for somebody or how would he know what the Russians had. A good guess on his part

We already know what you’ve concluded. How about a link to your reporting? Ignore the professor or not. It's your opinion that he is being ignored. This article doesn't cover every aspect of every fact.


With very little factual evidence, you have reached many conclusions in which your opinions are the "facts".

[Munchmasterman]

The title of the thread is, "An early peek at some of John Durham's report".
The title of the article is, "Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup".

Durham is the "handpicked prosecutor" named in the headline of the article (which you obviously didn't read). Some information from his upcoming report was released to Horowitz as detailed in the article.

So what part of "An early peek at some of John Durham's report", which is due to be released on Monday, don't you understand?
No comment on the story, just a display of your ignorance.

Typical trumpy.

Two of the "conservatives" offered up any discussion of the article itself. Hedon and Dilbert.

Baby b(s) tried to hijack the thread (the guy who registered in 2010 and didn't make his first post (under that handle) until Aug 2017)

obewan felt the need to make 4 worthless and meaningless comments (so far).

And iccy showed off his reading skills (hs).

Originally Posted by eccielover

Well, the OP screws it up again in calling it "An early peek at some of John Durham's report"

He's so confused with the details that he can't figure out if it's Durham or Horowitz's forthcoming report.

[Hotrod511]

have another drink dickmunchmaster

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The title of the thread is, "An early peek at some of John Durham's report".
The title of the article is, "Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup".

Durham is the "handpicked prosecutor" named in the headline of the article (which you obviously didn't read). Some information from his upcoming report was released to Horowitz as detailed in the article.

So what part of "An early peek at some of John Durham's report", which is due to be released on Monday, don't you understand?
No comment on the story, just a display of your ignorance.

Typical trumpy.

Two of the "conservatives" offered up any discussion of the article itself. Hedon and Dilbert.

Baby b(s) tried to hijack the thread (the guy who registered in 2010 and didn't make his first post (under that handle) until Aug 2017)

obewan felt the need to make 4 worthless and meaningless comments (so far).

And iccy showed off his reading skills (hs).

a peek is like a movie trailer. a teaser that never reveals the big finale .. let's wait for the big finale.


BAHHAHHAHHAAAAAAA

[Munchmasterman]

Movie trailers show something in the movie. A "peek" is a preview of some type.
I never claimed it was all-inclusive or revealed the ending. But this trailer had a major spoiler (for y'all that is) in it.

It's safe to say that that the info,

"Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup

Dec. 4, 2019 at 5:16 p.m. CST
"The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence, people familiar with the matter said.",
is true. And it just got taken off the repub Christmas list. Because they have been naughty.

It's funny you guys thought Durham would act like a typical repub instead of acting like an American.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

a peek is like a movie trailer. a teaser that never reveals the big finale .. let's wait for the big finale.


BAHHAHHAHHAAAAAAA

[Munchmasterman]

When you have nothing you go with what you know.
I sure don't envy your mom on laundry day. That green shit must be a bitch to get out of your sheets.

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

have another drink dickmunchmaster

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

When you have nothing you go with what you know.
I sure don't envy your mom on laundry day. That green shit must be a bitch to get out of your sheets.

if you say so.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

if you say so.

No, if you say so.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

awwww those poor pussies at the NSC. they think they make foreign policy. well they don't. this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions".

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

No, if you say so.

if you say so.