Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser -- enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.
The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. "That's locked," Graham said.
The new evidence concerning the altered document, which pertained to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.
The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.
Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document falsely stated that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.
In its initial 2016 FISA warrant application, the FBI flatly called Page "an agent of a foreign power."
Sources told Fox News last month that U.S. Attorney John Durham's separate, ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation -- and that Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser -- enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.
The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. "That's locked," Graham said.
The new evidence concerning the altered document, which pertained to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.
The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.
Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document falsely stated that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.
In its initial 2016 FISA warrant application, the FBI flatly called Page "an agent of a foreign power."
Sources told Fox News last month that U.S. Attorney John Durham's separate, ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation -- and that Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry.
So, the government needs to get a FISA warrant in order to listen in on the phone conversations of American Citizens and you find it a minor thing that emails were falsified?
Everyone already knows the FBI needed to investigate the rumors they were hearing, that our President was a Russian operative. That is their job!
How they went about it, who was providing the information, how much the unsubstantiated and later disproven Steele Dossier was used, who put it together, how was it passed along and leaked to the Press, what bias was there in the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election? These questions need to be answered.
Face it, the millions spent on a special prosecutor, (Mueller investigation) came up with nothing. How in the world did we end up with years of a smear campaign against our President when there was nothing to show for it in the end?
But like you GOPers not seeing the crimes Trump has actually committed, dems don't see the fake crimes y'all are dreaming up to make Trump/Putin look better.
So, the government needs to get a FISA warrant in order to listen in on the phone conversations of American Citizens and you find it a minor thing that emails were falsified?
Everyone already knows the FBI needed to investigate the rumors they were hearing, that our President was a Russian operative. That is their job!
How they went about it, who was providing the information, how much the unsubstantiated and later disproven Steele Dossier was used, who put it together, how was it passed along and leaked to the Press, what bias was there in the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election? These questions need to be answered.
Face it, the millions spent on a special prosecutor, (Mueller investigation) came up with nothing. How in the world did we end up with years of a smear campaign against our President when there was nothing to show for it in the end?
Really ??????>
REALLY ??????
You been preaching about the DEEP STATE and the HAMMA FALLING for months if not years ....
Mueller got a bunch of people locked up for years and years. He got a bunch of TRUMP'S closest associates locked up and behind bars .... AND he spelled out multiple counts of obstruction by the POTUS.
Meanwhile your HAMMA comes up with a MINOR incident of amending an email which is not and never will be a good thing, but it is MINOR because it didn't alter the determination on the FISA warrant being applied for. . . . .And Comey, McCabe and the others .... actually truly really EXONERATED. Unlike the POTUS when Barr lied to the world and has since been exposed.
Having accepted that Obama is better than Trump in all the metrics you priorities - I was expecting you to be a man and accept that you have been wrong on this issue for however long you've been repeating the Trump propaganda for.
Face it, the millions spent on a special prosecutor, (Mueller investigation) came up with nothing. How in the world did we end up with years of a smear campaign against our President when there was nothing to show for it in the end?
No, they didn't come up with "nothing". Or did you forget about those in prison and all of the indictments that came out of it? Did you miss all of times that obstruction was pointed out? Did you miss the fact that Mueller plainly stated he couldn't get to the bottom of it because of the witnesses lying?
Well of course you did......
And since you're so upset about this, you really need to talk to Republicans. A message that can't seems to sink in past the sludge you are supporting.
It was Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, who appointed Mueller, another Republican, to investigate Russian meddling. NOT THE DEMOCRATS!
Everyone knew this BS was a lie way back when trump first tried this crap. Everyone except gullible trump supporters, anyway.
So, other than some no name guy messing with docs on carter page, the IG that every trump supporter on this board claim was gonna take down the deep state finds that not only was there no bias against trump, not only was the surveillance on carter page legit, but there was no spying on his campaign.
How many more Russian backed conspiracies will the right fall victim to before they wake the hell up?
Nevermind. These are the same people who donate to televangelists and think Obama is a foreign born Muslim, there’s a war on thanksgiving and Christmas, and believe in trickle down economics.
It’s got to be exhausting to be scared of so many things. No wonder you guys buy bunkers. I’m sure there’s a zombie apocalypse coming too.
Everybody knows so much of a report that hasn't even been released yet.
Go ahead, believe your unnamed sources leaking what this report supposedly says.
You have learned nothing about the Media, even after all the lies they have fed you.
Now that impeachment is being flushed down the toilet, be ready for the next Media/Democrat attack on President Trump...
Trump is Colluding with the Turks. Yep, you heard it here first. Write it down.
Which is fine ... but I think the FIRST reporting about the unreleased report posted on these boards was from YOU when it suited your agenda. So basically you are cool with reporting on the unreleased report as long as they are Trump positive ... nice.
As for the impeachment being flushed? In one respect that's always been the case because the spineless GOP will not ratify. However - because the senate won't ratify does not mean that Trump is innocent of blackmailing Ukraine for his political purposes and self interest ... that issue has been proven beyond doubt. But you'd have to be paying attention to notice. . . . . Just like you'd have to pay attention to realize the Republican initiated Mueller investigation (run by a Republican) sighted multiple instances of Trump obstructing justice. But some prefer to parrot Trump than to actually pay attention. Carry on.
Everybody knows so much of a report that hasn't even been released yet.
Go ahead, believe your unnamed sources leaking what this report supposedly says.
You have learned nothing about the Media, even after all the lies they have fed you.
Now that impeachment is being flushed down the toilet, be ready for the next Media/Democrat attack on President Trump...
Trump is Colluding with the Turks. Yep, you heard it here first. Write it down.
Looks like the IG report is going to be a turd for the GOPers like having Mueller review his report was for dems. HAMMA! hahahahahaha..
The only significant difference will be that both reports will have damning evidence against Trump that dems expect action on and GOPers will ignore, yet GOPers own the IG report.
I am beginning to think this report is going to be worse than I thought as I see the Lib Press and Lisa Page trying to get out ahead of the report, before it breaks.
Here's a list supplied by journalist Sharyl Attkisson:
It's not horrendous but it's not accurate from my perspective.
Fox and MSNBC are the same but opposite of each other. Although having said that Hannity and a couple others are straight propaganda ... MSNBC has Maddow who certainly consistently and constantly bashes Trump, but to my mind regardless of your leaning there's more facts to what MSNBC color commentators talk about than Hannity and co.
Another comparison is Fox and the BBC. . . the BBC has long been renowned for being neutral. On this chart it has BBC as a more left wing news agency than Fox is right wing. That's laughable.
In 2017, Attkisson created a media bias chart. According to PolitiFact, this chart "labels anything not overtly conservative as 'left'". The news outlets with a purported left bias include the Associated Press, Reuters, the American television networks ABC, NBC/CNBC, and CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, NPR, Politico, and USA Today.[43] BuzzFeed News reported in August 2018 that Attkisson indicated on her website that she compiled the "subjective" chart "from various sources and your feedback".[44] She linked "various sources" to a study from the Pew Research Center, a Washington think tank that BuzzFeed said "measures audience bias, not the alleged bias of an outlet and a college library's website that cites another college library's project describing media outlets." Attkisson's chart includes such websites as InfoWars (to which Attkisson is said to link from her own site).[44]
It is good to see the European leaders being so confident of no longer needing America to back them up, that they laugh behind the back of our President.
It is good to see them laugh at us by refusing to take responsibility for their nationals who fought for ISIS.
It is good to see them confidently bite the hand that feeds them.
Wait a minute... Is that the apology train I hear coming down the track?
“He’s two-faced,” Trump said. “I find him to be a very nice guy but the truth is I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying 2% (of GDP on Canada’s defense budget) and I guess he’s not very happy about it.”
“He’s not paying 2% and he should be paying 2%. It’s Canada, they have money and they should be paying 2%. So I called him out on that and I’m sure he wasn’t happy about it but that’s the way it is.”
Apparently your fool is fighting for America once again.
“He’s two-faced,” Trump said. “I find him to be a very nice guy but the truth is I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying 2% (of GDP on Canada’s defense budget) and I guess he’s not very happy about it.”
“He’s not paying 2% and he should be paying 2%. It’s Canada, they have money and they should be paying 2%. So I called him out on that and I’m sure he wasn’t happy about it but that’s the way it is.”
Apparently your fool is fighting for America once again.
He's bringing unnecessary turmoil to our oldest strategic alliances... that's not America's fight he's fighting, it's Putin's.
“He’s two-faced,” Trump said. “I find him to be a very nice guy but the truth is I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying 2% (of GDP on Canada’s defense budget) and I guess he’s not very happy about it.”
“He’s not paying 2% and he should be paying 2%. It’s Canada, they have money and they should be paying 2%. So I called him out on that and I’m sure he wasn’t happy about it but that’s the way it is.”
Apparently your fool is fighting for America once again.
He's bringing unnecessary turmoil to our oldest strategic alliances... that's not America's fight he's fighting, it's Putin's.
I am still scratching my head over why Obama let these allies stiff us on their share of their own defense for 8 years.
Trump will get them to pay up. He is not afraid to confront them.
Again, we're not talking about whataboutisms and other politicians, we're talking about Trump.
Whatabout Europe's treatment of American businesses???
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin warns of new global taxes, opposes digital services duty
-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the U.S. objects to digital services taxes because they “have a discriminatory impact on U.S.-based businesses.”
-Mnuchin’s letter comes a day after President Trump exchanged barbs with French President Emmanuel Macron for the country’s new digital-services tax.
-The French tax imposes a 3% tax on revenues tech companies generate in France, including targeted advertising and digital marketplaces.
-“I’m not going to let people take advantage of American companies. Because if anyone’s going to take advantage of the American companies it’s going to be us,” Trump said Tuesday.
Does anyone else find it odd that Trump has been proven to be a habitual liar if not a pathological liar, yet a certain segment of people keep repeating what he says as if he has enough credibility for anyone to believe a single word he says?
And Mexico isn't paying for it this time either.
They need to remember that repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Report: Barr attorney can't provide evidence Trump was set up by DOJ
The attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the probe into the Trump campaign and Russia's election interference has reportedly found no evidence to support claims from conservatives that the case was a setup by U.S. intelligence officials.
Sources told The Washington Post that John Durham, the U.S. attorney chosen by Barr to lead the investigation, told the Justice Department's inspector general (IG), who conducted his own probe, that he has found no evidence to support claims that a Maltese professor who spoke with former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was secretly a U.S. intelligence asset.
Allies of the president have claimed for months that the professor, Joseph Mifsud, who spoke with Papadopoulos about the possibility of obtaining Hillary Clinton's stolen emails, was actually an asset of U.S. intelligence agencies seeking to set up the Trump campaign on criminal charges.
Sources close to the investigation added to the Post that the draft report written by IG David Horowitz is likely to detail instances of misconduct by FBI agents involved with the investigation but to conclude that top FBI officials did not act with political bias during the 2016 election.
“His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves,” a spokeswoman for the Justice Department told the Post of the report's upcoming release. “Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
Republicans have argued since the inception of the now-shuttered special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign that the probe was launched improperly based on unfounded accusations detailed in a dossier crafted by an ex-British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, and used by the Obama administration to hurt President Trump's chances of being elected.
Top former officials at the FBI have roundly dismissed that claim, arguing that the investigation was conducted without political bias.
Report: Barr attorney can't provide evidence Trump was set up by DOJ
The attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the probe into the Trump campaign and Russia's election interference has reportedly found no evidence to support claims from conservatives that the case was a setup by U.S. intelligence officials.
Sources told The Washington Post that John Durham, the U.S. attorney chosen by Barr to lead the investigation, told the Justice Department's inspector general (IG), who conducted his own probe, that he has found no evidence to support claims that a Maltese professor who spoke with former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was secretly a U.S. intelligence asset.
Allies of the president have claimed for months that the professor, Joseph Mifsud, who spoke with Papadopoulos about the possibility of obtaining Hillary Clinton's stolen emails, was actually an asset of U.S. intelligence agencies seeking to set up the Trump campaign on criminal charges.
Sources close to the investigation added to the Post that the draft report written by IG David Horowitz is likely to detail instances of misconduct by FBI agents involved with the investigation but to conclude that top FBI officials did not act with political bias during the 2016 election.
“His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves,” a spokeswoman for the Justice Department told the Post of the report's upcoming release. “Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
Republicans have argued since the inception of the now-shuttered special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign that the probe was launched improperly based on unfounded accusations detailed in a dossier crafted by an ex-British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, and used by the Obama administration to hurt President Trump's chances of being elected.
Top former officials at the FBI have roundly dismissed that claim, arguing that the investigation was conducted without political bias.
Report: Barr attorney can't provide evidence Trump was set up by DOJ
The attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the probe into the Trump campaign and Russia's election interference has reportedly found no evidence to support claims from conservatives that the case was a setup by U.S. intelligence officials.
Sources told The Washington Post that John Durham, the U.S. attorney chosen by Barr to lead the investigation, told the Justice Department's inspector general (IG), who conducted his own probe, that he has found no evidence to support claims that a Maltese professor who spoke with former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was secretly a U.S. intelligence asset.
Allies of the president have claimed for months that the professor, Joseph Mifsud, who spoke with Papadopoulos about the possibility of obtaining Hillary Clinton's stolen emails, was actually an asset of U.S. intelligence agencies seeking to set up the Trump campaign on criminal charges.
Sources close to the investigation added to the Post that the draft report written by IG David Horowitz is likely to detail instances of misconduct by FBI agents involved with the investigation but to conclude that top FBI officials did not act with political bias during the 2016 election.
“His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves,” a spokeswoman for the Justice Department told the Post of the report's upcoming release. “Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
Republicans have argued since the inception of the now-shuttered special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign that the probe was launched improperly based on unfounded accusations detailed in a dossier crafted by an ex-British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, and used by the Obama administration to hurt President Trump's chances of being elected.
Top former officials at the FBI have roundly dismissed that claim, arguing that the investigation was conducted without political bias.
Just a guess here but maybe it's because Trump for three-plus years has been crowing about he was a victim and crying about a deep state that was out to get him. Again just guess but maybe he's laughing because the republican-led investigations into these bogus allegations have proved that Trump is just lying again.
Why are you laughing, that's good news. The DOJ didn't try to sabotage a political campaign (if this is true). Is this good?
The laughter probably comes from Barr saying he doesn't believe his own, handpicked guy. That tells me he'll do what he did after the Mueller report comes out, he'll lie about it. He'll twist it in Trumps favor. I'm sure as I write this, he's rewriting the report that we may see on Monday.
Why are you laughing, that's good news. The DOJ didn't try to sabotage a political campaign (if this is true). Is this good?
The laughter probably comes from Barr saying he doesn't believe his own, handpicked guy. That tells me he'll do what he did after the Mueller report comes out, he'll lie about it. He'll twist it in Trumps favor. I'm sure as I write this, he's rewriting the report that we may see on Monday.
Barr can't rewrite the IG report because that would make it the Barr report.
Barr has stated he has full confidence in the IG and Durham, he simply disagrees with the conclusion the IG comes to in the face of the evidence.
Most of what you are hearing now is the Left trying to get out ahead of the reports. The reports must be pretty bad for all this effort by the Media.
Why are you laughing, that's good news. The DOJ didn't try to sabotage a political campaign (if this is true). Is this good?
The laughter probably comes from Barr saying he doesn't believe his own, handpicked guy. That tells me he'll do what he did after the Mueller report comes out, he'll lie about it. He'll twist it in Trumps favor. I'm sure as I write this, he's rewriting the report that we may see on Monday.
Barr can't rewrite the IG report because that would make it the Barr report.
Barr has stated he has full confidence in the IG and Durham, he simply disagrees with the conclusion the IG comes to in the face of the evidence.
Most of what you are hearing now is the Left trying to get out ahead of the reports. The reports must be pretty bad for all this effort by the Media.
December 9th should answer all questions.
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.... Thank you for the laughs. Do I need to spell out how ironic it is that you talk about how bad "the report" must be if the 'Left' is trying to get out in front of the release of the report ..... while also mentioning Barr? LMAO. Seriously that is some funny funny chit.
Why are you laughing, that's good news. The DOJ didn't try to sabotage a political campaign (if this is true). Is this good?
The laughter probably comes from Barr saying he doesn't believe his own, handpicked guy. That tells me he'll do what he did after the Mueller report comes out, he'll lie about it. He'll twist it in Trumps favor. I'm sure as I write this, he's rewriting the report that we may see on Monday.
Barr can't rewrite the IG report because that would make it the Barr report.
Barr has stated he has full confidence in the IG and Durham, he simply disagrees with the conclusion the IG comes to in the face of the evidence.
Most of what you are hearing now is the Left trying to get out ahead of the reports. The reports must be pretty bad for all this effort by the Media.
December 9th should answer all questions.
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.... Thank you for the laughs. Do I need to spell out how ironic it is that you talk about how bad "the report" must be if the 'Left' is trying to get out in front of the release of the report ..... while also mentioning Barr? LMAO. Seriously that is some funny funny chit.
Uh, Barr knows the facts of the reports, the Left knows leaks.
Why are you laughing, that's good news. The DOJ didn't try to sabotage a political campaign (if this is true). Is this good?
The laughter probably comes from Barr saying he doesn't believe his own, handpicked guy. That tells me he'll do what he did after the Mueller report comes out, he'll lie about it. He'll twist it in Trumps favor. I'm sure as I write this, he's rewriting the report that we may see on Monday.
Barr can't rewrite the IG report because that would make it the Barr report.
Barr has stated he has full confidence in the IG and Durham, he simply disagrees with the conclusion the IG comes to in the face of the evidence.
Most of what you are hearing now is the Left trying to get out ahead of the reports. The reports must be pretty bad for all this effort by the Media.
December 9th should answer all questions.
No, he can't rewrite it, but like in the case of the Mueller report, he can misrepresent the findings..
But you know how this goes, if he does that, the Dems will get the report and let the world see it for what it is. Then of course, Trump will say he's being attacked again,.
FISA report: DOJ watchdog releases findings on Russia probe surveillance
The report concluded that investigators found no intentional misconduct or political bias surrounding efforts to seek a highly controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the early months of the Russia investigation -- but also faulted the FBI over numerous "omissions" and "inaccuracies" in the application process.
The IG probe identified at least 17 "significant" errors in the Page applications and said they would launch a new audit into the FISA process.
At the same time, the report said key officials including former FBI bosses James Comey and Andrew McCabe did not act with political bias and extended a similar finding to the overall surveillance efforts targeting 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,” the report said.
IG Michael Horowitz and his investigators probed how the unverified anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele was used to secure the original FISA warrant for Page in October 2016, as well as other decisions at the outset of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Russian election interference and the Trump campaign.
The release comes as Washington has been consumed with the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. The House Judiciary Committee was holding the inquiry’s latest hearing Monday, days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats are moving forward with plans to bring articles of impeachment against the president over his dealings with Ukraine.
But the FISA report is sure to become a political football of its own, alongside the impeachment probe.
Republicans, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., have contested the FISA warrant and its subsequent renewal applications, claiming that the FBI misrepresented key evidence and omitted exculpatory information.
Nunes blasted the FBI for not revealing that evidence used to support the warrant application came from an unverified dossier compiled by Steele as opposition research for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Democrats have pointed to a footnote in the warrant application that gave a general characterization of the nature of the information and how the FBI believed that it was part of an effort to get information to discredit Trump’s campaign, though it did not specifically mention Clinton or the Democratic National Committee.
Horowitz’s team has questioned why the FBI considered Steele a credible source, and why the bureau seemed to use news reports to bolster Steele’s credibility.
The inspector general has said his team has “reviewed over one million records and conducted over 100 interviews, including several witnesses who only recently agreed to be interviewed.” Page, who has been vocal about his belief that he was unjustly targeted, has expressed frustration over not being interviewed for Horowitz’s investigation. Page was never charged with a crime as a result of the surveillance.
Trump and his Republican allies have long questioned the Justice Department’s efforts to secure the surveillance warrants. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bill Barr said "spying" did occur against the Trump campaign during the campaign. But critics pushed back: James Comey, who was FBI director at the time, dismissed Barr’s claims, saying he “never thought of” electronic surveillance as “spying.”
Next, Horowitz is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning to answer questions about his probe.
The Horowitz findings come amid another, broader inquiry related to the 2016 election: Barr has assigned John Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, to conduct an inquiry into alleged misconduct and alleged improper government surveillance on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. That investigation is criminal in nature, and Republicans may look to it to uncover wrongdoing that the inspector general wasn’t examining.
Ahead of the release, some of the people who worked at the FBI at the time attempted to get ahead of the report to defend their actions. Lisa Page, the ex-FBI lawyer who carried on an extramarital affair with former FBI head of counterintelligence Peter Strzok as the two exchanged anti-Trump text messages during the investigation, recently granted an interview for a sympathetic piece at The Daily Beast, saying “there’s no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all.”
Meanwhile, a key FBI player during the time frame, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, has been facing the prospect of federal charges after Horowitz faulted him in a separate inquiry over statements he made during a Hillary Clinton-related investigation. The review found that McCabe "lacked candor" when talking with investigators, but the former FBI official has denied wrongdoing. McCabe has not been indicted.
US Attorney Durham objects to IG findings on Russia probe origins in stunning statement
The U.S. attorney who is conducting a wide-ranging investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe released a rare statement Monday saying he disagrees with conclusions of the so-called FISA report -- after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found in that review that the probe's launch largely complied with DOJ and FBI policies.
“Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened,” U.S. Attorney John Durham said in a statement.
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham said. “However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”
Well of course they objects. That's what they always do when the facts don't support their conspiracies. Even when their own people tell them the truth they refuse to accept it.
Comey and his FBI agents used anti-Trump Russia dossier to get spy warrants on president's campaign allies despite being told author Christopher Steele was biased and his sources were flawed, reveals DOJ inspector general in scathing report
Comey and his FBI agents used anti-Trump Russia dossier to get spy warrants on president's campaign allies despite being told author Christopher Steele was biased and his sources were flawed, reveals DOJ inspector general in scathing report
Comey and his FBI agents used anti-Trump Russia dossier to get spy warrants on president's campaign allies despite being told author Christopher Steele was biased and his sources were flawed, reveals DOJ inspector general in scathing report
When you have to quote the Daily Mail you already lost. As per Pit's post - the inquiry found ..... Nothing of substance.
There is a pattern here - Mueller Report says it can't prove collusion because too many witnesses are lying and also sights multiple attempts by POTUS to obstruct the investigation ..... Barr rushes out ahead of the reports release to lie about what's in the report.
IG report finds nothing major other than one FBI lawyer altering an (email?) document - Comey, McCabe, Trump investigation all actually (really truly) exonerated ...... Barr rushes out to make up his own agenda driven statement that repeats what he said 2 years ago without the facts.
Barr - doesn't care about the facts. He's Trump's despicable me henchman who will lie and say anything to further the Trump propaganda.
US Attorney Durham objects to IG findings on Russia probe origins in stunning statement
The U.S. attorney who is conducting a wide-ranging investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe released a rare statement Monday saying he disagrees with conclusions of the so-called FISA report -- after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found in that review that the probe's launch largely complied with DOJ and FBI policies.
“Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened,” U.S. Attorney John Durham said in a statement.
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham said. “However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”
Stay tuned for more as the Hamma continues to drop.
First we're told to wait until the IG report comes out, then it comes out and pretty much blows a hole in the entire list of Trump talking points.. That didn't go well for Trump.
Now we're supposed to get all concerned about the Durham report that has just been outed by no other than Durham as being biased in Trumps favor...
I see Barr and Trumps fingerprints all over the Durham comments..
First we're told to wait until the IG report comes out, then it comes out and pretty much blows a hole in the entire list of Trump talking points.. That didn't go well for Trump.
Now we're supposed to get all concerned about the Durham report that has just been outed by no other than Durham as being biased in Trumps favor...
I see Barr and Trumps fingerprints all over the Durham comments..
If at first the independent reports don't say what you wanted them to say --- cook the books and do it again !
First we're told to wait until the IG report comes out, then it comes out and pretty much blows a hole in the entire list of Trump talking points.. That didn't go well for Trump.
Now we're supposed to get all concerned about the Durham report that has just been outed by no other than Durham as being biased in Trumps favor...
I see Barr and Trumps fingerprints all over the Durham comments..
If at first the independent reports don't say what you wanted them to say --- cook the books and do it again !
I guess,, I mean, that's what they did with the Mueller report. Mueller releases his report and it seemed like minutes later, Barr put out that the report no collusion.
Barr lied so much that Mueller had to do what he didn't want to do and that is stand up and make it clear that that is not what the report said.
Remember this statement (paraphrased) Mueller: if I could have said that there wasn't collusion, I'd have said so!
This is what you get when you have an AG that works for the president and not the american people...
Trump appointed Christopher Wray as the head of the FBI. Wray agreed with the IG reports findings. So one of Trump's hand picked appointees agreed with the report but Trump didn't like that conclusion so now they want to take another bite of the apple.
Just keep doing the same thing over and over again until you get the result you want?
and this is the difference between the dems running an investigation and the GOP - well, trump supporting clowns:
dems dont have to make up evidence. hell, the investigation was started by people who vote republicans, anyway.
the GOP politicians themselves have to make up conspiracy theories and read books to launch probes. then get mad when their own people determine nothing went down.
Attorney General Barr blasts Russia investigation as a 'travesty' https://www.yahoo.com/gma/attorney-general-barr-blasts-russia-investigation-travesty-192700648.html and this is the difference between the dems running an investigation and the GOP - well, trump supporting clowns: dems dont have to make up evidence. hell, the investigation was started by people who vote republicans, anyway. the GOP politicians themselves have to make up conspiracy theories and read books to launch probes. then get mad when their own people determine nothing went down.
I posted this elsewhere - but it probably better fits in connection to your post Swish.
Trump is a morally bankrupt person who will say anything to stoke up the base. I'm not a CNN person but this popped up on my phone and I thought it was a pretty reasonable review of Despicable Barr's hatchet job.
"Again, according to Barr, “The greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government use the apparatus of the state ... in a way that could affect the outcome of the election.”
What president might be doing something like that, right now, and getting impeached for it?
In all seriousness, though, Barr’s move here is disturbingly Orwellian. He correctly identified the abuse of power to influence elections as a threat to American democracy, but then argued that the people who investigated Trump are the ones who are actually guilty of it. The criminal becomes the victim, the authoritarian the guarantor of our freedoms. You heard a similar refrain from Republicans during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing on Monday, when they repeatedly accused the Democrats of being the real threat to democracy."
Full speed ahead and they’re doubling down.. all they have left is a fictitious “deep state” to blame it all on. It’s pathetic.
This is 100% true ... they investigated - with their own appointed investigators - and came up blank. So now, they are back to simply making up fairy tales and insinuating things without actually saying they happened (see Anderson CNN clip).
Barr and Trump will keep searching until they find a kindred spirit to investigate and return a report based in false allegations and conspiracy theories... talk about zero credibility.
I said it before, Barr’s confirmation hearing was pretty much a preview of what we all should’ve expected to happen. He repeatedly stated he doesn’t care about his reputation and had a long career, so this is it for him.
He basically told all of us he was gonna be acting exactly how he is now: as trumps personal lawyer, not as an actual AG for the us government.
This crap has the potential to leave a permanent dent in our system.
So, you're saying false accusations, paid for by a political foe, is reason enough to get a fisa warrant?
Anytime you start your post with "So, you're saying", I know there is a load of trumpian crap fueling your pitiful attempt to trap somebody in a political gotcha. Pathetic.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz declared a “failure” by the entire “chain of command” involved in the FBI’s initial Trump-Russia investigation, in blistering testimony Wednesday that called out “basic and fundamental errors” at the bureau while stressing that his newly released report on the probe does not "vindicate" anyone.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz declared a “failure” by the entire “chain of command” involved in the FBI’s initial Trump-Russia investigation, in blistering testimony Wednesday that called out “basic and fundamental errors” at the bureau while stressing that his newly released report on the probe does not "vindicate" anyone.
Please let us know who the "entire" chain of command is.
Basically ALL of your regurgitated Trump Spin and Lies about being a victim have been investigated by the Trump appointed guy - and found to be a NOTHINGBURGER. There's a ton of analysis out there to verify this.... but I know you prefer to repeat the propaganda.
Horowitz reaffirmed that finding, touted by congressional Democrats eager to defend the probe, at Wednesday's hearing. But his testimony as a whole amounted to a tough assessment of the bureau's actions -- and clarified that his two-year review on the Russia probe's origins and use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to surveil a Trump campaign aide did not close the book on the bias question either.
Under questioning, Horowitz said he could not outright determine whether bias was involved in the process of applying for a FISA warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.
"Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?" Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked.
"I do not know," Horowitz answered. He also said he was "not ruling it out," regarding the possibility that bias influenced those decisions.
I've explained a bunch of things to you and you Feign ignorance or say you don't care. So I'll not explain what it is you aren't understanding.
.
They all understand what Putin is doing. Morally treasonous..all of them.
I disagree. I think most know Trump is morally rotten. I think most know he has pissed all over our institutions and norms - I think some even know he is doing the same to the constitution..... I don't think many Trump supporters if any believe anything about the Putin/Russia "fix" and I don't know that I do either, other than Trump might be appeasing Putin to line his pockets when he is out of office.
So, you're saying false accusations, paid for by a political foe, is reason enough to get a fisa warrant?
It appears you wish to ignore the facts found in the investigation and look for what you wish to see elsewhere.
Quote:
How it started: The report began after a request from Trump's former attorney general. It has been in the works since March 2018. At the time, the inspector general's office said it launched the review after requests from then-attorney general Jeff Sessions and members of Congress.
Quote:
Conspiracy theories debunked: The report essentially rebuts more than two years of talking points by Trump and Republicans about a deep-state effort to derail his campaign. There were no FBI spies planted in Trump Tower, for instance. And the famed dossier by ex-British spy Christopher Steele was not the reason the investigation was launched, the IG report states. Inspector general Michael Horowitz specifically says that Peter Strzok, a former senior counterintelligence officer, and Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney, whom Trump has repeatedly vilified and mocked in crude ways, did not act out of bias or unduly influence the start of the investigation.
I've explained a bunch of things to you and you Feign ignorance or say you don't care. So I'll not explain what it is you aren't understanding.
.
They all understand what Putin is doing. Morally treasonous..all of them.
I disagree. I think most know Trump is morally rotten. I think most know he has pissed all over our institutions and norms - I think some even know he is doing the same to the constitution..... I don't think many Trump supporters if any believe anything about the Putin/Russia "fix" and I don't know that I do either, other than Trump might be appeasing Putin to line his pockets when he is out of office.
Maddow reported last night that covering up Trump's actions by hiding what he says and does on those top secret servers is a pattern. She cited reports that Trump had a call with Putin and supposedly asked Putin how he wanted the US to treat Ukraine. If this is true it's game over. I hope they get into that hidden information during this impeachment.
Prior to the FBI's warrant application to monitor Carter Page, the FBI reached out to the CIA and other intelligence agencies for information on Page, Horowitz discovered. The CIA responded in an email by telling the FBI that Page had contacts with Russians from 2008 to 2013, but that Page had reported them to the CIA and was serving as a CIA operational contact and informant on Russian business and intelligence interests.
An FBI lawyer then doctored the CIA's email about Page to make it seem as though the agency had said only that Page was not an active source. And, the FBI included Page's contacts with Russians in the warrant application as evidence he was a foreign "agent," without disclosing to the secret surveillance court that Page was voluntarily working with the CIA concerning those foreign contacts.
For several years, Democrats and analysts at The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN have repeatedly claimed that key claims in the Clinton-funded anti-Trump dossier had been corroborated and that the document was not critical to the FBI's warrant to surveil Page. Horowitz repudiated that claim, with the FBI's legal counsel even describing the warrant to surveil Page as "essentially a single source FISA" wholly dependent on the dossier.
Among the unsubstantiated claims in the dossier: that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russian hackers; that the Trump campaign was paying hackers working out of a nonexistent Russian consulate in Miami; that a lurid blackmail tape of Trump existed and might be in Russian possession; and that Page was bribed with a 19 percent share in a Russian company.
The FBI declined Fox News' request for an on-the-record comment late Friday.
Still no hamma..... none. No deep state. No convictions or prosecution for Comey, McCabe, Strzok .... plenty of verification that there were Pro Trump texts and agents as well .... A nothingburger. The bigger story is how the POS Barr is trying to create a story out of nothing when he didn't like the findings.... now THERE'S your current deep state and story.
So, you're saying false accusations, paid for by a political foe, is reason enough to get a fisa warrant?
It appears you wish to ignore the facts found in the investigation and look for what you wish to see elsewhere.
Quote:
How it started: The report began after a request from Trump's former attorney general. It has been in the works since March 2018. At the time, the inspector general's office said it launched the review after requests from then-attorney general Jeff Sessions and members of Congress.
Quote:
Conspiracy theories debunked: The report essentially rebuts more than two years of talking points by Trump and Republicans about a deep-state effort to derail his campaign. There were no FBI spies planted in Trump Tower, for instance. And the famed dossier by ex-British spy Christopher Steele was not the reason the investigation was launched, the IG report states. Inspector general Michael Horowitz specifically says that Peter Strzok, a former senior counterintelligence officer, and Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney, whom Trump has repeatedly vilified and mocked in crude ways, did not act out of bias or unduly influence the start of the investigation.
Last week, Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz released a long-awaited 434-page report, which found that the FBI team that conducted Crossfire Hurricane — the code name for the bureau’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government — improperly relied too heavily on allegations made by Christopher Steele, a former British spy hired by an opposition research firm working for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
While the report concluded that the FBI acted without political bias when it opened its inquiry, Horowitz cited numerous mistakes in how the investigation was carried out, most notably 17 errors or inaccuracies discovered in the applications to the FISA court for a warrant to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. Comey lauded the inspector general for finding things that the FBI was never accused of, which he referred to as “real sloppiness.”
“He’s right, I was wrong,” Comey told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “
Comey's own words.
"“He’s right, I was wrong,” Comey told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough. It’s incredibly hard to get a FISA,” he said. “I was overconfident in those. Because he's right. There was real sloppiness, 17 things that either should've been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable, and so he's right. I was wrong.”
Wallace called “sloppiness” a euphemism and charged Comey with downplaying the significance of the errors in the investigation.
"You make it sound like you're a bystander, an eyewitness. You were the director of the FBI while a lot of this was going on, sir," Wallace said.
“Sure. I'm responsible for it. That's why I'm telling you I was wrong,” Comey replied. "
Still no hamma..... none. No deep state. No convictions or prosecution for Comey, McCabe, Strzok .... plenty of verification that there were Pro Trump texts and agents as well .... A nothingburger. The bigger story is how the POS Barr is trying to create a story out of nothing when he didn't like the findings.... now THERE'S your current deep state and story.
So, Comey admits he did wrong, when will you admit you are wrong?
Maybe Durham's Criminal investigation and charges will convince you.
Still no hamma..... none. No deep state. No convictions or prosecution for Comey, McCabe, Strzok .... plenty of verification that there were Pro Trump texts and agents as well .... A nothingburger. The bigger story is how the POS Barr is trying to create a story out of nothing when he didn't like the findings.... now THERE'S your current deep state and story.
So, Comey admits he did wrong, when will you admit you are wrong?
Maybe Durham's Criminal investigation and charges will convince you.
it used to be, "wait for the IG report", that flamed out.. Not it's "wait until the Durham report"....
You are hanging a win on one small part of the IG report. But the general idea is, there was no bias,,, In other words, it was a justified investigation.
Now think about this,, the IG report comes out and within what seemed like minutes, a memo from Durham comes out saying he doesn't agree with the IG report.
That stinks of "Inside baseball" to me. Now, because of how this was handled, Durham is going to need investigated... Just to determine if he's hiding facts that make Trump and Barr look like fools....
Still no hamma..... none. No deep state. No convictions or prosecution for Comey, McCabe, Strzok .... plenty of verification that there were Pro Trump texts and agents as well .... A nothingburger. The bigger story is how the POS Barr is trying to create a story out of nothing when he didn't like the findings.... now THERE'S your current deep state and story.
So, Comey admits he did wrong, when will you admit you are wrong?
Maybe Durham's Criminal investigation and charges will convince you.
it used to be, "wait for the IG report", that flamed out.
Just because the Left says it, doesn't make it so.
It flamed out so bad that now there are discussions to completely overhaul FISA procedures.
You obviously have a bias, and/or didn't read the link.
Typical.
Quote:
Before Trump was sworn into office, a leaked and unverified 35-page dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele alleged the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to defeat Clinton in 2016 presidential election. It later became one of the starting points of Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Comey said the so-called “Steele dossier” was "not a huge part of the presentation to the court," but Wallace pointed out that according to the inspector general’s report, it played a central role in establishing probable cause for an investigation and FISA warrants.
“In fact, he says, if it hadn't been for the Steele dossier, the FBI probably would haven't even submitted a FISA application,” Wallace said, referring to Horowitz.
“I’m not sure he and I are saying different things,” Comey responded. “What his report says is that the FBI thought it was a close call until they got the Steele report, put that additional information in and that tipped it over to be probable cause. It’s a long FISA application and includes Steele material and a lot of other things. I don’t think we’re saying different things.”
"I have complete confidence in Mr. Wray, and I know that the F.B.I. is not a broken institution," Webster wrote in response to the president. "It is a professional agency worthy of respect and support. The derision and aspersions are dangerous and unwarranted."
GOP bid to reform FISA gains steam as even hawks appalled by Horowitz findings
Reps. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, and Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, last week introduced the FISA Improvements Act in a bid to “stop these abuses” and effectively amend FISA by adding requirements on the FBI, the DOJ and on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which would also give Congress “critical new insight to perform oversight of the FISA powers.”
“The deceptive actions of a few high-ranking officials within the FBI and the Department of Justice have eroded public trust in our federal institutions,” Stewart stated. “They flattened internal guardrails, deceived the FISA court, and irreparably damaged the reputation of an innocent American.”
lol nah, but i appreciate you trying to keep it going though. right now, the gop has moved on to spending packages. hell, even the impeachment drama died down a bit, even though it will pick up soon enough.
remember when yall grasped on the mueller report of "no collusion" and ignored everything else?
well even the politicians saw "no political bias" which was the entire POINT of the investigation, and have moved on.
On Dec. 9, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General released its report on the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. That report contradicts some of the claims the president, and other Republicans, have made over the years about the investigation, but it also supports at least one assertion.
Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have claimed that the FBI’s Russia investigation was sparked by a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. But the IG report said that “Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”
rump repeatedly has accused the FBI of illegally spying on his campaign. But the IG report “found no evidence that the FBI placed any” confidential sources or undercover agents in the Trump campaign or tasked any such sources “to report on the Trump campaign.” Trump has accused the FBI of obtaining a surveillance warrant of former campaign aide Carter Page under false pretenses. The IG report didn’t find “intentional misconduct,” but it did find at least 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in court applications for Page’s warrant.
The IG report also debunked Trump’s claims that the investigation was motivated by political bias on the part of FBI staff. The report found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced the opening of the investigation or decision-making during it.
The report by the DOJ inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, examined the origins of the FBI investigation, the bureau’s relationship with former British intelligence office Christopher Steele and four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications for surveillance of Page, among other aspects of the investigation. A press release on the report said the inspector general “examined more than one million documents that were in the DOJ’s and FBI’s possession and conducted over 170 interviews involving more than 100 witnesses.”
Origins of the Investigation
Several Republicans, including the president, have claimed that the FBI’s investigation — called Crossfire Hurricane — was “based on,” “started” by or “precipitated by” a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Steele. [b]But the IG report said it “determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.” The FBI investigation, the report said, was launched based on information from a “Friendly Foreign Government” about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, claiming the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
In March 2018, Trump tweeted that the special counsel investigation of whether Trump campaign officials coordinated with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election “was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC.”
Other Republicans echoed that talking point in an effort to paint the origins of the investigation as politically motivated. For instance, Rep. John Ratcliffe said earlier this year: “That this was a fake, phony dossier that started all of this, funded by the Democrats.” Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the president, said: “The whole impetus upon which this inquiry engaged, where it came out of, was this dossier, this counterintelligence investigation regarding collusion.”
And the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, also claimed the investigation “was precipitated by this fake dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton and the DNC.”
Even at the time of those statements, as we’ve written, we knew that a Jan. 18, 2018, House Republican intelligence committee memo said it was information about Papadopoulos that sparked the FBI counterintelligence probe in July 2016. But now, the inspector general’s report, reiterated that finding.
The “dossier” is a series of memos compiled by Steele on supposed contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. It alleged the Russian government had compromising information on then-presidential candidate Trump. Steele was hired by the research firm Fusion GPS, which had been hired by a law firm representing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Papadopoulos had contacts with Russian intermediaries during the campaign, according to the Justice Department, and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Papadopoulos, when he was a campaign adviser, met with a professor with connections to Russian government officials who told him “about the Russians possessing ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails,’” and he tried to arrange a meeting between the Russian government and the campaign, the Justice Department’s statement of the offense said.
The IG report said the FBI launched its investigation after Papadopoulos told a “Friendly Foreign Government” (an Australian diplomat in London, according to the New York Times) that the campaign had received information about Russia having dirt on Clinton.
IG report: As we describe in Chapter Three, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).” The FBI Electronic Communication (EC) opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation stated that, based on the FFG information, “this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia.”
The IG report said no other information was “relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” However, FBI officials at the time “had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016,” and they were “aware of information regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections.”
The Steele dossier, though, played “no role” in the opening of the investigation.
IG report: 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.
After an “initial analysis of links between Trump campaign members and Russia,” the Crossfire Hurricane team opened four individual cases in August 2016 — on Trump campaign associates Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.
The inspector general’s office said it was concerned that Department of Justice guidelines didn’t include a provision requiring a DOJ consultation before launching an investigation involving a presidential candidate. But the IG concluded that the information on Papadopoulos, provided by a trusted friendly government, “was sufficient to predicate the investigation” and indicated that either a crime or national security threat may have occured.
“This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring,” the report said.
There's more to the article of you would like to read it. But what you keep trying to insinuate has been debunked and proven false. Three out of the four men investigated have been proven guilty in a court of law. The actual Russian investigation was actually started BEFORE the Steele dossier was even known about.
And you accuse me of bias? Just stop arch. Claiming this investigation was started based on the Steele dossier has been proven to be a lie.
Trump's claim that the FBI was spying on his campaign has been proven to be a lie. Even the Republican cronies have stopped spreading these lies. Isn't it time you do the same and quit trying to spread shade on those telling the truth?
On Dec. 9, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General released its report on the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. That report contradicts some of the claims the president, and other Republicans, have made over the years about the investigation, but it also supports at least one assertion.
Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have claimed that the FBI’s Russia investigation was sparked by a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. But the IG report said that “Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”
rump repeatedly has accused the FBI of illegally spying on his campaign. But the IG report “found no evidence that the FBI placed any” confidential sources or undercover agents in the Trump campaign or tasked any such sources “to report on the Trump campaign.” Trump has accused the FBI of obtaining a surveillance warrant of former campaign aide Carter Page under false pretenses. The IG report didn’t find “intentional misconduct,” but it did find at least 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in court applications for Page’s warrant.
The IG report also debunked Trump’s claims that the investigation was motivated by political bias on the part of FBI staff. The report found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced the opening of the investigation or decision-making during it.
The report by the DOJ inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, examined the origins of the FBI investigation, the bureau’s relationship with former British intelligence office Christopher Steele and four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications for surveillance of Page, among other aspects of the investigation. A press release on the report said the inspector general “examined more than one million documents that were in the DOJ’s and FBI’s possession and conducted over 170 interviews involving more than 100 witnesses.”
Origins of the Investigation
Several Republicans, including the president, have claimed that the FBI’s investigation — called Crossfire Hurricane — was “based on,” “started” by or “precipitated by” a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Steele. [b]But the IG report said it “determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.” The FBI investigation, the report said, was launched based on information from a “Friendly Foreign Government” about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, claiming the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
In March 2018, Trump tweeted that the special counsel investigation of whether Trump campaign officials coordinated with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election “was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC.”
Other Republicans echoed that talking point in an effort to paint the origins of the investigation as politically motivated. For instance, Rep. John Ratcliffe said earlier this year: “That this was a fake, phony dossier that started all of this, funded by the Democrats.” Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the president, said: “The whole impetus upon which this inquiry engaged, where it came out of, was this dossier, this counterintelligence investigation regarding collusion.”
And the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, also claimed the investigation “was precipitated by this fake dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton and the DNC.”
Even at the time of those statements, as we’ve written, we knew that a Jan. 18, 2018, House Republican intelligence committee memo said it was information about Papadopoulos that sparked the FBI counterintelligence probe in July 2016. But now, the inspector general’s report, reiterated that finding.
The “dossier” is a series of memos compiled by Steele on supposed contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. It alleged the Russian government had compromising information on then-presidential candidate Trump. Steele was hired by the research firm Fusion GPS, which had been hired by a law firm representing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Papadopoulos had contacts with Russian intermediaries during the campaign, according to the Justice Department, and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Papadopoulos, when he was a campaign adviser, met with a professor with connections to Russian government officials who told him “about the Russians possessing ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails,’” and he tried to arrange a meeting between the Russian government and the campaign, the Justice Department’s statement of the offense said.
The IG report said the FBI launched its investigation after Papadopoulos told a “Friendly Foreign Government” (an Australian diplomat in London, according to the New York Times) that the campaign had received information about Russia having dirt on Clinton.
IG report: As we describe in Chapter Three, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).” The FBI Electronic Communication (EC) opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation stated that, based on the FFG information, “this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia.”
The IG report said no other information was “relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” However, FBI officials at the time “had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016,” and they were “aware of information regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections.”
The Steele dossier, though, played “no role” in the opening of the investigation.
IG report: 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.
After an “initial analysis of links between Trump campaign members and Russia,” the Crossfire Hurricane team opened four individual cases in August 2016 — on Trump campaign associates Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.
The inspector general’s office said it was concerned that Department of Justice guidelines didn’t include a provision requiring a DOJ consultation before launching an investigation involving a presidential candidate. But the IG concluded that the information on Papadopoulos, provided by a trusted friendly government, “was sufficient to predicate the investigation” and indicated that either a crime or national security threat may have occured.
“This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring,” the report said.
There's more to the article of you would like to read it. But what you keep trying to insinuate has been debunked and proven false. Three out of the four men investigated have been proven guilty in a court of law. The actual Russian investigation was actually started BEFORE the Steele dossier was even known about.
And you accuse me of bias? Just stop arch. Claiming this investigation was started based on the Steele dossier has been proven to be a lie.
Trump's claim that the FBI was spying on his campaign has been proven to be a lie. Even the Republican cronies have stopped spreading these lies. Isn't it time you do the same and quit trying to spread shade on those telling the truth?
Bias? Yes, you certainly have it.
Your stuck in a world where FACTS MATTER .... sadly 40 and the whole Trump gang only parrot what their false idol preaches, so your detailed information showing factual and contextual information on why Trump (and the Trump posters) are wrong, is wasted.
We do live in a world where facts are labeled as bias and hate.
When you show the facts they say you hate someone. That or they will say the only reason you present facts is because you're bias.
Manafort is serving seven years. Rick Gates was sentenced and serving jail time and admitted to committing crimes with Manafort. Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, has been convinced on multiple counts. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former White House national security advisor, has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and business associate, is in prison. George Papadopoulos, Trump’s former campaign advisor on foreign policy, has already served his prison sentence. Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer who worked with Manafort and Gates has already served his prison sentence.
The odd thing about all of this is that the very same people who wish to uphold this pattern of corruption which surrounds Trump, are people who would not trust such a man to do business with. They would distance themselves from anyone they knew that had this many criminal associates and you would hear from them, "Birds of a feather flock together".
Yet when it comes to Trump, all they can really do when you point out such an atrocity is that you hate Trump or you are bias against him. A pretty sad and hollow thing to say against all of the evidence surrounding someone they put on such a lofty pedestal.
But then, when you really don't have anything to combat the facts with, that's pretty much all they're left with.
for those of you not aware, this guy was talking mad trash. he had the support of the trump clain, maga hatters and such, and was talking trash about his opponents background in a racist comment.
so glad he broke this dude's jaw. yea, he's the real american. screw trump and the clowns that support him.
FISA court slams FBI over surveillance applications, in rare public order
In a rare public order Tuesday, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC] strongly criticized the FBI over its surveillance-application process, giving the bureau until Jan. 10 to come up with solutions, in the wake of findings from Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.
The order, from the court's presiding judge Rosemary M. Collyer, came just a week after the release of Horowitz's withering report about the wiretapping of Carter Page, a former campaign adviser to President Trump.
"The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above," Collyer wrote in her four-page order. "The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."
Horowitz said he did not find significant evidence that FBI agents were involved in a political conspiracy to undermine Trump's candidacy in 2016. However, the report did find numerous errors and inaccuracies used by FBI agents to obtain permission to monitor Page's phone calls and emails.
While Collyer's order did not specify exactly what reforms the FBI needed to implement to its policies for obtaining permission to wiretap people under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the order did say that the FISA court will weigh in on whether the reforms are deemed sufficient.
"The [FISA court] expects the government to provide complete and accurate information in every filing with the court," Collyer wrote. "Without it, the [FISA court] cannot properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual basis."
As to FISA and the FBI ... The mistakes and errors and issues have been investigated and documented. But none of the factual evidence that Trump's man found supports Trump's lies and victim claiming.
Only your Liberal Media is trying to move on and forget this debacle.
Mainstream media ignores FISA court slamming FBI over Trump-related surveillance applications
The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court criticized the FBI over its surveillance-application process in a rare public order -- and the mainstream media largely ignored it.
The secretive court scolded the FBI for FISA abuses that surfaced in the recent Inspector General report, a powerful rebuke of the bureau deemed unworthy of coverage by prominent news organizations.
ABC’s “World News Tonight,” NBC’s “Nightly News” and CBS’ “Evening News” all skipped the story, according to the Media Research Center.
“A complete and total blackout. That was how ABC, CBS, and NBC reacted on their Tuesday evening newscasts,” MRC news analyst Nicholas Fondacaro wrote. “Instead of reporting on this damning order by the top FISC judge, the broadcast networks were salivating over impeachment.”
CNN completely skipped the story during the primetime hours of 8-11 p.m. ET, too, according to a search of transcripts.
And while CNN spent the evening fixated on impeachment, MSNBC briefly mentioned the IG report and FISA process but didn’t specifically dive into the FISC criticizing the FBI.
IG report dices Nadler’s credibility and other commentary
The “scathing” Justice Department IG report, notes Paul Sperry at RealClearInvestigations, is devastating to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler. It proves he “falsely accused a Trump campaign aide [Carter Page] of being a Russian spy who helped Moscow interfere in the 2016 election.” Nadler also “defended the FBI for obtaining a highly invasive FISA warrant” to wiretap Page. When Rep. Devin Nunes reported on major problems with those warrants, Nadler wrote, “I have had the benefit of reading the materials that form the basis for the Nunes memo.” He went on to call the memo “embarrassingly flawed,” a “disgrace” and “deeply misleading.” Yet the IG report — based on the same info Nadler said he’d seen — thoroughly vindicates Nunes and his memo. As one GOP staffer told Sperry: Nadler has “no credibility left.”
Well three out of the four investigated based on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation by the FBI were found guilty in a court of law. 75% is a pretty good average. The warrants were also found to be valid.
For someone who claims we didn't need an IG Report thread you sure didn't pay any attention to it.
You said the IG report was going to lay it all open and expose the Deep State ... but you didn't like the report's findings so now what? Is the IG part of the deep state too?
You said the IG report was going to lay it all open and expose the Deep State ... but you didn't like the report's findings so now what? Is the IG part of the deep state too?
I said the Hamma BEGINS to Fall with the IG Report and it has.
The dirty deeds have begun to be exposed and so far everyone is claiming stupidity is to blame.
Now the Criminal Investigation by Durham will seal the deal.
If you wish to wait till then to admit you are wrong, I will be nice and wait. It is the Christmas season after all.
You said the IG report was going to lay it all open and expose the Deep State ... but you didn't like the report's findings so now what? Is the IG part of the deep state too?
People thought the Mueller report was going to resolve a lot of issues as well. How did that work out?
You said the IG report was going to lay it all open and expose the Deep State ... but you didn't like the report's findings so now what? Is the IG part of the deep state too?
People thought the Mueller report was going to resolve a lot of issues as well. How did that work out?
You said the IG report was going to lay it all open and expose the Deep State ... but you didn't like the report's findings so now what? Is the IG part of the deep state too?
People thought the Mueller report was going to resolve a lot of issues as well. How did that work out?
It ended up with butt hurt being MORE butt hurt.
It ended up being so bad - Barr had to go out and lie in front of the world about it's contents so that the narrative was changed.
You said the IG report was going to lay it all open and expose the Deep State ... but you didn't like the report's findings so now what? Is the IG part of the deep state too?
People thought the Mueller report was going to resolve a lot of issues as well. How did that work out?
It ended up with butt hurt being MORE butt hurt.
It ended up being so bad - Barr had to go out and lie in front of the world about it's contents so that the narrative was changed.
It also ended with the butt hurt being so hurt their candidate didn't win, that even before the inauguration one side was all about impeaching.
See, 1 side started with the result of impeachment and has stopped at nothing to find some reason, somewhere, somehow, to get the result they wanted.
It's fine. Being impeached is the result they WERE going to get, regardless. Katie bar the door. Damn the torpedos. It was stated numerous times, by several dems.
We'll see how it all ends up. Might be good for the dems, might be bad for them. (side note: This is the first time a person that has been impeached, and found guilty, has been able to vote on impeachment. Guy's name eludes me at this time. A judge, I want to say from the south, was impeached but was allowed to run for office in a different position, and he became a representative. Just an off fact.)
You keep saying these things - as does 40 - about how we hate Trump or wanted him impeached before he even started ... how we didn't accept Trump winning or him as POTUS.
It's just not true.
Yes - there are / were some morons and mentally fragile people out there that wailed and gnashed their teeth that Trump was elected. But while I never liked him or his rhetoric - I accepted him as POTUS the moment the election was called. Just like the overwhelming majority of democrats and the overwhelming majority of GOPers didn't want Trump as POTUS.
Clinging to the reaction of a few crazies - and regurgitating it to try to deflect or nullify genuine concerns about Trump and his actions while in power are weak. It's deflection and it is intended - from what I can see - to prevent the facts at hand being addressed.
Here's a brief summary on the two big issues surrounding Trump:
1 - Russian interference in the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller Report. Wholly justified. Many people (and many close to Trump) now in prison as a result of said investigation. Investigation paid for itself with the monies from Manafort. . . . . people still claim this was some sort of witch hunt or fake investigation. It was not. It cleared Trump of colluding with the Russians to impact the election - but it also spelled out clearly the multiple times Trump obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice.
2 - The impeachment. We have evidence that is irrefutable. Trump stalled funds appropriated to Ukraine for it's defense vs Russia. He did it because he wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election interference. BOTH issues were debunked multiple times. Trump had Giuliani running around as his unofficial foreign policy handler ... Trump directing Ukraine official to Giuliani. We have multiple first hand accounts of how messed up the whole situation was. . . Funds were only released after the whistle-blower was known about. . . . coercion and bribery are worthy of impeachment - doing it to undermine a political opponent just adds to the level of filth.
Oddly, unbeknownst to you, I believe your post backs up my post. Thanks.
Quote:
You keep saying these things - as does 40 - about how we hate Trump or wanted him impeached before he even started ... how we didn't accept Trump winning or him as POTUS.
It's just not true.
Nah, it's a fact. Perhaps not all libs/dems, but most. Even on here. Several posters on here - ad nauseum - have been posting weekly, for YEARS, if not more often about just such a thing.
Maxine Waters, and many others have made it their life goal to impeach. Fact.
As to your point 2: irrefutable>? Please.
Point 1: There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump.
Hey, you will get your wish: impeachment in the house. Congrats on that. It will make the libs/dems all giddy.
It may even affect the next election. POssibly in a way the libs/dems won't like. POSSIBLY.
We'll find out soon enough I guess.
Unknown whistle blower: I have an unknown whistle blower that tells me a lot about some people on here. I've convened a court that has had people testify that the unknown person is correct, even though they weren't privvy to any info. You, as well as others, are guilty.
Hey, it's all a dog and pony show. Take your pick on the dog, or the pony.
Oddly, unbeknownst to you, I believe your post backs up my post. Thanks.
Quote:
You keep saying these things - as does 40 - about how we hate Trump or wanted him impeached before he even started ... how we didn't accept Trump winning or him as POTUS.
It's just not true.
Nah, it's a fact. Perhaps not all libs/dems, but most. Even on here. Several posters on here - ad nauseum - have been posting weekly, for YEARS, if not more often about just such a thing.
Maxine Waters, and many others have made it their life goal to impeach. Fact.
As to your point 2: irrefutable>? Please.
Point 1: There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump.
Hey, you will get your wish: impeachment in the house. Congrats on that. It will make the libs/dems all giddy.
It may even affect the next election. POssibly in a way the libs/dems won't like. POSSIBLY.
We'll find out soon enough I guess.
Unknown whistle blower: I have an unknown whistle blower that tells me a lot about some people on here. I've convened a court that has had people testify that the unknown person is correct, even though they weren't privvy to any info. You, as well as others, are guilty.
Hey, it's all a dog and pony show. Take your pick on the dog, or the pony.
So glad you know the inner thoughts of most Dems. That's a hell of a claim.
A lot of us just want justice served for over 10 instances of obstruction of justice, attempts to collude with a foreign government, using personal servers for confidential files, and withholding financial assistance in a highly illegal manner.
I mean if you're okay with not allowing American people to have justice for any of those acts, that's your bag. I know what bag I carry.
A lot of us just want justice served for over 10 instances of obstruction of justice, attempts to collude with a foreign government, using personal servers for confidential files, and withholding financial assistance in a highly illegal manner.
I mean if you're okay with not allowing American people to have justice for any of those acts, that's your bag. I know what bag I carry.
The vote was split to address both articles, with the House voting to impeach on “abuse of power” by a 230-197 margin, and passing “obstruction of Congress” by a 229-198 margin.
And this?
Quote:
using personal servers for confidential files, and withholding financial assistance in a highly illegal manner.
Oddly, unbeknownst to you, I believe your post backs up my post. Thanks.
Quote:
You keep saying these things - as does 40 - about how we hate Trump or wanted him impeached before he even started ... how we didn't accept Trump winning or him as POTUS.
It's just not true.
Nah, it's a fact. Perhaps not all libs/dems, but most. Even on here. Several posters on here - ad nauseum - have been posting weekly, for YEARS, if not more often about just such a thing.
Maxine Waters, and many others have made it their life goal to impeach. Fact.
As to your point 2: irrefutable>? Please.
Point 1: There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump.
Hey, you will get your wish: impeachment in the house. Congrats on that. It will make the libs/dems all giddy.
It may even affect the next election. POssibly in a way the libs/dems won't like. POSSIBLY.
We'll find out soon enough I guess.
Unknown whistle blower: I have an unknown whistle blower that tells me a lot about some people on here. I've convened a court that has had people testify that the unknown person is correct, even though they weren't privvy to any info. You, as well as others, are guilty.
Hey, it's all a dog and pony show. Take your pick on the dog, or the pony.
Some Dems wanted to impeach Trumo from the moment he was elected Some Repubs wantd to impeach Obama from the timehe was elected
The difference is that Trump did something (multiple things) that are impeachable Had Obama done the same thing or something else impeachable, he most certainly would have been impeached
There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump.
Please share.
Ok, If she did it, She also should face action for it. The repubs had all 3 levels of government for 2 years. Same with Bidens-If it was such a big deal. Should have done something about it
There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump.
Please share.
Ok, If she did it, She also should face action for it. The repubs had all 3 levels of government for 2 years. Same with Bidens-If it was such a big deal. Should have done something about it
They know too much about the bodies in other people's closets. Probably helped put them there.
Trump fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, is an outsider. He hasn't had time to build up leverage to hold over people. It's why he was trying to skirt the rules to get some. Nothing like mutually assured destruction to keep business going as usual in DC.
The IG report has proven that the Trump administration was lying about spygate.
It has proven that the beginning of the investigation had NOTHING to do with the Steele dossier. Yet another popular lie spread by Trump and his cronies. Some posters on this board as well.
It has proven there was no bias as to why the investigation was started.
Most every lie spread by Trump, his followers and his loyal disinformation squad on this board was debunked.
Now you're making some wild claim, "There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump."
You may want to double check your sources. If they're the same ones you used to claim the Trump was investigated because of the Steele dossier, I would have thought you would have learned your lesson by now.
And I think that the point it was "some dems" is very important here.
What they don't wish to discuss is that a large majority of the Dems in the House didn't promote impeachment for a very long time. As late as July of this year they voted down an attempt to impeach Trump. Nancy Pelosi was against it too.
They blame the Dems for going after Trump for three years, yet the Mueller investigation was initiated by a Trump appointee, not a Democrat.
There were some Dems on the fringe that have wanted to impeach him all along. But it's not this sweeping majority that represents the party they have claimed it was.
The IG report has proven that the Trump administration was lying about spygate.
It has proven that the beginning of the investigation had NOTHING to do with the Steele dossier. Yet another popular lie spread by Trump and his cronies. Some posters on this board as well.
It has proven there was no bias as to why the investigation was started.
Most every lie spread by Trump, his followers and his loyal disinformation squad on this board was debunked.
Now you're making some wild claim, "There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump."
You may want to double check your sources. If they're the same ones you used to claim the Trump was investigated because of the Steele dossier, I would have thought you would have learned your lesson by now.
Can you start using "indicated" instead of "proven?"
Then I won't feel obligated to say anything, and I can instead shrug, nod, and say that's fair.
Debunked is slightly misleading, too. There has been no solid evidence to support Trump's assertions (assertion in place of lie, as well) would be more accurate.
A lack of evidence for one thing doesn't prove the alternative.
That's the kind of thinking that got Galileo imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun.
John Durham reportedly scrutinizing John Brennan's role in Russian interference findings
The New York Times reports that John Durham wants to compare John Brennan's private communications with his public comments on the Steele dossier and Russian interference intel assessment.
John Durham reportedly scrutinizing John Brennan's role in Russian interference findings
The New York Times reports that John Durham wants to compare John Brennan's private communications with his public comments on the Steele dossier and Russian interference intel assessment.
What - now your back to dabbling in reports about unpublished reports? LOL. Go figure.
I guess zero evidence doesn't prove anything to you. You do realize that flies in the face of logic don't you?
According to that almost nothing in this world can be proven. Ideological refusal to see the obvious is a rare malady. I hope it isn't contagious.
No, it's expecting a lack of evidence to be seen as proof that flies in the face of logic.
Lots of things can be proven. There can be video evidence. There can be forensic evidence. There's no such thing as "we didn't find anything" evidence.
You do understand the difference in zero evidence and a lack of evidence don't you?
ie... Found NO bias.
Found NO evidence that the FBI infiltrated the Trump campaign.
Found NO evidence that the investigation was based on the Steele dossier.
Actually, in the case of the Steele dossier, the FBI didn't even have the Steele dossier until three weeks AFTER the investigation of Trump was initiated.
I can see the misunderstanding here. You have simply confused a lack of evidence with no evidence.
Only if he manufactures something that isn't there.
If only you understood.
The IG cannot press charges or indict. The IG is limited in what and who he can investigate.
Durham is a Federal Prosecutor with a Grand Jury. He can indict. Durham can investigate the FBI, CIA, NSA, Justice Department and any other Federal agency. Durham can investigate internationally. Durham can investigate Private Organizations and Private Companies.
You do understand the difference in zero evidence and a lack of evidence don't you?
ie... Found NO bias.
Found NO evidence that the FBI infiltrated the Trump campaign.
Found NO evidence that the investigation was based on the Steele dossier.
Actually, in the case of the Steele dossier, the FBI didn't even have the Steele dossier until three weeks AFTER the investigation of Trump was initiated.
I can see the misunderstanding here. You have simply confused a lack of evidence with no evidence.
Lack: noun. the state of being without.
Without = no = zero
It actually is the same thing.
The other point your missing is the "found" part. If you're playing hide and seek, and your kid doesn't find you, does that mean you don't exist until you're found? That's the logical pattern of your argument. If you keep mindlessly saying the same flawed argument over and over again, that's not going to make it true.
The only reason the Steele dossier didn't start the investigation is that instead of opening a new investigation it was piggybacked on top of a failing one, changing the investigation's direction. It happens a lot in politically inspired fishing expeditions. An investigation relying on requests filled with "errors and omissions." An investigation saved by a dossier that was funded by a politically motivated party. A dossier provided by an FBI affiliate whose work was never used in an FBI trial because it wasn't ever found sufficiently viable by those prosecuting criminals for the FBI.
Which still doesn't go to say that anything in this circus has been proven either way.
One side's interpretation of events seems more likely.
Still you have to prove guilt. Innocence is supposed to be the assumption.
You just keep reaching. What you're saying is that after every bit of evidence that could be found was gone over, they could not find anything doesn't really mean anything.
Yet Trump and his cronies insisted the evidence was abundant. The facts were laying everywhere.
I think the very definition of contempt of congress says otherwise.
Contempt of Congress Primary tabs Definition
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.
Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.
Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress. Caselaw
Quinn v. U.S., 349 U.S. 155, 75 S. Ct. 668, 99 L. Ed. 964, 51 A.L.R.2d 1157 (1955).
You just keep reaching. What you're saying is that after every bit of evidence that could be found was gone over, they could not find anything doesn't really mean anything.
Yet Trump and his cronies insisted the evidence was abundant. The facts were laying everywhere.
That was most certainly proven to be false.
It means something, just not what you keep saying it does.
You keep speaking in absolutes. I'll grant likelihoods, but you're supposed to need more to convict.
I'll not speak to your newest argument. I hadn't argued against it previously. It's a different, more nuanced argument. I'm not sure I'd seen evidence "laying everywhere" claimed, but I wasn't really looking for it.
I think the very definition of contempt of congress says otherwise.
Contempt of Congress Primary tabs Definition
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.
Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.
Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress. Caselaw
Quinn v. U.S., 349 U.S. 155, 75 S. Ct. 668, 99 L. Ed. 964, 51 A.L.R.2d 1157 (1955).
The bolded section is what needs to be determined. Legally, it comes down to interpretation of the Constitution. We're in gray area where we're dealing with implied powers vs. explicitly stated powers. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court as currently constituted could side with the president.
The power of impeachment and investigating the grounds of impeachment lays solely in the hands of the house of congress. That's not something you can twist into a debate.
The power of impeachment and investigating the grounds of impeachment lays solely in the hands of the house of congress. That's not something you can twist into a debate.
You're the one doing the twisting.
I'm quoting the law.
I know, it sucks that you can't ignore the parts that you don't like.
You keep making your argument about big picture things, and keep ignoring the loopholes politicians/criminals use to avoid being held accountable.
The part you bolded seems to indicate you don't believe congress has the power to investigate a president for bribing a foreign power to investigate a political rival and help interfere in our elections. That congress doesn't have the right to charge someone with interfering with a congressional investigation.
Nothing in the bold part indicates any of that.
Even the most biased Republican hacks on this board haven't attempted to do that.
The part you bolded seems to indicate you don't believe congress has the power to investigate a president for bribing a foreign power to investigate a political rival and help interfere in our elections. That congress doesn't have the right to charge someone with interfering with a congressional investigation.
Nothing in the bold part indicates any of that.
Even the most biased Republican hacks on this board haven't attempted to do that.
You keep saying interfere in the election. The Democratic nominating process doesn't officially start until February. The reasoning also seems questionable, "he's a politician, you can't investigate him." If he had asked for them to manufacture evidence, that'd clearly be wrong. Asking them to investigate an alleged crime is open to interpretation.
Here's a link with some more of the background issues on who can do what with regards to foreign affairs:
Of course I see it now - it's 100% cool and dandy to bribe a foreign government to undermine and smear a political rival, just so long as it's far enough away from the election. Go it.
You keep saying interfere in the election. The Democratic nominating process doesn't officially start until February.
The timing of the democratic nominating process doesn't have a thing to do with it.... Trump tried to get a foreign leader to "say" he was going to investigate Biden for one purpose and one purpose only, Trump needed a boogie man in this election and Biden being under even a fake investigation makes him the Boogie man Trump needs.. Just like Hillary was last time...
If that's not meddling in the election, then nothing is.
You're right. A president having his personal lawyer who has no official capacity in our government being involved in working with a foreign government to cast nasty rumors about a political opponent should be the gold standard of a president and perfectly legal by anyone's standard.
You keep saying interfere in the election. The Democratic nominating process doesn't officially start until February.
The timing of the democratic nominating process doesn't have a thing to do with it.... Trump tried to get a foreign leader to "say" he was going to investigate Biden for one purpose and one purpose only, Trump needed a boogie man in this election and Biden being under even a fake investigation makes him the Boogie man Trump needs.. Just like Hillary was last time...
If that's not meddling in the election, then nothing is.
I don't understand why you guys aren't asking for a speedy investigation of Biden, so that it gets cleared up before election time. Now it's going to hang over his head indefinitely. Trump can point to him "avoiding an investigation," and his supporters will eat it up.
An investigation would have cleared Biden (allegedly.) Torpedoing the investigation gives Trump the "boogie man."
Sometimes I forget how idealistic most supporters of the Democrats are. They think things work a certain way because they should work that way and good always triumphs. Unfortunately, this isn't a fantasy kingdom and things aren't perfect/fair/just in the real world.
Our justice system is designed (allegedly) so that innocents don't get locked up (innocence until proven guilty.) Unfortunately, many innocents can't afford competent representation. So, in reality, our system does more to protect rich criminals, who can afford the best lawyers, than poor innocents. The law (and Constitution) is filled with so many loopholes and contradictions, doubt can be established in almost any case with a good enough lawyer. Trump has an army of them.
The whole impartial justice is a myth. People can't just turn off their biases. They can think they are trying, but the biases are still there behind everything.
In a perfect world, Trump would get locked up. This isn't a perfect world. I wish it was. Sadly, we're a far cry from perfect. We're in much more of a corrupted, short-sighted, incompetent, greedy, partisan world.
Not only did our government want the prosecutor removed, but many of our allies did as well. They were working on getting him removed well before Biden did anything.
Not only did our government want the prosecutor removed, but many of our allies did as well. They were working on getting him removed well before Biden did anything.
There's a difference between an investigation and people who agreed with his actions saying it was kosher. There are people in our government and allies who want the current Ukrainian investigators (may have been the prosecutor when Trump's call happened, they seem to go through them pretty quickly) removed. The motives in both cases aren't as clear as is being assumed.
Ukraine is a mess. ...We're a mess politically. Politics are a mess (globally).
Joe's son working in Ukraine looks bad. Conflict of interest seems a legitimate concern. But we shouldn't look into it because Joe looks like a goofy (if grabby) grandpa, so his political allies see him as harmless, and he is a political rival of the sitting president, who intends to run for re-election.
It's easy to assume that one guys motivations are pure and the other's evil. It's harder to prove.
Once the assumptions have been made, it's hard to get past them.
We are talking about two separate things here. At least in some cases.
I do think that Burisma hired Hunter Biden in hopes it would receive some preferential treatment on the part of the American government. Though I'm not sure what exactly they stood to gain from that.
The article plainly stated that Burisma had already been investigated for two years. Long before Hunter Biden began his time there. There wasn't enough evidence gathered to bring forth any charges against the company.
The article also pointed out why not only our government but also our allies wanted the prosecutor removed. Because he refused to look into prior Ukrainian corruption. He stood in the way of, and added to the distinct corruption that many of the allied nations wanted to rid Ukraine of. The Russian influence that had perpetrated their government.
Quote:
Once the assumptions have been made, it's hard to get past them.
Which means anyone can accuse anyone of anything and they must prove those accusations are false? Even when that's already been proven?
And that's a big problem that we are seeing more and more of.
FBI director Wray 'deeply regrets' FISA court errors in Trump-Russia probe
FBI Director Christopher Wray said he "deeply regrets" the bureau's mishandling of Russia probe surveillance and outlined a 12-step plan to prevent future abuses, but President Trump on Saturday suggested Wray didn't go far enough.
“Chris, what about all of the lives that were ruined because of the so-called 'errors?' " Trump tweeted. "Are these 'dirty cops' going to pay a big price for the fraud they committed?”
On Friday, Wray submitted his reform plan to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court after a scathing inspector general report found 17 errors in the FBI’s surveillance application of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
“The FBI has the utmost respect for this [FISA] Court, and deeply regrets the errors and omissions identified by the OIG,” Wray wrote, referencing the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General report released in December.
In the rare public court filing, Wray acknowledged the report found “conduct that is unacceptable and unrepresentative of the FBI as an institution.”
Trump has long accused the FBI and Justice Department of launching an unwarranted, politically motivated probe into his campaign in order to undermine his White House bid. He continues to point to anti-Trump text messages from Lisa Page, then an FBI lawyer, and Peter Strzok, the former FBI head of counterintelligence, as proof the bureau was out to get him.
Despite the errors in the application process, Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz found no political bias or intentional misconduct surrounding the launch of the investigation into Trump campaign ties to Russia.
In the court filing, Wray outlined steps for corrective action, including a new verification form to certify the accuracy of information from informants, and a new checklist for agents to fill out when seeking FISA approval for surveillance to better inform the court of all relevant information.
Wray’s mea culpa comes after the FISA court chief judge slammed the FBI publicly over its shoddy Page surveillance applications and gave the bureau until Jan. 10 to come up with solutions.
"The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above," then-presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in a four-page court order issued Dec. 17. "The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."
Surprise, Surprise: The DOJ’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Has Been a Bust
After more than two years, an inquiry into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s tenure at State is nearly done—and there’s reportedly absolutely nothing to show for it.
Back in 2017, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s calls for investigations into “Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” the Justice Department launched an inquiry into Hillary Clinton and Republicans' pet conspiracy theories about her and her career. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into concerns that the FBI hadn't fully pursued cases related to the Clinton Foundation, as well as Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, including the baseless “Uranium One” conspiracy theory championed by conservatives. Now, Huber is finally almost finished with his much-vaunted Clinton investigation—and, unsurprisingly, there isn't really anything to show for it.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that after continuing on for more than two years, Huber's investigation “has effectively ended with no tangible results.” After combing through documents and conferring with federal law enforcement officials looking into the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Post reports that Huber has “found nothing worth pursuing,” let alone any criminal charges. The U.S. attorney has not yet officially reported any results to the Justice Department, however, and the inquiry is technically still ongoing. But officials cited by the Post say that Huber's years-long investigation has by this point “largely finished”—and with nothing to show for it.
Despite Republicans' long insistence on Clinton's wrongdoing—and Trump's favorite “lock her up” rallying cry—the fact that the Huber investigation has reportedly been a bust doesn't seem to come as much surprise to those inside the Justice Department itself. Senior Justice officials cited by the Post said that the investigation had largely been viewed as little more than a way to appease Trump and his Republican allies, and officials expected the inquiry was “unlikely to lead to anything of significance.” “We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did [Huber],” one source told the Post. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”
The news of the DOJ's fruitless investigation comes just a few months after the State Department completed its own investigation into Clinton's emails and use of a private server, which found that while 38 individuals did commit 91 security violations in emails sent to or from the private server, ultimately the server largely wasn't used for transmitting classified information. “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” a report on the investigation said. “There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” Of course, Clinton being cleared of wrongdoing by Trump's own executive branch isn't about to stop the president from bashing Hillary nonetheless. (Never mind the fact that six of Trump's own associates have been convicted of crimes, or that private email use has reportedly been rampant throughout the Trump administration.) Less than an hour after the Post report came out, Trump was back on the campaign trail attacking Hillary, repeating his favorite 2016 talking points to a crowd of supporters—Clinton's innocence be damned. “Crooked Hillary—you should lock her up, I'll tell you,” Trump told supporters.
Clinton Emails: Closing The Loop On A Prominent Story
I wrote last week about what we in my office informally call "missing stories," those stories that NPR listeners and readers feel have been under-covered. Newsrooms have to set priorities, of course, and they can't cover everything. But this week's "missing story" is a particularly notable omission.
Late Friday, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley released a letter he had received from the State Department earlier in the week, in which the department said it had concluded its investigation, begun in 2016, into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. The quick takeaway from the report, as reported by AP: The investigation found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." It did find that 38 current or former employees, in 91 cases, sent classified information (some of it classified after the fact) that ended up in Clinton's personal email. Some of them may face discipline.
NPR intensely covered the Clinton email issue prior to the 2016 election. And it covered this most recent development in the 3-year-old saga, but you wouldn't know that from looking at NPR.org, as a reader pointed out to the Public Editor's office. There's no digital story. No newsmagazine report. Astute listeners would have heard reports in six newscasts, at 8 p.m., 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. (all ET) on Friday, Oct. 18, and at 2 a.m., 3 a.m. and 8 a.m. on Saturday, Oct. 19. Newscast transcripts are not archived online, however.
To any NPR news consumer who didn't happen to catch a newscast, most of which were in off hours, this important development in the story is invisible.
Newsroom leaders told me they stand by the decision to cover the story only in the newscasts, given the crush of other important news and an exceedingly stretched staff.
"It was a combination of things: timing and stretched resources and in the scheme of all the news of late, it just didn't rise up to our re-allocating resources. A judgment call, but not one that we would second guess given all the other things coming over the transom," Edith Chapin, NPR's vice president and executive editor, told me in an email.
Sarah Gilbert, NPR's vice president for news programming, added (by email): "That part of the week's news agenda was dominated by reaction to [acting White House Chief of Staff Mick] Mulvaney admitting and then retracting quid pro quo on Ukraine, the Doral G7 announcement and reversal, and the crisis in Syria. In this context, newscast coverage of a 9-page State Dept. report that concluded 'there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information' was adequate."
Are all those other stories important? Yes, and arguably far more newsworthy at this time when the president faces an impeachment inquiry. And the State Department finding perhaps felt anti-climactic, given that the FBI had already long ago closed its own investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, saying there was no criminal act. NPR covered that at the time.
Those affected most by the new development are the senders of the now-classified emails. That said, as recently as Sept. 30, NPR had prominent reports in both Morning Edition and All Things Considered about how the State Department had revived the probe, contacting about 150 current or former employees whose emails had ended up in Clinton's private email. The net effect of that action, and NPR's reporting on it, was to keep alive an issue that President Trump has used to stir up his supporters against Clinton in particular and Democrats in general.
The end of the State Department's investigation is a final period on the whole saga that got so much attention in the lead-up to the 2016 election. I think NPR has an obligation here to close the loop after three years (or at least on the newsmagazine reports from Sept. 30). Since there's no other report in the NPR online archive, this one will have to do.
The witch hunt is over and even Trump's own henchmen couldn't find anything on Hillary. In fact it was Michael Flynn who was calling for the cheers of lock her up at the GOP convention in 2016.
He is now awaiting sentence.
Yes 40, the hamma is falling on the deep state. You're just having trouble understanding who the deep state is.
Surprise, Surprise: The DOJ’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Has Been a Bust
After more than two years, an inquiry into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s tenure at State is nearly done—and there’s reportedly absolutely nothing to show for it.
Back in 2017, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s calls for investigations into “Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” the Justice Department launched an inquiry into Hillary Clinton and Republicans' pet conspiracy theories about her and her career. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into concerns that the FBI hadn't fully pursued cases related to the Clinton Foundation, as well as Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, including the baseless “Uranium One” conspiracy theory championed by conservatives. Now, Huber is finally almost finished with his much-vaunted Clinton investigation—and, unsurprisingly, there isn't really anything to show for it.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that after continuing on for more than two years, Huber's investigation “has effectively ended with no tangible results.” After combing through documents and conferring with federal law enforcement officials looking into the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Post reports that Huber has “found nothing worth pursuing,” let alone any criminal charges. The U.S. attorney has not yet officially reported any results to the Justice Department, however, and the inquiry is technically still ongoing. But officials cited by the Post say that Huber's years-long investigation has by this point “largely finished”—and with nothing to show for it.
Despite Republicans' long insistence on Clinton's wrongdoing—and Trump's favorite “lock her up” rallying cry—the fact that the Huber investigation has reportedly been a bust doesn't seem to come as much surprise to those inside the Justice Department itself. Senior Justice officials cited by the Post said that the investigation had largely been viewed as little more than a way to appease Trump and his Republican allies, and officials expected the inquiry was “unlikely to lead to anything of significance.” “We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did [Huber],” one source told the Post. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”
The news of the DOJ's fruitless investigation comes just a few months after the State Department completed its own investigation into Clinton's emails and use of a private server, which found that while 38 individuals did commit 91 security violations in emails sent to or from the private server, ultimately the server largely wasn't used for transmitting classified information. “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” a report on the investigation said. “There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” Of course, Clinton being cleared of wrongdoing by Trump's own executive branch isn't about to stop the president from bashing Hillary nonetheless. (Never mind the fact that six of Trump's own associates have been convicted of crimes, or that private email use has reportedly been rampant throughout the Trump administration.) Less than an hour after the Post report came out, Trump was back on the campaign trail attacking Hillary, repeating his favorite 2016 talking points to a crowd of supporters—Clinton's innocence be damned. “Crooked Hillary—you should lock her up, I'll tell you,” Trump told supporters.
Clinton Emails: Closing The Loop On A Prominent Story
I wrote last week about what we in my office informally call "missing stories," those stories that NPR listeners and readers feel have been under-covered. Newsrooms have to set priorities, of course, and they can't cover everything. But this week's "missing story" is a particularly notable omission.
Late Friday, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley released a letter he had received from the State Department earlier in the week, in which the department said it had concluded its investigation, begun in 2016, into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. The quick takeaway from the report, as reported by AP: The investigation found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." It did find that 38 current or former employees, in 91 cases, sent classified information (some of it classified after the fact) that ended up in Clinton's personal email. Some of them may face discipline.
NPR intensely covered the Clinton email issue prior to the 2016 election. And it covered this most recent development in the 3-year-old saga, but you wouldn't know that from looking at NPR.org, as a reader pointed out to the Public Editor's office. There's no digital story. No newsmagazine report. Astute listeners would have heard reports in six newscasts, at 8 p.m., 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. (all ET) on Friday, Oct. 18, and at 2 a.m., 3 a.m. and 8 a.m. on Saturday, Oct. 19. Newscast transcripts are not archived online, however.
To any NPR news consumer who didn't happen to catch a newscast, most of which were in off hours, this important development in the story is invisible.
Newsroom leaders told me they stand by the decision to cover the story only in the newscasts, given the crush of other important news and an exceedingly stretched staff.
"It was a combination of things: timing and stretched resources and in the scheme of all the news of late, it just didn't rise up to our re-allocating resources. A judgment call, but not one that we would second guess given all the other things coming over the transom," Edith Chapin, NPR's vice president and executive editor, told me in an email.
Sarah Gilbert, NPR's vice president for news programming, added (by email): "That part of the week's news agenda was dominated by reaction to [acting White House Chief of Staff Mick] Mulvaney admitting and then retracting quid pro quo on Ukraine, the Doral G7 announcement and reversal, and the crisis in Syria. In this context, newscast coverage of a 9-page State Dept. report that concluded 'there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information' was adequate."
Are all those other stories important? Yes, and arguably far more newsworthy at this time when the president faces an impeachment inquiry. And the State Department finding perhaps felt anti-climactic, given that the FBI had already long ago closed its own investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, saying there was no criminal act. NPR covered that at the time.
Those affected most by the new development are the senders of the now-classified emails. That said, as recently as Sept. 30, NPR had prominent reports in both Morning Edition and All Things Considered about how the State Department had revived the probe, contacting about 150 current or former employees whose emails had ended up in Clinton's private email. The net effect of that action, and NPR's reporting on it, was to keep alive an issue that President Trump has used to stir up his supporters against Clinton in particular and Democrats in general.
The end of the State Department's investigation is a final period on the whole saga that got so much attention in the lead-up to the 2016 election. I think NPR has an obligation here to close the loop after three years (or at least on the newsmagazine reports from Sept. 30). Since there's no other report in the NPR online archive, this one will have to do.
The witch hunt is over and even Trump's own henchmen couldn't find anything on Hillary. In fact it was Michael Flynn who was calling for the cheers of lock her up at the GOP convention in 2016.
He is now awaiting sentence.
Yes 40, the hamma is falling on the deep state. You're just having trouble understanding who the deep state is.
Summoning my best 40 voice... “yeah but still. Her emails. Lock her up! Deep state. Obamaghazi pizzagate. Winning.”
