IG Horowitz report thread.

[theprestige]

Two types of findings in the Steele dossier:
- Those that have been corroborated.
- Those that have not yet been corroborated.

To state that the dossier was "a complete and utter fabrication" is a complete and utter fabrication.

My understanding is that much of what has been corroborated has been information that was in the public domain, anyway; and that the parts that have not been corroborated or have been disproven are exactly the parts that we're relying on Steele to be telling the truth about.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes to the hilited. At all, for anything.

Can we put Trump in jail now? It seems like we both agree.

I agree. How many times had he lied to a court now?

 

[fishbob]

My understanding is that much of what has been corroborated has been information that was in the public domain, anyway; and that the parts that have not been corroborated or have been disproven are exactly the parts that we're relying on Steele to be telling the truth about.

Except for a few typos and mis-spellings (if you choose to wax pedantical), name one.

 

[Iamafalser]

Nothing was fabricated. The IG said the investigation was both free of bias and warranted.

Your post is fabricated:

What the report actually said:

we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence


Horowitz in recent testimony:

Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.

Hawley: Because I could have sworn — in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. But that’s not your conclusion?

Horowitz: We have been very careful, in connection with the FISAs, for the reasons you mentioned, to not reach that conclusion, in part — as we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand what — to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Your post is fabricated:

What the report actually said:

we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence


Horowitz in recent testimony:

Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.

Hawley: Because I could have sworn — in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. But that’s not your conclusion?

Horowitz: We have been very careful, in connection with the FISAs, for the reasons you mentioned, to not reach that conclusion, in part — as we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand what — to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.

If you want to suggest that this indicates bias, you must first show that similar alterations aren't done in many other cases.
The Report points to abuses in the FISA process, not to anti-Trump biases.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you want to suggest that this indicates bias, you must first show that similar alterations aren't done in many other cases.

That's a choice between bias on the part of the FBI, or systematic corruption throughout the entire organization.

Which option do you think would be better if it were true? Which option do you think is more likely to be true?

The Report points to abuses in the FISA process, not to anti-Trump biases.

You are correct. And that's also part of why ChristianProgressive is wrong: the IG not finding bias doesn't mean that there wasn't bias, since finding bias wasn't the purpose of the investigation.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's a choice between bias on the part of the FBI, or systematic corruption throughout the entire organization.

Which option do you think would be better if it were true? Which option do you think is more likely to be true?

I think it would be better to know what is true.
Both scenarios are bad, but of course the "bias" one is less severe, as the Report showed that it wouldn't have mattered either way.

I think the problem was that the FBI felt there was no support from the AG, so they had to cut corners to stay under the radar - this was a failure of the DOJ as much as of the FBI.
But if, as might be the case, the FBI is too cavalier with the FISA process, additional safeguards are necessary.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the problem was that the FBI felt there was no support from the AG

Which AG? Loretta Lynch? The FISA abuses in the AG report started under her, I believe.

And where are you getting that? I haven't read the IG report cover-to-cover, but I haven't come across this yet. I'm curious where it's coming from.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Which AG? Loretta Lynch? The FISA abuses in the AG report started under her, I believe.

And where are you getting that? I haven't read the IG report cover-to-cover, but I haven't come across this yet. I'm curious where it's coming from.

It comes from commentators intimately familiar with the Bureau and the FISA process.
And I was referring to Sessions/Rosenstein who couldn't be kept fully in the loop for fear of more leaks - the Report shows the lengths to which the investigators went to minimize the chance of premature release of their findings.
But as I said - I would like to know how common such "shortcuts" are when it comes to FISA applications - the process is on shaky legal grounds as it is, even with Barr defending it.

 

[Ziggurat]

It comes from commentators intimately familiar with the Bureau and the FISA process.

They may have motives to shift blame.

And I was referring to Sessions/Rosenstein who couldn't be kept fully in the loop for fear of more leaks

The problems began under Lynch. You can't blame anything Sessions did or failed to do before he even took the position.

But as I said - I would like to know how common such "shortcuts" are when it comes to FISA applications

So would I.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The problems began under Lynch. You can't blame anything Sessions did or failed to do before he even took the position.



So would I.

The problem began with George W. Bush.


I blame the circumstances - and the Trump administration for politicizing the FBI. The agents had no reason to believe that they wouldn't be punished for investigating a member of the Trump campaign, regardless of the evidence.
Trump had just fired Comey for not pledging allegiance to him.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem began with George W. Bush.

I'm talking specifically about the problems covered by the IG report on the Carter Page FISA's.

I blame the circumstances - and the Trump administration for politicizing the FBI.

The FBI was politicized before Trump was elected. And again, the Carter Page FISA problems began under Obama. You can't blame the Trump administration for that, it didn't even exist.

The agents had no reason to believe that they wouldn't be punished for investigating a member of the Trump campaign, regardless of the evidence.

Not so. The agents largely didn't believe Trump would even win the election. The FISA abuses prior to his election are much more likely the result of expecting that they would not be punished even if they abused the process, because they would have a sympathetic Hillary administration. And post election, they may have been hoping to turn up dirt in order to justify what they had done previously.

Trump had just fired Comey for not pledging allegiance to him.

Your timeline is screwed up. There were four FISA warrant applications for Carter Page, an initial one in 2016 and three renewals in 2017. The first and second renewals were in January and April. Comey was fired in May of 2017. Only the last renewal was made after Comey's firing, in June of 2017. Comey's firing cannot have effected any of the FISA applications except the last one. The last one was not the only one with problems.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You don't know that. You're assuming it.

I do know that. Steele does/did that sort of data gathering for a living, both in government service and in the private sector. He was very careful to state his sources and what was backed by what evidence.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Who here claimed it was?

Brainster.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12925783#post12925783

 

[ChristianProgressive]

This entire episode of Trump-Russia collusion nonsense is just another indication that we live in a police-state liberal society.

Then why did Papadopolous engage in illegal back channel contacts with Russia on behalf of Trump? This was documented in Manafort's emails, which were part of the court record. This was also confirmed by Richard Gates' testimony in the Roger Stone trial.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do know that. Steele does/did that sort of data gathering for a living, both in government service and in the private sector. He was very careful to state his sources and what was backed by what evidence.

And one of his own sources contradicted what he claimed that source said to him. Furthermore, naming sources doesn't preclude those sources from having lied.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

If you want to suggest that this indicates bias, you must first show that similar alterations aren't done in many other cases.

By their logic, then the behavior of the FBI field office (ie Trumplandia) must also indicate an anti-Clinton bias.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then why did Papadopolous engage in illegal back channel contacts with Russia on behalf of Trump? This was documented in Manafort's emails, which were part of the court record. This was also confirmed by Richard Gates' testimony in the Roger Stone trial.

Papadopoulos's contacts were not illegal. He got in trouble for lying about the contacts to the FBI, but the contacts themselves were not illegal, and not what he was charged with.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

And one of his own sources contradicted what he claimed that source said to him. Furthermore, naming sources doesn't preclude those sources from having lied.

In a dossier that he repeatedly made clear was "raw" intelligence only.