AG Barr believes leaked IG MSM talking point is bunk

JGalt

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
29,385
Reaction score
9,754
Points
930
Location
SW Wisconsin
So who leaked portions of the IG report to the Washington Post? And why?

It's reasonable to assume that it was leaked in order to minimize the impact of Durham's report. Remember, Horowitz was appointed by Obama, so it's not surprising that the Democrats are running with WAPO's story that Donald Trump and his campaign weren't spied on.

"Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...64f018-154d-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
999
Points
245
Mueller v2.0



The rumor this morning in Jeff Bezos's Washington Post was "Barr doesn't accept key inspector general finding about FBI's Russia investigation."

The story implied that Obama was perfectly justified in spying on Donald Trump in the summer of 2016.

This story overshadows the release of Adam Schiff's impeachment report, Nothing Burger, Whopper Lie.

$20 million for the Mueller inquisition

Exactly one year ago today on December 3, 2018, the Fake News media lied and told us the Mueller report would end the Trump presidency.

All those stories of the demise of President Donald John Trump were wrong. After nearly 2 years of investigating, Mueller had nothing on President Trump. Not one thing. This was all a sideshow aimed at ruining the president's prestige and reputation.

Mueller was not man enough to admit it, but he exonerated the president of the false conspiratorial charges concocted by Obama and his minions of collusion.

Now we are supposed to believe that Schiff has the goods and Barr does not?

The Schiff report is comical.

He calls tweeting "witness intimidation."

But there is not one violation of federal law in the document. No citation is made because President Donald Trump never broke the law.

I can see why the propagandists at Jeff Bezos's Post wanted to change subjects this morning.

Republicans ripped Schiff apart in their rebuttal report.

They said, "In 2017 and 2018, Democrats introduced four separation resolutions in the House with the goal of impeaching President Trump. On January 3, 2019, on the Democrats’ first day in power, Rep. Al Green again introduced articles of impeachment.

"That same day, Rep. Rashida Tlaib promised, 'we’re going to go in there and we’re going to impeach the [expletive deleted].'

"In this context, it is difficult to see the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry as anything other than a partisan effort to undo the results of the 2016 election. Rep. Green said on MSNBC in May 2019, 'If we don’t impeach this President, he will get re-elected.'"

Impeach.

The public is not buying this.

Rush Limbaugh said, "Over the weekend, you know what I didn’t hear? I didn’t hear anybody talk about impeachment. They are talking about the New England Patriots maybe floundering, people talking about Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals bragging about how much money they saved. Nobody’s talking about impeachment."

Democrats need to win over at least some Trump supporters because public opinion drives how senators will vote, not party loyalty. Democrats need a supermajority to remove President Trump because they need almost half the Republican senators to defect.

Tarring President Trump with impeachment is a nothing burger. He will wear it as a badge of honor.

And the poor soul unlucky enough to be nominated by Democrats will wear it like a Scarlet Letter.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,193
Reaction score
4,870
Points
1,130
Rush Limbaugh said, "Over the weekend, you know what I didn’t hear? I didn’t hear anybody talk about impeachment. They are talking about the New England Patriots maybe floundering, people talking about Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals bragging about how much money they saved. Nobody’s talking about impeachment."
The lying POS is deaf you know!
That BS is as "brilliant" as this (but he sure has himself pegged!):
April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
34,538
Reaction score
5,300
Points
1,140
So who leaked portions of the IG report to the Washington Post? And why?

It's reasonable to assume that it was leaked in order to minimize the impact of Durham's report. Remember, Horowitz was appointed by Obama, so it's not surprising that the Democrats are running with WAPO's story that Donald Trump and his campaign weren't spied on.

"Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...64f018-154d-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html
Barr is a lying sack of shit trying to spin his nothingburger into a full meal.
 

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
24,913
Reaction score
4,758
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth
of course it is bunk, as it does not confirm the narrative set out to confirm. therefore, new investigations must be held, with other investigators, who are not obama-controlled deep state puppets.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
999
Points
245
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
It seems the rights hero Durham has:

Washington Post: Barr's handpicked prosecutor tells watchdog he doesn't have evidence Russia probe was a setup - CNNPolitics
That isn't the question Durham was tasked to answer. He was asked to determine if the predicate justified the loosing of the entire DOJ/FBI/IC on an opposition presidential campaign. And the way the Left keeps trying to spin that the question is something else is interesting.

Durham is reviewing whether the government’s “intelligence collections activities” of the Trump campaign were “lawful and appropriate.”

He will “illuminate open questions regarding the activities of U.S. and foreign intelligence services as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals.”

The purpose of the Review is to more fully understand the efficacy and propriety of those steps and to answers, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, those open questions.

It is now well established that, in 2016, the U.S. government and others undertook certain intelligence-gathering and investigate steps directed at persons associate with the Trump Campaign. The Attorney General has stated publicly at congressional hearings and elsewhere, these remain open questions relating to the origins of this counter-intelligence investigation and the U.S. and foreign intelligence activities took place prior to and during that investigation.

 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
14,534
Reaction score
4,621
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Of course not. Trump was innocent of wrongdoing, and Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, Rosenstein, et. al. who misused the FISA process to illegally spy on Trump, as well as other crimes deserve to be indicted.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Of course not. Trump was innocent of wrongdoing, and Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, Rosenstein, et. al. who misused the FISA process to illegally spy on Trump, as well as other crimes deserve to be indicted.
The Horowitz and the Durham investigations have exonerated all of them.

Too bad Barr, and you, are not honest enough to say so.

You fell for a hoax, and don't have the humility to admit it to yourself.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
28,230
Reaction score
6,116
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Russian bot—ignore
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
14,534
Reaction score
4,621
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Of course not. Trump was innocent of wrongdoing, and Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, Rosenstein, et. al. who misused the FISA process to illegally spy on Trump, as well as other crimes deserve to be indicted.
The Horowitz and the Durham investigations have exonerated all of them.

Too bad Barr, and you, are not honest enough to say so.

You fell for a hoax, and don't have the humility to admit it to yourself.
Please provide a link showing the the Horowitz and Durham investigations have no indictments. (hint: they are not issued yet)

I'm letting the AG make the call on indictments or not. A "hoax" is what you call the Mueller Investigation and the impeachment thing.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Of course not. Trump was innocent of wrongdoing, and Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, Rosenstein, et. al. who misused the FISA process to illegally spy on Trump, as well as other crimes deserve to be indicted.
The Horowitz and the Durham investigations have exonerated all of them.

Too bad Barr, and you, are not honest enough to say so.

You fell for a hoax, and don't have the humility to admit it to yourself.
Please provide a link showing the the Horowitz and Durham investigations have no indictments. (hint: they are not issued yet)

I'm letting the AG make the call on indictments or not. A "hoax" is what you call the Mueller Investigation and the impeachment thing.
The Mueller investigation led to several indictments, convictions, and imprisonments. It also proved Putin helped get Trump elected.

Some hoax! :lol:

That's a very high bar for Barr and all you creduloids to get over with this actual hoax.
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
14,534
Reaction score
4,621
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Of course not. Trump was innocent of wrongdoing, and Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, Rosenstein, et. al. who misused the FISA process to illegally spy on Trump, as well as other crimes deserve to be indicted.
The Horowitz and the Durham investigations have exonerated all of them.

Too bad Barr, and you, are not honest enough to say so.

You fell for a hoax, and don't have the humility to admit it to yourself.
Please provide a link showing the the Horowitz and Durham investigations have no indictments. (hint: they are not issued yet)

I'm letting the AG make the call on indictments or not. A "hoax" is what you call the Mueller Investigation and the impeachment thing.
The Mueller investigation led to several indictments, convictions, and imprisonments. It also proved Putin helped get Trump elected.

Some hoax! :lol:

That's a very high bar for Barr and all you creduloids to get over with this actual hoax.
1. Mueller indictments: small fish, nothing regarding Trump collusion, a disappointment for democrats, nothing impeachable
2. Putin helped Trump get elected: sure, like the Ukraine helped Hillary get elected. Prove ANY votes were affected. You can't.
3. WTF does that last sentence mean?? What hoax?
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Of course not. Trump was innocent of wrongdoing, and Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, Rosenstein, et. al. who misused the FISA process to illegally spy on Trump, as well as other crimes deserve to be indicted.
The Horowitz and the Durham investigations have exonerated all of them.

Too bad Barr, and you, are not honest enough to say so.

You fell for a hoax, and don't have the humility to admit it to yourself.
Please provide a link showing the the Horowitz and Durham investigations have no indictments. (hint: they are not issued yet)

I'm letting the AG make the call on indictments or not. A "hoax" is what you call the Mueller Investigation and the impeachment thing.
The Mueller investigation led to several indictments, convictions, and imprisonments. It also proved Putin helped get Trump elected.

Some hoax! :lol:

That's a very high bar for Barr and all you creduloids to get over with this actual hoax.
1. Mueller indictments: small fish, nothing regarding Trump collusion, a disappointment for democrats, nothing impeachable
2. Putin helped Trump get elected: sure, like the Ukraine helped Hillary get elected. Prove ANY votes were affected. You can't.
3. WTF does that last sentence mean?? What hoax?
I don't have to prove any votes were affected by Putin. The pseudocons did it for you all summer and fall of 2016.

Here you go:

New poll: 34 percent 'less likely' to vote for Clinton after new email revelations


All during the summer and fall of 2016, the pseudocons were celebrating the effect the meddling was having on the election.



Suck on it libs. Hillary is done for. She just can't win if one third of her voters are considering voting for someone else.
The Clintonites of the forum live in denial.

And how many are much more likely to vote for Trump as result? Many, many...
That means 1/3 of them were going to vote for HIllary. You can't win an election when 1/3 of your supports jump ship.

Hillary is done. Stick a fork in her.


Now that the tards know Russia was behind those leaks which affected the outcome, they are trying to pretend it had NO impact.




Sorry, but I"m not as stupid or as forgetful as you tards are.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
Poor rubes. They keep falling for one Trump hoax after another.

Now their premature ejaculations over Comey and Brennan and Mueller and Clinton and Obama all going to jail are being dashed, too.

Yet another hoax bites the dust.

But you can bet your house Barr won't have the integrity to announce they were all exonerated, even though that's exactly what Horowitz and Durham have done.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
That he would not have been elected without Putin's help digs at Trump like a bone spur. And that pain has led him to do really stupid shit for which he is now being impeached.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
999
Points
245
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
Uhh, he hasn't.

From Jonathon Turley:
Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us.

Given the Agency Friendly Standards Horowitz is compelled to use, he cannot say it was inappropriate to start the investigation, HOWEVER, United States Attorney John Durham, who is heading the parallel investigation at the Justice Department, took the unusual step to issue a statement that he did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion at the very beginning of the investigation.

Attorney General William Barr also issued a statement disagreeing with the threshold statement. In fact, the Justice Department has a standard that requires the least intrusive means of investigating such entities as presidential campaigns, particularly when it comes to campaigns of the opposing party. That threshold finding is then followed by the remainder of the report, which is highly damaging and unsettling. Horowitz finds a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates.
How can you describe that as "exoneration"?

This is akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage. The question is what occurred when the icebergs began appearing. Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared rather early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts.
Remember when Trump said the DOJ was spying on him?

Horowitz describes poorly founded investigations that included undercover FBI agents and a variety of different sources.

From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier. Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama. So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians? Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.​

Notice he does not say that SOME of the evidence proved exculpatory, but that ALL the evidence proved exculpatory, but FISC was not notified and the nation was put through a 3 year witch hunt with Fake News regularly claiming that any day unimpeachable evidence was going to be produced "proving" that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with and under the control of Vladimir Putin.

Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed. Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.
So the DOJ is telling FISC (FISA COURT) that Page's contacts are probable cause to believe he is working as a foreign spy against the United States and the DOJ hides from FISC that he is actuallyh working FOR the CIA gather information for them about Russia? That doesn't seem important? The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet through an initial FISA warrant and three renewals, they, each time, concealed this from the Court? Any idea WHY they hid this from the Court? I have a guess: Because they wouldn't have gotten the spy warrant if they told the truth! But they are all "exonerated"!

Who told investigators to turn to the dossier? Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired over his conduct in the investigation after earlier internal investigations. Horowitz contradicts the media claim that the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court. He finds that it was essential to seeking FISA warrants. Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself. Surprisingly little effort was made to fully investigate the dossier when McCabe directed investigators to it, yet investigators soon learned that critical facts reported to the FISA court were false. FISA judges were told that a Yahoo News article was an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier, but Horowitz confirms that Steele was the source of that article. Therefore, Steele was used to corroborate Steele on allegations that were later deemed unfounded.
And the FBI hid that from the Court as well, on ALL FOUR FISA applications. And Lying Andy? He's now a Fake News Contributor.

The report also said that Steele was viewed as reliable and was used as a source in prior cases, yet Horowitz found no support for that and, in fact, found that the past representations of Steele were flagged as unreliable. His veracity was not the only questionable thing unveiled in the report. Steele relied on a character who, Horowitz determined, had a dubious reputation and may have been under investigation as a possible double agent for Russia. Other instances were also clearly misrepresented.
They are all "exonerated"!

The source relied on by Steele was presented as conveying damaging information on Trump. When this source was interviewed, he said he had no direct information and was conveying bar talk. He denied telling other details to Steele. This was all known to the Justice Department, but it still asked for warrant renewals from the FISA court without correcting the record or revealing exculpatory information discovered by investigators. That included the failure to tell the court that Page was working with the CIA. Finally, Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer doctored a critical email to hide the fact that Page was really working for us and not the Russians.
Fake News Screams "EXONERATED"! and parrots chirp it out in unison:

Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress.​

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
I wonder if Barr will admit Horowitz has exonerated Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Page, Obama, Mueller, Strzok, et al. like he did for Trump after the Mueller investigation.
How can you describe that as "exoneration"?
I am simply applying the Trump Rule of Exoneration:

The Mueller report: f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


So, yeah.

Horowitz has completely and totally exonerated everyone!

The end.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,801
Reaction score
15,468
Points
2,180
Horowitz report: Nothing illegal. No political bias. FBI investigation was justified.

Complete and TOTAL EXONERATION. Keep America Great!.

The end.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top