What's new

What Liberal News Sources Aren't Telling You About the IG Report

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
23,763
Reaction score
2,747
Points
280
Who knows? Until you get credible evidence of a tax related crime being committed, you won't know. But feel free to speculate.

And again, how do you expect to find if someone owes "The Russians" anything by looking at his tax returns? Which schedule shows that?
Probably schedule A... who loaned him money and how much is he paying in interest.... But it's okay, just keep asking the same stupid question like Corky the Retard.
You keep asking the stupid question, "What is he hiding?", as if that's significant.

Here's a hint, Russian loans wouldn't show up on his personal returns, they would go to one of his companies. Is your view of the world really so simplistic that you think you would see "Loan from Boris to chase Moose and Squirrel" on his personal returns?
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
24,726
Reaction score
3,409
Points
290
Who knows? Until you get credible evidence of a tax related crime being committed, you won't know. But feel free to speculate.

And again, how do you expect to find if someone owes "The Russians" anything by looking at his tax returns? Which schedule shows that?
Probably schedule A... who loaned him money and how much is he paying in interest.... But it's okay, just keep asking the same stupid question like Corky the Retard.
questions like "what's he hiding" corky?
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
21,581
Reaction score
4,700
Points
290
Location
Niagara Escarpment
As expected, the liberal news outlets are in full spin and distortion mode about the Justice Department's IG report on the FBI's Russian-collusion-Trump investigation. If anyone bothers to read even just the report's executive summary, one finds that the report is hardly an exoneration of the FBI and the FISA memo. Liberal news sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post, not to mention CNN and MSNBC, have pounced on the finding that the investigation was not politically motivated, but they have ignored virtually everything else in the report because the report documents, among other things, that the FISA memo was full of lies.

Here are just a few of the negative findings in the report:

However, as we describe later, as the FBI obtained additional information raising significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting, the FBI failed to reassess the Steele reporting relied upon in the FISA applications, and did not fully advise NSD or 01 officials. (p. vi)

. . . the FBI did not press Steele for information about the actual funding source for his election reporting work. Agents also did not question Steele about his role in a September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article entitled, "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump advisor and Kremlin," that described efforts by U.S. intelligence to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. As we discuss in Chapters Five and Eight, the FBI assessed in the Carter Page FISA applications, without any support, that Steele had not "directly provided" the information to Yahoo News. (p. vi)

We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications. (p. viii)

. . . absent corroboration for the factual assertions in the election reporting, it was particularly important for the FISA applications to articulate the FBI's knowledge of Steele's background and its assessment of his reliability. On these points, the applications advised the court that Steele was believed to be a reliable source for three reasons: his professional background; his history of work as an FBI CHS since 2013; and his prior non-election reporting, which the FBI described as "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings." As discussed below, the representations about Steele's prior reporting were overstated and had not been approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures. (p. viii)

As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:

1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;

2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;

3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and "may engage in some embellishment" and (2) [redacted in report]

4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File- Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;

5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;

6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and

7. Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. (pp. viii-ix)​

Of course, one can wonder how the IG could document all these omissions and misrepresentations but yet conclude that politics did not play a role in the investigation. Anyway, again, the above are just a few of the damning, negative findings in the report. One would have to be practically blind to read the entire report and conclude that it exonerates the FBI's investigation. You can find the report here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf.

The Federalist website has published a good article that summarizes most of the key negative findings in the report: IG Report Confirms Schiff FISA Memo Media Praised Was Riddled with Lies.

Finally, it's worth mentioning, since most liberals have ignored this, that earlier this year the IG harshly criticized James Comey's conduct as FBI Director:

The Justice Department’s IG Delivers a Scathing Rebuke of Ex-FBI Director Comey
There is still NOTHING in that synopsis that is indicative of wrong doing, or bias.

Furthermore, you fools keep talking about the Steele Report as if it had been debunked, which it hasn’t. None of Steele’s research has been “debunked”. Mueller prove collusion, which is not illegal, but not conspiracy, which is illegal.

Last but not least, the FBI didn’t obtain the Carter Page FISA warrant until AFTER Page left the Trump campaign.
 

DBA

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
288
Points
140
They dont care. Democrats are beyond reproach, plus their handlers on the MSM wouldn't approve.
We don't care because it isn't that important.

Colin Powell and Condi Rice also did business on private accounts... When Colin Powell was asked to produce some of the emails he sent regarding how we went to war with Iraq, he just gave a big shrug and said he didn't have them anymore.

You guys had EIGHT investigations into Benghazi... and they all came to the same conclusion. That no one really could have anticipated what happened, and Mrs. Clinton did nothing wrong. .
Right, her and Obama did nothing wrong except to lie about the origins of the attacks(uproar over a video or a spontaneous protest). Heck, I am not sure if Obama ever admitted it was a terrorist attack. He didn't want to upset a portion of his base I guess.(those that hate the US)
 

The Purge

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
16,560
Reaction score
4,792
Points
290
‘Multiple Levels of Hearsay Upon Hearsay’. What the media doesn’t want you to know about the Horowitz report.
...

[M]any journalists seem determined not to explain how the report vitiates the “Steele dossier” and discredits its author, Christopher Steele, a former British spy who peddled third-hand hearsay to gullible paymasters at both the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. With a few exceptions, journalists have eagerly embraced former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as guardians of democracy rather than culpable apologists for dire threats to Americans’ civil liberties.

Every American who cares about civil liberties should peruse at least pages 186-93, wherein the inspector general’s staff shreds the Steele dossier piece by piece and indicts the bureau’s reliance on visibly shoddy work that any unbiased intelligence professional would have quickly discarded.

Mr. Steele confessed in a 2016 FBI interview that one of his top two sources was a “boaster” and “egotist” who “may engage in some embellishment” (page 110). Mr. Steele had asserted to interviewing agents that this person—whom he variously called “Source D,” “Source E,” a Trump “associate” and “Person 1”; we’ll go with P1 for short—was the source for both the dossier’s most salacious claims about Donald Trump and the information on which the FBI relied to obtain a warrant to spy on former campaign aide Carter Page.

Yet Mr. Steele’s “Primary Sub-source”—we’ll abbreviate that to PSS—contradicted those claims, telling the FBI that P1 didn’t furnish any salacious information. Mr. Steele claimed that PSS and P1 had met two or three times, but PSS said their only contact was a single 10- to 15-minute phone conversation.

Three FBI interviews of PSS in the first half of 2017 impeached Mr. Steele’s reporting—even as the bureau was petitioning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to keep extending its pointless electronic surveillance of poor Mr. Page.

(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
18,228
Reaction score
2,666
Points
290
Location
Washington State
As expected, the liberal news outlets are in full spin and distortion mode about the Justice Department's IG report on the FBI's Russian-collusion-Trump investigation. If anyone bothers to read even just the report's executive summary, one finds that the report is hardly an exoneration of the FBI and the FISA memo. Liberal news sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post, not to mention CNN and MSNBC, have pounced on the finding that the investigation was not politically motivated, but they have ignored virtually everything else in the report because the report documents, among other things, that the FISA memo was full of lies.

Here are just a few of the negative findings in the report:

However, as we describe later, as the FBI obtained additional information raising significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting, the FBI failed to reassess the Steele reporting relied upon in the FISA applications, and did not fully advise NSD or 01 officials. (p. vi)

. . . the FBI did not press Steele for information about the actual funding source for his election reporting work. Agents also did not question Steele about his role in a September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article entitled, "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump advisor and Kremlin," that described efforts by U.S. intelligence to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. As we discuss in Chapters Five and Eight, the FBI assessed in the Carter Page FISA applications, without any support, that Steele had not "directly provided" the information to Yahoo News. (p. vi)

We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications. (p. viii)

. . . absent corroboration for the factual assertions in the election reporting, it was particularly important for the FISA applications to articulate the FBI's knowledge of Steele's background and its assessment of his reliability. On these points, the applications advised the court that Steele was believed to be a reliable source for three reasons: his professional background; his history of work as an FBI CHS since 2013; and his prior non-election reporting, which the FBI described as "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings." As discussed below, the representations about Steele's prior reporting were overstated and had not been approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures. (p. viii)

As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:

1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;

2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;

3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and "may engage in some embellishment" and (2) [redacted in report]

4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File- Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;

5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;

6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and

7. Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. (pp. viii-ix)​

Of course, one can wonder how the IG could document all these omissions and misrepresentations but yet conclude that politics did not play a role in the investigation. Anyway, again, the above are just a few of the damning, negative findings in the report. One would have to be practically blind to read the entire report and conclude that it exonerates the FBI's investigation. You can find the report here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf.

The Federalist website has published a good article that summarizes most of the key negative findings in the report: IG Report Confirms Schiff FISA Memo Media Praised Was Riddled with Lies.

Finally, it's worth mentioning, since most liberals have ignored this, that earlier this year the IG harshly criticized James Comey's conduct as FBI Director:

The Justice Department’s IG Delivers a Scathing Rebuke of Ex-FBI Director Comey
There is still NOTHING in that synopsis that is indicative of wrong doing, or bias.

Furthermore, you fools keep talking about the Steele Report as if it had been debunked, which it hasn’t. None of Steele’s research has been “debunked”. Mueller prove collusion, which is not illegal, but not conspiracy, which is illegal.

Last but not least, the FBI didn’t obtain the Carter Page FISA warrant until AFTER Page left the Trump campaign.
Nothing wrong?

There is nothing wrong with the FBI changing documents and outright lying to the court to obtain warrants?

Really?
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
24,726
Reaction score
3,409
Points
290
As expected, the liberal news outlets are in full spin and distortion mode about the Justice Department's IG report on the FBI's Russian-collusion-Trump investigation. If anyone bothers to read even just the report's executive summary, one finds that the report is hardly an exoneration of the FBI and the FISA memo. Liberal news sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post, not to mention CNN and MSNBC, have pounced on the finding that the investigation was not politically motivated, but they have ignored virtually everything else in the report because the report documents, among other things, that the FISA memo was full of lies.

Here are just a few of the negative findings in the report:

However, as we describe later, as the FBI obtained additional information raising significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting, the FBI failed to reassess the Steele reporting relied upon in the FISA applications, and did not fully advise NSD or 01 officials. (p. vi)

. . . the FBI did not press Steele for information about the actual funding source for his election reporting work. Agents also did not question Steele about his role in a September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article entitled, "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump advisor and Kremlin," that described efforts by U.S. intelligence to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. As we discuss in Chapters Five and Eight, the FBI assessed in the Carter Page FISA applications, without any support, that Steele had not "directly provided" the information to Yahoo News. (p. vi)

We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications. (p. viii)

. . . absent corroboration for the factual assertions in the election reporting, it was particularly important for the FISA applications to articulate the FBI's knowledge of Steele's background and its assessment of his reliability. On these points, the applications advised the court that Steele was believed to be a reliable source for three reasons: his professional background; his history of work as an FBI CHS since 2013; and his prior non-election reporting, which the FBI described as "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings." As discussed below, the representations about Steele's prior reporting were overstated and had not been approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures. (p. viii)

As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:

1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;

2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;

3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and "may engage in some embellishment" and (2) [redacted in report]

4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File- Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;

5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;

6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and

7. Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. (pp. viii-ix)​

Of course, one can wonder how the IG could document all these omissions and misrepresentations but yet conclude that politics did not play a role in the investigation. Anyway, again, the above are just a few of the damning, negative findings in the report. One would have to be practically blind to read the entire report and conclude that it exonerates the FBI's investigation. You can find the report here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf.

The Federalist website has published a good article that summarizes most of the key negative findings in the report: IG Report Confirms Schiff FISA Memo Media Praised Was Riddled with Lies.

Finally, it's worth mentioning, since most liberals have ignored this, that earlier this year the IG harshly criticized James Comey's conduct as FBI Director:

The Justice Department’s IG Delivers a Scathing Rebuke of Ex-FBI Director Comey
There is still NOTHING in that synopsis that is indicative of wrong doing, or bias.

Furthermore, you fools keep talking about the Steele Report as if it had been debunked, which it hasn’t. None of Steele’s research has been “debunked”. Mueller prove collusion, which is not illegal, but not conspiracy, which is illegal.

Last but not least, the FBI didn’t obtain the Carter Page FISA warrant until AFTER Page left the Trump campaign.
so then what was mueller saying he was wrong about? if he can do it, you can too. give it a shot. :)
 

lennypartiv

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
4,002
Reaction score
534
Points
140
Uh, guy, that pretty much describes every warrant ever issued to any law enforcement agency. What is a warrant? A warrant is a list of what you suspect you MIGHT find if you are allowed to look.
So you're another liberal who supports the witch hunt?
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
47,315
Reaction score
7,140
Points
1,870
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
As expected, the liberal news outlets are in full spin and distortion mode about the Justice Department's IG report on the FBI's Russian-collusion-Trump investigation. If anyone bothers to read even just the report's executive summary, one finds that the report is hardly an exoneration of the FBI and the FISA memo. Liberal news sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post, not to mention CNN and MSNBC, have pounced on the finding that the investigation was not politically motivated, but they have ignored virtually everything else in the report because the report documents, among other things, that the FISA memo was full of lies.
Uh, guy, that pretty much describes every warrant ever issued to any law enforcement agency. What is a warrant? A warrant is a list of what you suspect you MIGHT find if you are allowed to look.

FISA warrants are different if you bothered to read the IG report. Woods procedures and FBI policies demand that all information in a FISA warrant be "Scrupulously Verified", the Woods procedures came about because agents were fudging their facts, just like they did with the Page warrant.

.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
119,239
Reaction score
9,904
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
You keep asking the stupid question, "What is he hiding?", as if that's significant.

Here's a hint, Russian loans wouldn't show up on his personal returns, they would go to one of his companies. Is your view of the world really so simplistic that you think you would see "Loan from Boris to chase Moose and Squirrel" on his personal returns?
Yes, i think that it would be kind of obvious, since we would be going after his corporate returns as well as his personal ones...
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
119,239
Reaction score
9,904
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
FISA warrants are different if you bothered to read the IG report. Woods procedures and FBI policies demand that all information in a FISA warrant be "Scrupulously Verified", the Woods procedures came about because agents were fudging their facts, just like they did with the Page warrant.
Um... so what?

Every warrant involves the cops "fudging" to make things look worse than they are. I think that's the first course they teach in cop school, "Making what you did sound a lot worse than it actually was".
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
23,763
Reaction score
2,747
Points
280
You keep asking the stupid question, "What is he hiding?", as if that's significant.

Here's a hint, Russian loans wouldn't show up on his personal returns, they would go to one of his companies. Is your view of the world really so simplistic that you think you would see "Loan from Boris to chase Moose and Squirrel" on his personal returns?
Yes, i think that it would be kind of obvious, since we would be going after his corporate returns as well as his personal ones...
So there's really no reason then to go after his private returns, since they wouldn't show loans from Boris. Admit it, you're only obsessed with Trump's taxes because he doesn't let you see them and you hope to find something, not because a crime has been committed and they might provide evidence.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
23,763
Reaction score
2,747
Points
280
FISA warrants are different if you bothered to read the IG report. Woods procedures and FBI policies demand that all information in a FISA warrant be "Scrupulously Verified", the Woods procedures came about because agents were fudging their facts, just like they did with the Page warrant.
Um... so what?

Every warrant involves the cops "fudging" to make things look worse than they are. I think that's the first course they teach in cop school, "Making what you did sound a lot worse than it actually was".
Your belief that "they do it all the time" doesn't excuse the FBI doing it in this case. In fact, one would expect a certain level of outrage from someone who claims to despise law enforcement abuses. It sounds more like a weak justification for excusing it now for partisan political reasons.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
18,228
Reaction score
2,666
Points
290
Location
Washington State
FISA warrants are different if you bothered to read the IG report. Woods procedures and FBI policies demand that all information in a FISA warrant be "Scrupulously Verified", the Woods procedures came about because agents were fudging their facts, just like they did with the Page warrant.
Um... so what?

Every warrant involves the cops "fudging" to make things look worse than they are. I think that's the first course they teach in cop school, "Making what you did sound a lot worse than it actually was".
Wow....
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
47,315
Reaction score
7,140
Points
1,870
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
FISA warrants are different if you bothered to read the IG report. Woods procedures and FBI policies demand that all information in a FISA warrant be "Scrupulously Verified", the Woods procedures came about because agents were fudging their facts, just like they did with the Page warrant.
Um... so what?

Every warrant involves the cops "fudging" to make things look worse than they are. I think that's the first course they teach in cop school, "Making what you did sound a lot worse than it actually was".

And when a court finds out about it everything found in that warrant is thrown out. Like I said in another thread, without the warrant there would have never been a special counsel.

.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,037
Reaction score
14,765
Points
2,180
As expected, the liberal news outlets are in full spin and distortion mode about the Justice Department's IG report on the FBI's Russian-collusion-Trump investigation. If anyone bothers to read even just the report's executive summary, one finds that the report is hardly an exoneration of the FBI and the FISA memo. Liberal news sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post, not to mention CNN and MSNBC, have pounced on the finding that the investigation was not politically motivated, but they have ignored virtually everything else in the report because the report documents, among other things, that the FISA memo was full of lies.

Here are just a few of the negative findings in the report:

However, as we describe later, as the FBI obtained additional information raising significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting, the FBI failed to reassess the Steele reporting relied upon in the FISA applications, and did not fully advise NSD or 01 officials. (p. vi)

. . . the FBI did not press Steele for information about the actual funding source for his election reporting work. Agents also did not question Steele about his role in a September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article entitled, "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump advisor and Kremlin," that described efforts by U.S. intelligence to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. As we discuss in Chapters Five and Eight, the FBI assessed in the Carter Page FISA applications, without any support, that Steele had not "directly provided" the information to Yahoo News. (p. vi)

We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications. (p. viii)

. . . absent corroboration for the factual assertions in the election reporting, it was particularly important for the FISA applications to articulate the FBI's knowledge of Steele's background and its assessment of his reliability. On these points, the applications advised the court that Steele was believed to be a reliable source for three reasons: his professional background; his history of work as an FBI CHS since 2013; and his prior non-election reporting, which the FBI described as "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings." As discussed below, the representations about Steele's prior reporting were overstated and had not been approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures. (p. viii)

As more fully described in Chapter Five, based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:

1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;

2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;

3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and "may engage in some embellishment" and (2) [redacted in report]

4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File- Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;

5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;

6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and

7. Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. (pp. viii-ix)​

Of course, one can wonder how the IG could document all these omissions and misrepresentations but yet conclude that politics did not play a role in the investigation. Anyway, again, the above are just a few of the damning, negative findings in the report. One would have to be practically blind to read the entire report and conclude that it exonerates the FBI's investigation. You can find the report here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf.

The Federalist website has published a good article that summarizes most of the key negative findings in the report: IG Report Confirms Schiff FISA Memo Media Praised Was Riddled with Lies.

Finally, it's worth mentioning, since most liberals have ignored this, that earlier this year the IG harshly criticized James Comey's conduct as FBI Director:

The Justice Department’s IG Delivers a Scathing Rebuke of Ex-FBI Director Comey
I think it is funny you felt the need to start a topic in which you basically admit you did not read the report for yourself, and instead just parrot what you are told to parrot by your own propagandists.

I actually read the report for myself. I know Trumptards won't because it is longer than a tweet.

And you know what it says?

It says the FBI investigation was justified. Period.

It says mistakes were made, but that those mistakes do not take away from the fact the FBI would have been remiss in its duties if it ignored reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The FBI was obligated to investigate.

How many more topics are you tards going to start to parrot the same shit you've been told to parrot? Why aren't all these topics being merged?

The FBI investigation was LEGITIMATE.

Trump Tower was not wiretapped. Trump lied to you.

Let that sink in.

Trump lied to you.

Look at you dumb fucks taking his lie and running with it. How fucking sad.


No matter how many self-deluded topics you people want to start, no matter how much further you want to dive into mental illness, you cannot change reality.

No one can stop you from being stupid or mentally ill. Only you can. You should know, though, that you look unbelievably pathetic.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
119,239
Reaction score
9,904
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
So there's really no reason then to go after his private returns, since they wouldn't show loans from Boris. Admit it, you're only obsessed with Trump's taxes because he doesn't let you see them and you hope to find something, not because a crime has been committed and they might provide evidence.
Again, there's a good reason... we need to know how much he owes the Russians and Saudis.

And when a court finds out about it everything found in that warrant is thrown out. Like I said in another thread, without the warrant there would have never been a special counsel.
You can say that, but it's still not true. The bottom line is that Trump's people were dealing with the Russians. Period.
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top