they investigated his campaign for collusion, found none, and did not charge anybody with any crimes related to that
nothing they were doing was in the public sphere until after the election. if they were trying to with the election, there certainly would have been leaks about the FBI investigating the trump campaign.
the only people related to the trump campaign who got in any trouble whatsoever got in trouble for lying to investigators or impeding the investigators. the whole thing would have been much cleaner and smoother if they didnt keep lying to the investigators or if trump didnt stupidly fire comey mid-investigation.
imagine how much cleaner the mueller report (or if left unimpeded, the "comey report") would have been for "your side" if there was only a section 1 and it concluded that there was no evidence of collusion. that would be a slam dunk. instead we had a whole volume 2 about obstruction where they expressly refused to exonerate him (and imo, laid out a case for impeachment which the dems didnt act on).
this doesnt excuse the issues detailed by Horowitz about how they went about ing around with the FISA applications. i'm glad they are reviewing/revising their protocol on that to prevent future subsequent abuses.
The FBI used a DNC funded dossier they knew was bull and lied to the FISC about it in order to obtain a warrant for the most intrusive type of surveillance our government is capable of on a man they knew to be innocent and your reaction is that you are just glad they are reviewing/revising FISA protocol
Nope. Not sure how you inferred that.
i dont think they "knew" he was innocent. i dont have an issue with investigations happening just because it turns out that that the subject hadn't, in fact, committed a crime.The FBI used a DNC funded dossier they knew was bull and lied to the FISC about it in order to obtain a warrant for the most intrusive type of surveillance our government is capable of on a man they knew to be innocent and your reaction is that you are just glad they are reviewing/revising FISA protocol
i do have issues with how they approached the FISA warrants and have said as much when the Horowitz report was released. i dont think that somehow justifies people then lying to investigators or impeding the investigation. while the FISA warrants certainly have issues, it has already been determined that there was sufficient, valid factual predicate to the opening and conducting of the investigation
So you take issue with them lying to investigators but somehow don't take issue with one of Mueller's top prosecutors lying to Judge Sullivan.
What they did uncover though? The FBI hasn't admitted any wrongdoing to date, nor has been charged with anything here.And yet you're still mum on what Jensen uncovered Van Grack doing
It's the DOJ that unilaterally has moved to close the case. Again, Barr has made some very dubious calls in a number of cases that are directly associated with this administration, and that undermine their own employees.
I don't think I need to explain how this comes across as extremely corrupt.
i do take issue with it. i dont have any issue with people who knowingly made misrepresentations facing the appropriate discipline. i think the attorney who made adjustments to the email from CIA has to be closely looked at, and if they can show wrongful intent behind that, she should face whatever the appropriate charges areSo you take issue with them lying to investigators but somehow don't take issue with one of Mueller's top prosecutors lying to Judge Sullivan.
i dont think any of this excuses people from trump's campaign/administration knowingly lying to federal investigators.
I would think you should take issue with both instances?So you take issue with them lying to investigators but somehow don't take issue with one of Mueller's top prosecutors lying to Judge Sullivan.
Jensen uncovered everything Van Grack had been hiding from Sullivan and Flynn’s defense team. If there was nothing to find Flynn would still be sitting here hoping for a pardon or dismissal by Sullivan. You keep acting as if Barr or his DOJ created all of this exculpatory evidence out of thin air.
Jeffrey Jensen served in the FBI for 10 years and has been a federal prosecutor for almost 20 years. He is the one who made the recommendation to Barr to drop the case after reviewing everything Van Grack had done.
If you do take issue with Van Grack and Clinesmith that’s news to me because you sure as don’t like talking about it when I bring it up and continuously deflect to something else.
Sure. Except he only wants to discuss one.
you're the one who keeps deflecting away from Flynn's lies (the subject of this thread)
let them be investigated, interviewed, and if needed, take the appropriate action.
if that process was underway, and then a democrat became president in 2021, made Adam Schiff the AG, and then the DOJ decides to drop charges after a guilty plea, i'd be critical of that too
You’re so full of
lol pizzagate logic
flynn in court under oath: "Yes, your honor I plead guilty because I am - in fact - guilty."
Barr: "yes it is a crime - UNLESS - you are on team Trump"
What do you think the appropriate action would be for an FBI agent who altered an exculpatory email from the CIA and presented a fraudulent do ent to the FISC in order to obtain a FISA warrant?
What do you think the appropriate action is for a federal prosecutor that hides exculpatory evidence from the defense and lies to the judge?
There was nothing that exculpated Flynn of his lying.
i dont know
if they cons ute criminal acts, and the US Attorneys office believes they have probable cause to prove the required elements, intent, etc, then i dont see any reason it shouldnt be referred to a federal grand jury for potential indictment
if they are tried found to be guilty of those things, i would not be opposed to them getting punished based on appropriate sentencing guidelines
if it doesnt rise to those levels, and theres a sufficient internal finding of wrongdoing, they should face whatever discipline is deemed appropriate. it's not that complicated. none of it has to do with Flynn lying and admitting to it twice in open court
a lot of attorneys do shady . i think prosecutors are among the most overzealous attorneys out there. its a big reason why i never considered prosecution as a career path and had aspirations to go into public defense work*You’re so full of
i've expressed that on more than one occasion, even as it relates to the Mueller probe. heck, this was one of my early reactions/responses after Horowitz report was released
*market is hyper compe ive back in LA, and wasn't able to get a foot in the door, so couldnt get a job there without substantial experience. would be easier to find that kind of gig here in Virginia (if not for the pandemic), but based on how much they get paid here, is a paycut that i probably wouldnt be able to afford at this time. when i eventually move back to LA i still want to go into that field.
i'm skimming through the main report, dont have time to read the whole thing in one sitting. there were clearly a lot of mistakes made by FBI officials in the warrant applications tbh. its not surprising (but also not acceptable) that a law enforcement agency will take liberties in trying to successfully obtain a warrant that they want. i do think the proper purpose/factual predicate, and opening of investigation prior to Steele dossier does cut quite a bit into some of the big arguments we've heard all along, imo
Since only cherry-picked excerpts will ever be posted here by cultists -
here is Adam Schiff's statement upon releasing the Intel transcripts -
explains some of the misinformation that the cherry-pickers will post;
After releasing the transcripts, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) stated:“From 2017 to 2018, the House Intelligence Committee conducted an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Despite the many barriers put in our way by the then-Republican Majority, and attempts by some key witnesses to lie to us and obstruct our investigation, the transcripts that we are releasing today show precisely what Special Counsel Robert Mueller also revealed: That the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump himself, invited illicit Russian help, made full use of that help, and then lied and obstructed the investigations in order to cover up this misconduct.“Unfortunately, the President’s misconduct did not end with his election in 2016 or his attempts to cover up that effort. Rather, in the course of his presidency, he continued to seek illicit foreign help in his campaign by coercing another nation, Ukraine, to smear his opponent. After making use of Russia’s help with his first presidential campaign, President Trump pressed the Ukrainian president to help him in 2020 by withholding critical military aid to that country and a coveted head of state meeting.“These acts ultimately led to the President’s impeachment in the House of Representatives and the first bipartisan vote in the Senate in our history in support of a conviction of a President of the United States. The President’s efforts to make use of the help of a foreign power to win an election, and then to extort yet another foreign power to try to win again, represent a grave threat to the health of our democracy now and in the future.“The transcripts released today richly detail evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller identified in his report similar, and even more extensive, evidence of improper links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government. A bipartisan Senate investigation also found that Russia sought to help the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016.“While Special Counsel Mueller found insufficient evidence to prove the crime of criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he refused to draw any conclusion on the issue of collusion — contrary to false representations made by Attorney General Bill Barr and others. There is ample evidence of the corrupt interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia, both direct and cir stantial, in the record:
- In June of 2016, a Russian delegation offered dirt on Donald Trump’s rival—presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—to the highest levels of the Trump campaign, and did so in writing. Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., accepted that offer, and then set up a secret meeting between the Russian delegation, himself, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to discuss that illicit help. When news of the meeting was about to break, Trump and his son drafted a false statement for the press together in order to cover up the true purpose of the meeting. This written offer of illegal help by the Russians and its acceptance by the President’s campaign, and the secret meeting that followed, provide some of the most damning and direct evidence of the President’s to make use of Russia’s assistance in the election.
- Throughout the summer of 2016, the Trump campaign and candidate Trump himself repeatedly sought damaging information on Clinton from Russia. In July of 2016, Trump publicly called on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, and – as the Special Counsel found – that night, Russian military intelligence officers did precisely that. Our transcripts show that numerous individuals affiliated with or working for the Trump campaign were in communication with individuals offering help to set up private backchannels with the Russian government.
- Multiple witnesses sought to hide and cover up illicit activity related to Russia during the presidential campaign. One-time campaign advisor and close confidant to Trump, Roger Stone, has been sentenced to prison for lying to the Committee about his advanced knowledge of impending WikiLeaks releases of Clinton campaign information. Former personal attorney to Trump, Michael Cohen, was imprisoned in part on charges that he lied to the Committee about Trump’s role in arranging a lucrative business deal in Russia during the course of his campaign and early presidency. The President’s pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow — potentially the most lucrative deal of his life — while lying to the American people about his business interests in Russia, provided the most serious counterintelligence risk to the United States.
- Another associate of Trump, Erik Prince, misled our Committee about his efforts to take part in a secret backchannel with a senior Russian government official while he was unofficially supporting the Trump campaign.
- And the transcripts also show that during the transition period in late 2016, the incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn undertook efforts to undermine U.S. sanctions on Russia imposed by the previous administration over Russia’s interference in the election on Trump’s behalf. Flynn would later lie to the FBI about these efforts, and the President would try to pressure then-FBI Director Comey to shut down any investigation into Flynn. It would take the firing of then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the later appointment of an unscrupulous Attorney General, Bill Barr, for the President to achieve his aim of seeking dismissal of the case against Flynn, and only after Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
“Despite taking part in this investigation and hearing these facts first-hand, the transcripts reveal how House Republicans used witness interviews not to gain the facts, but to press President Trump’s false narrative of ‘no collusion, no obstruction.’ It would be a pattern they would follow throughout the Russia investigation and into the President’s subsequent Ukraine misconduct. To that end, House Republicans sought to use the Committee’s Russia investigation to undermine the Intelligence Community’s assessment that Russia sought to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. That assessment has been affirmed by this Committee’s Democrats, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, and Special Counsel Mueller. “These transcripts should have been released long before now, but the White House held up their release to the public by refusing to allow the Intelligence Community to make redactions on the basis of classified information, rather than White House political interests. Only now, and during a deadly pandemic, has the President released his hold on this damning information and evidence. “Like the Ukraine investigation that would follow it, the investigation into the Trump campaign’s effort to seek and utilize Russian help in 2016 and to obstruct justice, reveal a President who believes that he is above the law. But we are a country where the truth still matters and where right still matters. Our investigation into the Trump campaign, and the evidence we uncovered despite formidable obstruction, affirms that.”Background:On September 17, 2018, the Committee voted unanimously to send all transcripts to the ODNI for a nonpartisan classification review by the Intelligence Community, and authorized the public release of the transcripts once the classification review was completed. In March of 2019, the Committee was informed that ODNI intended to share the Committee transcripts with the White House because the White House claimed the transcripts implicated “White House equities.” In response, the Committee directed that the ODNI refrain from sharing the transcripts, which remain Committee property and were shared with the intelligence community only for the purpose of declassification. We urged that ODNI complete the classification review as requested and without any further delay.In September 2019, the Committee again voted to release the transcripts. Nevertheless, the White House continued to insist on a prior review and the right to redact non-classified matters that it alleged would implicate their “equities.” The Committee continued to reject this unprecedented interference in the classification review, and continues to reject the idea that the White House can exert some after the fact rationale to deprive Congress of the ability to release its own work product to the public.Only this week, the Acting DNI finally informed the Committee that the White House was abandoning its hold. As of May 4, the ODNI reported that “the interagency review of the remaining ten transcripts has been completed,” and that ODNI completed the redaction process begun 18 months ago. The Committee, after a review of the 53 transcripts which totaled tens of thousands of pages and to avoid any further delays, has allowed all of the redactions proposed by ODNI despite our concerns that the ODNI excessively over-redacted information that has since been declassified.Redactions applied to the classified and sensitive transcripts released today were the work of the ODNI, not the Committee, and the Committee has accepted all IC-proposed redactions for now. The Committee previously applied limited redactions to all transcripts to protect personally identifiable information such as email addresses, phone numbers, or staff names.
best of luck getting back to LA
Schiff
Adam Schiff lied about the Trump investigation — and the media let him
Last week, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell forced Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff’s hand. If the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee didn’t release the transcripts of 53 interviews from the committee’s Russia collusion investigations, then he’d do it himself. The transcripts, many of them from nearly three years ago, were declassified and ready for public viewing since June.
As the grand impresario of collusion, Schiff has filled print and broadcast media since January 2017 claiming that he has seen “more than cir stantial evidence” of a Trump-Putin conspiracy. Obviously there was none in the transcripts, or he’d have pulled back the curtain years ago. But Schiff didn’t want to hand control of the narrative to one of Trump’s most effective deputies, so on Thursday they finally went live.
They show exactly what you’d expect them to show: None of the former Obama administration officials who took to the airwaves immediately after Trump’s election to claim collusion had any evidence of it.
Here’s Obama’s director of national intelligence, and CNN analyst, James Clapper: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”
Former Pentagon official and now candidate for New York’s 17th Congressional District Evelyn Farkas claimed in a notorious 2017 MSNBC segment that she advised her colleagues to disseminate intelligence so that Trump could not destroy evidence of collusion. Under oath, however, she testified she “didn’t know anything” about Trump staff dealing with Russians.
But what makes the transcripts significant is not what’s contained in them. Rather, it’s what they represent.
Grenell’s deputy at DNI is Kash Patel. He was lead investigator in the Russia probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, when it was chaired by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes. He told me for my book “The Plot Against the President” that he and GOP colleagues asked every former Obama official they interviewed if they had any evidence of collusion.
“I’m not asking if you thought it happened or if you heard it happened,” Patel told them all, from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to FBI Director James Comey. “I said, ‘Do you have information that exactly addresses this issue?’ ”
It was when Patel and Nunes saw no Obama official had any that their inquiry changed course. If there was no evidence of the Trump team’s ties to Russia, why was the FBI investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign?
And thus began what Patel called “Objective Medusa,” the Nunes team’s investigation of the FBI team that targeted the Trump campaign. Their efforts not only unraveled the collusion myth but also first illuminated the FBI’s crimes and abuses. Their groundwork led, among other things, to Attorney General William Barr’s decision, also Thursday, to drop the DOJ’s case against Gen. Michael Flynn.
The transcripts also represent yet another blow to the media’s credibility. The Obama officials interviewed were among the many sources, like Schiff, the press tapped for its prize-winning collusion reporting. They lied for years about Trump and Russia and the press peddled their narrative without question.
No matter what evidence surfaced to prove the collusion story wrong, the media continued to credential the destructive conspiracy theory. It didn’t matter when Objective Medusa showed that former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s reports were paid for by the Clinton campaign. Or when the Nunes memo explained that the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. It didn’t even matter when resistance messiah Robert Mueller concluded there was no evidence of collusion.
After Mueller filed his report last spring, CNN’s Jake Tapper said that “I don’t know anybody who got anything wrong.” Don’t expect anyone in the mainstream media to admit gross journalistic malpractice this time either. The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations, including CNN as well as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, weren’t fooled by the collusion hoax. They were an essential part of it.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/08/adam-s...mpression=true
Lol pizzagate gullible idiotill take schiffs (and my own eyes and ears) over any cultist or barr henchmani can read FULL transcripts myselfi dont need conspiracists to tell me their twisted interpretation of their propaganda
Dupe
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
