I could see you taking issue with the first sentence, but after that? Those are all conclusions from Horowitz.anything else you want to conclude that the IG himself didn't?
All of the things he's mentioned already.
"Report reaches conclusions the IG himself doesn't reach" is the kernel, everything else is just a flourish.
Delusion in Trumplandia is impinging Quixotic levels at this point.
No, Schiff... Post #559 on this thread:
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...1#post10004355
So, in other words, the IG determined there was no abuse of the FISA process, despite a good number of (serious) errors.
they did inform the judge of steele's background, credibility, and bias initially. they then neglected to inform the FISC of developments that caused them to cast doubt on his reporting.
i dont think the whole "THEY DIDNT SAY DNC" angle is very strong. they clearly told the court the guy was biased and his work was political opposition research meant to discredit trump. thats quite a bit of a heads up
Well, the first sentence summarizes what you're trying to explain later. Except that's completely opposite to what Horowitz concluded.
Whereas you've been spoonfed to think there was malice, Horowitz reviewed all the evidence and concluded there was not.
It doesn't mean the errors he detected weren't serious, and indeed, his recommendations are valuable.
Bro...seriously?
FBI and DOJ officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant.
The DOJ “made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.”
In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information that corroborated Steele’s reporting.
The Page FISA warrant allowed the FBI to collect “valuable intelligence.”
“Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.”
The FBI conducted a “rigorous process” to vet Steele’s allegations, and the Page FISA application explained the FBI’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible.
Steele’s prior reporting was used in “criminal proceedings.”
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/i...0205-sd002.pdf
Yup, and perhaps the most damning part of the report is the general lack of clue about reporting to lawyers, etc. Those are grave errors, and I'm glad they're reviewing further FISA cases.
Now, there's no place where there's any indication of malice intent, which really sucks for Barr too, because it actually works as evidence against any criminal cases they might've considered bringing up.
So Page was wronged for a good reason?
That report says a lot of things... among them that there was no FISA abuse. And even some of the things you posted were indeed true at some point in time.Bro...seriously?
I'm not defending Schiff, I'm merely pointing out that, at least partially (better now?), he was vindicated by the report's conclusions.
Omitting interview with Steele’s primary source is not an error
Lying about Steele’s past work is not an error
Hiding exculpatory evidence from the CIA saying Page is a vetted asset is not an error
Altering and falsifying an email saying Page is not a vetted asset is not an error
Just quote the report saying Page was wronged... it's out now! there's no reason to skimp on details.
This started as a comment to Spurs Homer. And Horowitz makes clear he was wronged by the gross omissions and lies used to obtain the renewals.
It would look really silly now to turn around and say he doesn't know what he was doing. I mean, he concluded all those things were grave errors, but not intentional misconduct.
Yep, no quote. Probably because Horowitz didn't say nor conclude that?
You keep saying Horowitz said X or Y, but won't quote where he says that. See a repeating pattern here?
Yes I see the repeating pattern, you keep trying to pass off obviously intentional acts as errors. It’s pathetic and tbh I’m shocked it’s coming from you.
would you consider intentional omissions (and in that one lawyer's case who edited an email, misrepresentations) for the purpose of securing FISA warrants/renewals FISA abuse though?
granted, as you said, horowitz didnt find that anybody acted with malice or political bias, or anything resembling the grand conspiracy that Q- s were banking on... but he did find a lot of issues with the process
Last edited by spurraider21; 12-10-2019 at 09:50 PM.
Horowitz said their answers were unsatisfactory. After he interviews where does he go with no subpoena power with them being out of government?
It would look really silly now to turn around and say he doesn't know what he was doing. I mean, he concluded all those things were grave errors, but not intentional misconduct.
No, I'm refreshing your memory that's exactly what Horowitz concluded. I didn't write the report, and I didn't reach those conclusions, your super duper investigator did.
I can see how it really, really sucks after building an entire narrative for over a year, but hey, them dem breaks.
In order for it to be abuse, it has to be intentional. You know how this work in law, and why there's manslaughter vs murder, or an insanity plea. Could be that they covered their tracks really well? Could be, that's what conspiracy theories are all about.
Fact finding so far has shown no evidence of malice intent. So, we'll review this when new evidence shows up.
And as I noted in the first post here, IIRC, the errors in process are absolutely terrible and the IG recommendations must be followed. It's actually encouraging they're be reviewing additional FISA cases. There's just very little oversight on that area for my taste.
TSA sure quiet about Bruce Ohr.
fair points tbh.
i dont know how the alteration of the email, at the very least, wouldn't be intentional though
He said more than that. Let me show you how to quote the actual report:
Page 376:
"Although we did not find do entary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted 01 in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information".
And where does he go? He hands this to Congress so they can subpoena and investigate if they deem necessary. That's how this system works.
The fact that he does say he could not find any evidence there was intentional misconduct, neither through do ents nor testimony, means that at this point in time there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
No, you can’t see how it sucks for me because I don’t feel that way at all.
Explain how intentionally altering and falsifying a do ent submitted to the FISC for a warrant renewal is just an error and not intentional?
I can see a few scenarios where that could happen unintentionally, but it would sound like excuses, so I won't go there. However, reading the bulk of the report, it doesn't appear to me that was singled out as something with malice intent. More like another link in the chain of errors and mistakes with procedure that were delineated on the report.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote