4 ms·

In what way was it properly predicated? He was briefed by the CIA that it was a campaign stunt.

ModernMech 3y ago
You'll have to be more specific about what part of my comment you're referring to as "it". Because obviously the investigation wasn't a campaign stunt. And if you want to read about how the investigation was properly predicated, here's the IG report: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf The existence and thoroughness of this report begs the question as to why the Durham investigation was ever needed in the first place.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ModernMech 3y ago
    This is not what the IG and Durham found, read the linked report.
    - zaroth 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - ModernMech 3y ago
        It was not a hoax that Paul Manafort was caught exchanging campaign data with an Russian intelligence officer by the Senate Intel Committee. It wasn't a hoax that he met with a Russian spy at Trump's home to discuss an exchange of dirt for relaxed sanctions. It wasn't a hoax that Trump's campaign had a hundred+ contacts with Russians but lied saying they didn't have any, including under oath. It wasn't a hoax that Trump and Trump's lawyer lied when they said there were no deals in Russia, when in fact Trump had an in-progress "Trump Tower Moscow" deal with a planned penthouse dedicated to Putin. These are not "hoaxes", but facts discovered through investigation and detailed extensively in at least 9 reports. In total, they show the Russians hacked the Democrats to help the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign welcomed the help, the campaign publicly asked Russia for the help, and when the help came from Russia, the campaign used the help to their advantage, and they hoped for more. Then when the investigation into said help happened, they obstructed it, tried to shut it down, and called it a "hoax", which you repeat here. Everything I've said is supported by hundreds of pages of reports: The Mueller report, the Senate Intel Committee report on the 2016 election, the IG report, and yes even the Durham report corroborates what I'm saying. Taken in total, it's impossible to conclude these reports support the theory that Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, and the Trump campaign's welcoming and support of that interference was a hoax. > Comey brought incredible disgrace to the FBI thru his actions and leadership during the “investigation”. No argument there.
        zaroth 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ModernMech 3y ago
        So you have no rebuttal to the facts except to deny them? That’s a pretty weak hand. Before the Durham report you could maybe claim this and say “wait for the report, it’ll set things straight.” But now that the Durham report has been released, the contents emphatically do not undo the findings of the Mueller Report, the DOJ IG Report, or 5 volumes of the Senate Intel report on this matter. Steele didn’t have 4 government investigations to back his dossier, the main point of which was proven by the Mueller report volume 1. > the way the FBI willfully lied and buried the truth due to their blind hatred of Trump is the only thing criminal that happened. This assertion is at odds with the IG report, in which Horowitz finds no political bias on the part of the FBI that would have impacted their investigation. I’m sorry, but again, I have reports from Mueller, Horowitz, Rubio, and Durham to back my position. I will weight their reports and evidence against the evidence and reports you’ve provided and come to a decision accordingly based on the facts.
        zaroth 3y ago
        Steele had illegal campaign cash from Hillary Clinton laundered as legal fees to back up his “dossier”. No charges for that of course, just a slap on the wrist fine. They applied the full force and technology of the United States spying apparatus and all the Mueller report proved was that they found nothing. Brennan briefed Obama and Biden on the Clinton campaign’s dirty plan right from the start, and they ran with it. They knew it was a Clinton plan and had no evidence to back it up, and lied to Congress, and lied to the American people about it. Those are the established facts, but there will always be people like the Peter Strzoks who will never admit how wrong they were, or how much harm they did. Then they followed it up in 2020 with 51 intelligence officer / signatories lying to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop. They’re not done lying and cheating, and the FISA abuses we know about are just the tip of the iceberg.
        3y ago
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    There's a school of thought that says that Trump needed to be stopped by whatever means were necessary, fair or foul. The events of January 6 did a lot to vindicate that admittedly-troubling school of thought. My own thinking is that when you exempt yourself from constitutional constraints, as Trump did in lying about the election and inciting a riot, it's game on. I'd be curious to hear a counter-rationale other than the obvious (and equally true) "B...b...but FISA is just as unconstitutional" or the equally-true "But Trump hadn't yet done that at the time the FBI investigated his campaign." His relationship with Paul Manafort alone was arguably sufficient to set an aggressive counterintelligence investigation into motion. If Trump didn't wish to be treated like a captive Russian asset, he might have tried not acting exactly like one.
    - MrPatan 3y ago
      Once you bought into "whatever means necessary", what evidence would it take to change your mind?
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        I'm not necessarily saying that I buy into that position myself, just that I've found myself surprisingly sympathetic to it. At this point, I agree with those who suggest that America cannot survive a competent Trump. So given the hypothetical future appearance on the campaign trail of a similar character with all of his faculties intact, I may have to revisit the question.
        MrPatan 3y ago
        And how will you tell such a monster appeared? Through your independent research? Or because the TV told you?
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        A worthy question, but one that goes too far afield for this thread IMHO.
silverquiet 3y ago
[flagged]
eigen 3y ago
if you want details, you can read the Senate report about Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure [1], Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities [5], and everything in-between. you may find such things as "The Russian govemment directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure' at the state and local level." and "The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election." [1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [5] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

You'll have to be more specific about what part of my comment you're referring to as "it". Because obviously the investigation wasn't a campaign stunt. And if you want to read about how the investigation was properly predicated, here's the IG report: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf The existence and thoroughness of this report begs the question as to why the Durham investigation was ever needed in the first place.

jonhohle 3y ago
[flagged]
- ModernMech 3y ago
  This is not what the IG and Durham found, read the linked report.
  - zaroth 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ModernMech 3y ago
      It was not a hoax that Paul Manafort was caught exchanging campaign data with an Russian intelligence officer by the Senate Intel Committee. It wasn't a hoax that he met with a Russian spy at Trump's home to discuss an exchange of dirt for relaxed sanctions. It wasn't a hoax that Trump's campaign had a hundred+ contacts with Russians but lied saying they didn't have any, including under oath. It wasn't a hoax that Trump and Trump's lawyer lied when they said there were no deals in Russia, when in fact Trump had an in-progress "Trump Tower Moscow" deal with a planned penthouse dedicated to Putin. These are not "hoaxes", but facts discovered through investigation and detailed extensively in at least 9 reports. In total, they show the Russians hacked the Democrats to help the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign welcomed the help, the campaign publicly asked Russia for the help, and when the help came from Russia, the campaign used the help to their advantage, and they hoped for more. Then when the investigation into said help happened, they obstructed it, tried to shut it down, and called it a "hoax", which you repeat here. Everything I've said is supported by hundreds of pages of reports: The Mueller report, the Senate Intel Committee report on the 2016 election, the IG report, and yes even the Durham report corroborates what I'm saying. Taken in total, it's impossible to conclude these reports support the theory that Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, and the Trump campaign's welcoming and support of that interference was a hoax. > Comey brought incredible disgrace to the FBI thru his actions and leadership during the “investigation”. No argument there.
      - zaroth 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ModernMech 3y ago
        So you have no rebuttal to the facts except to deny them? That’s a pretty weak hand. Before the Durham report you could maybe claim this and say “wait for the report, it’ll set things straight.” But now that the Durham report has been released, the contents emphatically do not undo the findings of the Mueller Report, the DOJ IG Report, or 5 volumes of the Senate Intel report on this matter. Steele didn’t have 4 government investigations to back his dossier, the main point of which was proven by the Mueller report volume 1. > the way the FBI willfully lied and buried the truth due to their blind hatred of Trump is the only thing criminal that happened. This assertion is at odds with the IG report, in which Horowitz finds no political bias on the part of the FBI that would have impacted their investigation. I’m sorry, but again, I have reports from Mueller, Horowitz, Rubio, and Durham to back my position. I will weight their reports and evidence against the evidence and reports you’ve provided and come to a decision accordingly based on the facts.
        zaroth 3y ago
        Steele had illegal campaign cash from Hillary Clinton laundered as legal fees to back up his “dossier”. No charges for that of course, just a slap on the wrist fine. They applied the full force and technology of the United States spying apparatus and all the Mueller report proved was that they found nothing. Brennan briefed Obama and Biden on the Clinton campaign’s dirty plan right from the start, and they ran with it. They knew it was a Clinton plan and had no evidence to back it up, and lied to Congress, and lied to the American people about it. Those are the established facts, but there will always be people like the Peter Strzoks who will never admit how wrong they were, or how much harm they did. Then they followed it up in 2020 with 51 intelligence officer / signatories lying to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop. They’re not done lying and cheating, and the FISA abuses we know about are just the tip of the iceberg.
        3y ago
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  There's a school of thought that says that Trump needed to be stopped by whatever means were necessary, fair or foul. The events of January 6 did a lot to vindicate that admittedly-troubling school of thought. My own thinking is that when you exempt yourself from constitutional constraints, as Trump did in lying about the election and inciting a riot, it's game on. I'd be curious to hear a counter-rationale other than the obvious (and equally true) "B...b...but FISA is just as unconstitutional" or the equally-true "But Trump hadn't yet done that at the time the FBI investigated his campaign." His relationship with Paul Manafort alone was arguably sufficient to set an aggressive counterintelligence investigation into motion. If Trump didn't wish to be treated like a captive Russian asset, he might have tried not acting exactly like one.
  - MrPatan 3y ago
    Once you bought into "whatever means necessary", what evidence would it take to change your mind?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      I'm not necessarily saying that I buy into that position myself, just that I've found myself surprisingly sympathetic to it. At this point, I agree with those who suggest that America cannot survive a competent Trump. So given the hypothetical future appearance on the campaign trail of a similar character with all of his faculties intact, I may have to revisit the question.
      - MrPatan 3y ago
        And how will you tell such a monster appeared? Through your independent research? Or because the TV told you?
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        A worthy question, but one that goes too far afield for this thread IMHO.

silverquiet 3y ago

[flagged]

eigen 3y ago

if you want details, you can read the Senate report about Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure [1], Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities [5], and everything in-between. you may find such things as "The Russian govemment directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure' at the state and local level." and "The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election." [1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [5] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...