4 ms·

According to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [0] and the FBI IG [1]. And an FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to a felony for forging an email used as just

According to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [0] and the FBI IG [1]. And an FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to a felony for forging an email used as justification for the wiretapping [2]. [0] - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fisa-court-confirms-two-carter-page-surveillance-applications-not-valid/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fisa-court-confirms-two-... [1] - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ig-report-details-significant-omissions-and-inaccurate-information-in-fisa-application-to-surveil-carter-page/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ig-report-details-signif... [2] - https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/ex-fbi-lawyer-agrees-one-year-bar-sanction-after-conviction-2021-06-28/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/ex-fbi-lawyer-agree...

tynpeddler 3y ago
You're confusing a single wiretap warrant that was a small part of a large investigation with the investigation itself.
thumbuddy 3y ago
You are aware that there were dozens of arrests from that investigation of literal foreign agents working with that presidential campaign right? It wasn't without merit... At all... There's been MORE arrests since as well.
kouru225 3y ago
So within a massive investigation that was completely above board 99% of the time and led to arrests and prison time for dozens of officials that were involved in corruption on a mass scale, one wiretap application was improper and led to a one year suspension for the FBI agent who oversaw it? And this is supposed to be evidence that the Democratic Party as a whole are purposely lying to investigate their opponents? You listening to yourself rn?
- adolph 3y ago
  > that was completely above board 99% How do you know that in order to make the claim?
  - kouru225 3y ago
    … Because the only thing even questioned is this one wiretap
    - adolph 3y ago
      If you consider the absence of evidence as evidence of absence then sure 99% above the board. If on the other hand you consider that any hint of misdoing by prosecutors, much less lying to a judge in any context, much less within a secret national security court, as smoke that may or may not indicate fire in other places, then one might not be so sanguine.
      - kadoban 3y ago
        Durham had years and his only goal was to discredit the investigation. All he came up with was bullshit. That's more than evidence of absense. It's not absolute proof that everything was above board, but it's very suggestive.
- pseudo0 3y ago
  They spent millions of dollars investigating at a bunch of beltway bandits and were only able to convict a handful for tax fraud, lying to law enforcement, etc. Note the distinct lack of any convictions for spying for Russia, or acting as a Russian agent. Here is a list: https://www.axios.com/2019/11/15/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations https://www.axios.com/2019/11/15/trump-associates-convicted-... The most serious was Manafort, and it was related to his previous work in Ukraine, before he was hired by the Trump campaign. Cohen was convicted for fraud and campaign finance violations, and then Papadopoulos, Flynn, and Gates were convicted of lying to law enforcement and got slaps on the wrist. The Mueller investigation was a complete flop, and to top it all off they deleted their own cellphone records in potential violation of federal record keeping laws. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/doj-foia-release-members-mueller-team-repeatedly-wiped-phones-watchdog-sought https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/doj-foia-...
  - kadoban 3y ago
    They got the soft-glove Republican run investigation treatment and they still ended up charging 30+ people, including those closest to Trump. They also proved _numerous_ extremely suspicious ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, and produced a report that showed obstruction all over the place. Obstruction, by the way, is what you do when you know you broke just _all_ the laws and have to break the law more to prevent getting caught. That was never followed up on due to _other_ Trump admin corruption. Congratulations, they managed to cheat the rigged system. It's good to be rich and well connected if you're going to crime I guess.
  - adrr 3y ago
    Why would you lie to investigators? Why commit a felony and spend years in jail? Maybe if we had a real prosecutor that actually runs a real investigation and puts the main target in front of a grand jury instead of doing some bogus here’s some questions for you to answer whenever you want bullshit. That has to be history first and speaks to the coverup by Republican prosecutor to protect a Republican president.
    - pseudo0 3y ago
HWR_14 3y ago
I cannot tell if you are serious or not, but in case someone else reads this: All his stories revolve around a single person in the Russia investigation who may have been targeted incorrectly. The rest of the investigation turned up a lot of people going to jail, but there were errors in one case. Source[2] is about someone adding the annotation "not a source" to an email about the person (not forging an entire email out of thin air) when asked to check if that person was a source. Everyone involved believes that was an innocent error, probably summarizing the contents of the email they got back when they forwarded it to someone else. That is, A asked B to ask C if someone was a source. C emailed back to B who added the line "not a source" and forwarded it on to A. Turns out A was a source. His sources [0] [1] explicitly says that there was no evidence it was politically motivated. The second paragraph of [1] is: > The inspector general found no evidence that the Russia probe was launched for political reasons but did conclude that the FBI’s FISA process fell “far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate,’” according to the extensive report.

tynpeddler 3y ago

You're confusing a single wiretap warrant that was a small part of a large investigation with the investigation itself.

thumbuddy 3y ago

You are aware that there were dozens of arrests from that investigation of literal foreign agents working with that presidential campaign right? It wasn't without merit... At all... There's been MORE arrests since as well.

kouru225 3y ago

So within a massive investigation that was completely above board 99% of the time and led to arrests and prison time for dozens of officials that were involved in corruption on a mass scale, one wiretap application was improper and led to a one year suspension for the FBI agent who oversaw it? And this is supposed to be evidence that the Democratic Party as a whole are purposely lying to investigate their opponents? You listening to yourself rn?

adolph 3y ago
> that was completely above board 99% How do you know that in order to make the claim?
- kouru225 3y ago
  … Because the only thing even questioned is this one wiretap
  - adolph 3y ago
    If you consider the absence of evidence as evidence of absence then sure 99% above the board. If on the other hand you consider that any hint of misdoing by prosecutors, much less lying to a judge in any context, much less within a secret national security court, as smoke that may or may not indicate fire in other places, then one might not be so sanguine.
    - kadoban 3y ago
      Durham had years and his only goal was to discredit the investigation. All he came up with was bullshit. That's more than evidence of absense. It's not absolute proof that everything was above board, but it's very suggestive.
pseudo0 3y ago
They spent millions of dollars investigating at a bunch of beltway bandits and were only able to convict a handful for tax fraud, lying to law enforcement, etc. Note the distinct lack of any convictions for spying for Russia, or acting as a Russian agent. Here is a list: https://www.axios.com/2019/11/15/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations https://www.axios.com/2019/11/15/trump-associates-convicted-... The most serious was Manafort, and it was related to his previous work in Ukraine, before he was hired by the Trump campaign. Cohen was convicted for fraud and campaign finance violations, and then Papadopoulos, Flynn, and Gates were convicted of lying to law enforcement and got slaps on the wrist. The Mueller investigation was a complete flop, and to top it all off they deleted their own cellphone records in potential violation of federal record keeping laws. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/doj-foia-release-members-mueller-team-repeatedly-wiped-phones-watchdog-sought https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/doj-foia-...
- kadoban 3y ago
  They got the soft-glove Republican run investigation treatment and they still ended up charging 30+ people, including those closest to Trump. They also proved _numerous_ extremely suspicious ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, and produced a report that showed obstruction all over the place. Obstruction, by the way, is what you do when you know you broke just _all_ the laws and have to break the law more to prevent getting caught. That was never followed up on due to _other_ Trump admin corruption. Congratulations, they managed to cheat the rigged system. It's good to be rich and well connected if you're going to crime I guess.
- adrr 3y ago
  Why would you lie to investigators? Why commit a felony and spend years in jail? Maybe if we had a real prosecutor that actually runs a real investigation and puts the main target in front of a grand jury instead of doing some bogus here’s some questions for you to answer whenever you want bullshit. That has to be history first and speaks to the coverup by Republican prosecutor to protect a Republican president.
  - pseudo0 3y ago

HWR_14 3y ago

I cannot tell if you are serious or not, but in case someone else reads this: All his stories revolve around a single person in the Russia investigation who may have been targeted incorrectly. The rest of the investigation turned up a lot of people going to jail, but there were errors in one case. Source[2] is about someone adding the annotation "not a source" to an email about the person (not forging an entire email out of thin air) when asked to check if that person was a source. Everyone involved believes that was an innocent error, probably summarizing the contents of the email they got back when they forwarded it to someone else. That is, A asked B to ask C if someone was a source. C emailed back to B who added the line "not a source" and forwarded it on to A. Turns out A was a source. His sources [0] [1] explicitly says that there was no evidence it was politically motivated. The second paragraph of [1] is: > The inspector general found no evidence that the Russia probe was launched for political reasons but did conclude that the FBI’s FISA process fell “far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate,’” according to the extensive report.