The Robert Mueller Investigation

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Right wing trumplican talking point poster has somehow convinced this board he spews out on “both sides.”

That my friends, takes talent. And a few gifs. 

Bravo trumplican! Carry on with no ragrats.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yep. 

Yep

[washparkhorn 9,939]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Oh man, this has potential to get much much worse before it gets better. For people paying attention, they know the role that Rogers played in revealing the 702 abuses, as well as his actions post 2016 election, and how Brennan and Clapper responded. 

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/20/michael-rogers-nsa-trump-russia/

FORMER NSA DIRECTOR IS COOPERATING WITH PROBE OF TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

 

 

Rogers, Clapper and Hayden (along with mudd/wallace) on the Intelligence Community and the President. Interesting to read between the lines. The conversation starts at 14:00 minutes.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?451323-1/intel-chiefs-discuss-intelligence-community-presidency-relationship

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Rogers, Clapper and Hayden (along with mudd/wallace) on the Intelligence Community and the President. Interesting to read between the lines. The conversation starts at 14:00 minutes.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?451323-1/intel-chiefs-discuss-intelligence-community-presidency-relationship

 

From the video starting at 14 minutes.

Rogers was appointed by Obama and retained by Trump as the head of the Cyber Command and NSA.

He is Smart, frank and honest.

He was trusted by Obama and Trump. 

This is his first interview since leaving government - and he is having interview with Trump critics Clapper and Hayden. Clapper doesn't look happy. Hayden take a positive tone. Brennan is not there. 

There are two media types (Nicole Wallace and former operative Mudd) but they are clearly out-leagued in every respect.

Clapper, Hayden and Rogers are talking at the same level, with common knowledge not known to the public. They keep their solemn oaths.  The back and forth between Rogers, Clapper and Hayden is interesting. There are sore feelings there.  

I am not sensing panic among top intelligence officials actually doing the hard work while Trump has been President. Rogers appeared to holding the nation's jewels with a steady hand.  He kept them searching for needles in haystacks. 

In days past, former intelligence officers never went on the air to talk about their work and perspectives. But with Rogers out there now, his perspective is important to balance the conversation.

Aristotle teaches us, among other things, to argue all sides of an issue. When done, you understand the issue.  That approach is attached to integrity.

Rogers provides some balance to both sides. 

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

On 5/8/2019 at 3:29 PM, Jabberwocky said:

largely of gossip from foreigners is deployed to bolster surveillance applications targeting US citizens

...And it is still not true. No matter how many times you want to whistle this song. Did the IG say that these investigations were initiated without validity? Of course he did not. He said there were mistakes made when renewing applications for the surveillance of one person, Carter Page. Namely, that there were omissions and alterations made concerning his contact with the CIA about his dealings and meetings with Russian nationals. What this ultimately tells me however, is that the CIA was also quite concerned about Mr. Page's activities. His activities were at the very least, quite concerning as to the possible implications for the integrity of domestic and international interests and security of the United States. I am not concerned in the least that this man was surveilled. My only concern is that the people working Mr. Page were not detailed enough in their rationale. However, they probably assumed that it was a slam dunk to receive authorization, and were lazy in regards to process. If you want to argue that there is no excuse for laziness when it comes to investigatory protocol, then you will hear no argument from me.

[Anastasis 23,469]

3 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

My only concern is that the people working Mr. Page were not detailed enough in their rationale. However, they probably assumed that it was a slam dunk to receive authorization, and were lazy in regards to process. If you want to argue that there is no excuse for laziness when it comes to investigatory protocol, then you will hear no argument from me.

To dismiss the findings, specifically 17 errors, omissions, misstatements including a little outright forgery, some of which related to the primary application and some of which related to the re-ups, by waving your hand and declaring "laziness" is, well, extremely lazy. If not outright intellectually dishonest. 

3 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

...And it is still not true. No matter how many times you want to whistle this song.

Here is the context of the post that you pulled that from.

On 5/8/2019 at 12:40 PM, Anastasis said:

The bolded is the crucial aspect of my position on this topic. I don't give a fuck about oppo research.  I care quite a bit if opposition research consisting largely of gossip from foreigners is deployed to bolster surveillance applications targeting US citizens being fed into a unconstitutional (imo) surveillance apparatus. I think that the surveillance system is ripe for abuse of civil liberties and am critical of that system. That makes me a trumpkin taking orders right from the mouth of the president these days.  

 

The section you quoted has two components. Both components of that statement, made over 7 months ago, are 100% supported by the findings of the OIG report released earlier this month. It is amazing how resilient the brain worms are.   

1. Opposition research consisting largely of gossip from foreigners...

According to WFO Agent 1, the Primary Sub-source said he/she made it clear to Steele that he/she had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that "it was just talk." WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."341 The Primary Sub-source also told WFO Agent 1 that he/she believed that the other sub-sources exaggerated their access to information and the relevance of that information to his/her requests. The Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that he/she "takes what [sub-sources] tell [him/her] with 'a grain of salt."'

2. is deployed to bolster surveillance applications targeting US citizens. 

Decision to Seek FISA Authority We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order. As noted above, when the team first sought to pursue a FISA order for Page in August 2016, a decision was made by OGC, or, or both that more information was needed to support a probable cause finding that Page was an agent of a foreign power. As a result, FBI OGC ceased discussions with or about a Page FISA order at that time.

On September 19, 2016, the same day that the Crossfire Hurricane team first received Steele's election reporting, the team contacted FBI OGC again about seeking a FISA order for Page and specifically focused on Steele's reporting in drafting the FISA request. Two days later, on September 21, the FBI OGC Unit Chief contacted the NSD or Unit Chief to advise him that the FBI believed it was ready to submit a forma l FISA request to or relating to Page. Almost immediately thereafter, or assigned an attorney (or Attorney) to begin preparation of the application.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

As concisely as possible, what conclusions did Robert Mueller include in his report that would have been significantly altered had the FBI not obtained a FISA warrant on Carter Page?

[triplehorn 2,664]

It’s a reasonable question.  Keep in mind the initial FISA warrant for Page was granted after he left the campaign.

[Anastasis 23,469]

I don't think that the FBI's grave errors in deploying FISA surveillance against a US citizen associated with a US political campaign on the basis of uncorroborated political opposition research, sourced from Russians, packaged up by a foreign spook, has much bearing on Mueller's conclusion that ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. Nor do I think that the FBI's actions have any basis on the obvious, but unstated, conclusion regarding the President's obstruction of justice.  

Edited December 22, 2019 by Anastasis

[wildcat09 29,354]

I can’t wait for Anastasis’ posts after the new night of long knives happens. All us commie liberals will be dead and he’ll be here posting about how much better things are because of FISA reform.

[Anastasis 23,469]

 

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It’s a reasonable question.  Keep in mind the initial FISA warrant for Page was granted after he left the campaign.

 

I don't think that the precise scope of the surveillance approved in the applications has been declassified, but typically FISA approved surveillance would involve both backward and forward looking surveillance activities.  In addition, communications including up to two hops from Page would be surveiled. I sincerely hope that there were some more rigorous limitations placed on this particular warrant given the sensitive nature. 

 

Here's an older article that goes into some detail as to why this type of political surveillance, even when the target is somewhat peripheral to the campaign, is fraught.  

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop

 

In the case of a subject like Carter Page, that means investigators who obtain a warrant in October 2016 can hunt through his communications going back several years before that date—and can use their “license to hop” to probe the first and second order of correspondents linked to him at any point during that period in the same fashion. (As mentioned at links above—here and here—analysts working national-security surveillance without a targeted warrant can routinely go back for an 18-month haul.) Links from the past can then be exploited going forward.

What this means in practice is that, under a single warrant, anyone Page had a text or phone call with in the Trump campaign during the brief months of his association with it in 2016, was fair game, as a direct connection, all the way through the end of the last warrant-extension period on Page in October 2017. The second-hop connections of those initial contacts—meaning everyone that those people had contact with—are also fair game. In other words, it’s likely that almost everyone on the Trump campaign staff was included in the universe of first- and second-order contacts of Carter Page. The entirety of their correspondence is therefore also covered by the initial warrant, regardless of whether or not they ever met or corresponded with Carter Page, or whether that correspondence referred to him in any way, directly or indirectly.

We got a glimpse of that reality from the recent report that Carter Page was in contact with Trump adviser Steve Bannon in January 2017, which could have allowed the FBI to look further into Bannon’s communications through October 2017. But it also allowed a probe of Bannon’s communications going back years before January 2017—as well as a probe of anyone Bannon was in contact with throughout that same period.

Think that over for a moment, and you can see why the Carter Page warrant is important. The possible abuse of that warrant for partisan political purposes would likely be a violation not just of Page’s rights, but of the rights of thousands of other Americans—and by extension, of the right of all Americans to be free from warrantless surveillance.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that the FBI's grave errors in deploying FISA surveillance against a US citizen associated with a US political campaign on the basis of uncorroborated political opposition research, sourced from Russians, packaged up by a foreign spook, has much bearing on Mueller's conclusion that ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. Nor do I think that the FBI's actions have any basis on the obvious, but unstated, conclusion regarding the President's obstruction of justice.  

Thanks. "None" would have sufficed, but still appreciated.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Anastasis 23,469]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I can’t wait for Anastasis’ posts after the new night of long knives happens. All us commie liberals will be dead and he’ll be here posting about how much better things are because of FISA reform.

If it comes to that, it is far more likely that the surveillance apparatus we have allowed to be built during the late 20th and early 21st century has been deployed upon us with political ends in mind precisely because we did not take action when we had the chance.  Maybe that tyrant even end up being of the Orangish persuasion. Perhaps that would create some urgency.  Oh no, not that, not at the expense of talking points.

 

Or as Frank Church stated it back in the 70's...  

In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air... Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left: such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.

If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology...

I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Anastasis

[bernorange 8,361]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.

It's called the Rubicon, and we'll cross it long before the masses ever realize it.

[triplehorn 2,664]

just pointing out that when the Page FISA warrant was first initiated, his time as a member of the Trump campaign had already ended.  

The most important thing is that we don't delve into lawless tyranny.  Our intelligence gathering capacity is important for warding off domestic origins of such a threat, like Donal Trump represents.  It can cut both ways, but in the case of Donald Trump, it has served a protective function.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

It's called selectivity and prioritization and spending one's finite lifespan faceplanted into the bark of a solitary sapling in a Redwood forest of law enforcement abuse, privacy rights violations, and judicial inequities that dwarf any consequences that Carter Page can point to.

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

It's called selectivity and prioritization and spending one's finite lifespan faceplanted into the bark of a solitary sapling in a Redwood forest of law enforcement abuse, privacy rights violations, and judicial inequities that dwarf any consequences that Carter Page can point to.

Except I am not the one being selective on these issues. I’ve chimed in on plenty of threads regarding law enforcement abuse, warrant abuse, privacy, inequity, etc.

It is in fact some of you guys who are being particularly selective. Some of the same posters who rightly lose their minds at examples of fraudulent no knock warrants and LE abuse want to look the other way when we have a pretty fucking exquisite example of LE abuse at the highest levels of the FBI, involving falsification on the most intrusive warrant possible, and intersection with an unconstitutional surveillance state that they also claim to abhor. But Orange Man so they turn their head. While simultaneously fretting that we are in the midst of a fascist takeover of the United States government they argue that we should not focus efforts on the rare opportunities presented to knee cap the domestic surveillance  capabilities of that same government. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Anastasis

[bernorange 8,361]

Narrarator: He has.

[triplehorn 2,664]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

I understand that you think you're not being selective, and yes, you've chimed in on other cases of abuse, but as evidenced by the time, effort, and energy you've spent making Carter Page your cause celebre, you are. 

 

Additionally, upthread Twicehorn rightfully pointed out the argument your making has merit but should be decoupled from this thread which you opposed only to wind up at a position of admitting that this really is inconsequential to the Robert Mueller investigation.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

13 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I understand that you think you're not being selective, and yes, you've chimed in on other cases of abuse, but as evidenced by the time, effort, and energy you've spent making Carter Page your cause celebre, you are. 

 

Additionally, upthread Twicehorn rightfully pointed out the argument your making has merit but should be decoupled from this thread which you opposed only to wind up at a position of admitting that this really is inconsequential to the Robert Mueller investigation.

Even if Anastasis were being disingenuous (he isn't), an ad hominem attack has no relevance to the issue whatsoever. Why don't you discuss the facts and stop insulting people?

It's as if we investigated the referees in the Oklahoma State game from a few years ago, read thousands of text messages and emails saying how much they hate Texas and how they put all their net worth on OSU to win, watched the refs call holding on the defensive line and Charlie for "bumping" the ref, and Bundy thinks it's all bullshit because some other refs did something at another game and didn't get investigated.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Anastasis 23,469]

22 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I understand that you think you're not being selective, and yes, you've chimed in on other cases of abuse, but as evidenced by the time, effort, and energy you've spent making Carter Page your cause celebre, you are. 

Additionally, upthread Twicehorn rightfully pointed out the argument your making has merit but should be decoupled from this thread which you opposed only to wind up at a position of admitting that this really is inconsequential to the Robert Mueller investigation.

I have spent a good amount of time and energy on this, in part, because it is the best example of the type of surveillance state abuse some of us have been concerned  about for a long time, intersecting directly in a dangerous way with politics.  Literally a worst case scenario wrt civil liberties and surveillance state abuses. Well that, and a large number of posters here pushed back very critically every time I connected some very simple and specific dots for them, so they are going to hear about the resolution of the whole thing.  

Secondly, you are doing a sleight of hand thing with what I said regarding the Mueller report.  I said that these issues have no impact on the conclusions of the Mueller report. It is, on the other hand, completely in scope and a consequential topic related to the arc of the Mueller investigation, which is in fact the evolution of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. There was significant misfeasance involved in the early days of the investigation, and continuing deep into 2017. There is no longer much room on the other side of the debate on that topic.  You want to decouple them only because these realities lead naturally to some conclusions that you would rather not grapple with. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Anastasis

[triplehorn 2,664]

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Even if Anastasis were being disingenuous (he isn't), an ad hominem attack has no relevance to the issue whatsoever. Why don't you discuss the facts and stop insulting people?

It's as if we investigated the referees in the Oklahoma State game from a few years ago, read thousands of text messages and emails saying how much they hate Texas and how they put all their net worth on OSU to win, and Bundy thinks it's all bullshit because we some other refs did something at another game and didn't get investigated.

Your analogy is wildly off. IG Horowitz found nothing, zero, zilch, nada indicative of bias, politicization, ulterior motives or anything suggesting other than that the Mueller investigation was sound and appropriate.  

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

Just now, triplehorn said:

Your analogy is wildly off. IG Horowitz found nothing, zero, zilch, nada indicative of bias, politicization, ulterior motives or anything suggesting other than that the Mueller investigation was sound and appropriate.  

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Despite your video, my point still stands.  The ‘political bias’ Horowitz acknowledges relates to private texts between Strzok and Page expressing personal feelings.  There is nothing unusual about judges, investigators etc. having personal biases, or opinions.  Despite that, Horowitz did not find political bias or other inappropriate acts in their work and investigatory capacity.  Period.

The FISA piece Hawley tries to conflate with Strzok and Page has been flogged to death.  It’s an understandably highly important matter to address, but it does not rise to a level that was determined to vitally influence the Page warrant, let alone the much more vast corners of the Mueller investigation.

Trump colluded with Russian interference via Roger Stone, then Trump lied to Mueller about it.

[Anastasis 23,469]

On 12/18/2019 at 10:41 AM, Anastasis said:

BTW, the Horowitz testimony today involves a little less histrionics than the one last week.

Horowitz just rejected the notion that his investigation concluded there was no political bias present in the process of obtaining the FISA against Page. [transcript based on CC, so some stuff gets garbled]. 

Sen: I THINK THE SCOPE HERE IS WHAT REALLY ALARMS ME. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED DIRECTLY INVOLVED AT THE FBI, THE REPEATED DECISIONS TO MISLEAD, OUTRIGHT LIE TO THE FISA COURT, AND THE TOTAL IMPLAZ INLT THAT THE EXPLANATIONS THESE PEOPLE OFFERED YOU, AGAIN, MAYBE THEY'RE INCOME TEPT OR HAD AN AGENDA HERE. I WANT TO PUT A FINE POINT ON THAT. WAS IT YOUR CONCLUSION THAT POLITICAL BIAS DID NOT AFFECT ANY PART OF THE PAGE INVESTIGATION, ANY PART OF CROSSFIRE HURRICANE? I KNOW FOR A FACT I'VE HEARD THAT TODAY FROM THIS COMMITTEE, BUT THAT'S NOT YOUR CONCLUSION?

Hor: WE HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL IN CONNECTION WITH THE FISA FOR THE REASONS YOU MENTIONED TO NOT REACH THAT CONCLUSION, IN PART, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THE ALTERATION OF THE EMAIL, THE TEXT MESSAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DID THAT, AND OUR INABILITY TO EXPLAIN OR UNDERSTAND OR GET GOOD EXPLANATIONS SO WE COULD UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAPPENED.

Must have missed it earlier. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

Yup. The conclusions of the Robert Mueller Report.

 

The bottom line.

 

How in the world you think pointing that out helps your argument instead of hurting it is the province of hall monitors in a school fire. 

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

To dismiss the findings, specifically 17 errors, omissions, misstatements including a little outright forgery,

It was laziness. Obviously the entire investigation did not hinge on information from the Steele Dossier, and to keep insisting upon this point just proves that you cannot comprehend the process. Steele himself is not a "foreign spook" as you put it, but is actually a former British intelligence operative. While some of his information is not 100% verifiable, it is still information that should be considered. Most of his intelligence has been proven to be exemplary. What is even more concerning however, is that hidden within all of your hyperbolic and verbose eruptions is the intent to confuse the fact that the fucking current president of the United States actually did solicit and receive aid from Russia to win an election. Instead of insisting upon truth, and being concerned that a political faction is subverting the democratic process, you are complicit in deluding the terrifying issue of significance.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Lots and lots of words, and a few gifs, just to cover up constantly espousing republican talking points. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Republican House minority leader straight up lying like a piece of shit thug:

 

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,779]

Just a Republican doing what Republicans do. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

That is a commonly held narrative among Trump supporters. Just as the white suburbans commonly believe Trump was working directly for Putin. Both have flaws. Both depend on the other for longevity. And media is making billions off of these narratives, so they keep pushing them.

We have some clarity with the IG report. Durham's investigation should answer any further questions on the clashing narratives. From what I have seen, Durham most likely will charge the FBI lawyer for falsification of a FISA subpoena application/s and that's it. 

Both sides horribly oversold their positions on this issue. And they continue to do so.

Most of America has checked out of the issue with both sides overselling what they can actually deliver. They are turning towards the 2020 election. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

48 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

It was laziness.

"Laziness".  A world I don't recall reading in the OIG report or during any of the testimony.  What I do recall was an exchange that characterized it as either, on the one hand, gross incompetence, or on the other, intentional misconduct. And further the explicit refusal to declare that bias was not the explanation.

Now one would expect that simple gross incompetence would occasionally break both ways, and given a sufficient period of observation would largely balance out. Non-differential laziness, even, should break both ways some time. Didn't happen in this case.  Every single error, misstatement, and omission identified broke in the same direction, 17 times in a row. Quite the pattern. One might call it systematic. Might even suggest it reflects, at an absolute minimum, an institutional bias inherent to the system.

52 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Obviously the entire investigation did not hinge on information from the Steele Dossier, and to keep insisting upon this point just proves that you cannot comprehend the process.

The application to surveil Page hinged on the Steele Dossier.  I am not sure how many more times I can quote the "central and essential" part or clip the testimony on this thread. But clearly I am the one who cannot possibly comprehend the process.

 

53 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Steele himself is not a "foreign spook" as you put it, but is actually a former British intelligence operative.

 

 

Maybe I left a few parts out.  Let me restate, a "former foreign spook, working through a lawyer screen, under contract to an American political party, collecting and packaging up gossip from Russians, passing it off to the FBI, State Department and media sources, and sending them all down a fantastical rabbit hole. Oh, and who was at the same time also working for a Russian oligarch who happened to be a subject of the CH investigation."

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.    

 

57 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

While some of his information is not 100% verifiable, it is still information that should be considered. Most of his intelligence has been proven to be exemplary.

"Exemplary". Another word I don't find in the OIG report or the testimony to Congress. I think what you meant was "horseshit interspersed with open source intelligence". 

We determined that prior to and during the pendency of the FISAs the FBI was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page contained in the election reporting and relied on in the FISA applications, and was only able to confirm the accuracy of a limited number of circumstantial facts, most of which were in the public domain, such as the dates that Page traveled to Russia, the timing of events, and the occupational positions of individuals referenced in the reports.

It is amazing how hard it is for some of you to eradicate the brain worms.

[jimmyjazz 45,921]

Can you distill you verbal spew down to a single sentence?  Do you think the investigation into Trump's campaign was wholly unfounded?

I'm telling you, your writing sucks.  Nobody understands what the fuck you're trying to say, but we all understand you're trying to bloviate under a guise of knowledge, yet there appears to be no "there" there.  Seriously, dude, you're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a whole shitton of very smart people, and everyone is fucking sick of it.  Use plain English, cut down the word count, and make your case.  Otherwise, fuck off, because (as many of us have said many times) "forest, meet trees".

 

[TwiceHorn 31,463]

On 12/18/2019 at 2:43 PM, washparkhorn said:

We are sleepwalking into a Biden disaster in the 2020 election. 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.” 

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm.

While i disagree with the conclusion about Trump and the characterization of "empty-handed," I think the media did, in fact, colossally fuck up the coverage of the investigation with breathless rumor-mongering and conspiracy-theorying.

They made Barr's nothing-burger characterization entirely too easy by creating a reporting environment in which overstatement was pretty much the order of the day.

Edited December 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,463]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

"Laziness".  A world I don't recall reading in the OIG report or during any of the testimony.  What I do recall was an exchange that characterized it as either, on the one hand, gross incompetence, or on the other, intentional misconduct. And further the explicit refusal to declare that bias was not the explanation.

Now one would expect that simple gross incompetence would occasionally break both ways, and given a sufficient period of observation would largely balance out. Non-differential laziness, even, should break both ways some time. Didn't happen in this case.  Every single error, misstatement, and omission identified broke in the same direction, 17 times in a row. Quite the pattern. One might call it systematic. Might even suggest it reflects, at an absolute minimum, an institutional bias inherent to the system.

The application to surveil Page hinged on the Steele Dossier.  I am not sure how many more times I can quote the "central and essential" part or clip the testimony on this thread. But clearly I am the one who cannot possibly comprehend the process.

 

 

 

Maybe I left a few parts out.  Let me restate, a "former foreign spook, working through a lawyer screen, under contract to an American political party, collecting and packaging up gossip from Russians, passing it off to the FBI, State Department and media sources, and sending them all down a fantastical rabbit hole. Oh, and who was at the same time also working for a Russian oligarch who happened to be a subject of the CH investigation."

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.    

 

"Exemplary". Another word I don't find in the OIG report or the testimony to Congress. I think what you meant was "horseshit interspersed with open source intelligence". 

We determined that prior to and during the pendency of the FISAs the FBI was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page contained in the election reporting and relied on in the FISA applications, and was only able to confirm the accuracy of a limited number of circumstantial facts, most of which were in the public domain, such as the dates that Page traveled to Russia, the timing of events, and the occupational positions of individuals referenced in the reports.

It is amazing how hard it is for some of you to eradicate the brain worms.

I dont find it the least bit surprising that the FBI's errors all broke one way.  It's not laziness, either.  And it doesn't require political motivation, either.

They're fucking cops for fuck's sake.  When someone gives them an investigatory target, they are going to try to insure that they get their warrant/conviction every time.  And that means they are going to take liberties with facts and inferences.

I can't prove it, but I suspect that the Page warrant application probably contains a fairly average number of errors and misrepresentations.

The idea that the FBI before the FISA court undertakes a solemn responsibility to use their awesome power is laughable.  I mean, they do, but they aren't especially candid in discharging it.

There especially needs to be a "people's advocate" during FISA warrant proceedings.  I even like the idea for regular criminal warrants.

Edited December 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23,469]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I can't prove it, but I suspect that the Page warrant application probably contains a fairly average number of errors and misrepresentations.

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can you distill you verbal spew down to a single sentence?

No. The issues being discussed here are complex, and don't break down well to simple single sentence structure. 

You are right that there are a lot of very smart people here. Trained in law, logic, sciences and shit. Very rarely have any of us been asked to dumb it down to single sentence structure.  But there is always the Cloak Room.  

[triplehorn 2,664]

This write up makes an Anastasis post look like kinder-scrawl from the lovechild of GRHorn and hammer.

 

🏆💪

He breaks down all 5 at length:

"The first question, for me, remains the one about possible political bias in the FBI. In particular, should the inspector general’s report be understood as repudiating, or merely pretermitting, claims of political bias in the Crossfire Hurricane investigations and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications targeting Carter Page? What did the inspector general find, and what didn’t he find, with respect to political bias?

Second, even if not political, how serious were the failures in these FISA applications? Were they the sort of error one would expect to see in any thorough after-action review of a high-pressure, complex case, or were they something more severe? Is there any precedent for the inspector general’s review and for the errors he found?

Third, is there reason to believe that the errors were unique, or should we expect that the inspector general’s follow-up audit will find more of the same in other cases? Were there any special features of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that might have caused the errors here, but not elsewhere?

Fourth, what is to be made of statements by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham concerning the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and a prior memo released in early 2018 by Rep. Devin Nunes concerning the Page FISA applications? Why did Barr and Durham criticize and publicize their disagreements with the Inspector General, and was the Nunes memo more honest and accurate than I previously gave it credit for being?"

Fifth, what are the prospects for various types of FISA reforms in the wake of Crossfire Hurricane?

[Anastasis 23,469]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

This write up makes an Anastasis post look like kinder-scrawl from the lovechild of GRHorn and hammer.

I'm sorry. You are going to have to break this down to a single sentence for JimmyDF. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

IG on any evidence of political bias in the Mueller investigation:

 

"Third, the inspector general did not find any evidence of such political bias. Here are some examples of what the report says about possible bias:

• We concluded that [FBI Assistant Director Bill] Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision (iii).
• We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations (iv).
• We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page (vi).
• [W]e also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decision to use CHSs [Confidential Human Sources] or UCEs [Undercover employees] to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (xvii).
• During our review, we identified a small number of text messages and instant messages, beyond those discussed in the OIG’s [Office of the Inspector General’s] Review of Various Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election, in which FBI employees involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation discussed political issues and candidates. Unlike the messages in the OIG’s Review of Various Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election, the messages here did not raise significant questions of potential bias or improper motivation because of the potential connection to investigative activity (13 n.22).
• As part of our review, we sought to determine whether there was evidence that political bias or other improper considerations affected decision making in Crossfire Hurricane, including the decision to open the investigation.... We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced Priestap’s decision to open Crossfire Hurricane (348).
• Although the CHS operations implicated constitutionally protected activity, we found no evidence that they were undertaken solely for the purpose of monitoring constitutionally protected activity, which is prohibited by the DIOG [the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, the FBI’s internal manual]. We also found no testimonial or documentary evidence that these operations resulted from political bias or other improper considerations. We therefore concluded that these early investigative activities undertaken by the Crossfire Hurricane team were matters of judgment that were permitted by the AG [Attorney General] Guidelines and the DIOG (356).
• We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page (359).
• We found that FBI policy permitted the receipt and use of Steele’s election reporting in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that this decision was the result of political bias or other improper considerations (381).
• We also did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to use CHSs to interact with Page, Papadopoulos, and the high-level Trump campaign official in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (400).
• We concluded that AD [Assistant Director] Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision (410).We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign (411).

[Anastasis 23,469]

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

OMG. Single sentence conclusions!

[Anastasis 23,469]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I dont find it the least bit surprising that the FBI's errors all broke one way.  It's not laziness, either.  And it doesn't require political motivation, either.

They're fucking cops for fuck's sake.  When someone gives them an investigatory target, they are going to try to insure that they get their warrant/conviction every time.  And that means they are going to take liberties with facts and inferences.

I can't prove it, but I suspect that the Page warrant application probably contains a fairly average number of errors and misrepresentations.

The idea that the FBI before the FISA court undertakes a solemn responsibility to use their awesome power is laughable.  I mean, they do, but they aren't especially candid in discharging it.

There especially needs to be a "people's advocate" during FISA warrant proceedings.  I even like the idea for regular criminal warrants.

I agree with the thrust of this. But the problem is institutional, and goes much deeper than just the warrant process associated with certain types of surveillance.

The 702 abuse revealed by Rogers in the days after the initial page application dove tails right into this discussion. In collyers ruling she specifically called out the FBI for a lack of institutional candor, and for the appearance of deliberate decision making in the misuse of raw surveillance feeds by outside contractors.

There is a clear pattern. The abuse is institutional and systematic. The FBI has demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot be entrusted with these tools. The FISC has demonstrated that they cannot provide the necessary oversight. Our elected officials are either unwilling or unable to bring this system under control.  There are multiple converging threads all pointing in the same direction. The solution requires something far more aggressive than tweaking the warrant process. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Anastasis

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

14 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I agree with the thrust of this. But the problem is institutional, and goes much deeper than just the warrant process associated with certain types of surveillance.

No shit, Sherlock. It goes to toddlers representing themselves at immigration hearings. Please. Continue shoving Carter Page to the front of the line.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

Is there an FBI download application for an Epstein VIP Privacy Rights Package? Government's been all up in my piss for 20 years.

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

WaPo without any hat tip to the irony now runs a series on the Steele Dossier and the media's malpractice.  suddenly_silent sheds a quite tear to his precious. Wonder if he makes it past the first paragraph of this one before he seizes out. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/13/the-story-stands-mcclatchy-wont-back-off-its-michael-cohen-prague-reporting/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/horowitz-report-confirms-john-solomons-scoop-fbi-spreadsheet-regarding-steele-dossier/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/17/disinformation-claim-galls-dossier-author-christopher-steele/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/18/cnn-lands-an-interview-with-its-own-contributor/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/rachel-maddow-rooted-steele-dossier-be-true-then-it-fell-apart/

Edited December 27, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23,469]

Sixth installment. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/27/much-cited-defense-steele-dossier-has-problem/

[Bozo_Casanova 26,452]

WaPo without any hat tip to the irony now runs a series on the Steele Dossier and the media's malpractice. 

hat tip to Anastasis for a great example of begging the question.

[Anastasis 23,469]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

hat tip to Anastasis for a great example of begging the question.

What question is being begged exactly?