OIG FISA Report Discussion and the real reason for the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

As the OP I want to clarify that I'm not against linking to media sources at all. I just thought it might be a good idea to have an alternative or secondary thread where only the source material is discussed. Again, I was at fault for not making the alternative thread part clear and for starting it before the release.

 

And I'll also reiterate to those who continue to lament that this thread isnt what I laid out as the OP....you can always start another thread with that goal in mind since this one is already in full swing. As for myself,  I'm going to retire from FISA report thread starting at 0-1.

Wow. I never knew so much pressure went into being an OP.  Transparency issues, fault accepted and reiterations and goals for the future.  

 

I can't speak for others but for me, when I read something, sometimes I type $#@! back. The end. 

 

You done good imo. 

[transplantbillsfan]

10 hours ago, Foxx said:

just being objective here...

 

and for full disclosure, i haven't found the time to read the report quite yet but just taking a synopsis of all items out and about. 

 

you are correct, the report says that there is no bias, just mistakes. all told, there were what, 17 of them that were large enough to warrant mention in the report. just my experience but mistakes tend to fall unpredictably and will point in all different directions. that all of these mistakes point only in one direction, call me a conspiracy theorist or paranoid but... they seem to point in the direction of having a bias.

 

let us not forget that Horowitz is a life long Democrat. to think that had no bearing on the make up or conclusions of the report is juvenile in this setting. 

 

 

You say you're being objective here, but are you?

 

So you trust Horowitz's findings that there were 17 blunders by the FBI... do you then distrust the underlying evidence that leads him to his ultimate conclusion that there was no political bias and that the investigation was justified?  You're erring on the side of immediate distrust, admitting yourself that you haven't read the report. 

 

Don't you see the problem there?

 

That's not objectivity.

 

I haven't read the report and I won't.  I applaud you for spending the time doing it.  But the snippets of I've read along with what's reported tells me one simple thing:

 

The OIG doesn't absolve the FBI of transgression NOR does it act as the smoking gun that Trump & Co. believed it would be in terms of showing an overt political effort by the FBI to oust an elected President...

 

and so it continues.

[DC Tom]

30 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

As the OP I want to clarify that I'm not against linking to media sources at all. I just thought it might be a good idea to have an alternative or secondary thread where only the source material is discussed. Again, I was at fault for not making the alternative thread part clear and for starting it before the release.

 

And I'll also reiterate to those who continue to lament that this thread isnt what I laid out as the OP....you can always start another thread with that goal in mind since this one is already in full swing. As for myself,  I'm going to retire from FISA report thread starting at 0-1.

 

Starting topics on PPP is a heavy responsibility, to be sure...

 

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Years were spent writing thoughtful responses, backed by undisputed evidence. Years. 

 

This is the end game. No more time for hand holding. Time for people to do their own work. The links provided more often than not contain primary source documentation which you can read and vet for yourself. 

 

End game, huh? 

 

Yep, no political bias drove the Investigation of Trump and that investigation was justified.

 

End game it is, I guess  

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You say you're being objective here, but are you?

 

So you trust Horowitz's findings that there were 17 blunders by the FBI... do you then distrust the underlying evidence that leads him to his ultimate conclusion that there was no political bias and that the investigation was justified?  

 

So... you haven't read the document you're making definitive conclusions about. 

 

Got it. 

 

What is that underlying evidence he cites that led him to that conclusion. Please list them. 

 

(hint, you can't. Because the OIG attorneys take testimony AS FACT. So if someone says "I'm not biased", he HAS to report that's true.)

 

You don't know the powers of the OIG, what his scope was, or what the report says. 

 

You're making an even bigger ass out of yourself now.

10 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

I haven't read the report and I won't. 

 

Then you have ZERO to offer this conversation. 

 

Take the L and get ready for your new avatar.

[Foxx]

13 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You say you're being objective here, but are you?

 

So you trust Horowitz's findings that there were 17 blunders by the FBI... do you then distrust the underlying evidence that leads him to his ultimate conclusion that there was no political bias and that the investigation was justified?  You're erring on the side of immediate distrust, admitting yourself that you haven't read the report. 

 

Don't you see the problem there?

 

That's not objectivity.

 

I haven't read the report and I won't.  I applaud you for spending the time doing it.  But the snippets of I've read along with what's reported tells me one simple thing:

 

The OIG doesn't absolve the FBI of transgression NOR does it act as the smoking gun that Trump & Co. believed it would be in terms of showing an overt political effort by the FBI to oust an elected President...

 

and so it continues.

what the *****????

 

i'm not sure you followed along with my post very well. i stated that of the 17 'mistakes' that were egregious enough to have been included in the report, why is it considered that all 17 of them were mistakes that favored the prosecution and not the defense? the law of averages should stipulate that that is next to impossible. the mistakes should  be pointing in all different directions, not just towards the favorability of the prosecution. which then would logically lead to the conclusion that there was a bias.

 

the only, and i repeat the only caveat to this, would be that there were other 'mistakes' that didn't warrant inclusion in the report that may have pointed in the other direction. however if that is the case, then it stands to reason that they did not rise to the same level as the included, 'mistakes'.

 

this shouldn't be that hard. i am not arguing one way or the other here, just pointing towards logical deductions.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Foxx

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what the *****????

 

i'm not sure you followed along with my post very well. i stated that of the 17 'mistakes' that were egregious enough to have been included in the report, why is it considered that all 17 of them were mistakes that favored the prosecution and not the defense? the law of averages should stipulate that that is next to impossible. the mistakes should  be pointing in all different directions, not just towards the favorability of the prosecution. which then would logically lead to the conclusion that there was a bias.

 

the only, and i repeat the only caveat to this, would be that there were other 'mistakes' that didn't warrant inclusion in the report that may have pointed in the other direction. however if that is the case, then it stands to reason that they did not rise to the same level as the included, 'mistakes'.

 

this shouldn't be that hard. i am not arguing one way or the other here, just pointing towards logical deductions.

 

Only a programmed NPC would take such a hard line stance on a document he admits he has not read and will not read in the future. @transplantbillsfan is just an endless source of comedy, a pure fool who thinks himself enlightened. 

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Only a programmed NPC would take such a hard line stance on a document he admits he has not read and will not read in the future. @transplantbillsfan is just an endless source of comedy, a pure fool who thinks himself enlightened. 

i truly am perplexed by his response, as it can only be very loosely deemed to have been a direct response to my post.

 

maybe he had a drink or two.....

[Foxx]

29 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

... The OIG doesn't absolve the FBI of transgression NOR does it act as the smoking gun that Trump & Co. believed it would be in terms of showing an overt political effort by the FBI to oust an elected President...

though i urge you to spend the entire 24:18 of this interview listening, to the above quoted portion:

 

6:23 of this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRKFo0JmuBc&feature=emb_logo

 

 

11:26 is very important as well. "...there was alot going on around this that is not the subject matter of Horowitz's report, but i think has a direct bearing perhaps upon what was going on in the FBI..."

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Foxx

[3rdnlng]

The DOJ's investigation into this mess is like investigating an iceberg. Horowitz was assigned to investigate the exposed tip. Durham gets the rest of it. Horowitz's investigation was limited to questioning present FBI employees and the known transgressions regarding procedures. Considering his limitations, Horowitz came up with some pretty damning issues. Durham, who has expanded the investigation to higher ups and overseas connections will be the hammer, and what a big hammer it will be.

[123719bwiqrb]

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786609754/vanity-fair-father-son-dynamic-may-explain-tenure-of-ag-barr

 

This thing on NPR today sounded like a planned "Billy" Barr take down, you know, just in case the OIG FISA report was really bad and we needed distractions to discredit the other side.  She says Billy Barr three times in one paragraph.  Kind of like how Pearlman calls Trump "Little DOnniE".

 

As it turns out, this lady was not needed, as the OIG report was a dud.  Or was it?

Edited December 11, 2019 by ScotSHO

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

As the OP I want to clarify that I'm not against linking to media sources at all. I just thought it might be a good idea to have an alternative or secondary thread where only the source material is discussed. Again, I was at fault for not making the alternative thread part clear and for starting it before the release.

 

And I'll also reiterate to those who continue to lament that this thread isnt what I laid out as the OP....you can always start another thread with that goal in mind since this one is already in full swing. As for myself,  I'm going to retire from FISA report thread starting at 0-1.

 

On 12/7/2019 at 5:44 PM, Koko78 said:

Oh, and OP: You might want to make peace with the fact that no one gives a ***** about your rules.

 

?

[BillsFanNC]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

 

?

So what page are you on? ?

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

So what page are you on? ?

 

327, but I have a job and pretend to have a life.

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/JusticeOIG/status/1204521306659737600

 

[John Adams]

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're embarrassing yourself now. 

 

DRINK!

 

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

 

YOU'RE BAD AT THIS. 

 

DRINK!

 

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Now, go run away

 

DRINK!

 

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 NPC lemming. 

 

DRIKN!

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

So you trust Horowitz's findings that there were 17 blunders by the FBI... do you then distrust the underlying evidence that leads him to his ultimate conclusion that there was no political bias and that the investigation was justified?  You're erring on the side of immediate distrust, admitting yourself that you haven't read the report. 

 

Don't you see the problem there?

 

 

It's the bifurcated lahjik of accepting half of the Mueller report as gospel and the other as partisan hackery. 

[transplantbillsfan]

12 minutes ago, John Adams said:

It's the bifurcated lahjik of accepting half of the Mueller report as gospel and the other as partisan hackery. 

 

That's exactly what this is. The hypocrisy here is so bizarre.

 

Groundhog day I guess.

 

I mean we get to see Trump voted out of office in 11 months, but he's done his damage to democracy, which is unfortunate. The Tribalism will continue.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

That's exactly what this is. The hypocrisy here is so bizarre

 

It's not what it is. At all. JA is wrong. So are you. There's no hypocrisy: Volume I is definitive -- there was NO collusion or conspiracy. THAT was the charge leveled against Trump from January of 2017 onward. He was cleared, completely, of that piece of fiction. Volume II is about obstruction of a crime that not only did not happen, but the investigators knew did not happen when they began their investigation. It is completely comprised of suppositions which were NOT tested under cross, or in court. There's no proof of anything in Volume 2 and the DOJ ruled as such. 

 

The hypocrisy is in people like yourself and JA who completely ignore Volume I's findings and how that impacted Volume 2. 

 

Because you didn't read the report. And, as you've proven, don't know your dick from your elbow when it comes to this subject. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

That's exactly what this is. The hypocrisy here is so bizarre.

 

Groundhog day I guess.

 

I mean we get to see Trump voted out of office in 11 months, but he's done his damage to democracy, which is unfortunate. The Tribalism will continue.

Of course it will.  It’s an ‘us v them” world.  AG Barr laid it out pretty succinctly (credit to @Foxx for the link).  As he suggests the greatest threat to our system is the weaponization of counterintelligence by one admin at the expense of another, as he lays out the case that the entire fiasco falls apart Jan 2016, as he cites fabricated warrants and documents used to continue the investigation and hamstring a president guilty of absolutely nothing....you sit and suggest that Trump is the one damaging “democracy”. 

us v them. I’d prefer it not be that way, but by extension, you’re comfortable with a tyrannical FBI acting suspiciously like the Gambino crime family shaking down local merchants, where is the middle ground? Personally, I’d prefer to go it alone then saddle up with folks comfortable with an out of control FBI. 
 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Of course it will.  It’s an ‘us v them” world.  AG Barr laid it out pretty succinctly (credit to @Foxx for the link).  As he suggests the greatest threat to our system is the weaponization of counterintelligence by one admin at the expense of another, as he lays out the case that the entire fiasco falls apart Jan 2016, as he cites fabricated warrants and documents used to continue the investigation and hamstring a president guilty of absolutely nothing....you sit and suggest that Trump is the one damaging “democracy”. 

us v them. I’d prefer it not be that way, but by extension, you’re comfortable with a tyrannical FBI acting suspiciously like the Gambino crime family shaking down local merchants, where is the middle ground? Personally, I’d prefer to go it alone then saddle up with folks comfortable with an out of control FBI. 
 

 

 

 

What's hilarious is the premise that Trump started tribalism or partisan warfare -- coming from the mouths of people who supported the most vicious and spiteful political machine (the Clinton machine) ever created.