John Adams Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You made the conclusion that nothing wrong was done. Link? 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That everything was disproven. Link? 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You were wrong. Are wrong. And are going to look REALLY silly. When the truth comes out on the 12th?
snafu Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, John Adams said: You do realize the report leads with its conclusion, don't you? I, uh, quoted it. DR will spin this into a win. Have no fear. The next big thing will be the REAL big thing. He's serious this time. No -- like I said, I didn't see it. I DON'T know that it leads with its conclusion. Should I stop reading it at that point? Isn't it, uh, 500 pages or so? Should I just wait for the NYT oped tomorrow? 1
Nanker Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 John Durham said he doesn’t agree with this report’s conclusions. 2 1
John Adams Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: One interesting thing to come out of this that's going to be completely glossed over in the "Orange Man Bad" debate: the FISA application process had really weak safeguards. One would hope that a secret surveillance warrant process would have stronger requirements for issuing the warrant...but apparently, agents could easily cherry-pick the evidence they wanted to present with little in the way of supervision or oversight. That's encouraging. Just what I want in a secret surveillance warrant process. My early takeaway too. The report reads like, "They did a really ***** job but it's a bad process and they followed it pretty much like it's always followed."
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, snafu said: No -- like I said, I didn't see it. I DON'T know that it leads with its conclusion. Should I stop reading it at that point? Isn't it, uh, 500 pages or so? Should I just wait for the NYT oped tomorrow? It leads with an executive summary, like all 500-page government reports. The end of the executive summary lists the IG's recommendations. Most of those are procedural; those that aren't I quoted - investigate Ohr, and review everyone else's professional conduct. 1 1
snafu Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 On 12/8/2019 at 10:03 AM, snafu said: At a minimum, Ohr and Comey (and anyone else who laid their hands on the Page FISA renewals) should be cooked gooses. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/2018-02-28 CEG LG to DOJ OIG (referral).pdf 8 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Looks like some people are going to get it in the back of the neck for their stupidity, though. But not Ohr. He's going to get ass-*****. Saw that one coming.
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: One interesting thing to come out of this that's going to be completely glossed over in the "Orange Man Bad" debate: the FISA application process had really weak safeguards. One would hope that a secret surveillance warrant process would have stronger requirements for issuing the warrant...but apparently, agents could easily cherry-pick the evidence they wanted to present with little in the way of supervision or oversight. That's encouraging. Just what I want in a secret surveillance warrant process. "We don't know nuthin' about nuthin', but take our word for it!" is less than inspiring. 1
Nanker Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.” 4
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, John Adams said: My early takeaway too. The report reads like, "They did a really ***** job but it's a bad process and they followed it pretty much like it's always followed." I got the impression they followed it worse than usual - some people were professionally negligent (though not maliciously) with their confirmation bias, overweighting questionable evidence because it fit their preconceived notions. That's rather normal in investigations, of course...which is why processes should be in place to account for it; which, in this case, were not in place. Still amounts to bad process, but some people should still get their asses kicked for professional misconduct.
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Could it be more? Barr and Durham also have looked into the CIA which Horowitz did not have any purview over. I assume those two know the whole story, including the genesis of this, whereas Horowitz does not. 2 1
John Adams Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I got the impression they followed it worse than usual - some people were professionally negligent (though not maliciously) with their confirmation bias, overweighting questionable evidence because it fit their preconceived notions. That's rather normal in investigations, of course...which is why processes should be in place to account for it; which, in this case, were not in place. Still amounts to bad process, but some people should still get their asses kicked for professional misconduct. They will. Barr's last sentence today is not for nothing. "With respect to DOJ personnel discussed in the report, the Department will follow all appropriate processes and procedures, including as to any potential disciplinary action." Edited December 9, 2019 by John Adams
B-Man Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: But we don't need to pay attention to the Durham statement, Because you relayed that information in a tweet. ? . 1
snafu Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I got the impression they followed it worse than usual - some people were professionally negligent (though not maliciously) with their confirmation bias, overweighting questionable evidence because it fit their preconceived notions. That's rather normal in investigations, of course...which is why processes should be in place to account for it; which, in this case, were not in place. Still amounts to bad process, but some people should still get their asses kicked for professional misconduct. The problems -- to me -- are in the renewals. Once the warrant needed to be renewed, they were already aware that the Steele report was worse than useless. 1 1
John Adams Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 1 minute ago, B-Man said: But we don't need to pay attention to the Durham statement, Because you relayed that information in a tweet. ? . The copyright infringer high-fiving the re-Tweeter-in-Chief about a hearsay Tweet that doesn't even quote the source. Yay, us. (Not that I doubt her summary.)
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, John Adams said: They will. Barr's last sentence today is not for nothing. "With respect to DOJ personnel discussed in the report, the Department will follow all appropriate processes and procedures, including as to any potential disciplinary action." And the recommendations in the report, and the FBI's response to such (at the end of the report). Also interesting: the FBI may have tried to use the Presidential transition briefings for investigative purposes. I wish that were somehow against the rules...but there was no rule against interrogating the Presidential Transition Team during a transition briefing. It seems like that would just be common sense to me: don't bastardize the transition for a half-assed counter-intelligence investigation, but apparently we need a rule for that now. 1
3rdnlng Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Remember people, most if not all of the bad guys have already been removed from the FBI or DOJ and Horowitz could not force them to be questioned by the OIG. 2 3
Deranged Rhino Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: And the recommendations in the report, and the FBI's response to such (at the end of the report). Also interesting: the FBI may have tried to use the Presidential transition briefings for investigative purposes. I wish that were somehow against the rules...but there was no rule against interrogating the Presidential Transition Team during a transition briefing. It seems like that would just be common sense to me: don't bastardize the transition for a half-assed counter-intelligence investigation, but apparently we need a rule for that now. As stated for weeks leading up to this: procedural changes is what the OIG is really for. The report will get unimpeachable evidence into the public sphere (there's loads of it in here that shatter pre-existing narratives/lies pushed by the media and the coup plotters), raise the need for procedural changes -- but only focused on DOJ/FBI/FISA (not even FISC, just the FISA process). --- Barr/Durham are the hammer. 1
Recommended Posts