IG Report

[JohnR]

Just getting started. Damn.

[spence]

The Wray presser was good. Not a lot of surprises here to be honest. Case against Clinton wasn't prosecutable, no evidence of bias impacting the investigation, FBI agents are human and made mistakes, some FBI agents didn't like Trump etc...

Seems pretty clear if Comey followed department process Clinton's chance of winning would have gone way up.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The Wray presser was good. Not a lot of surprises here to be honest. Case against Clinton wasn't prosecutable, no evidence of bias impacting the investigation, FBI agents are human and made mistakes, some FBI agents didn't like Trump etc...

Seems pretty clear if Comey followed department process Clinton's chance of winning would have gone way up.

well...that's a view

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

The Wray presser was good. Not a lot of surprises here to be honest. Case against Clinton wasn't prosecutable, no evidence of bias impacting the investigation, FBI agents are human and made mistakes, some FBI agents didn't like Trump etc...

Seems pretty clear if Comey followed department process Clinton's chance of winning would have gone way up.

I would even go so far as to say if Hillary used a DoS email address and services, rather than a bathroom server, she might have beaten Trump.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I would even go so far as to say if Hillary used a DoS email address and services, rather than a bathroom server, she might have beaten Trump.

Maybe but then there would have been more evidence about how Hillary had James McDougall or Vince Foster killed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

this is pretty funny...

James Comey- First, the inspector general’s team went through the F.B.I.’s work with a microscope and found no evidence that bias or improper motivation affected the investigation, which I know was done competently, honestly and independently.

page 149:

. . . these text messages also caused us to assess Strzok’s decision in October 2016 to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop. We concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.

page 161:

Nevertheless, we found that Page’s statement, on its face, consisted of a recommendation that the Midyear team consider how Clinton would treat the FBI if she were to become President in deciding how to handle Clinton’s interview. Suggesting that investigative decisions be based on this consideration was inappropriate and created an appearance of bias.

page 420-421:

We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.

COMMENTS SECTION

. . . when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected — after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump — it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Maybe but then there would have been more evidence about how Hillary had James McDougall or Vince Foster killed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So let's clear this out.

Your saying that Hillary running a server in her IT guys bathroom (well, after in her basement and in a COLO somewhere else) is the credibility equivalent to McDougal and Foster? Couldn't fit in chemtrails?

[PaulS]

What im saying is that the Repubs. Would have come up with something to fire up the base. Even bringing out the lies of the 30 something people the Clintons had killed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What im saying is that the Repubs. Would have come up with something to fire up the base. Even bringing out the lies of the 30 something people the Clintons had killed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are probably right in that regard, but while Foster/MacDougal might be tin foil hat territory - Hillary's Grossly Negligent “extremely careless” Email Server was very real.

[wdmso]

Conservatives Clinton emails =Criminal

Conservatives Trump Russian investigation and indictments = witch hunt

Conservatives Benghazi = 4 left to die outrageous Criminal

Conservatives Niger attack leaves 4 US soldiers dead =

Conservatives Obama to Talk to north Korea = sacrilegious

Conservatives Trump to Talk to north Korea = divine intervention

Conservatives behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Conservatives Clinton emails =Criminal

Conservatives Trump Russian investigation and indictments = witch hunt

Conservatives Benghazi = 4 left to die outrageous Criminal

Conservatives Niger attack leaves 4 US soldiers dead =

Conservatives Obama to Talk to north Korea = sacrilegious

Conservatives Trump to Talk to north Korea = divine intervention

Conservatives behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.

We know Hilary was reckless with her emails. There's still very little evidence to show Trump collusion. If there is, he needs to be held accountable. But the investigation hasn't shown much.

As to Niger, did the people who were killed, repeatedly ask for more security? Did Trump lie about the underlying motive for the attack?

On North Korea, there has been legitimate hypocrisy, you are correct. On the other points, well you are trying to prove that liberal=good, conservative=bad, as usual.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What im saying is that the Repubs. Would have come up with something to fire up the base. Even bringing out the lies of the 30 something people the Clintons had killed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You may be right, that the GOP would have invented dirt on her if they had to. The fact is, they didn't have to.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There's still very little evidence to show Trump collusion. If there is, he needs to be held accountable. But the investigation hasn't shown much.

Jim, do we have to do this again? The investigation hasn't published a report and leaking as been virtually nonexistent.

What's in the public domain is that the campaign absolutely did collude with Russians in the Trump tower, that Trump did consistently and actively encourage election meddling even after he knew it was the Russians...even to the point of working to cover it up.

If this isn't betrayal I'm not sure what is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, do we have to do this again? The investigation hasn't published a report and leaking as been virtually nonexistent.

What's in the public domain is that the campaign absolutely did collude with Russians in the Trump tower, that Trump did consistently and actively encourage election meddling even after he knew it was the Russians...even to the point of working to cover it up.

If this isn't betrayal I'm not sure what is.

"The investigation hasn't published a report "

Number 1, it's been, what, almost a year? Number two, I didn't know that nothing could be inferred until a report was published, silly me.

"What's in the public domain is that the campaign absolutely did collude with Russians in the Trump tower"

Really?

"Trump did consistently and actively encourage election meddling "

You might be thinking of the DNC meddling in their own primary, with help from CNN of course...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The investigation hasn't published a report "


"What's in the public domain is that the campaign absolutely did collude with Russians in the Trump tower"

Really?

"Trump did consistently and actively encourage election meddling "

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He also said Obama wasn't born here, and that he doesn't respect John McCain.

He says an awful lot of kooky stuff.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

J

What's in the public domain is that the campaign absolutely did collude with Russians in the Trump tower, that Trump did consistently and actively encourage election meddling even after he knew it was the Russians...even to the point of working to cover it up.

If this isn't betrayal I'm not sure what is.

they he'll probably go to jail....

[Pete F.]

By Jonathan Chait
“Would any defense lawyer advise @realDonaldTrump to meet with SC Mueller? In the absence of any evidence of collusion, why?” asks conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt. “No collusion = end of inquiry.” The idea that Robert Mueller has no evidence of collusion, and that he has instead diverted his interest into the secondary crime of obstruction of justice, has been taken up by Trump and repeated on the right so frequently it has settled into seeming hardened fact.

Of course, what Mueller knows about collusion and what the public knows about collusion are two different things. Even we mere civilians have access to a great deal of information on cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. Whether this body of information amounts to proof of collusion is something you could dispute if you took an especially stringent definition of the terms “proof” and “collusion.”

You might know that a man ran into a building with a gun, then a person was shot in the building, and then the man ran out. All this would be evidence he committed the murder, while perhaps falling short of proof. Proof is a very high standard to meet. But evidence of collusion? There’s simply no question that there is evidence. Lots and lots of it.

Paul Manafort’s lawyers adopted a version of the Trumpian defense, that the Mueller probe is a fishing expedition for unrelated crimes. The Department of Justice answered this with a legal filing specifically affirming that he is investigating whether Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.”

What do we know about Manafort? We know he ran the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate on behalf of Russia previously; that he had taken on massive debt to a foreign patron, Oleg Deripaska; that Deripaska was working on behalf of the Russian government’s foreign policy; that Manafort accepted his position as Trump’s campaign manager for free; and that he hoped his work for Trump would help him “get whole” with Deripaska.

Does that prove Trump’s campaign manager was working with Russia? No, but it certainly counts as evidence.

Want more evidence? Okay. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos met with a Russian agent who told him he had dirt on Hillary Clinton, later boasted that Russia had obtained damaging Clinton emails, and lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia. That would also qualify as evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Peter W. Smith, a veteran Republican political operative, attempted to obtain stolen Clinton emails and told the people he contacted in pursuit of these emails he was working on behalf of the Trump campaign. When one of the cybersecurity experts he contacted warned Smith that his work might involve collusion with Russia, it did not dissuade him at all. That also seems like evidence.

Trump confidant Roger Stone reportedly knew about stolen Clinton emails, emailed with the person who had the stolen material, publicly flaunted his advance knowledge of these emails, and also spoke regularly with Donald Trump during the period when he had this knowledge. It is a virtual certainty Stone colluded with Russia on the email hack, and highly probable he made Trump an accessory after the fact.

Then of course there is the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. I would argue that the publicly available information pertaining to that episode amounts to proof of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. You have a Russian agent dangling Russian assistance in the election (“part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”), and the offer of help being accepted (“if it’s what you say I love it”). It doesn’t even matter to what degree or even whether the offer was actually followed through. If you take a meeting to plan a crime, and the crime later happens and you benefit, you are an accessory to the crime whether or not you participated after the meeting.

But even if you don’t consider the Trump Tower meeting to be absolute proof of collusion, it is certainly evidence of collusion. It was, after all, a meeting held for the express purpose of furthering cooperation — or, as it were, collusion — between the Trump campaign and Russia. And there is no reason to believe that the publicly available evidence of this meeting — which Trump and his family have lied about, repeatedly — contains the entire extent of the information about it.

The report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee reports that, on June 6, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made two phone calls with Emin Agalarov. In between those two calls — which, based on emails he exchanged around that time with Rob Goldstone, indicate Trump successfully arranged the meeting during the calls — Donald Jr. made another call. Phone records show the call, at 4:27 p.m., was to a blocked phone number. Corey Lewandowski told the House Intelligence Committee that Donald Trump had a blocked phone number. “Despite the [Democratic] Minority’s repeated efforts to obtain home or cell phone records for then-candidate Trump to determine whether the blocked call was Trump Jr.’s father,” Democrats report, “the Majority was unwilling to pursue the matter.”

This has not attracted nearly enough attention. There is clear forensic evidence to show that Donald Trump, Jr. called somebody, quite likely his father, while he was rushing to set up the Trump Tower meeting. House Republicans blocked an effort to prove that Donald Trump was the person he called.

Trump’s own rhetoric after the meeting provides more evidence he was briefed on the Russian offer to provide dirt on Clinton. Trump promised to deliver a “major speech” within a few days. Trump promised he would be “discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”

The Republican narrative has embraced the fantastical interpretation first that there is no public evidence of collusion, and the even more delusional offshoot belief that Mueller therefore has no private evidence of collusion. The intent of saying this, of course, is to enable Republican efforts to obstruct or eventually end the probe, which they can justify on the grounds that there was no evidence of collusion anyway. And they are advertising in advance their intent to declare Trump innocent of wrongdoing regardless of how damning the final indictment may be.

[wdmso]

Paul Manafort jailed by judge for alleged witness tampering


more of what conservatives see as lack of evidence

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

well...that's a view

Originally Posted by wdmso

Paul Manafort jailed by judge for alleged witness tampering


more of what Trumplicans see as lack of evidence

Fixed it for you

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Really?

Yes, unless you believe that meeting really was about adoption (remember, DJT Jr 'I love it') and Trump didn't lie about dictating the cover up response.

Was it criminal, we'll see.

As far as the investigation being to long, how long was Ken Starr's investigation? Were you appalled by the length of that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yes, unless you believe that meeting really was about adoption (remember, DJT Jr 'I love it') and Trump didn't lie about dictating the cover up response.

Was it criminal, we'll see.

As far as the investigation being to long, how long was Ken Starr's investigation? Were you appalled by the length of that?

Brian, kind of like believing that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were just passing the time on the private jet, the day before Hilary was cleared.

The politicians are beyond disgusting, many ordinary citizens cheer for something one day, deride it the next depending on who's in charge. I've been saying it since Obama was sworn in, I don't know what unites us anymore, I just don't, other than contempt we have for the other side.

If we're going o let the investigation play out, let's stop pretending we know more than what has been made available.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Brian, kind of like believing that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were just passing the time on the private jet, the day before Hilary was cleared.

The politicians are beyond disgusting, many ordinary citizens cheer for something one day, deride it the next depending on who's in charge. I've been saying it since Obama was sworn in, I don't know what unites us anymore, I just don't, other than contempt we have for the other side.

If we're going o let the investigation play out, let's stop pretending we know more than what has been made available.

The Lynch thing was shady, no doubt. I don't recall much defense of it here.

This isn't pretending. They have blatantly lied about that meeting at Trump Tower, the emails have come out, and the stories have changed multiple times.

Again, maybe not criminal, but certainly warrants the continuation of the investigation, whatever Gulliani wants to say.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Brian, kind of like believing that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were just passing the time on the private jet, the day before Hilary was cleared.

But per the IG report there wasn’t a case to be made. Are you suggesting the AG magically rewrote the entire investigation and made career FBI officials suddenly reverse course in a day???

Lynch made a mistake given the optics but I don’t see how she could have influenced anything with what we know today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Again, maybe not criminal, but certainly warrants the continuation of the investigation, whatever Gulliani wants to say.

a politically biased investigation begun under false pretenses...that's pretty bad...I hope whatever they find regarding Trump and the Russians is worse than Obama's politicization and weaponization of the DOJ and FBI

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=scottw;1144686]a politically biased investigation begun under false pretenses...please explain your facts to support ?? that's pretty bad...I hope whatever they find regarding Trump and the Russians is worse than Obama's politicization and weaponization of the DOJ and FBI please explain your facts to support you claim ?? /QUOTE]


Seems you have closed your eyes to information any facts and have gone over to tin foil hat

[spence]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1144694]

Originally Posted by scottw

a politically biased investigation begun under false pretenses...please explain your facts to support ?? that's pretty bad...I hope whatever they find regarding Trump and the Russians is worse than Obama's politicization and weaponization of the DOJ and FBI please explain your facts to support you claim ?? /QUOTE]


Seems you have closed your eyes to information any facts and have gone over to tin foil hat

His behavior hasn’t changed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Trumps response to his boy going to jail (law an order party my ass )




Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the Mob. What about Comey and Crooked Hillary and all of the others? Very unfair!

1:41 PM - Jun 15, 2018


Rudy Giuliani floated the idea that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation could be "cleaned up" with presidential pardons.

"When the whole thing is over, things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons," Giuliani told the New York Daily News on Friday.


Giuliani later told CNN that he wasn't suggesting that the president should pardon anyone in the near-term, but that there was historical precedent for pardons once an investigation is done. Sure thats what he ment

[Got Stripers]

I find it so funny Rudy calling Biden an idiot, every time Rudy opens his mouth, I say to myself this moron is a lawyer really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

I guess the right has nothing to say