|
Post by adpz on Jul 25, 2019 19:42:35 GMT -5
You understand the difference between creating a special counsel and a US Attorney conducting a review? Not the same thing. And to my point - emphasis added to the important bit - with the salient point being that if he is in a position to bring criminal charges it does not matter what the operation is labelled officially. He clearly has investigative latitude during this 'review'.
Politico’s Natasha Bertrand writes that “the wide latitude [Barr] has given Durham to also examine analytic conclusions drawn by CIA officers has alarmed some in the national security community who worry about its effect on the apolitical nature of intelligence gathering [sic].” She quotes several former CIA officials: Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director, said, “The Justice Department’s job is to see whether a crime has been committed, not to assess the quality of intelligence analysis.” Jeffrey Edmonds, a former CIA analyst who served as a Russia adviser on the National Security Council during both the Trump and Obama administrations, said (in Bertrand’s words) he is worried that Durham’s CIA inquiry is a political attempt to undermine the intelligence community’s assessment. Edmonds said that Pompeo’s own examination of the CIA’s analysis “really does call into question the purpose of the entire Durham exercise.”
The fear among the guilty parties is reflected in Bertrand’s statement:“It’s unclear what mandate Durham is operating under and whether he is looking at the intelligence agencies with an eye to recommending criminal charges. He has not been appointed to lead a criminal investigation, and the Justice Department has formally described the inquiry only as a review.... It’s a setup that has unnerved intelligence veterans across the political spectrum.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 20:25:40 GMT -5
What is it you see "coming down the pike" other than the IG report, which I have read elsewhere, will not be earth shattering. It depends what the IG report says. If the Steele Dossier was the only real evidence preferred to the FISA court - and moreso if it was not revealed to the court as the unverified oppo-research it was already know to be - they it would be everything, all at once. Not that the media would treat it as such. But - it would mean exactly that: oppo research was laundered through the press (by leaks) to present itself as being a body of reporting and that was presented, apparently without clarification, to a FISA court in order to open surveillance on an American political campaign. You’d need to prove the FBI agents lied and were able to fool multiple DOJ lawyers while getting the WH to sign off as well. Then there 4 different judges who signed off of the original and extensions. Lots of moving parts and yet no leaks? Here is something to read :https://www.justsecurity.org/39886/high-bar-fisa-warrant-monitor-carter-page/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 20:27:52 GMT -5
You understand the difference between creating a special counsel and a US Attorney conducting a review? Not the same thing. And to my point - emphasis added to the important bit - with the salient point being that if he is in a position to bring criminal charges it does not matter what the operation is labelled officially. He clearly has investigative latitude during this 'review'.
Politico’s Natasha Bertrand writes that “the wide latitude [Barr] has given Durham to also examine analytic conclusions drawn by CIA officers has alarmed some in the national security community who worry about its effect on the apolitical nature of intelligence gathering [sic].” She quotes several former CIA officials: Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director, said, “The Justice Department’s job is to see whether a crime has been committed, not to assess the quality of intelligence analysis.” Jeffrey Edmonds, a former CIA analyst who served as a Russia adviser on the National Security Council during both the Trump and Obama administrations, said (in Bertrand’s words) he is worried that Durham’s CIA inquiry is a political attempt to undermine the intelligence community’s assessment. Edmonds said that Pompeo’s own examination of the CIA’s analysis “really does call into question the purpose of the entire Durham exercise.”
The fear among the guilty parties is reflected in Bertrand’s statement:“It’s unclear what mandate Durham is operating under and whether he is looking at the intelligence agencies with an eye to recommending criminal charges. He has not been appointed to lead a criminal investigation, and the Justice Department has formally described the inquiry only as a review.... It’s a setup that has unnerved intelligence veterans across the political spectrum.”
This review is Barr placating the President.
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Jul 25, 2019 20:58:33 GMT -5
And to my point - emphasis added to the important bit - with the salient point being that if he is in a position to bring criminal charges it does not matter what the operation is labelled officially. He clearly has investigative latitude during this 'review'.
Politico’s Natasha Bertrand writes that “the wide latitude [Barr] has given Durham to also examine analytic conclusions drawn by CIA officers has alarmed some in the national security community who worry about its effect on the apolitical nature of intelligence gathering [sic].” She quotes several former CIA officials: Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director, said, “The Justice Department’s job is to see whether a crime has been committed, not to assess the quality of intelligence analysis.” Jeffrey Edmonds, a former CIA analyst who served as a Russia adviser on the National Security Council during both the Trump and Obama administrations, said (in Bertrand’s words) he is worried that Durham’s CIA inquiry is a political attempt to undermine the intelligence community’s assessment. Edmonds said that Pompeo’s own examination of the CIA’s analysis “really does call into question the purpose of the entire Durham exercise.”
The fear among the guilty parties is reflected in Bertrand’s statement:“It’s unclear what mandate Durham is operating under and whether he is looking at the intelligence agencies with an eye to recommending criminal charges. He has not been appointed to lead a criminal investigation, and the Justice Department has formally described the inquiry only as a review.... It’s a setup that has unnerved intelligence veterans across the political spectrum.”
This review is Barr placating the President. You're delusional. Brennan is shitting his pants worse then Mueller did and so is almost everyone that had anything to do with those FISA warrants. They're all going to jail. Look forward to what bullshit you're gonna spew when the indictments start coming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 21:08:26 GMT -5
This review is Barr placating the President. You're delusional. Brennan is shitting his pants worse then Mueller did and so is almost everyone that had anything to do with those FISA warrants. They're all going to jail. Look forward to what bullshit you're gonna spew when the indictments start coming. I doubt anything close to what you are saying will become reality, but that has not never stopped you.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jul 25, 2019 21:09:22 GMT -5
You’d need to prove the FBI agents lied and were able to fool multiple DOJ lawyers while getting the WH to sign off as well. Then there 4 different judges who signed off of the original and extensions. Lots of moving parts and yet no leaks? Here is something to read :https://www.justsecurity.org/39886/high-bar-fisa-warrant-monitor-carter-page/ One very important piece, in my understanding, with regards to the FISA application (and renewals) will be if the Steele Dossier was accurately represented to the court. There are two separate threads here - one being legitimate in trying to understand how Russia was attempting to infiltrate US policy (as I assume they do and have done continuously) and secondly being the political biases of FBI/DOJ turning that legitimate exercise into a backdoor attempt to catch up Trump in the proceedings for the express purpose of either catching him doing something actually illegal and/or generating enough grounds for impeachment. Given what was selectively looked at and what was disregarded ("not my purview") and the fact that resistance-wannabe Andrew Weissman now looks like the actual architect behind things - it's simply hard to make an assessment that FBI/DOJ did not take the opportunity (which they had in fact discussed) to divert/expand a legitimate contra-russia investigation into a larger effort to entrap and catch out or, essentially frame ("failure to exonerate") Donald Trump. And, aside, it absolutely strains credulity that the Chinese are not knee-deep in this country as well - I wonder if anyone has time enough away from the Muller shitshow to actually keep their eyes on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 21:12:50 GMT -5
You’d need to prove the FBI agents lied and were able to fool multiple DOJ lawyers while getting the WH to sign off as well. Then there 4 different judges who signed off of the original and extensions. Lots of moving parts and yet no leaks? Here is something to read :https://www.justsecurity.org/39886/high-bar-fisa-warrant-monitor-carter-page/ One very important piece, in my understanding, with regards to the FISA application (and renewals) will be if the Steele Dossier was accurately represented to the court. There are two separate threads here - one being legitimate in trying to understand how Russia was attempting to infiltrate US policy (as I assume they do and have done continuously) and secondly being the political biases of FBI/DOJ turning that legitimate exercise into a backdoor attempt to catch up Trump in the proceedings for the express purpose of either catching him doing something actually illegal and/or generating enough grounds for impeachment. Given what was selectively looked at and what was disregarded ("not my purview") and the fact that resistance-wannabe Andrew Weissman now looks like the actual architect behind things - it's simply hard to make an assessment that FBI/DOJ did not take the opportunity (which they had in fact discussed) to divert/expand a legitimate contra-russia investigation into a larger effort to entrap and catch out or, essentially frame ("failure to exonerate") Donald Trump. And, aside, it absolutely strains credulity that the Chinese are not knee-deep in this country as well - I wonder if anyone has time enough away from the Muller shitshow to actually keep their eyes on that. Wow ok
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jul 25, 2019 21:21:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Jul 25, 2019 21:25:20 GMT -5
Well, if she has her way they'll vote for her dead or alive. It's a win win.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jul 25, 2019 21:37:42 GMT -5
You don't think it noteworthy that Fusion GPS met with the Russian lady the day before and after the Trump Tower meeting? You don't think it important to understand what weight the Steele Dossier was given in proceedings? And if it was accurately represented to the FISA court? You don't think the obvious attempts to honey-pot a nobody like Papawhateverhisname was a clear attempt to open a backdoor into the Trump campaign? You don't think it odd that Muller's report hung onto this extraordinary 'failure to exonerate' claim - espy when the stated intent of the whole proceedings wasn't even the President? Does it make any sense that Muller would claim the Steele Dossier was beyond his purview? And that - amazingly - he had no knowledge about Fusion GPS? Does it strike you as odd that the Muller report, in actuality, seems to have little to do with Muller?
|
|
|
Post by vin on Jul 25, 2019 21:41:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vin on Jul 25, 2019 21:46:41 GMT -5
Translation : Andrew WEISSMAN is the True Mastermind of this Sham-of-an-investigation.
Barr, Durham, and/or the IG should subpoena him to ask REAL questions 'cause he is the one who knows the real answers instead of the apparent FIGUREHEAD that is Bob Mueller.
The Mueller Report is only as such....IN NAME ONLY.
This is really The Weissman Report.
|
|
|
Post by vin on Jul 25, 2019 21:50:02 GMT -5
Gohmert seemed ready to leap across the desk and strangle Mueller.
|
|
|
Post by vin on Jul 25, 2019 21:52:37 GMT -5
China and Russian are giggling their asses off. A few facebook ads and TDS gets them this.
This is Putin while watching the proceedings :
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Jul 25, 2019 21:54:49 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of the government deciding who lives or dies. I'm also not a fan of the "no cruel or unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment. An eye for an eye works for me.
|
|