Comey said this morning (and Frank in 100 posts) keeps saying the IG did not find political motivation, which is apparently true. But, it seems that the IG did not say affirmatively that there was no political motivation. He just said he didn't decide that their was political motivation. He leaves the door open to either intentional lying or gross negligence. What am I missing here, Frank?
The Wallace-Comey interview this morning was pretty damning. None of the "gross negligence" led to them failing to pursue Trump campaign personnel. Every bit of "gross negligence" led the investigations to proceed when they shouldn't have. It led them to mislead the FISA court with either gross negligence or intentional lying. (One of my favorite comments by Comey: "FISA warrants are tough to get.")
And the fact that the FBI intentionally changes a sentence saying that Carter Page "was a source" to the CIA (reporting to the CIA his conversations with Russians), to "was not a source" so that they could continue to paint a picture of a criminal......it sure does look like an activist FBI taking political matters into their own hands. Even if you hate Trump, I would think you would agree that the FBI needs to be taken down a notch.
Even if Trump is guilty, it still seems like the FBI is trying to frame him.
First of all, there was a warrant obtained against only person, Carter Page, PhD. He was no longer affiliated with the campaign and a similar warrant had been obtained against him in 2013, well before the advent of Orange.
Secondly, it was never determined by the IG that the warrant application lacked for P.C. with the offending information removed.
Third, the FBI attorney who included the false info was not found to have coordinated or conspired with anyone to do it. Your assertion that the “FBI” did it as if it were a concerted effort or conspiracy is BS. You again, as usual put the bunny in the hat in claiming that the FBI was trying to frame him. Nothing like that was found.
Fourth, the IG did conclude that there was no evidence of political bias. He also dismantled your cherished notion that the investigation was opened without predicate.
Fifth, what evidence was discovered by the Page surveillance that was used to frame Orange or him?
Sixth, no one else in the campaign was surveilled or wiretapped. If this was a concerted effort at surveillance framing it was a pretty piss poor job.
Seventh, I deal with alleged warrant abuse in my work almost every day. Fully agree that the standard is to low and the judicial oversight is to thin for even regular warrants. That’s the system though.
Now, you will come back with your usual replies and then accuse me somehow of being on your leg when you have above again started the whole thing and will respond repeatedly.
Have a nice day.
For the most part, you just raised a bunch of additional issues that you extrapolated from my post, but that I did not explicitly address.
You said, "First of all, there was a warrant obtained against only person, Carter Page, PhD. He was no longer affiliated with the campaign and a similar warrant had been obtained against him in 2013, well before the advent of Orange."
--This is a point you raise. I didn't comment on it, so I could not have misstated it.
You said, "Secondly, it was never determined by the IG that the warrant application lacked for P.C. with the offending information removed.
--This is a point you raise. I didn't comment on it, so I could not have misstated it.
You said, Third, the FBI attorney who included the false info was not found to have coordinated or conspired with anyone to do it. Your assertion that the “FBI” did it as if it were a concerted effort or conspiracy is BS. You again, as usual put the bunny in the hat in claiming that the FBI was trying to frame him. Nothing like that was found.
--Strawman. I didn't say that every employee of the FBI did it; you require that for me to say "the FBI did something." That is your argument, and I don't agree with you. I think if, for example, a police officer does something within the scope of executing his official duties, common English allows me to say, "The police did it," especially if there were more than a dozen other things that were done in support of the goal of the illegal act by others (things which Horowitz said could only be explained by gross negligence [highly unlikely] or intentional lying...I note that you didn't say I misstated that).
You said, Fourth, the IG did conclude that there was no evidence of political bias. He also dismantled your cherished notion that the investigation was opened without predicate.
--That is the closest so far that you have come to saying I misstated something, but you actually only offered your opinion that disagrees with me. Feel free to offer a link. Saying Horowitz failed to determine political bias (which I think is the case) and saying that Horowitz found that there was no political bias (which is what you have been saying in a dozenish other posts) are two very different things, but you appear to be stating that they are the same. Are you?
You said, Fifth, what evidence was discovered by the Page surveillance that was used to frame Orange or him?
--This is a point you raise. I didn't comment on it, so I could not have misstated it. Whether or not they found evidence from Page to frame Trump is irrelevant to whether they tried to frame Trump.
You said, Sixth, no one else in the campaign was surveilled or wiretapped. If this was a concerted effort at surveillance framing it was a pretty piss poor job.
--This is a point you raise. I didn't comment on it, so I could not have misstated it.
You said, Seventh, I deal with alleged warrant abuse in my work almost every day. Fully agree that the standard is to low and the judicial oversight is to thin for even regular warrants. That’s the system though.
--This is a point you raise. I didn't comment on it, so I could not have misstated it.
You said I "misstated just about everything" and then listed 7 things as if you were itemizing my misstatements, but you were not doing that. I welcome any correction to my original post, so feel free to note any misstatements. But, if you are just going to argue against my conclusions with new points, don't pretend you are catching me in a misstatement. Be a man and admit that you are just disagreeing with me for the additional reasons you offer.
the FBI was out to frame” Orange.
It doesn’t look like that at all. What it looks like is that mistakes were made in the application process along with what the one lawyer added that wasn’t true in a RENEWAL application.
You obviously know little about how LE works. The motive may well have been to make the application look better. It may have been something else. It may have been sloppiness. Or a combination. What we do know is that no evidence was found that it was politically biased.
There was also no evidence found of any conspiracy or coordination to intentionally misstate the application. There was also no finding that it lacked proper legal basis (lack of PC) with the offending verbiage removed. All of these are indicia of a frame up. None were found here. Your indication (the bunny in the hat) that the FBI leadership or anyone in the upper echelon (the FBI) were involved with any mistake or misstatement in one warrant application against one FORMER campaign affiliate is complete BS.
Instead of disagreeing with you now, maybe I should just say that, as usual, you have misstated everything in your post. Typical duplicitousness on your part.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Your entire point that it looked like the FBI tried to frame Orange was utter BS.
But carry on. It will be interesting when you switch to I’m keeping the issue going.
1) I accurately state a number of premises, and then draw a conclusion.
2) You say I "misstate almost everything," but you can't point to any one thing I misstate.
3) When I point that out to you, you say you disagree with my conclusion and you offer additional evidence for your own conclusion. That's fine, but that is not what you said at first.
I was just asking you to back up your statement that I misstate almost everything, and you could not do it. So, you get embarrassed, and you pull a Trump, and try to label me. Suddenly I am shuffling, when you are the one who won't admit that you got sloppy, and you don't want to admit it, so you are trying to change the discussion...you are trying to shuffle things up.
You are, perhaps, the most Trump-like poster on the Open. You and Trump are excellent trolls.
Everything you accuse people of, you do yourself repeatedly. Including repeating the same nonsense you already posted, like you’re doing here. You also hate being called on your obvious BS, like a deep state FBI conspiracy
In response, what I said above.
(no message)
post. You go out of your way to mention me even in posts to others. Talk about a dog on a leg. Projection is one of your main shuffles.
You accused me of intentional lying, or mistakenly (grossly negligently?) conveying facts (same thing Horowitz accused the FBI of). But, you couldn't back it up.
If you had just said, "I disagree with you, and here are 7 reasons why you are wrong," we might have had a discussion. As it is, you tricked scooter into thinking I'd lied about 7 different things...things that you raised for the first time in your post. Your approach was not an honest one, or it was exceedingly sloppy. Either way, you were wrong, and your only answer is to label me, as if I were the one who got something wrong. You do yourself no favors when you act like this.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I see the dog reference got to you. :-)
Posting style
I see how you guys (anti-Trumpers) jump to conclusions. Stick to factual statements, and avoid ad hominems, you will have more luck taking down the ad hominem king (Trump).
He said he was too confident in the FISA process, and that if he were still Director, he would be doing what Christopher Wray is doing - order a broad review of the process.
I think we can all probably agree that anyone who cooked the evidence should be punished. And t certainly appears that Page got screwed.
All that said, there was plenty of reason to open that investigation. It led to 23 indictments.
....we saw with Michael Flynn how Weisman extorts witnesses to plead so as not to have their families ruined.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
accept that the results were not "cooked"? The FBI was undeniably dirty.
The latter should be punished, the former cleaned up. Most of that they did was the former.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm sure the hardest thing he said today was "I was wrong". I may be the first time in his life that those words were spoken. It may have been his attempt to fall on his sword before the Durham report. I still think someone is going to flip and throw the rest of the them under the bus. My guess it will be Strzok.
(no message)