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. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[transplantbillsfan]

8 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

For ***** sake... 

I am trying really hard to take you at your word that you are not trolling, you understand the genesis and set-up of this soft-coup, and that you want to learn. You are not making it easy.

 

I watched it. 

 

Nunes is just saying things I anticipate @Deranged Rhino believes is the smoking gun. Am I correct?

 

If so, it's nothing I hadn't already read about.

 

And I certainly don't think Nunes is the messenger you want here dishing out this kind of speculation.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Am I correct?

 

Not once today down here so far. 

 

Not once.

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

And I certainly don't think Nunes is the messenger you want here dishing out this kind of speculation.

 

It's not speculation. The speculation (for TWO YEARS) which was passed off as fact was that Mifsud was a RUSSIAN asset/agent. He never was. He was one of our own. Which makes the entire pretext for the CI investigation into Trump fraudulent. 

 

The fact that you are still trying to dunk on Nunes whom the OIG just exonerated in full just proves how much of an uninformed lemming you actually are. 

 

(But when you refuse to read stuff for yourself, that's the end result most of the times. You end up looking dumb. So, good on you for that.)

[Deranged Rhino]

Don't show @transplantbillsfan it might cause him too much cognitive dissonance. 

 

Schiff is the liar and fraud. Nunes is a hero, and will be remembered as such long after Schiff is gone.

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, Foxx said:

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..."

 

 

An interview from William Barr??? You're using the President's lawyer here to prove something? This guy lost all previous credibility when he came out with his own summary that completely twisted the narrative of the Mueller report (which was obviously what happened, otherwise why the hell do you think Mueller would put out that public statement after as he did) waaAAaaayyy before it was released.

 

Like how he doesn't know the difference between Wikileaks and Wikipedia, though.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, transplantbillsfan said:

 

An interview from William Barr??? You're using the President's lawyer here to prove something? This guy lost all previous credibility when he came out with his own summary that completely twisted the narrative of the Mueller report (which was obviously what happened, otherwise why the hell do you think Mueller would put out that public statement after as he did) waaAAaaayyy before it was released.

 

Like how he doesn't know the difference between Wikileaks and Wikipedia, though.

 

None of what you stated is true. 

 

He's not the president's lawyer, he's the Attorney General of the United States of America. His summary of the Mueller report was entirely accurate, it was not twisted as even Mueller testified to when asked. 

 

You're a partisan NPC. Nothing more. Not a single original (or accurate) idea in that empty head of yours.

[njbuff]

9 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

An interview from William Barr??? You're using the President's lawyer here to prove something? This guy lost all previous credibility when he came out with his own summary that completely twisted the narrative of the Mueller report (which was obviously what happened, otherwise why the hell do you think Mueller would put out that public statement after as he did) waaAAaaayyy before it was released.

 

Like how he doesn't know the difference between Wikileaks and Wikipedia, though.

Even I know Barr isn’t Trump’s lawyer.

 

And I’m about as stupid as they come when it comes to this political stuff.

 

Ask me who the Bills starting QB was in 1985 is where I am more of an expert than this political garbage. ?

[transplantbillsfan]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Don't show @transplantbillsfan it might cause him too much cognitive dissonance. 

 

Schiff is the liar and fraud. Nunes is a hero, and will be remembered as such long after Schiff is gone.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Of course you think that. You admit you haven't read any of the relevant material and won't do it. You're gleefully ignorant and thinking that makes you look good. 

 

It's a bad look, my friend. All you're proving is that you're a mindless drone. 

[transplantbillsfan]

Just now, njbuff said:

Even I know Barr isn’t Trump’s lawyer.

 

And I’m about as stupid as they come when it comes to this political stuff.

 

Ask me who the Bills starting QB was in 1985 is where I am more of an expert than this political garbage. ?

 

I'm not going to call you a name.

 

You guys throw out names here aplenty... I think you need some Aloha.

 

I was being facetious.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

I was being facetious.

 

Everything else you stated was factually inaccurate... were you being facetious about those too? 

 

Nope. You actually believe them because you were programmed to parrot them, and you did exactly as your masters wished. Congrats on being as dumb as they expect you to be.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Everything else you stated was factually inaccurate... were you being facetious about those too? 

 

Nope. You actually believe them because you were programmed to parrot them, and you did exactly as your masters wished. Congrats on being as dumb as they expect you to be.

He's a teacher. Gulp.

[transplantbillsfan]

34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Not once today down here so far. 

 

Not once.

 

It's not speculation. The speculation (for TWO YEARS) which was passed off as fact was that Mifsud was a RUSSIAN asset/agent. He never was. He was one of our own. Which makes the entire pretext for the CI investigation into Trump fraudulent. 

 

The fact that you are still trying to dunk on Nunes whom the OIG just exonerated in full just proves how much of an uninformed lemming you actually are. 

 

(But when you refuse to read stuff for yourself, that's the end result most of the times. You end up looking dumb. So, good on you for that.)

 

 

Disappointed... I really did think you had your smoking gun.

 

Did we really need to do this ridiculous dance for the last 24 hours???? Good God man!

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Everything else you stated was factually inaccurate... were you being facetious about those too? 

 

Nope. You actually believe them because you were programmed to parrot them, and you did exactly as your masters wished. Congrats on being as dumb as they expect you to be.

 

You're so angry.

 

I hope life gets better for you trying to ensnare posters into traps you think you've got them in.

 

Oy.

 

I'm going to go enjoy my evening now that that's settled.

 

Go Bills!!!

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

Disappointed... I really did think you had your smoking gun.

 

You mean there it ain't. Because, once again you're 100% wrong and arguing against something I never said -- and which misses the point entirely of why Mifsud matters to this whole thing.  

 

Mifsud isn't an FBI asset. That's not a claim I've made. What I have said, and backed with evidence, is that he's a KNOWN western intelligence asset.  

 

All you've done is proven that you're completely willing to turn your own brain off and blindly swallow the bull#### fed to you by the very same people who just lied to you for THREE YEARS about Trump/Russia. The same people who wrote article after article citing Mifsud's ties to Moscow as the only evidence needed to justify opening a counter intelligence investigation into the political opposition of a sitting US President. Saying Mifsud isn't FBI is a strawman argument, pushed by these proven liars on useful idiots like yourself who prove them right when they assume their audience is too stupid to think for themselves. 

 

So take a bow. You've doubled down on being a dumbass. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[BillsFanNC]

I give you credit DR for trying to break through the partisan armor that shackles the brain of so many. You have incredible patience.

 

DR & others: Dude, the earth isnt flat. It just isnt.  Read these documents and it's clear as day that what you're saying is not the case.

 

Transplant: Are you crazy? That's way too long. I dont have the time to read all that.

 

DR & others: ok, well here are some short interviews where people who are intimately familiar with the subject can summarize things for you.

 

Transplant: Lol. Those guys dont belong to the flat earth society!! Why would I trust a thing that they say? Surely you jest.

[Foxx]

8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

An interview from William Barr??? You're using the President's lawyer here to prove something? This guy lost all previous credibility when he came out with his own summary that completely twisted the narrative of the Mueller report (which was obviously what happened, otherwise why the hell do you think Mueller would put out that public statement after as he did) waaAAaaayyy before it was released.

 

Like how he doesn't know the difference between Wikileaks and Wikipedia, though.

null

 

[Foxx]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

...

exactly, thank you.

[Hedge]

It appears some edits were made to the report today. Some redactions were also removed.

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 minutes ago, Hedge said:

It appears some edits were made to the report today. Some redactions were also removed.