FBI Thread

[85SugarVol]

^^^ What a person says when their line of thinking can't be supported. ^^^

You’ll argue with every Tom, Dick, & Harry.
But you won’t answer a simple question of your own opinion?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Obama met with DOJ , CIA and FBI and allowed the “weaponize government institutions against political opponents and critics” In particular candidate Trump

Under the Obama administration, the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russian operatives. This involved the FBI obtaining court approval to secretly monitor Carter Page.

However, there is no evidence which shows that Obama or any member of the Obama White House, directed counterintelligence agents to illegally monitor the Trump campaign. There are no court records that show that Obama over-stepped his authority during the FBI's Russia investigation.

 

[Majors]

Under the Obama administration, the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russian operatives.

.

Thanks for playing. A simple yes is all that was needed. Not a long answer on Obama weaponizing a government agency against Trumps campaign

 

[BowlBrother85]

He was betting on Hillary winning and keeping it silent.

No, it wasn't going to remain silent. Obama only stood to gain by proving that Russia was responsible. He didn't want it to appear as though he was trying to influence the election.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Thanks for playing. A simple yes is all that was needed. Not a long answer on Obama weaponizing a government agency against Trumps campaign

You need to read the rest of the post .... Obama had nothing to do with the monitoring of Carter Page - or with the Russia investigation. If you have information to the contrary? Post a link to it.

 

[NCFisher]

Indeed ...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia/index.html

Marshall Cohen writes like a child living in 2016, hoping we don't notice it's 2023. Like you, he has to omit information to make his case.

For instance, Manafort (and Kilimnik) were trusted sources and facilitators for the Obama WH and been DC fixtures re: Ukraine and Russia for a decade prior, but suddenly they're proof of Russian collusion when cotinuing doing the same for the Trump WH?

Trump didn't suggest Russia could keep Crimea but acknowledged the obvious; they HAVE Crimea and what? - we're going to fight WWIII to return it, after taking it during Obama's tenure?

Trump "made light of Russian hacking" because there is still no proof Russia hacked DNC - after Mueller/FBI/CIA (ICA) asserted it - since Crowdstrike reversed itself in congressional testimony, after boldly asserting it publicly and not under oath. It was also revealed Crowdstrike only gave images of two computer drives of the TEN that were supposedly iinvolved, a refutation that FBI was able to make an assessment at all. If DOJ/FBI had been interested in something besides a collusion ruse to remove Trump, they'd have taken possession of the data in entirety.

Marshall is apparently unaware that the U.S and Russia worked jointly to drive ISIS out of held territory in Syria/Iraq, and that presidents might share intel in such an effort. And that Russian "election interference" to the degree aby occurred, was a pathetic middling of bias reinforcement moving neither Cliinton nor Trump voters to the other. And ignorant that it was anti-Clinton in nature, fluffling both Stein and Sanders until Clinton won nomination, then shifting to Trump.

That's just a sampling from the first handful on the list, virtually all of which were covered in the Brooking's article and my own posts - to you - on these forums. Sober up and advise your party to do the same; we're no longer living in the 2016 hysteria generated by rogue agencies, Democrat intel committee members, media, and your presidential candidate.

This thread is about the fascistic corruption of the FBI, thus DOJ, in seven years of lies now. As many of us have warned, it's not just Trump now they're going after but anyone who isn't of the left. You're too corrupt, venal, and simple-minded to care until it's you.

 

[Orangeburst]

Revisit your words just a few moments ago

It sounds like you are saying that it's wrong for a President to weaponize government institutions against political opponents and critics?

I couldn't agree more ....

Obama met with DOJ , CIA and FBI and allowed the “weaponize government institutions against political opponents and critics” In particular candidate Trump

Don't forget spying on media, IRS, running guns thru Mexico, Israel elections.

 

[VOLS INC.]

^^^ What a person says when their line of thinking can't be supported. ^^^

If PBS published an article about the the importance of wearing a mask alone in your car, we would all see you on Cumberland ave on game day masked up in orange.

I agree that supporting your arguments with solid research is important. That’s essentially what I do for a living. Using google and posting links to opinion pieces (that’s all these media outlets produce anymore) is not good methodology.

You can’t prove what you are trying prove. All you proved was a narrative was created and distributed. I can’t prove my assertions either. The difference is I used critical thinking (the nature of man, nature of politicians, and Obama’s long history of being a self-serving anti-American lying POS) to reach my conclusions. And I understand that at best I’ve provided an opinion.

You use google, spike the football, and believe you have discovered the truth.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Marshall Cohen writes like a child living in 2016, hoping we don't notice it's 2023. Like you, he has to omit information to make his case.

For instance, Manafort (and Kilimnik) were trusted sources and facilitators for the Obama WH and been DC fixtures re: Ukraine and Russia for a decade prior, but suddenly they're proof of Russian collusion when cotinuing doing the same for the Trump WH?

Trump didn't suggest Russia could keep Crimea but acknowledged the obvious; they HAVE Crimea and what? - we're going to fight WWIII to return it, after taking it during Obama's tenure?

Trump "made light of Russian hacking" because there is still no proof Russia hacked DNC - after Mueller/FBI/CIA (ICA) asserted it - since Crowdstrike reversed itself in congressional testimony, after boldly asserting it publicly and not under oath. It was also revealed Crowdstrike only gave images of two computer drives of the TEN that were supposedly iinvolved, a refutation that FBI was able to make an assessment at all. If DOJ/FBI had been interested in something besides a collusion ruse to remove Trump, they'd have taken possession of the data in entirety.

Marshall is apparently unaware that the U.S and Russia worked jointly to drive ISIS out of held territory in Syria/Iraq, and that presidents might share intel in such an effort. And that Russian "election interference" to the degree aby occurred, was a pathetic middling of bias reinforcement moving neither Cliinton nor Trump voters to the other. And ignorant that it was anti-Clinton in nature, fluffling both Stein and Sanders until Clinton won nomination, then shifting to Trump.

That's just a sampling from the first handful on the list, virtually all of which were covered in the Brooking's article and my own posts - to you - on these forums. Sober up and advise your party to do the same; we're no longer living in the 2016 hysteria generated by rogue agencies, Democrat intel committee members, media, and your presidential candidate.

This thread is about the fascistic corruption of the FBI, thus DOJ, in seven years of lies now. As many of us have warned, it's not just Trump now they're going after but anyone who isn't of the left. You're too corrupt, venal, and simple-minded to care until it's you.

That is an outright lie ... and we have been over this before. There is a ton of evidence that Russia hacked the DNC! We have been over that countless times. You are a liar. PERIOD.

 

[Majors]

Don't forget spying on media, IRS, running guns thru Mexico, Israel elections.

Guns that killed Americans

 

[BowlBrother85]

Marshall Cohen writes like a child living in 2016, hoping we don't notice it's 2023. Like you, he has to omit information to make his case.

For instance, Manafort (and Kilimnik) were trusted sources and facilitators for the Obama WH and been DC fixtures re: Ukraine and Russia for a decade prior, but suddenly they're proof of Russian collusion when cotinuing doing the same for the Trump WH?

Trump didn't suggest Russia could keep Crimea but acknowledged the obvious; they HAVE Crimea and what? - we're going to fight WWIII to return it, after taking it during Obama's tenure?

Trump "made light of Russian hacking" because there is still no proof Russia hacked DNC - after Mueller/FBI/CIA (ICA) asserted it - since Crowdstrike reversed itself in congressional testimony, after boldly asserting it publicly and not under oath. It was also revealed Crowdstrike only gave images of two computer drives of the TEN that were supposedly iinvolved, a refutation that FBI was able to make an assessment at all. If DOJ/FBI had been interested in something besides a collusion ruse to remove Trump, they'd have taken possession of the data in entirety.

Marshall is apparently unaware that the U.S and Russia worked jointly to drive ISIS out of held territory in Syria/Iraq, and that presidents might share intel in such an effort. And that Russian "election interference" to the degree aby occurred, was a pathetic middling of bias reinforcement moving neither Cliinton nor Trump voters to the other. And ignorant that it was anti-Clinton in nature, fluffling both Stein and Sanders until Clinton won nomination, then shifting to Trump.

That's just a sampling from the first handful on the list, virtually all of which were covered in the Brooking's article and my own posts - to you - on these forums. Sober up and advise your party to do the same; we're no longer living in the 2016 hysteria generated by rogue agencies, Democrat intel committee members, media, and your presidential candidate.

This thread is about the fascistic corruption of the FBI, thus DOJ, in seven years of lies now. As many of us have warned, it's not just Trump now they're going after but anyone who isn't of the left. You're too corrupt, venal, and simple-minded to care until it's you.

There is not a bigger POS liar on here than you. God knows how many times I have de-bunked your garbage.

Here's The Evidence Russia Hacked The Democratic National Committee

 

[BowlBrother85]

Marshall Cohen writes like a child living in 2016, hoping we don't notice it's 2023. Like you, he has to omit information to make his case.

For instance, Manafort (and Kilimnik) were trusted sources and facilitators for the Obama WH and been DC fixtures re: Ukraine and Russia for a decade prior, but suddenly they're proof of Russian collusion when cotinuing doing the same for the Trump WH?

Trump didn't suggest Russia could keep Crimea but acknowledged the obvious; they HAVE Crimea and what? - we're going to fight WWIII to return it, after taking it during Obama's tenure?

Trump "made light of Russian hacking" because there is still no proof Russia hacked DNC - after Mueller/FBI/CIA (ICA) asserted it - since Crowdstrike reversed itself in congressional testimony, after boldly asserting it publicly and not under oath. It was also revealed Crowdstrike only gave images of two computer drives of the TEN that were supposedly iinvolved, a refutation that FBI was able to make an assessment at all. If DOJ/FBI had been interested in something besides a collusion ruse to remove Trump, they'd have taken possession of the data in entirety.

Marshall is apparently unaware that the U.S and Russia worked jointly to drive ISIS out of held territory in Syria/Iraq, and that presidents might share intel in such an effort. And that Russian "election interference" to the degree aby occurred, was a pathetic middling of bias reinforcement moving neither Cliinton nor Trump voters to the other. And ignorant that it was anti-Clinton in nature, fluffling both Stein and Sanders until Clinton won nomination, then shifting to Trump.

That's just a sampling from the first handful on the list, virtually all of which were covered in the Brooking's article and my own posts - to you - on these forums. Sober up and advise your party to do the same; we're no longer living in the 2016 hysteria generated by rogue agencies, Democrat intel committee members, media, and your presidential candidate.

This thread is about the fascistic corruption of the FBI, thus DOJ, in seven years of lies now. As many of us have warned, it's not just Trump now they're going after but anyone who isn't of the left. You're too corrupt, venal, and simple-minded to care until it's you.

Every damn bit of this is a lie!

 

[Majors]

You need to read the rest of the post .... Obama had nothing to do with the monitoring of Carter Page - or with the Russia investigation. If you have information to the contrary? Post a link to it.

It’s was just released, it’s called the Durham Report which started with Obama , timeline has him as the sitting President.

 

[Majors]

There is not a bigger POS liar on here than you. God knows how many times I have de-bunked your garbage.

Here's The Evidence Russia Hacked The Democratic National Committee

You haven’t debunked anything, you recite sources that are now deemed worthless based on the most recent information

 

[BowlBrother85]

You haven’t debunked anything, you recite sources that are now deemed worthless based on the most recent information

LOL.

Nothing about that link has been deemed "worthless."

Russia hacked the DNC, and it explains how that is known.

I have posted probably a hundred links to this over the last 5 years, and most of them were in response to NCFisher .... who keeps recycling old junk. You people have an odd need to believe whatever Trump wants you to believe. Russia hacked the DNC. PERIOD.

 

[Orangeburst]

LOL.

Nothing about that link has been deemed "worthless."

Russia hacked the DNC, and it explains how that is known.

I have posted probably a hundred links to this over the last 5 years, and most of them were in response to NCFisher .... who keeps recycling old junk. You people have an odd need to believe whatever Trump wants you to believe. Russia hacked the DNC. PERIOD.

Not unequivocally proven. Period.

 

[Majors]

LOL.

Nothing about that link has been deemed "worthless."

Russia hacked the DNC, and it explains how that is known.

I have posted probably a hundred links to this over the last 5 years, and most of them were in response to NCFisher .... who keeps recycling old junk. You people have an odd need to believe whatever Trump wants you to believe. Russia hacked the DNC. PERIOD.

Article is from 2016 from the Times….or do you just want it to because you were told. Not really a time of honesty.

 

[BreatheUT]

FBI now employees former sorority members.

Guess they are adding squeaky voice leftists as swamp trojan horses.

 

[scooty_vol]

Thanks for playing. A simple yes is all that was needed. Not a long answer on Obama weaponizing a government agency against Trumps campaign

Absolutely Obama was willing to do anything to hurt Trump. He used the irs to after conservatives groups, there was thing he wouldn't do. He had a press that refused to investigate him

 

[NCFisher]

That is an outright lie ... and we have been over this before. There is a ton of evidence that Russia hacked the DNC! We have been over that countless times. You are a liar. PERIOD.

Oh, it it?

Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
• "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
• "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
• Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."

Henry’s testimony seems at variance with Comey’s suggestion of complete information sharing. He told Congress that CrowdStrike provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives, out of a total number of "in excess of 10, I think." In other cases, Henry said, CrowdStrike provided its own assessment of them. The firm, he said, provided "the results of our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected." This disclosure follows revelations from the case of Trump operative Roger Stone that CrowdStrike provided three reports to the FBI in redacted and draft form. According to federal prosecutors, the government never obtained CrowdStrike's unredacted reports.

But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had claimed to identify inside the DNC server.

Henry’s recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain. The fact that the Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start.
Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC

Wise up, chump.

 

[Majors]

Guess they are adding squeaky voice leftists as swamp trojan horses.

Seems the FBI would know her place of residence without much effort.

 

[sonofUT62]

Guess they are adding squeaky voice leftists as swamp trojan horses.

Id take the one up front out for a nice seafood dinner and then never call her back.

 

[NCFisher]

Every damn bit of this is a lie!

None of it is a lie, you robotic navel-gazer. I just addressed Crowdstrike admitting it had no evidence DNC files were exfiltrated electronically, despite the certainties expressed by Henry, FBI, Mueller, CIA in the ICA publicly.

Let's take another "lie". For instance:

Ukrainian flagged as intel danger to Trump had extensive contact with Obama officials, memos show

"Some intelligence officials interviewed by Just the News expressed surprise at the disparate treatment.

"The Senate report does not give a complete picture to the Obama-era State Department contacts where information was shared two ways with Kilimnik and Manafort," said a U.S. intelligence source directly familiar with Russia intelligence and Kilimnik's dealings with State. "Either this is as serious for State as it was for Trump and there needs to be a damage assessment, or the Senate report is overstating the concerns about Kilimnik for political effect."

"Mueller's final report suggested Kilimnik was assessed to have had ties to Russian intelligence but stopped short of calling him a Russian officer like the Senate report later would. Kilimnik has long denied working for Russian intelligence.

Hundreds of pages of State Department emails, interviews and other communications reviewed by Just the News show Mueller's team gathered evidence that both Kilimnik and Manafort had extensive dealings with the Obama State Department prior to the Russia probe starting in summer 2016.

The documents state flatly that Manafort had been used by the U.S. embassy for nearly a decade as a facilitator with Ukrainian officials on topics as sensitive as getting Ukrainians to turn over nuclear materials and arranging European aid packages. Kilimnik, meanwhile, was treated as a "sensitive source" since at least 2013 by the U.S. embassy's top officials in Kiev, the memos also show.

An FBI interview with Manafort, for instance, divulged that the then-Republican lobbyist was regularly used by the U.S. embassy as an intermediary to the Ukrainian government run by the Russia-friendly Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted from power in early 2014. Manafort "briefed U.S. Ambassadors in succession; John Herbst, William Taylor, John Teft, and Geoffrey Pyatt, on a regular basis," the FBI wrote in a Sept. 2, 2014 report of its Manafort interview.

Alan Purcell, who succeeded Kasanof as chief political officer and served in Kiev for the State Department from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that embassy officials deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset they protected his name in cables for fear his name would leak.

"Purcell described what he considered an unusual level of discretion that was taken with handling Kilimnik," the FBI wrote. "Normally the head of the Political Section would not handle sources, but Kasanoff informed Purcell that KILIMNIK was a sensitive source."

Purcell told the FBI that Kilimnik provided "detailed information" to him about Ukraine political figures and the inner workings of Yanukovych's Party of Regions.

The Senate report portrayed Kilimnik as an "interlocutor and representative to the Embassy" on behalf of Ukrainian figures. In fact, hundreds of pages of emails gathered by Mueller's team and reviewed by Just the News show he was far more than that.

Kilimnik routinely was asked to provide information to embassy officials about goings-on in the Yanukovych empire and on some occasions was given non-public information in return from State officials. The emails also showed State officials repeatedly expressed confidence in Kilimnik's assessments."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, either Manafort and Kilimnik were Russian assets and confidants of the Obama WH, or they weren't Russian assets (and confidants) of the Trump WH; which is it? How do they go from strolling the WH halls during Obama as protected sources to "Russiaaaaaah!" because 'Trump" - ?

What other "lies" do you need explained to you? I can do this all day. Your ignorance - and omission - confirm your bias but do not establish fact.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Article is from 2016 from the Times….or do you just want it to because you were told. Not really a time of honesty.

That article is still relevant today ... Your theory that it has somehow been discredited by "new information" is BS. It is pathetic that you are arguing this. The specific Russian agents who were responsible have even been identified.

Here are 8 more links ... I will post many more later.

What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack—And Trump Doesn’t

Russian Who Claims Hillary Clinton, DNC Email Hack Gets 14-Year Sentence

Why Experts Think Russia Hacked the DNC Emails

No ‘Hoax’: Bipartisan Senate Report Confirms Russian 2016 Role, Putin Ordered DNC Hack, More

U.S. authorities identify six Russian officials in DNC hack: WSJ

Russians Hack the DNC's Server: A Timeline | wusa9.com

'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' Russians Hacked DNC, Analyst Says

Jailed Russian hacker: I hacked Democrats 'under the command' of Russian intelligence agents

 

[BowlBrother85]

None of it is a lie, you robotic navel-gazer. I just addressed Crowdstrike admitting it had no evidence DNC files were exfiltrated electronically, despite the certainties expressed by Henry, FBI, Mueller, CIA in the ICA publicly.

Let's take another "lie". For instance:

Ukrainian flagged as intel danger to Trump had extensive contact with Obama officials, memos show

"Some intelligence officials interviewed by Just the News expressed surprise at the disparate treatment.

"The Senate report does not give a complete picture to the Obama-era State Department contacts where information was shared two ways with Kilimnik and Manafort," said a U.S. intelligence source directly familiar with Russia intelligence and Kilimnik's dealings with State. "Either this is as serious for State as it was for Trump and there needs to be a damage assessment, or the Senate report is overstating the concerns about Kilimnik for political effect."

"Mueller's final report suggested Kilimnik was assessed to have had ties to Russian intelligence but stopped short of calling him a Russian officer like the Senate report later would. Kilimnik has long denied working for Russian intelligence.

Hundreds of pages of State Department emails, interviews and other communications reviewed by Just the News show Mueller's team gathered evidence that both Kilimnik and Manafort had extensive dealings with the Obama State Department prior to the Russia probe starting in summer 2016.

The documents state flatly that Manafort had been used by the U.S. embassy for nearly a decade as a facilitator with Ukrainian officials on topics as sensitive as getting Ukrainians to turn over nuclear materials and arranging European aid packages. Kilimnik, meanwhile, was treated as a "sensitive source" since at least 2013 by the U.S. embassy's top officials in Kiev, the memos also show.

An FBI interview with Manafort, for instance, divulged that the then-Republican lobbyist was regularly used by the U.S. embassy as an intermediary to the Ukrainian government run by the Russia-friendly Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted from power in early 2014. Manafort "briefed U.S. Ambassadors in succession; John Herbst, William Taylor, John Teft, and Geoffrey Pyatt, on a regular basis," the FBI wrote in a Sept. 2, 2014 report of its Manafort interview.

Alan Purcell, who succeeded Kasanof as chief political officer and served in Kiev for the State Department from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that embassy officials deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset they protected his name in cables for fear his name would leak.

"Purcell described what he considered an unusual level of discretion that was taken with handling Kilimnik," the FBI wrote. "Normally the head of the Political Section would not handle sources, but Kasanoff informed Purcell that KILIMNIK was a sensitive source."

Purcell told the FBI that Kilimnik provided "detailed information" to him about Ukraine political figures and the inner workings of Yanukovych's Party of Regions.

The Senate report portrayed Kilimnik as an "interlocutor and representative to the Embassy" on behalf of Ukrainian figures. In fact, hundreds of pages of emails gathered by Mueller's team and reviewed by Just the News show he was far more than that.

Kilimnik routinely was asked to provide information to embassy officials about goings-on in the Yanukovych empire and on some occasions was given non-public information in return from State officials. The emails also showed State officials repeatedly expressed confidence in Kilimnik's assessments."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, either Manafort and Kilimnik were Russian assets and confidants of the Obama WH, or they weren't Russian assets (and confidants) of the Trump WH; which is it? How do they go from strolling the WH halls during Obama as protected sources to "Russiaaaaaah!" because 'Trump" - ?

What other "lies" do you need explained to you? I can do this all day. Your ignorance - and omission - confirm your bias but do not establish fact.

Read the links to sources in post #424 up above.

You are a flat out liar. I have posted countless links to sources over the years, which even explain how the specific Russian agents responsible for hacking the DNC were identified ... and with a confession. I have posted these in response to you - and yet, you continue to play these games. It is childish. Russia hacked the DNC. PERIOD.

Grow up!