Trump Leading Witness Revenge Acts

[Mick]

It's not acceptable behavior. Obama should have done more to prevent it, but chose not to. I think that's part of the reason some are so dismissive of it. Obama made strong statements about how the election couldn't be hacked after Trump brought it up. Then when Hillary lost, it became all about how Russia interfered with the election.

For whatever reason, the left wants to put this on Trump, when the truth is, Obama was President when the election occurred. It was his administrations purview to oversee and protect the elections and he failed. But the left has trouble admitting that so they blame Trump. Imagine if the FBI had spent their resources on that instead of the false flag investigation into Trump.

And let's be honest, part of Obama dismissing Trump's concerns on election tampering was he thought Hillary was a guaranteed win. He didn't believe anything could derail that. And if she had won, much like your assertion that some don't care because Trump won, you wouldn't have cared either. From your posts, I believe your concern is more political than sincere.

But, I do believe we should be doing more to safeguard our elections. Obama dropped the ball, and it's very possible Trump will too.

I'm fine with saying Obama and America got our ass kicked on that front.

Prevention is the answer right? Lets talk about that. What could Obama have done to secure our internet? Social Media? What could Obama have done to secure State voter information and systems? Answer those questions and then ask what can Trump do now?

 

[FLVOL69]

Just different perspectives. (Flatland)

And every single one of them is wrong.

 

[Weezer]

I'm fine with saying Obama and America got our ass kicked on that front.

Prevention is the answer right? Lets talk about that. What could Obama have done to secure our internet? Social Media? What could Obama have done to secure State voter information and systems? Answer those questions and then ask what can Trump do now?

I'm not sure. I don't think you can really blame Facebook ads for swaying an election. That's weak. But the hacking of the DNC, it could very well be argued, hurt the Dems. So who's fault is that? Should we blame the DNC for not better securing their computers? The American govt. for not preventing it? We can blame the Russians, but where does that get us? Do you truly believe anything we say or do is going to stop their attempts? I don't. I mean, short of going to war, which wouldn't end well for either side IMO. So the answer is we need to find a way to protect ourselves. Or we can just continue to pass the buck on blame. It should really be a bipartisan issue, but instead, we get each side trying to blame the other.

 

[Mick]

I'm not sure. I don't think you can really blame Facebook ads for swaying an election. That's weak. But the hacking of the DNC, it could very well be argued, hurt the Dems. So who's fault is that? Should we blame the DNC for not better securing their computers? The American govt. for not preventing it? We can blame the Russians, but where does that get us? Do you truly believe anything we say or do is going to stop their attempts? I don't. I mean, short of going to war, which wouldn't end well for either side IMO. So the answer is we need to find a way to protect ourselves. Or we can just continue to pass the buck on blame. It should really be a bipartisan issue, but instead, we get each side trying to blame the other.

That is a weak position for you to assign me. It's easy to blame Obama but those underlying questions will remain for you to ponder. Should he have done something by EO or should congress do something and if so what? If you want to blame him for not doing something then you should be able to articulate what he should have done but didn't.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I always find it silly to accept foreign countries interfering in our elections just because we have done it to others. Would you be fine with other countries attacking us just because we attacked someone?

Your willingness to accept it because it hurt Hillary and helping Trump is so transparent.

There has been foreign interference in every election since Washington, however the actual issue isn't "interference" it's are there true election issues because of foreign attacks (i.e. votes change via computer, etc.) if not, the rest is merely meaningless window dressing...the idiots who think russian and chinese bots posting Facebook memes and fake Twitter accounts are "fundamentally cheating and corrupting our elections" are so far in left field, it's ridiculous

 

[Weezer]

That is a weak position for you to assign me. It's easy to blame Obama but those underlying questions will remain for you to ponder. Should he have done something by EO or should congress do something and if so what? If you want to blame him for not doing something then you should be able to articulate what he should have done but didn't.

First, I didn't assign that to you in the sense of you specifically. I was addressing the ways in which Russia attempted to influence the election. I don't think Facebook ads were a serious threat like some try to pretend. As for Obama getting the blame, he was the President at the time. It's like being the coach of a team. Whatever happens, good or bad, ultimately falls at your feet because you're the man in charge. If it happens in the next election, it will be Trump's fault, because he's the President. Blame like that comes with the job. It's called responsibility, and when you run for the office, you choose to accept it.

 

[RockyTop85]

I'm not sure. I don't think you can really blame Facebook ads for swaying an election. That's weak. But the hacking of the DNC, it could very well be argued, hurt the Dems. So who's fault is that? Should we blame the DNC for not better securing their computers? The American govt. for not preventing it? We can blame the Russians, but where does that get us? Do you truly believe anything we say or do is going to stop their attempts? I don't. I mean, short of going to war, which wouldn't end well for either side IMO. So the answer is we need to find a way to protect ourselves. Or we can just continue to pass the buck on blame. It should really be a bipartisan issue, but instead, we get each side trying to blame the other.

Are you saying that the parties blaming each other for a problem is a justification for refusing to play their part in addressing the problem?

 

[NCFisher]

There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. I will only point out your leading fallacy, the IG didn't agree the FISA's were "illegal". The rest is just conjecture based off of that poorly constructed understanding.

Translation - "I can't refute you, Fish."

I know, but let's review anyway:

------------------------------------------
From the IG report:
“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,”

And contrary to leftist media, politicians, and assorted FBI liars and jackasses who claimed the dossier was an afterthought in the FISA warrants, the IG report declares:

We concluded that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election
reporting on September 19, 2016, played a central and essential role in the
decision by FBI OGC to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter
Page, as well as the Department's ultimate decision to seek the FISA order. In
particular, the OGC Unit Chief told us that she thought probable cause was a "close
call" when the team first proposed seeking a FISA in mid-August and separately
when she discussed the idea with 01 around the same time. She said that it was
the Steele reporting received in September, concerning Page's alleged activities
with Russian officials in the summer of 2016, that "pushed it over" the line in terms
of establishing probable cause that Page was acting in concert with Russian
officials. The OGC Unit Chief's testimony was consistent with the testimony of the
01 Unit Chief who told us that the Steele reporting was "what kind of pushed it over
the line" in terms of the FBI being ready to pursue FISA authority targeting Page."
-----------------------------------------
“A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said. “Am I stating that accurately?”

“That’s correct,” Horowitz confirmed. “That’s what occurred.”
-----------------------------------------
Graham: Let’s play this out. They never told Trump about the concerns, is it fair to say there came a point to where surveilling Carter Page became unlawful?

Horowitz: I will let the court decide that. The court has this report and will make that decision.

Graham: Let’s put it this way, if you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?

Horowitz: Absolutely.

Graham: Is that spying?

Horowitz: ‘It’s illegal surveillance, it’s not court authorized surveillance.

Graham: What ever illegal surveillance means, they did it. … They had no legal basis after the January 2017 data dump by the Russian guy to believe that the dossier was reliable. They alter exculpatory information in June of 2017 (which FBI had in August 2016) that would have further proven that Carter Page is not a Russian agent and he was actually working with the CIA.
----------------------------------------
I know you're intelligent enough to follow it to this point; let's continue: .

The IG report found: “In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison’s recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016. As noted above, that August 2016 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency. However, the OGC Attorney altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words ‘not a source’ into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was “not a source”; the OGC Attorney then sent the altered email to SSA 2. Relying upon this altered email, SSA 2 signed the third renewal application (that again failed to disclose Page’s past relationship with the other agency).”
------------------------------------
Presiding FISC judge Jame Boasberg:

“DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,'”
“The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court’s authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid.”
------------------------------------
FISC Judge Collyer:

“The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

“The OIG Report…documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD [National Security Division] which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession.

It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”
-------------------------------------
From the IG report:
“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,”

On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr told NBC News that “in January (2017), after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says ‘I never told — I never told Steele this stuff and this was also speculation and I have zero information to support this stuff.’ At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president well into his administration, after the case collapsed.”

Barr continued, “But here to me is the damning thing: They not only didn’t tell the court that what they had been relying on was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, ‘we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful,’ but they don’t inform the court that what they’re truthful about is that the dossier is false.”
-------------------------------------

Now, you tell me what part of withholding exculpatory evidence being ILLEGAL when pursuing a FISA warrant that you don't understand, and I'll lend a hand.

 

[Mick]

First, I didn't assign that to you in the sense of you specifically. I was addressing the ways in which Russia attempted to influence the election. I don't think Facebook ads were a serious threat like some try to pretend. As for Obama getting the blame, he was the President at the time. It's like being the coach of a team. Whatever happens, good or bad, ultimately falls at your feet because you're the man in charge. If it happens in the next election, it will be Trump's fault, because he's the President. Blame like that comes with the job. It's called responsibility, and when you run for the office, you choose to accept it.

I guess when you run for office and a foreign country offers you dirt on your opponent you should accept that blame and responsibility as well. Point your attention in that direction if you are capable. After all he's doing it again.

 

[37L1]

Translation - "I can't refute you, Fish."

I know, but let's review anyway:

------------------------------------------
From the IG report:
“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,”

And contrary to leftist media, politicians, and assorted FBI liars and jackasses who claimed the dossier was an afterthought in the FISA warrants, the IG report declares:

We concluded that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election
reporting on September 19, 2016, played a central and essential role in the
decision by FBI OGC to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter
Page, as well as the Department's ultimate decision to seek the FISA order. In
particular, the OGC Unit Chief told us that she thought probable cause was a "close
call" when the team first proposed seeking a FISA in mid-August and separately
when she discussed the idea with 01 around the same time. She said that it was
the Steele reporting received in September, concerning Page's alleged activities
with Russian officials in the summer of 2016, that "pushed it over" the line in terms
of establishing probable cause that Page was acting in concert with Russian
officials. The OGC Unit Chief's testimony was consistent with the testimony of the
01 Unit Chief who told us that the Steele reporting was "what kind of pushed it over
the line" in terms of the FBI being ready to pursue FISA authority targeting Page."
-----------------------------------------
“A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said. “Am I stating that accurately?”

“That’s correct,” Horowitz confirmed. “That’s what occurred.”
-----------------------------------------
Graham: Let’s play this out. They never told Trump about the concerns, is it fair to say there came a point to where surveilling Carter Page became unlawful?

Horowitz: I will let the court decide that. The court has this report and will make that decision.

Graham: Let’s put it this way, if you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?

Horowitz: Absolutely.

Graham: Is that spying?

Horowitz: ‘It’s illegal surveillance, it’s not court authorized surveillance.

Graham: What ever illegal surveillance means, they did it. … They had no legal basis after the January 2017 data dump by the Russian guy to believe that the dossier was reliable. They alter exculpatory information in June of 2017 (which FBI had in August 2016) that would have further proven that Carter Page is not a Russian agent and he was actually working with the CIA.
----------------------------------------
I know you're intelligent enough to follow it to this point; let's continue: .

The IG report found: “In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison’s recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016. As noted above, that August 2016 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency. However, the OGC Attorney altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words ‘not a source’ into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was “not a source”; the OGC Attorney then sent the altered email to SSA 2. Relying upon this altered email, SSA 2 signed the third renewal application (that again failed to disclose Page’s past relationship with the other agency).”
------------------------------------
Presiding FISC judge Jame Boasberg:

“DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,'”
“The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court’s authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid.”
------------------------------------
FISC Judge Collyer:

“The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

“The OIG Report…documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD [National Security Division] which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession.

It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”
-------------------------------------
From the IG report:
“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,”

On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr told NBC News that “in January (2017), after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says ‘I never told — I never told Steele this stuff and this was also speculation and I have zero information to support this stuff.’ At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president well into his administration, after the case collapsed.”

Barr continued, “But here to me is the damning thing: They not only didn’t tell the court that what they had been relying on was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, ‘we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful,’ but they don’t inform the court that what they’re truthful about is that the dossier is false.”
-------------------------------------

Now, you tell me what part of withholding exculpatory evidence being ILLEGAL when pursuing a FISA warrant that you don't understand, and I'll lend a hand.

Now the question is: How will Mick respond?

Will he use facts to refute facts?
Will he ignore the facts presented by NCFisher and continue on his merry way as if there was no counter to his BS?
Will he ignore NCFisher completely?
Will he not respond at all?
Will he do his luther impression?

Anyone taking bets?

 

[Weezer]

Are you saying that the parties blaming each other for a problem is a justification for refusing to play their part in addressing the problem?

Neither side is addressing the problem. They're too busy blaming each other instead of working toward bipartisan solutions. In case you've missed it, the Dems have spent more time trying to remove Trump than address any real issues. And I'm not sure what the GOP has been doing(other than defend Trump), but they haven't really addressed it either.

 

[Weezer]

I guess when you run for office and a foreign country offers you dirt on your opponent you should accept that blame and responsibility as well. Point your attention in that direction if you are capable. After all he's doing it again.

Did he accept it? It came out through Wikileaks, I thought. He was told it would be coming, but did he receive it himself? If he did, I think it's unethical.

You act like I'm the one acting off of bias here. I'm not. I freely admit I think Trump acts in unethical ways. I didn't vote for the guy. But he won the election. He's President. And unethical doesn't necessarily rise to unlawful.

But while we're on the topic of unethical, do you not find Hillary and the DNC's funding of the Steele Dossier unethical? It was used as the basis for an investigation into a political opponent. Given how the left feels about investigations into political opponents, shouldn't that be called out as unethical as well?

 

[RockyTop85]

Neither side is addressing the problem. They're too busy blaming each other instead of working toward bipartisan solutions. In case you've missed it, the Dems have spent more time trying to remove Trump than address any real issues. And I'm not sure what the GOP has been doing(other than defend Trump), but they haven't really addressed it either.

In case you’ve missed it:

House passes sweeping Democrat-backed election security bill

 

[NCFisher]

That is a weak position for you to assign me. It's easy to blame Obama but those underlying questions will remain for you to ponder. Should he have done something by EO or should congress do something and if so what? If you want to blame him for not doing something then you should be able to articulate what he should have done but didn't.

That's an easy one; what you don't do is do nothing because the person beating you might try to, well, beat you.
It's the Neville Chamberlain genome in Democrat's DNA that has sprouted like a weed in the Obama era.

You're the fooking Commander in Chief of the most powerful intel and military apparatus on earth. You were alerted to this crap in 2014. You don't say "Gee, if we retaliate, what if we really piss the Russians off" if you had made any plans whatsoever since 2014 to counter election meddling. You only do that if you're caught flat-footed.

Even then:
According to former CIA director John Brennan, who served in that post under Barack Obama, even after Obama had been apprised that Russia was conducting cyber-warfare against the United States, he refused to go on the offensive and retaliate against Moscow.

Speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, on Saturday, Brennan admitted that there was a plan to respond and retaliate against Moscow that had been formulated by the intelligence community, but Obama refused to act, instead weakly issuing a verbal warning to Russia. Brennan acknowledged, “President Obama was the ultimate decision-maker on that.”

Brennan said Obama was afraid that if America retaliated, Russia would increase their cyber-warfare against the United States. He stated, “There was consideration about rattling their cages with some type of cyber event.” Brennan Admits Obama Refused to Retaliate For Russian Cyber-Warfare Against U.S.

Of course, by this time Obama had deferred to Putin so many times, made himself so flexible, that he was used to dabbing his nose after being punched by him.

 

[37L1]

That's an easy one; what you don't do is do nothing because the person beating you might try to, well, beat you.
It's the Neville Chamberlain genome in Democrat's DNA that has sprouted like a weed in the Obama era.

You're the fooking Commander in Chief of the most powerful intel and military apparatus on earth. You were alerted to this crap in 2014. You don't say "Gee, if we retaliate, what if we really piss the Russians off" if you had made any plans whatsoever since 2014 to counter election meddling. You only do that if you're caught flat-footed.

Even then:
According to former CIA director John Brennan, who served in that post under Barack Obama, even after Obama had been apprised that Russia was conducting cyber-warfare against the United States, he refused to go on the offensive and retaliate against Moscow.

Speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, on Saturday, Brennan admitted that there was a plan to respond and retaliate against Moscow that had been formulated by the intelligence community, but Obama refused to act, instead weakly issuing a verbal warning to Russia. Brennan acknowledged, “President Obama was the ultimate decision-maker on that.”

Brennan said Obama was afraid that if America retaliated, Russia would increase their cyber-warfare against the United States. He stated, “There was consideration about rattling their cages with some type of cyber event.” Brennan Admits Obama Refused to Retaliate For Russian Cyber-Warfare Against U.S.

Of course, by this time Obama had deferred to Putin so many times, made himself so flexible, that he was used to dabbing his nose after being punched by him.

But he told him to "Knock it off."

 

[Mick]

Translation - "I can't refute you, Fish."

I know, but let's review anyway:

------------------------------------------
From the IG report:
“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,”

And contrary to leftist media, politicians, and assorted FBI liars and jackasses who claimed the dossier was an afterthought in the FISA warrants, the IG report declares:

We concluded that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election
reporting on September 19, 2016, played a central and essential role in the
decision by FBI OGC to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter
Page, as well as the Department's ultimate decision to seek the FISA order. In
particular, the OGC Unit Chief told us that she thought probable cause was a "close
call" when the team first proposed seeking a FISA in mid-August and separately
when she discussed the idea with 01 around the same time. She said that it was
the Steele reporting received in September, concerning Page's alleged activities
with Russian officials in the summer of 2016, that "pushed it over" the line in terms
of establishing probable cause that Page was acting in concert with Russian
officials. The OGC Unit Chief's testimony was consistent with the testimony of the
01 Unit Chief who told us that the Steele reporting was "what kind of pushed it over
the line" in terms of the FBI being ready to pursue FISA authority targeting Page."
-----------------------------------------
“A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said. “Am I stating that accurately?”

“That’s correct,” Horowitz confirmed. “That’s what occurred.”
-----------------------------------------
Graham: Let’s play this out. They never told Trump about the concerns, is it fair to say there came a point to where surveilling Carter Page became unlawful?

Horowitz: I will let the court decide that. The court has this report and will make that decision.

Graham: Let’s put it this way, if you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?

Horowitz: Absolutely.

Graham: Is that spying?

Horowitz: ‘It’s illegal surveillance, it’s not court authorized surveillance.

Graham: What ever illegal surveillance means, they did it. … They had no legal basis after the January 2017 data dump by the Russian guy to believe that the dossier was reliable. They alter exculpatory information in June of 2017 (which FBI had in August 2016) that would have further proven that Carter Page is not a Russian agent and he was actually working with the CIA.
----------------------------------------
I know you're intelligent enough to follow it to this point; let's continue: .

The IG report found: “In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison’s recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016. As noted above, that August 2016 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency. However, the OGC Attorney altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words ‘not a source’ into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was “not a source”; the OGC Attorney then sent the altered email to SSA 2. Relying upon this altered email, SSA 2 signed the third renewal application (that again failed to disclose Page’s past relationship with the other agency).”
------------------------------------
Presiding FISC judge Jame Boasberg:

“DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,'”
“The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court’s authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid.”
------------------------------------
FISC Judge Collyer:

“The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

“The OIG Report…documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD [National Security Division] which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession.

It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”
-------------------------------------
From the IG report:
“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,”

On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr told NBC News that “in January (2017), after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says ‘I never told — I never told Steele this stuff and this was also speculation and I have zero information to support this stuff.’ At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president well into his administration, after the case collapsed.”

Barr continued, “But here to me is the damning thing: They not only didn’t tell the court that what they had been relying on was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, ‘we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful,’ but they don’t inform the court that what they’re truthful about is that the dossier is false.”
-------------------------------------

Now, you tell me what part of withholding exculpatory evidence being ILLEGAL when pursuing a FISA warrant that you don't understand, and I'll lend a hand.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” the decision to open the FBI investigation, called ‘Crossfire Hurricane,’ the report says. “We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.”

 

[Mick]

That's an easy one; what you don't do is do nothing because the person beating you might try to, well, beat you.
It's the Neville Chamberlain genome in Democrat's DNA that has sprouted like a weed in the Obama era.

You're the fooking Commander in Chief of the most powerful intel and military apparatus on earth. You were alerted to this crap in 2014. You don't say "Gee, if we retaliate, what if we really piss the Russians off" if you had made any plans whatsoever since 2014 to counter election meddling. You only do that if you're caught flat-footed.

Even then:
According to former CIA director John Brennan, who served in that post under Barack Obama, even after Obama had been apprised that Russia was conducting cyber-warfare against the United States, he refused to go on the offensive and retaliate against Moscow.

Speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, on Saturday, Brennan admitted that there was a plan to respond and retaliate against Moscow that had been formulated by the intelligence community, but Obama refused to act, instead weakly issuing a verbal warning to Russia. Brennan acknowledged, “President Obama was the ultimate decision-maker on that.”

Brennan said Obama was afraid that if America retaliated, Russia would increase their cyber-warfare against the United States. He stated, “There was consideration about rattling their cages with some type of cyber event.” Brennan Admits Obama Refused to Retaliate For Russian Cyber-Warfare Against U.S.

Of course, by this time Obama had deferred to Putin so many times, made himself so flexible, that he was used to dabbing his nose after being punched by him.

"More flexibility after the election". Cool story Bro. Meanwhile Trump does nothing and encourages it. But Obama, right?

 

[Weezer]

In case you’ve missed it:

House passes sweeping Democrat-backed election security bill

Admittedly, I missed it. The news cycles have all been about impeachment for some time.

 

[37L1]

In case you’ve missed it:

House passes sweeping Democrat-backed election security bill

From the link you provided and it raises some questions, don't you think?

“Mandating the exclusive use of paper ballots will create longer lines at polling places and can be lost, destroyed or manipulated far easier than electronic voting machines with a paper trail backup,” Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) said earlier this week on the floor.

“I want to highlight the fact that there's no evidence of voting machines being hacked in 2016, 2018 or ever,” Davis added. “So why are we forcing states to get rid of what they deem the safe technology? We should work together to safeguard technology, not abandon it.”

Davis is the ranking Republican of the House Administration Committee, which approved the bill along party lines late last week. During the committee markup, Davis repeatedly tried to introduce amendments, with the Democratic majority voting down all of them.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) was the only Republican to vote for the bill.

 

[hog88]

In case you’ve missed it:

House passes sweeping Democrat-backed election security bill

Maybe you should read the links you post.

“Mandating the exclusive use of paper ballots will create longer lines at polling places and can be lost, destroyed or manipulated far easier than electronic voting machines with a paper trail backup,” Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) said earlier this week on the floor.

“I want to highlight the fact that there's no evidence of voting machines being hacked in 2016, 2018 or ever,” Davis added. “So why are we forcing states to get rid of what they deem the safe technology? We should work together to safeguard technology, not abandon it.”

Davis is the ranking Republican of the House Administration Committee, which approved the bill along party lines late last week. During the committee markup, Davis repeatedly tried to introduce amendments, with the Democratic majority voting down all of them.

 

[FLVOL69]

Maybe you should read the links you post.

Maybe that was his point

 

[RockyTop85]

Admittedly, I missed it. The news cycles have all been about impeachment for some time.

The house has passed a number of popular reform bills that are being subjected to what is called the speaker’s “scheduling veto” where McConnell refuses to schedule them for debate or vote. I’m not sure how much they’ve done since impeachment started but through last summer that’s basically all they did.

Some of those bills, like caps on prescription drug prices, made it into the state of the union as part of Trump’s agenda.

I don’t agree with the substance of many/most of the bills, including parts of this one, but there is a process for that.

 

[NCFisher]

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” the decision to open the FBI investigation, called ‘Crossfire Hurricane,’ the report says. “We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.”

Not a response. Like others using that excerpt, you don't understand the role of IGs or what the statement implies.

IGs are powerless. They have no legal power to compel testimony. They can only work within and interview their silo. They cannot compel former employees of the silo. They are retroactive chronologists who do not surmise guilt, innocence, or intent; they must refer any suspect to DOJ.

The statement is: "No one said I hate Trump and therefore I and others set out to prevent his election, then remove him from office." Gee, small wonder no one copped to that, eh?

Horowitz was asked directly if he could definitively say the errors were not the result of political bias.
"I do not know," Horowitz replied.
---------------------------------------------------
Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------
“Isn’t the lack of evidence on bias, evidence that we really should take as bias? But it’s … in any event, it’s certainly not itself indicative that no bias occurred, isn’t that correct?” Lee asked him.

“As to the opening [of the probe], which is in a different place than the FISA issues that you have identified and I talked about earlier, I think it is two different situations. On the FISA side, we found, as you noted, a lack of documentary and testimonial evidence about intentionality, but we noted the lack of satisfactory explanations, and in fact, leave open the possibility, for the reasons you indicated, it is unclear what the motivations were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence; on the other hand intentionality, and we’re in between—we weren’t in a position with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but we are not ruling it out,” Horowitz replied.
--------------------------------------------------
"We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI," Horowitz said.

"Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?" Graham asked.

"I do not know," Horowitz replied.

Graham asked Horowitz about an op-ed by former FBI James Comey, who proclaimed that the IG report vindicated him.

"You know, I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this," Horowitz replied.

 

[RockyTop85]

From the link you provided and it raises some questions, don't you think?

“Mandating the exclusive use of paper ballots will create longer lines at polling places and can be lost, destroyed or manipulated far easier than electronic voting machines with a paper trail backup,” Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) said earlier this week on the floor.

“I want to highlight the fact that there's no evidence of voting machines being hacked in 2016, 2018 or ever,” Davis added. “So why are we forcing states to get rid of what they deem the safe technology? We should work together to safeguard technology, not abandon it.”

Davis is the ranking Republican of the House Administration Committee, which approved the bill along party lines late last week. During the committee markup, Davis repeatedly tried to introduce amendments, with the Democratic majority voting down all of them.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) was the only Republican to vote for the bill.

Maybe you should read the links you post.

So you guys disagree and think election security is not a bipartisan issue and we shouldn’t be worried about it? Because that was the conversation we were having: whether or not the parties can stop blaming each other long enough to address what ought to be a bipartisan issue.

As far as prudential questions concerning the contents of the bill, it’s really egregious that our framers didn’t think of a solution for that. It seems like they could have easily created a system that allowed the house and the senate a process of amendments to allow them to reach compromise on the solution to a particular issue when that issue has broad support among the public... It’s really amazing that we’ve made it as far as we have given that we were founded by a bunch of dolts who didn’t understand compromise. /s

 

[FLVOL69]

Not a response. Like others using that excerpt, you don't understand the role of IGs or what the statement implies.

IGs are powerless. They have no legal power to compel testimony. They can only work within and interview their silo. They cannot compel former employees of the silo. They are retroactive chronologists who do not surmise guilt, innocence, or intent; they must refer any suspect to DOJ.

The statement is: "No one said I hate Trump and therefore I and others set out to prevent his election, then remove him from office." Gee, small wonder no one copped to that, eh?

Horowitz was asked directly if he could definitively say the errors were not the result of political bias.
"I do not know," Horowitz replied.
---------------------------------------------------
Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------
“Isn’t the lack of evidence on bias, evidence that we really should take as bias? But it’s … in any event, it’s certainly not itself indicative that no bias occurred, isn’t that correct?” Lee asked him.

“As to the opening [of the probe], which is in a different place than the FISA issues that you have identified and I talked about earlier, I think it is two different situations. On the FISA side, we found, as you noted, a lack of documentary and testimonial evidence about intentionality, but we noted the lack of satisfactory explanations, and in fact, leave open the possibility, for the reasons you indicated, it is unclear what the motivations were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence; on the other hand intentionality, and we’re in between—we weren’t in a position with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but we are not ruling it out,” Horowitz replied.
--------------------------------------------------
"We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI," Horowitz said.

"Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?" Graham asked.

"I do not know," Horowitz replied.

Graham asked Horowitz about an op-ed by former FBI James Comey, who proclaimed that the IG report vindicated him.

"You know, I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this," Horowitz replied.

These clowns are in for a rude awakening