Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2021 American Political Scene

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Monash View Post
    P; Just tried to quote your original post as part of the ongoing process of addressing your points as I said I would. But for some reason the Board won't let me, perhaps its to 'old'. So I've had to copy and paste.

    Or, perhaps the proof that the FBI was illegally "wire tapping" the 2016 Republican nominee* campaign and presidency?
    *He who shall not be named.


    So how, as a former LEO of some sort, do you feel about lying to the FISA court to attempt to remove a sitting President by impeachment?

    Addressing your last point above. Firstly I note that the article you quoted didn't say the FBI had deliberately lied to the court but instead had failed to follow it's own internal procedures relating to applications for wire taps. Or in lay persons terms they f*&#ked up! (And some FBI Agent's promotion prospects just took a big hit!)

    Speaking from direct personnel experience I can tell you that drafting warrants for telephone or data intercepts etc is a highly technical and complex process. You are basically required to set out all the evidence you currently have that suggests a particular criminal offense may have been committed and then what evidence you believe you'll gain from the intercepted communications. In short they are very complex documents and in my former agency they were tripled checked for accuracy before being submitted to the courts because there are serious legal implications for the case, the officer submitting the document and his organization should incorrect/deficient information be submitted to a Judge! And despite our best effects I know for a fact that (very rarely) the occasion flawed warrant application still managed slip through the net.

    I also note the following. Quoting from the DoJ Inspector General's own report on the matter (which was linked to your article) the IG stated that the FBI "failed its own standards of accuracy and completeness" when filing applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But the report also went on to state quite clearly that the Bureau's decision to open an investigation in the first place "was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decision."

    So in summery I don't think you can argue that the FBI probe was politically motivated or showed bias. Stuffed up yes, engaged in politically motivated witch hunt no.

    I think I've now responded to all the points you raised in your post. Let me know if I haven't or want me to clarify.
    Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application, announced John H. Durham, Special Attorney to the Attorney General.

    Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the guilty plea proceeding occurred via videoconference before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian government. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as “Individual #1.”

    Clinesmith was assigned to provide legal support to FBI personnel working on Crossfire Hurricane, and he assisted FBI personnel with applications prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division to conduct surveillance under the FISA. During the investigation, there were a total of four court-approved FISA applications targeting Individual #1. Each of the FISA applications alleged there was probable cause that Individual #1 was a knowing agent of a foreign power, specifically Russia.

    On August 17, 2016, prior to the approval of the first FISA application #1, another U.S. government agency (“OGA”) provided certain members of the Crossfire Hurricane team a memorandum indicating that Individual #1 had been approved as an “operational contact” for the OGA from 2008 to 2013 and detailing information that Individual #1 had provided to the OGA concerning Individual #1’s prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. The first three FISA applications did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA.

    Prior to the submission of the fourth FISA application, and after Individual #1 stated publicly that he/she had assisted the U.S. government in the past, an FBI Supervisory Special Agent (“SSA”) asked Clinesmith to inquire with the OGA as to whether Individual #1 had ever been a “source” for the OGA. On June 15, 2017, Clinesmith sent an email to a liaison at the OGA (“OGA Liaison”) seeking clarification as to whether Individual #1 was an OGA source, and the OGA Liaison responded via email to Clinesmith. On June 19, 2017, Clinesmith altered the email he received from the OGA Liaison by adding the words “not a source,” and then forwarded the email to the FBI SSA. Relying on the altered email, on June 29, 2017, the SSA signed and submitted the fourth FISA application to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The application did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA.
    ...
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • OK, I read your post in detail and sorry P. but I'm not exactly sure how the information contained in it changes any of the conclusions reached in the Inspector General's report into the matter? There's a lot of detail yes, but nothing that says deliberate conspiracy/coverup etc. In fact as best I can determine it tends to confirm the whole 'bureaucratic stuff up' scenario the IG highlighted.

      How exactly does it change anything?
      If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Monash View Post
        OK, I read your post in detail and sorry P. but I'm not exactly sure how the information contained in it changes any of the conclusions reached in the Inspector General's report into the matter? There's a lot of detail yes, but nothing that says deliberate conspiracy/coverup etc. In fact as best I can determine it tends to confirm the whole 'bureaucratic stuff up' scenario the IG highlighted.

        How exactly does it change anything?
        How many examples all going one way do you need before you start to doubt the whole, oh its an innocent mistake routine?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Monash View Post
          OK, I read your post in detail and sorry P. but I'm not exactly sure how the information contained in it changes any of the conclusions reached in the Inspector General's report into the matter? There's a lot of detail yes, but nothing that says deliberate conspiracy/coverup etc. In fact as best I can determine it tends to confirm the whole 'bureaucratic stuff up' scenario the IG highlighted.

          How exactly does it change anything?
          It's interpretation.
          I see a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign, with fallacious stories supplied by Russians and compiled by the Democrat contracted firm then released by the CIA and McCain to the FBI. The FBI then uses this dodgy dossier to spy on the Trump campaign using false filings to the FISA court.
          They spied on Cater Page using the two hop rule, thus surveilling all of Trumps campaign, transition and White House staff.
          Massive 'leaks' concerning investigating Trumps teams then transpire daily, some allegedly by the Obama administration.

          You see nothing unusual, I see political corruption within the CIA and FBI.
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post

            How many examples all going one way do you need before you start to doubt the whole, oh its an innocent mistake routine?
            Z, firstly as I said in my response to P the drafting of electronic surveillance warrants is a complex process. I also pointed out that they need to be carefully vetted because there are potentially significant legal ramifications for all involved if potentially relevant information is excluded or incorrect information included etc.

            Secondly, I refer you again to the Inspector Generals Report on the where it was clearly stated that the FBI's decision to launch the investigation "was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decision." And this quote is from the report of the organization tasked with auditing and policing the FBI to ensure compliance with its own policies and procedures. Now the IG produced a report which clearly (and publicly) identified serious flaws in the investigation. But that same report also clearly stated that there was no evidence of political bias. Same investigation two separate findings. But what a reader cant (or rather shouldn't) do is separate the findings of independent investigations like this into two categories i.e. 'findings I agree with' and 'findings I don't agree with'. In other words you cant 'Schrodinger's cat' the report and insist its both right and wrong just because you like one finding and don't like another. At least not without independent evidence (not opinion) to the contrary. And in the absence of such evidence? Well if the IG office conducted a professional and ethical investigation you have to accept that all the findings in it are professional and ethical, not just some.

            Which brings me to my third point. Reviewing extracts from Clinesmith's trial I found this. ' Clinesmith insisted that he thought the statement was true at the time and only altered the message to save himself the hassle of procuring another email from the CIA. Prosecutors contested that claim, arguing that the FBI lawyer intended to mislead his colleague, but Boasberg (the Judge) sided with the defense on that point.

            "My view of the evidence is that Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true," Boasberg said. "By altering the email, he was saving himself some work and taking an inappropriate shortcut."


            So there is the explanation as accepted by the Judge, not malicious intent, just a bureaucrat trying to cut corners and save himself time. (Outrageous I know, I mean who ever heard of that happening before. ) Which circles us right back to my first point about how important it is that every single facet of a warrant needs to be checked and double checked before it is submitted to a court and that the investigators have to be 100% sure of their facts. I also note that in this case the Investigators who ended up drafting the warrant weren't even the ones who made the error. They were relying on someone else to do they're job properly and that person didn't!

            So sorry but one golden rule I learned early in my career. If you are ever faced with a choice between conspiracy or fuck-up as an explanation for something going drastically wrong? Choose fuck-up as the likely explanation, because 99.9999% of the time that's exactly whats happened! People are like that.
            Last edited by Monash; 12 Sep 21,, 04:07.
            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post

              It's interpretation.
              I see a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign, with fallacious stories supplied by Russians and compiled by the Democrat contracted firm then released by the CIA and McCain to the FBI. The FBI then uses this dodgy dossier to spy on the Trump campaign using false filings to the FISA court.
              They spied on Cater Page using the two hop rule, thus surveilling all of Trumps campaign, transition and White House staff.
              Massive 'leaks' concerning investigating Trumps teams then transpire daily, some allegedly by the Obama administration.

              You see nothing unusual, I see political corruption within the CIA and FBI.
              P; Its not a matter of 'not seeing' its a matter of requiring evidence before reaching a conclusion. And I've already addressed the FISA Court issue. The IGs report found no evidence of political bias and the Court which prosecuted the FBI official involved concluded his actions were designed to save him time and effort and again were not politically motivated. He failed to tell the investigators drafting the warrants critical information. And because he did that the warrants were flawed. Had he done his job properly instead of trying to save himself time chances are we wouldn't even be having this conversation! Perhaps the agents concerned would have decided to continue with their inquiries albeit with an altered focus or alternately perhaps they would have stopped the investigation completely. Point is not knowing something they should have been told is not their fault and does not make them conspirators in some plot.

              Insisting there was one doesn't change that. The only thing that would is if some new/additional evidence is disclosed showing that there was a conspiracy. Remember also that these men take oaths to serve their country and by default FBI members lean heavily towards the conservative side of politics. (Ask one. I've had the chance several times and they were unanimous on this point.)

              For the rest? Without going into all the details (by doing more time consuming background research) the incidents you quote would appear to be examples of dirty politics. Something both sides have been know to engage in. I seem to recall the Trump administration was keen to dig up dirt on Biden in much the same way with Trump even going as far to as to acknowledge he'd be happy to accepting formation from foreign sources. And no I wouldn't automatically think he was guilty if he did. I'd want to see the evidence there to.
              Last edited by Monash; 13 Sep 21,, 01:02.
              If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Monash View Post

                P; Its not a matter of 'not seeing' its a matter of requiring evidence before reaching a conclusion. And I've already addressed the FISA Court issue. The IGs report found no evidence of political bias and the Court which prosecuted the FBI official involved concluded his actions were designed to save him time and effort and again were not politically motivated. He failed to tell the investigators drafting the warrants critical information. And because he did that the warrants were flawed. Had he done his job properly instead of trying to save himself time chances are we wouldn't even be having this conversation! Perhaps the agents concerned would have decided to continue with their inquiries albeit with an altered focus or alternately perhaps they would have stopped the investigation completely. Point is not knowing something they should have been told is not their fault and does not make them conspirators in some plot.

                Insisting there was one doesn't change that. The only thing that would is if some new/additional evidence is disclosed showing that there was a conspiracy. Remember also that these men take oaths to serve their country and by default FBI members lean heavily towards the conservative side of politics. (Ask one. I've had the chance several times and they were unanimous on this point.)

                For the rest? Without going into all the details (by doing more time consuming background research) the incidents you quote are would appear to be examples of dirty politics. Something both sides of politics have been know to do. I seem to recall the Trump administration was keen to dig up dirt on Biden in much the same way with Trump even going as far to as to acknowledge he'd be happy to accepting formation from foreign sources. And no I don't automatically think he's guilty. I'd want to see the evidence there to.
                What you choose to believe is not my concern.
                You are happy, as was the judges determination about Clinesmith, that it was a mere error of judgement in trying to get the FISA request passed that he substantively changed the CIA message from Page being a sub-source of a source, to not a source. (page 249 continues)

                However, none of your acceptance and sanguinity with malfeasance on Clinesmiths part explains this pattern of behavior
                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post

                I see a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign, with fallacious stories supplied by Russians and compiled by the Democrat contracted firm then released by the CIA and McCain to the FBI. The FBI then uses this dodgy dossier to spy on the Trump campaign using false filings to the FISA court.
                They spied on Cater Page using the two hop rule, thus surveilling all of Trumps campaign, transition and White House staff.
                Massive 'leaks' concerning investigating Trumps teams then transpire daily, some allegedly by the Obama administration.

                You see nothing unusual, I see political corruption within the CIA and FBI.
                You are accepting that both the CIA and the FBI claimed a known piece of political propaganda was in fact serious intel, that they used it and lied on 4 separate FISA applications to spy on a political campaign and presidency, and leaked further falsehoods to the press in order to damage that campaign and presidency.
                I see Tophatter has joined the conversation, I'm satisfied with your comments and my summary highlighted above so I'm out before TH starts screaming MAGA RAYCIST INSURRECSHUNIST TERRURIST at me.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post

                  What you choose to believe is not my concern.
                  You are happy, as was the judges determination about Clinesmith, that it was a mere error of judgement in trying to get the FISA request passed that he substantively changed the CIA message from Page being a sub-source of a source, to not a source. (page 249 continues)

                  However, none of your acceptance and sanguinity with malfeasance on Clinesmiths part explains this pattern of behavior


                  You are accepting that both the CIA and the FBI claimed a known piece of political propaganda was in fact serious intel, that they used it and lied on 4 separate FISA applications to spy on a political campaign and presidency, and leaked further falsehoods to the press in order to damage that campaign and presidency.
                  I see Tophatter has joined the conversation, I'm satisfied with your comments and my summary highlighted above so I'm out before TH starts screaming MAGA RAYCIST INSURRECSHUNIST TERRURIST at me.

                  P; I am not 'happy' (or for that matter 'sanguine') about the events in question. What I am doing is reaching conclusions based on the available evidence. That's what the IG did, that's what the Judge at Clinesmith's trial did and its what I'm doing. I'm not taking sides and I don't care whether it was it's an investigation into Trump or any senior Democrat figure you care to name. All I care about is what proof there is that the actions involved were deliberate. Show me that proof? Problem solved. EDIT: And as regards the 'known piece of political propaganda' comment. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. There is not one piece of evidence that the federal agents who submitted the warrants knew key information had been left out by Clinesmith at the time they submitted them.

                  And BTW (whether you choose to believe me or not) using the same information or supporting documents in multiple warrants for the same investigation is standard procedure. You can't avoid doing so! If for instance the same people are talking to each other using the same phones about the same crime/s of course the same source material will keep being used. I did it routinely and so will any other officer drafting warrants for multiple targets. All of which goes back to my point about the paramount importance of getting your facts right to start with! So the fact they made the same mistake 4 times says nothing about any supposed conspiracy. Its just means the same mistake/s were typed into 4 separate documents. Don't agree? I'm afraid you'll have to prove me wrong on this point.
                  Last edited by Monash; 12 Sep 21,, 23:43.
                  If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                  Comment


                  • Don't forget it started with Leftist at the IRS throttling the tea party movement in order to protect Obama during the 2012 election.

                    Comment


                    • ???
                      If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                        ???
                        Leftist in the IRS slow rolled and blocked the formation of Tea Party 501(c4) groups before the 2012 elections preventing them from organizing and raising money before the 2012 election cycle.

                        The crushing of the Tea Party Movement is why there was an openng for Trump and why so many on the right are accepting of the idea there is a deep state.

                        Every IG report since shows behavior that is disgusting but always magically gets explained away as oops the government employees were stupid not malevolent..

                        The IG found wrong doing, but IG's do not have the power to prosecute. Its a slap on the wrist for direct interference in elections. Especially after Obama had already gone on national TV and said there was not even a smidgen of corruption. Obama also danced around why the IRS directr was there so often. It may have been innocent, but I doubt Leftists would give Trump that same kind of forbearance. In the end, the DoJ settled with the tea party groups and admitted it was an abuse of power. Hundreds of groups is not accidental. In the end I think 3 liberal groups were caught up in it, but 99% of the targeted groups opposed Obama.

                        Obama IRS Scandal: Acting Director Of Tax Agency Resigns (UPDATE) | HuffPost

                        Obama: Not 'even a smidgen of corruption' behind Internal Revenue Service targeting | TheHill

                        Attorney General Jeff Sessions Announces Department of Justice has Settled with Plaintiff Groups Improperly Targeted by IRS | OPA | Department of Justice
                        Last edited by zraver; 12 Sep 21,, 17:11.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          Don't forget it started with Leftist at the IRS throttling the tea party movement in order to protect Obama during the 2012 election.
                          A key sign of losing an argument is changing the subject.
                          Trust me?
                          I'm an economist!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DOR View Post

                            A key sign of losing an argument is changing the subject.
                            It wasn't changing the subject, it was adding context to an ongoing conversation.

                            Unlike yourself who doesn't like the gist of the conversation and so jumps in with an attempt to shoot the messenger.

                            Comment


                            • Honest question DOR, are you Top and TBM all the same person with 3 different accounts? I can only tell you apart by screen names not by content, coherence or style.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                I see Tophatter has joined the conversation, I'm satisfied with your comments and my summary highlighted above so I'm out before TH starts screaming MAGA RAYCIST INSURRECSHUNIST TERRURIST at me.
                                Well I certainly don't want to be the cause of you leaving such a productive debate, so I've deleted my tangential one-line comment above.
                                Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X