aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

The US media’s repeated references to the Trump-Russia ‘Dossier’ as ‘discredited’ are sloppy journalism. Despite a blow torch of politically-motivated criticism, the main tenets of it, including on collusion, have held up well. And few, if any, of the details have been disproven.

— Christopher Steele (@Chris_D_Steele) October 27, 2022

---

He has it backwards. He has to prove his assertions or at least give enough corroboration to lend credibility to them.

Real intelligence agents do not speak in absolutes, they speak in degrees of confidence. When Tenet supposedly told W that the case for Saddam having WMDs in Iraq was a "slamdunk" was not spook speak. Nor do I believe for a second that any of the intelligence reports he was given used such a term nor anything close to it.

Even when the raid on Bin Laden was approved, there was no certainty that it was really him at that location.

Back to Steele. He was offered a million dollars to provide further proof of his accusations. He could not. That alone disproves the validity of his information.

---

You are absolutely right that it was not. The entire business involves a careful combination of nuggets of fact with very informed and experienced (with the intel subject in question) speculation. But its a very dubious assumption that any discipline worth the name of intelligence services has existed in the 21st Century. Certainly, since Obama not. Covid was incredible--there was no way in the 20th Century we would have had only China's word to tell us what it was and what was happening there.

RyanM58699717 said:

---

will25u said:

---

RyanM58699717 said:

---

Interesting events unfolding.

I think Durham is done, but I also think there is something more than just a report coming [not indictments].

---

Welcome back. What do you think might be coming?

---

Special counsel regulations require that if AG Garland interfered that it gets reported to Congress once Durham is finished. That could be coming.

Could be something like that, which could have a Saturday night massacre impact.

---

Let's see, hmm does it get reported to the current congress who will aggressively pursue justice at least to the full extent they pursued the J6 idiocy???

Or does it wait until the new congress is seated in January??

Quote:

---

Let's see, hmm does it get reported to the current congress who will aggressively pursue justice at least to the full extent they pursued the J6 idiocy???

Or does it wait until the new congress is seated in January??

---

Two things at play here. When a new Congress is sworn in on January 3-4, 2023 with the balance of power changing, the committees are reset. I'll give McConnell credit for neutering Judiciary Committee with equal number of members but hopefully that will also be under Republican control.

So Durham can pare down his staff while he is writing his final report until January. Both House and Senate Judiciary Committees can request him to testify to his findings. At that point, Garland would be hard pressed not to release the report. (provided Durham keeps the grand jury stuff in a separate appendices so as to not reveal secret grand jury materails.)

A scathing report on Garland's perfidy and malfeasance might tip the balance to warrant his impeachment and removal by the Senate. Or create such a s***storm to get Garland to resign.

HIS will be done!

So Garland almost made it to the Supreme Court. Think about what he would have done there in regards to what he has done to circumvent the law as AG.

Line Ate Member said:

---

So Garland almost made it to the Supreme Court. Think about what he would have done there in regards to what he has done to circumvent the law as AG.

---

The country really dodged a bullet on that one.

Not fully dodged though. Hope his wings get clipped next Tuesday then he should be neutered euthanized when the new reps and senators are sworn in.

Edited to more appropriate comarison.

Neutered would be a better term.

Decent piece by McCarthy about the FBI's descent into further political corruption over the past 25 or so years. Fair use excerpt:

Quote:

---

It is not so difficult for a single agency to assimilate the divergent law-enforcement and domestic-security missions when the security threats are foreign powers. Things get more complicated, however, when the security threats are American citizens, whether acting on behalf of foreign powers or participating in domestic groups. The scheming of Americans against their own government and fellow citizens is invariably bound up with dissent, association with like-minded dissenters, and other acts protected by constitutional guarantees that aliens cannot fully claim.

The Supreme Court grappled with this vexing challenge in the 1972 Keithcase, when it first required the FBI and Justice Department to obtain judicial warrants before conducting surveillance against Americans suspected of plotting to overthrow the government. In the aftermath of the Church Committee, Congress dubiously extended the logic of Keith to foreign threats, enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires warrants from a secret federal court before the FBI may monitor suspected agents of foreign powers whether those agents are American citizens or aliens. The proceedings of that tribunal, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), are classified. There is no discovery and minimal due process for surveillance.

The FISA system does not keep the police honest.

Russiagate illustrates what a disaster this has led to, but it's been coming for a long time. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Clinton administration decided to regard jihadist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue, prioritizing the FBI as the nation's top security agency even in liaison with foreign governments, where the CIA had enjoyed pride of place. This subordination of the bureau's law-enforcement protocols to its domestic-security mission intensified after 9/11, when, understandably, there was intense criticism of the Clinton administration's "wall" a set of procedural safeguards put in place to prevent counterintelligence operations, with their minimal due-process standards, from covertly steering criminal investigations.

Such compartmentalization is a commonplace in law enforcement where, for example, if the government becomes aware of information subject to a confidentiality privilege (say, attorneyclient or doctorpatient communications), police and prosecutors are forbidden from using that information to build criminal cases.

But compartmentalization has no place in national-security operations, where any available intelligence must be exploited to safeguard the homeland and American interests abroad. From a law-enforcement perspective, the wall made sense. As a national-security policy, it was lunacy and jihadist terrorism is a national-security issue. Because the wall effectively barred intelligence agents from sharing information with their criminal-investigator counterparts, the bureau missed key evidence of terrorist plotting whose recognition might have prevented the suicide hijackings.

In the overcorrection to that failure, the bureau became an intelligence agency with a law-enforcement sideline. Except it is not an effective intelligence agency, and its prioritization of secrecy over due process has eroded its competence and trustworthiness as a law-enforcement agency.

Russiagate is the fallout.

Investigations are supposed to be run in field offices, to give agents insulation from the politics of Washington. Headquarters performs the indispensable role of supervision, preventing agents, who get very invested in their cases, from transgressing FBI protocols designed to keep them within legal bounds.

But in 2016, in Hooveresque fashion, FBI headquarters decided to get operational. Under the hands-on management of Andrew McCabe, the bureau's deputy director at the time, coordinating closely with then-director James Comey, the top of the FBI's hierarchy took over the politically fraught investigations of the two major-party candidates. When headquarters becomes the investigator, there is no detached supervisor to keep it on the straight and narrow.

Internal inquiries by the Justice Department's inspector general established significant political bias against Donald Trump by the bureau's investigators. It redounded to Hillary Clinton's benefit. First, FBI headquarters cleared her of wrongdoing in the emails scandal, despite finding she'd recklessly mishandled classified information and destroyed thousands of government records. Clinton still grouses that FBI disclosures cost her the election; she may be right, but she wouldn't have been able to run if Comey had not broken protocol, arrogated the Justice Department's charging discretion to himself, and publicly exonerated her (which is never the job of an investigator or prosecutor).

Then, as prosecutions in Durham's investigation have revealed, the bureau knowingly took Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research much of it outlandish and uncorroborated and used it as the premise to investigate Trump as a clandestine agent of Russia. When the government investigation leaked to the media, the Clinton campaign predictably exploited the news in the race's final weeks. (She lost because her weaknesses as a candidate were too profound to overcome, but the TrumpRussia "collusion" narrative benefited her campaign and was a coup for congressional Democrats during Trump's first years in office.) The FBI well knew that the partisan sources of this information were suspect. When Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann brought the FBI patently skewed data suggesting that Trump had a communications back channel with the Kremlin, headquarters hid Sussmann's involvement from its own investigators, falsely claiming that the data had come from the Justice Department. When the bureau took farcical "intelligence reporting" from former British spy Christopher Steele, who it knew was generating the reporting for the Clinton campaign, it offered Steele $1 million if he could corroborate his allegation that Trump was in a "conspiracy of cooperation" with Vladimir Putin's regime. Steele could not verify his claims, yet the FBI relied on them in four sworn "verified applications" for FISC warrants, submitted 90 days apart, from October 2016 through June 2017 i.e., well into the first year of Trump's presidency. Agents withheld from the court Steele's connection to Clinton's campaign and the fact that Steele's main source, Igor Danchenko, had conceded to the FBI that the anti-Trump reporting was bogus.

In sum, the FBI did what the Bill Clintonera wall regulations were meant to prevent: Lacking grounds for a criminal case, the bureau exploited its counterintelligence authority in hopes of eventually finding something that could be used to drive Trump from office. The FBI did this because, as an intelligence agency serving the progressive political establishment, it was confident that its sources could be concealed from Congress and that its highly classified submissions to the FISC would never see the light of day. When this proved a poor calculation, it led to a more comprehensive audit, which uncovered that quite apart from Russiagate the bureau's submissions to the FISA court over five years (201519) were rife with misrepresentations and abuse. In this, the FBI had flouted safeguards put in place two decades ago precisely because of a similar raft of misrepresentations that enraged the FISC in the 1990s. In 2016, assessing its propensity to misreport its counterintelligence monitoring of American citizens, the FISC bewailed the FBI's institutional "lack of candor."

Enough is enough…

---

He's vastly more optimistic about 'reforming' the organization than I. Smart, nice guy, but no idea why he thinks some portion of the CCP senate caucus would ever sign off on sufficient reforms to pass legislation ensuring it happens. For that matter, I doubt the GOP ever sticks together and makes it happen unanimously either. The swamp loves the FBI.

Myself, I see it's present state as, while utterly horrid/evil, inevitable. Born of totalitarian leftist political dreams, it's never going to be 'good' or stable. The data posted on this thread alone shows any neutral observer why 'FBI delende est.'

New: Former Attorney General Barr: There will be no FBI accountability after Russiagate debacle. https://t.co/dHQO93TbHo

— Byron York (@ByronYork) November 3, 2022

That sucks ass.

From the article:

Quote:

---

The key point Barr made was that criminal investigations require evidence and meticulous process. During the Durham investigation, Trump supporters who hoped to see Comey in an orange jumpsuit were either unaware of, or ignored, the requirements of a criminal investigation. "I tried to explain to people that when you're going to charge in order to pursue a government official for a crime when that official is performing their duties and doesn't do anything that is facially criminal, you need very strong proof of corrupt motives," Barr said. "And absent that, there wasn't going to be any case."

---

Gee, Barr, how about Comey's own memos about his hatred and distrust of Trump? Then couple that with not only accepting but embracing the POS Steele Dossier as gospel and that's not circumstantial evidence of his intent at the very least? How about Comey's self-pronounced fear that Trump would think that Comey was trying to blackmail him? I mean, if he wasn't flexing at Trump why would that even occur to him? And this was at a time in early 2017 when Comey already knew the Dossier was crap. But he brought it up to Trump anyway, without also telling him the FBI had found no corroboration.

It was Comey who sent in Strzok and Pienta to violate all protocols and procedures to sandbag General Flynn. That's not evidence?

Robert Heinlein has a more upbeat take on what could happen if your view became a common one among those who served worldwide.

aggiehawg said:

---

From the article:

Quote:

---

The key point Barr made was that criminal investigations require evidence and meticulous process. During the Durham investigation, Trump supporters who hoped to see Comey in an orange jumpsuit were either unaware of, or ignored, the requirements of a criminal investigation. "I tried to explain to people that when you're going to charge in order to pursue a government official for a crime when that official is performing their duties and doesn't do anything that is facially criminal, you need very strong proof of corrupt motives," Barr said. "And absent that, there wasn't going to be any case."

---

Gee, Barr, how about Comey's own memos about his hatred and distrust of Trump? Then couple that with not only accepting but embracing the POS Steele Dossier as gospel and that's not circumstantial evidence of his intent at the very least? How about Comey's self-pronounced fear that Trump would think that Comey was trying to blackmail him? I mean, if he wasn't flexing at Trump why would that even occur to him? And this was at a time in early 2017 when Comey already knew the Dossier was crap. But he brought it up to Trump anyway, without also telling him the FBI had found no corroboration.

It was Comey who sent in Strzok and Pienta to violate all protocols and procedures to sandbag General Flynn. That's not evidence?

---

This standard does not apply to associates of Trump or Republicans in general.

https://t.co/EFcqtfTsT5

— DIY (@mindnotforrent) November 3, 2022

Paul looks like an incel.

This belong here?

They argue it can't be released because it would be harmful to the bogus Mueller G2 prosecution. The only reason it would harm the NSD burried inndictment is because....it was a bull$hit indictment to begin with and would blow it all up. pic.twitter.com/NiExvYUpR9

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) December 10, 2022

Treasonous swine.

Bombshell: FBI reveals it has 'found' more information on deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich, including a full copy (image) of Seth's personal/work laptop. The FBI wants the Court to stop the disclosure it has already ordered based on labelling technicalities. https://t.co/cg8Hi03Sbt

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) December 12, 2022

Didn't see this get much play but very interesting timing.

Boy! Do these people have something they want to remain hidden or what? Can't be good for them or their agency!

Considering what they claimed was a simple case, for the FBI to "have more info on Seth" probably means the Assange version tied to the DNC as the culrprits is correct.

As for Barr, don't forget the peculiar connection to Epstien a thread on F16 documented that was news to hear and might have made more sense of what saw in 2020 if knew then.

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

Considering what they claimed was a simple case, for the FBI to "have more info on Seth" probably means the Assange version tied to the DNC as the culrprits is correct.

As for Barr, don't forget the peculiar connection to Epstien a thread on F16 documented that was news to hear and might have made more sense of what saw in 2020 if knew then.

---

Botched robbery attempt, not a complicated crime scene. That was the official story since his death in 2016.

The FBI has been asked via FOIA over and over again for records pertaining to Rich. At first they claimed they did not have any. And then it became using the courts to kick the can down the road for the next six years.

Now the FBI admits they were lying all of that time.

---

Should be a RULE. FBI lies - "Proceed straight to jail...do not pass GO...do not collect $200" Oh, and throw away the key!!!!!

txags92 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

From the article:

Quote:

---

The key point Barr made was that criminal investigations require evidence and meticulous process. During the Durham investigation, Trump supporters who hoped to see Comey in an orange jumpsuit were either unaware of, or ignored, the requirements of a criminal investigation. "I tried to explain to people that when you're going to charge in order to pursue a government official for a crime when that official is performing their duties and doesn't do anything that is facially criminal, you need very strong proof of corrupt motives," Barr said. "And absent that, there wasn't going to be any case."

---

Gee, Barr, how about Comey's own memos about his hatred and distrust of Trump? Then couple that with not only accepting but embracing the POS Steele Dossier as gospel and that's not circumstantial evidence of his intent at the very least? How about Comey's self-pronounced fear that Trump would think that Comey was trying to blackmail him? I mean, if he wasn't flexing at Trump why would that even occur to him? And this was at a time in early 2017 when Comey already knew the Dossier was crap. But he brought it up to Trump anyway, without also telling him the FBI had found no corroboration.

It was Comey who sent in Strzok and Pienta to violate all protocols and procedures to sandbag General Flynn. That's not evidence?

---

This standard does not apply to associates of Trump or Republicans in general.

---

Doesn't matter what evidence you have. You could have video and a signed confession of them raping a child and you will not get a DC area jury to convict a democrat politician or political operative/bureaucrat.

---

Sounds a lot like Hunter Biden, a perfect example of the complete lack of equal treatment under the law.

It's been a month... So, where is Durham?? Sure he has run out of money by now.

This is pertinent here.

https://t.co/0PUOm212iv a crucial moment in a years-long furor, Democrats denounced a report about flaws in the Trump-Russia investigation, saying it was boosted by Russian “bots” and “trolls.”

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

4.Twitter warned politicians and media the not only lacked evidence, but had evidence the accounts weren’t Russian – and were roundly ignored.

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

will25u said:

---

4.Twitter warned politicians and media the not only lacked evidence, but had evidence the accounts weren’t Russian – and were roundly ignored.

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

---

...but they acquiesced anyway.

Coincidence with the leak of the Biden classified docs?