Justice Department watchdog finds 2016 launch of FBI probe of Trump advisers was legitimate

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

25 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Using your link

'Horowitz reiterated in his testimony that he did not find any "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation" influenced the opening of the bureau's Trump-Russia investigation, which was called Crossfire Hurricane inside the FBI, and efforts to seek a FISA warrant to monitor Page.

He extended a similar judgment to the launch of investigations into four Trump associates: Page, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. He added Wednesday that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened for an "authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.""

 

CBS reporter just interviewed Horowitz, who said while he found "no bias" (funny), he called their intent "murky", which is also funny, because the question was about Strzok and Priestap, both of whom worked with Steele to craft the dossier/pee tape nonsense. That was then leaked to the press, to members of Congress, and bureaus, and this was used as a premise to start investigating Trump, also called circular reasoning.

 

Basically, Horowitz describes bias and malicious intent yet paradoxically comes to the conclusion, again, that goes counter to his own evidence. I predicted it would happen because this is precisely what happened last year too. It tells me the relationship between the IG and bureaus is incestuous and precisely why open government is as necessary as ever.

 

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why isn't it possible that the FBI made mistakes AND there was no improper motive or political bias for opening the investigation? It's not like these cancel each other out, or that one outweighs each other.

There were over 100 leaks about Trump coming from the bureaus in a span of several months. That is not a "mistake". You can widen the goalposts to infinity, eventually you have to come to terms with what's right in front of your face.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

15 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why isn't it possible that the FBI made mistakes AND there was no improper motive or political bias for opening the investigation? It's not like these cancel each other out, or that one outweighs each other.

Please.  There is no place for logic here!

[90DayFinancier 910]

45 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why isn't it possible that the FBI made mistakes AND there was no improper motive or political bias for opening the investigation? It's not like these cancel each other out, or that one outweighs each other.

Exactly..

 

"cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values"

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,325]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Using your link

'Horowitz reiterated in his testimony that he did not find any "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation" influenced the opening of the bureau's Trump-Russia investigation, which was called Crossfire Hurricane inside the FBI, and efforts to seek a FISA warrant to monitor Page.

He extended a similar judgment to the launch of investigations into four Trump associates: Page, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. He added Wednesday that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened for an "authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.""

 

by that he only means he found no memos or correspance in which someone openly said they were doing it for political means. He is not saying there was none.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,325]

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-michael-horowitz-testifies-before-senate-judiciary-committee-live-updates

 

 

Lee is the latest Republican to question the finding by Horowitz that he found no documentary or testimonial evidence that bias played a role in the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. Horowitz says he says the report leaves the door open for what the motivation was from FBI officials, whether it be bias or something else, in opening the investigation into the Trump campaign. "We also noted the lack of satisfactory explanations and leave open the possibility that for the reason you indicated its unclear what the motivations were, on the one hand gross incompetence, negligence -- on the other hand intentionality and where in between, we weren't in a position with the evidence we had to make that conclusion." "I'm not ruling it out," he says on the question of bias.. Lee then asks: "My point is your lack of evidence here is not evidence that there was no bias?" Horowitz: "I am solely basing it, correct, on the evidence we have."

[laylalex 7,253]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-michael-horowitz-testifies-before-senate-judiciary-committee-live-updates

 

 

Lee is the latest Republican to question the finding by Horowitz that he found no documentary or testimonial evidence that bias played a role in the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. Horowitz says he says the report leaves the door open for what the motivation was from FBI officials, whether it be bias or something else, in opening the investigation into the Trump campaign. "We also noted the lack of satisfactory explanations and leave open the possibility that for the reason you indicated its unclear what the motivations were, on the one hand gross incompetence, negligence -- on the other hand intentionality and where in between, we weren't in a position with the evidence we had to make that conclusion." "I'm not ruling it out," he says on the question of bias.. Lee then asks: "My point is your lack of evidence here is not evidence that there was no bias?" Horowitz: "I am solely basing it, correct, on the evidence we have."

But if we don't go with evidence, we're just going with hunches and "feelings." Isn't a big criticism from the Republicans right now about the impeachment hearings that the witnesses were going on "feelings"? 

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

There were over 100 leaks about Trump coming from the bureaus in a span of several months. That is not a "mistake". You can widen the goalposts to infinity, eventually you have to come to terms with what's right in front of your face.

That doesn't actually answer my question, but okay. 👌👸

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

11 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But if we don't go with evidence, we're just going with hunches and "feelings." Isn't a big criticism from the Republicans right now about the impeachment hearings that the witnesses were going on "feelings"? 

That doesn't actually answer my question, but okay. 👌👸

It doesn't give you the answer you're wanting.*

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,325]

10 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But if we don't go with evidence, we're just going with hunches and "feelings." Isn't a big criticism from the Republicans right now about the impeachment hearings that the witnesses were going on "feelings"? 

That doesn't actually answer my question, but okay. 👌👸

What the IG said, is. He has no evidence of the motive, not that there was no crime. That is not hearsay , sorry 

[laylalex 7,253]

6 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It doesn't give you the answer you're wanting.*

What a mysterious little asterisk!!!  No, you didn't actually answer my question, but thank you anyway. 

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

What the IG said, is. He has no evidence of the motive, not that there was no crime. That is not hearsay , sorry 

I wasn't talking about hearsay. I was saying, if we have no evidence, then anything you or I or (as my former mother-in-law used to say) Uncle Tom Cobley and all "feel" about what happened here is kind of pointless. The IG says there's no evidence, so he can't say that something did or did not happen. He also didn't say there was a crime.

 

Now, it's going to be lunchtime here in about an hour, what kind of sandwiches does everyone want?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,325]

Just now, laylalex said:

What a mysterious little asterisk!!!  No, you didn't actually answer my question, but thank you anyway. 

I wasn't talking about hearsay. I was saying, if we have no evidence, then anything you or I or (as my former mother-in-law used to say) Uncle Tom Cobley and all "feel" about what happened here is kind of pointless. The IG says there's no evidence, so he can't say that something did or did not happen. He also didn't say there was a crime.

 

Now, it's going to be lunchtime here in about an hour, what kind of sandwiches does everyone want?

once again. he said there was no evidence of motive.

[laylalex 7,253]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

once again. he said there was no evidence of motive.

Okay, you get the cheese sandwich then because you didn't specify what you wanted.  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,325]

Just now, laylalex said:

Okay, you get the cheese sandwich then because you didn't specify what you wanted.  

do you know why he is referring for further review ? Its pretty damning actually. 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-calls-for-accountability-over-fbi-failures-in-russia-probe

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded in his long-awaited report on the FBI's Russia investigation that there was no evidence of political bias in the probe's launch — but he made clear during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that this does not let anyone off the hook.

To the contrary, Horowitz said during Wednesday's hearing that while he did not make a determination as to motive, he is referring officials to the FBI and Department of Justice for further review.

[laylalex 7,253]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

do you know why he is referring for further review ? Its pretty damning actually. 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-calls-for-accountability-over-fbi-failures-in-russia-probe

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded in his long-awaited report on the FBI's Russia investigation that there was no evidence of political bias in the probe's launch — but he made clear during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that this does not let anyone off the hook.

To the contrary, Horowitz said during Wednesday's hearing that while he did not make a determination as to motive, he is referring officials to the FBI and Department of Justice for further review.

I will have a look at this a little more closely at lunch. I am at work on the floor right now and only reading what is posted on here, and going off of what I read yesterday night when I got back from LA. But thank you for posting a link and I will respond a little more later.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

18 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

What the IG said, is. He has no evidence of the motive, not that there was no crime. That is not hearsay , sorry 

I semi- agree/semi-disagree with the first part. The IG described (illegal+breaches of policy) actions and motives of bureau employees that isn't congruous with their conclusion. Twice. 

 

The burden to recommend prosecution, which also facilitates further investigation isn't beyond reasonable doubt, it's probable cause. We're way beyond probable cause now. This is the IG doing a gymnastics balancing act, doing the bare minimum necessary to try and prevent themselves from being placed under the microscope, while trying not to upset their bureau buddies given the damage they can do to people.

 

12 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What a mysterious little asterisk!!!  No, you didn't actually answer my question, but thank you anyway. 

I wasn't talking about hearsay. I was saying, if we have no evidence, then anything you or I or (as my former mother-in-law used to say) Uncle Tom Cobley and all "feel" about what happened here is kind of pointless. The IG says there's no evidence, so he can't say that something did or did not happen. He also didn't say there was a crime.

 

Now, it's going to be lunchtime here in about an hour, what kind of sandwiches does everyone want?

You said they made mistakes. Is leaking 100+ times in a short time frame a mistake or not? Obvious answer, and the reason you don't want to answer it, despite its relevance, is because it gives you an answer you don't want. 

 

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

do you know why he is referring for further review ? Its pretty damning actually. 

When people only read the headlines. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,253]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

You said they made mistakes. Is leaking 100+ times in a short time frame a mistake or not? Obvious answer, and the reason you don't want to answer it, despite its relevance, is because it gives you an answer you don't want. 

Point 1*: I didn't say they made mistakes. The IG said they made mistakes. I was repeating that. 

Point 2%: It does not logically follow that any number, even an astronomical number, of mistakes automatically means that there was more than the fact that an astronomical number of mistakes were made. We can make deductions, sure, but that doesn't mean that A+B always equals C. 

Point 3^: I would prefer to see the actual conclusions of those who know more than I do, and who have the evidence, before saying that A+B=C. 

Point 4@: Please don't put words in my mouth about whether or not I want a particular answer. I know what I believe, and what I believe at the moment is that we do not know. Please don't gaslight me about this, thank you.