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

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Have you read it yet? I am going to keep my mind open. Hell, I would even keep my mind open about Don Jr's book though I am unlikely to read it. 

 

My plan was to read the book this weekend but I feel a migraine coming on so I'm probably just going to listen to relaxing music and whale sounds in a dark room if the Topamax doesn't work.

If you contribute to the RNC they will send you a boquet of Donjr autographed books, signed!

[90DayFinancier 910]

50 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Did Mr. Simpson reveal his ties to the losing candidate, the DNC and foreign sources including some in Russia?

Yes, in detail.

The Washington Free Beacon sponsored the work until Donald Trump cinched the nomination. Fusion GPS shopped their work to Perkins Coie in behalf of the DNC. There is no evidence that the Beacon saw the Stelle product as they quit before June. Perkins Coie did not pass on the summary to the Clinton campaign or the DNC. They also only had the summary and not the dossier. 

 

 

The sources "in Russia" belong to Christopher Steele and not Fusion GPS. I don't think he is about to out his sources. Have you seen what FSB does to people who talk?

[laylalex 7,253]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

If it is worth reading, it is worth paying for.

I paid for the book. It's not like Netflix. 😁

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

If it is worth reading, it is worth paying for.

Not True. 

I read this forum for free and some postings are Priceless.

 

Note to Burnt, I plagiarized that from MasterCard, but it typed it in my own.

[Dashinka 23,318]

51 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Yes, in detail.

The Washington Free Beacon sponsored the work until Donald Trump cinched the nomination. Fusion GPS shopped their work to Perkins Coie in behalf of the DNC. There is no evidence that the Beacon saw the Stelle product as they quit before June. Perkins Coie did not pass on the summary to the Clinton campaign or the DNC. They also only had the summary and not the dossier. 

 

 

The sources "in Russia" belong to Christopher Steele and not Fusion GPS. I don't think he is about to out his sources. Have you seen what FSB does to people who talk?

I wonder why Simpson was shopping information someone else paid for?  Seems to be unethical, I wonder who had ownership of the information WFB paid for.  Regardless, it really seems that Steele, Simpson, et. al. Were played.

[TBoneTX 43,290]

Everybody, left and right, ought to read this very recent, comprehensive analysis by the very liberal Glenn Greenwald, from his own website:

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

 

[90DayFinancier 910]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I wonder why Simpson was shopping information someone else paid for?  Seems to be unethical, I wonder who had ownership of the information WFB paid for.  Regardless, it really seems that Steele, Simpson, et. al. Were played.

Fusion GPS has a straightforward business model: some enterprise or campaign wants research done on a competitor. They leverage public records (media, government, Panama Papers) to research and report back the analysis. They do not do "crisis management" , public relations or legal work.

 

When their normal line of research turned up multiple references to the Trump org and involvement with Russia they turned to Corbis /Steele who had done good work on the Doping Scandal and other East European corruption cases.  GPS does not normally deal in non public information 

 

I don't know what their contracts say as far as ownership.

They do strive to keep their customers names quiet, it's bad for business.

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

Everybody, left and right, ought to read this very recent, comprehensive analysis by the very liberal Glenn Greenwald, from his own website:

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

 

That actually is a well written piece. I do agree that the FBI has not met the bar on FISA warrants but points to a greater need for oversight and internal controls for the entire process. That may mean that the work of US intelligence is harder and some opportunities to snag terrorist's slip by.

 

I think it is important, though, to put these faults I perspective.  The FISA warrants were against Carter Page, and based on how he carried himself he probably would trip a regular warrant process. The fact is public statements and private behavior by the man have had him on the FBIs  radar for years. It turns out, the guy is just goofy and not an operative. 

 

But Carter Page was not the Trump campaign...at the time of the warrant not even affiliated with the campaign. 

 

 

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

28 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

That actually is a well written piece. I do agree that the FBI has not met the bar on FISA warrants but points to a greater need for oversight and internal controls for the entire process. That may mean that the work of US intelligence is harder and some opportunities to snag terrorist's slip by.

 

I think it is important, though, to put these faults I perspective.  The FISA warrants were against Carter Page, and based on how he carried himself he probably would trip a regular warrant process. The fact is public statements and private behavior by the man have had him on the FBIs  radar for years. It turns out, the guy is just goofy and not an operative. 

 

But Carter Page was not the Trump campaign...at the time of the warrant not even affiliated with the campaign. 

That's one amazing assessment you made about him being on the FBI radar for years, an obvious lie, when the FBI was well aware that Carter was working as a CIA informant, they knew about his positive assessment, and oh so conveniently removed that part about him being a CIA informant when doctoring a FISA warrant to pretend he was a foreign agent (because then he would be afforded due process protections) when in fact he was an agent on behalf of us. 

 

The importance of this, and relevance to Glenn's article, isn't just the general abuse of FISA, but a systematic abuse from several bureaus (without even touching on other important aspects like similar efforts by Congress, the partnerships of both from the Dems/Hillary/DNC, media, and NeverTrump Republicans/neocons) targeting the Trump campaign. There's never been legitimacy to all this use of government power against Trump. The funny thing is, you lazily admit it, just dishonestly excuse it. Thankfully for some of us, we can be honest with ourselves and others. This is one independent who never fell for what should've been an obvious sham.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

11 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

That's one amazing assessment you made about him being on the FBI radar for years, an obvious lie,

How is this false and what source do you have?

Quote

when the FBI was well aware that Carter was working as a CIA informant, they knew about his positive assessment, and oh so conveniently removed that part about him being a CIA informant when doctoring a FISA warrant to pretend he was a foreign agent (because then he would be afforded due process protections) when in fact he was an agent on behalf of us. 

Was he currently working with the CIA as an active agent (at the time the warrant was drawn)?

Quote

The importance of this, and relevance to Glenn's article, isn't just the general abuse of FISA, but a systematic abuse from several bureaus (without even touching on other important aspects like similar efforts by Congress, the partnerships of both from the Dems/Hillary/DNC, media, and NeverTrump Republicans/neocons) targeting the Trump campaign. There's never been legitimacy to all this use of government power against Trump.

 

Again you take one point, the  errors and abuse of the FISA  against Carter Page on build a grandiose deep state theory. Carter Page <> the Trump campaign.

 

Quote

 

The funny thing is, you lazily admit it, just dishonestly excuse it. Thankfully for some of us, we can be honest with ourselves and others.

Are personal attacks a violation? 

 

Quote

 

 

 

This is one independent who never fell for what should've been an obvious sham.

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

43 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

How is this false and what source do you have?

Was he currently working with the CIA as an active agent (at the time the warrant was drawn)?

Again you take one point, the  errors and abuse of the FISA  against Carter Page on build a grandiose deep state theory. Carter Page <> the Trump campaign.

 

Are personal attacks a violation? 

"Active agent" is an irrelevant criteria here, James Bond. The FBI knew all about him, you misrepresented Carter and the FBI's knowledge of what Carter's status was ("he was on the FBIs radar for years", still laughing at that one). They had to doctor an email to lie to the FISA court that he was a foreign agent WHILE he was an informant on behalf of the CIA. They (USIC) had already done assessments ("positive assessments") on Carter, which the FBI knew about, hence why they had to doctor evidence presented to a FISA court, not to mention the other invented evidence by the dossier that they later stopped using too. 

 

"Put it in perspective" is the only good advice, but something you should follow yourself rather than telling others to do. Dishonesty is an action, you plainly see problems, but overtly contrive reasons ("errors", something you were told but the evidence does not point to innocent errors, but malicious actors doing malicious things) to justify what's clearly abuses against a campaign because orange man bad. Criticizing dishonesty and lying is not a "personal attack", regardless of how much you want to take it personally or invoke the excessively used silence-by-outrage tactic (along with the trolling one used already) when losing a debate. 

 

"Oops, doctored an email to present to the FISA court which goes completely against all evidence we have.. error."

"Oops, made a bunch of malicious texts toward the person I was investigating, and a bunch of fanatical texts toward another person I was investigating, pointing out my bias and then later demonstrating my use of power against the person I don't like... error."

 

All these coincidental "errors" that just happen to have abusive action, motive, and collaboration.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

"Active agent" is an irrelevant criteria here, James Bond. The FBI knew all about him, you misrepresented Carter and the FBI's knowledge of what Carter's status was ("he was on the FBIs radar for years", still laughing at that one). They had to doctor an email to lie to the FISA court that he was a foreign agent WHILE he was an informant on behalf of the CIA. They (USIC) had already done assessments ("positive assessments") on Carter, which the FBI knew about, hence why they had to doctor evidence presented to a FISA court, not to mention the other invented evidence by the dossier that they later stopped using too. 

 

 

Quote

 

"Put it in perspective" is the only good advice, but something you should follow yourself rather than telling others to do. Dishonesty is an action, you plainly see problems, but overtly contrive reasons ("errors", something you were told but the evidence does not point to innocent errors, but malicious actors doing malicious things) to justify what's clearly abuses against a campaign because orange man bad. Criticizing dishonesty and lying is not a "personal attack", regardless of how much you want to take it personally or invoke the excessively used silence-by-outrage tactic (along with the trolling one used already) when losing a debate. 

You have now abscribed to me personally: laziness, dishonesty, lying, taking attacks personal, using "silence-by-outrage" ( what ever that is) all because I am losing a debate.

 

There is really no point in responding to any of your posts. Go ahead with your stream of consciousness wall of words posts. 

 

Sad.

 

Quote

 

"Oops, doctored an email to present to the FISA court which goes completely against all evidence we have.. error."

"Oops, made a bunch of malicious texts toward the person I was investigating, and a bunch of fanatical texts toward another person I was investigating, pointing out my bias and then later demonstrating my use of power against the person I don't like... error."

 

All these coincidental "errors" that just happen to have abusive action, motive, and collaboration.

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

 

 

You have now abscribed to me personally: laziness, dishonesty, lying, taking attacks personal, using "silence-by-outrage" ( what ever that is) all because I am losing a debate.

 

There is really no point in responding to any of your posts. Go ahead with your stream of consciousness wall of words posts. 

 

Sad.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

11 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

 

 

You have now abscribed to me personally: laziness, dishonesty, lying, taking attacks personal, using "silence-by-outrage" ( what ever that is) all because I am losing a debate.

 

There is really no point in responding to any of your posts. Go ahead with your stream of consciousness wall of words posts. 

 

Sad.

 

 

What is sad is that day after day, argument after argument, he provides words that you cannot seem to debate effectively without trying to use the “personal attack” schtick.  His analysis of your MO is pretty spot-on, IMO.

[90DayFinancier 910]

19 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

What is sad is that day after day, argument after argument, he provides words that you cannot seem to debate effectively without trying to use the “personal attack” schtick.  His analysis of your MO is pretty spot-on, IMO.

Please elaborate..