 
     |
| Ex-F.B.I. Informant Is Charged With Lying Over Bidens’ Role in Ukraine Business (Page 2/3) |
|
Doug85GT
|
FEB 16, 01:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Our pet MAGA-oids are clutching at straws.
There's an uncommonly large and "sprawling" investigation like the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane, which morphed into the "Mueller" probe. The MAGA-oids want you to think that if there are some missteps along the way by some of the investigators—even missteps that are crimes—then the entire investigation and all of its results should be rendered null and void—the fruit of a poisoned tree—or categorized as a "Deep State" conspiracy.
It's only the fruit of a poisoned tree if there's evidence that the investigative missteps were critical in arriving at any of the end products of the investigation... the indictments and the public reports that come from the investigation.
In this case, the investigative missteps are clearly incidental and of no consequence, in terms of the overall integrity of the Mueller investigation.
The MAGA-oids, of course, would never have the same attitude about an investigation that they liked because the targets were people that they don't like... such as Democrats.
|
|
The ultimate outcome was NO RUSSIA COLLUSION. The lies were repeated by you personally in scores of posts on this forum.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
FEB 16, 02:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Doug85GT:
The ultimate outcome was NO RUSSIA COLLUSION. The lies were repeated by you personally in scores of posts on this forum. |
|
The ultimate outcome was that there was not enough evidence of collusion to charge Trump. But there was evidence of collusion. The comments by Popadopolus that started it all. the Trump Tower meeting that the Trump campaign lied their asses off before they were finally forced to admit they were lying.
I 100% agree that Trump opponents overstated the evidence, but that is no different from what Republicans are doing right now with Biden.
Just glad I was able to educate you about how it all started. That way you won't embarrass yourself again by claiming it was all started by the Steele Dossier. Hopefully I have even inspired you to look for information somewhere outside of the right-wing media.
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
FEB 16, 02:32 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Wrong. The Steele Dossier had nothing to do with starting the investigation. You have been duped by the right-wing media. You need to find a new source for your information.
The Russia investigation started because Trump campaign advisor George Papadapoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, that the Russians had damaging information on Clinton before the hack of the DNC became publicly known. The Australian government tipped off the FBI.
You are the one fabricating your own reality, not me.
|
|
That was a different investigation into the DNC hack. The investigation into Russian collusion was touched off by the Steele Dossier.
| quote |
Steele was first to warn that Russia was mounting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump. Fusion GPS – his partners in Washington DC – have called this the dossier’s ‘foundational initial assertion’ and it was correct. Much later, the Mueller inquiry would state that ‘the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.’ Steele wrote about what was happening as early as June 2016, his investigation costing a grand total of $169,000 (£130,000). The US intelligence agencies – annual budget, $63 billion (£48 billion) – did not publish their findings until December 2016, too late to prevent the effort to influence the election.
|
|
https://archive.is/8DMVo#selection-1829.0-1829.689
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
FEB 16, 02:42 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
The ultimate outcome was that there was not enough evidence of collusion to charge Trump. But there was evidence of collusion. The comments by Popadopolus that started it all. the Trump Tower meeting that the Trump campaign lied their asses off before they were finally forced to admit they were lying.
I 100% agree that Trump opponents overstated the evidence, but that is no different from what Republicans are doing right now with Biden.
Just glad I was able to educate you about how it all started. That way you won't embarrass yourself again by claiming it was all started by the Steele Dossier. Hopefully I have even inspired you to look for information somewhere outside of the right-wing media.
|
|
You mean there was not enough evidence to charge ANYONE with collusion. That is because it did not happen.
| quote | Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks ' s releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. |
|
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
FEB 16, 02:46 PM
|
|
No. You are wrong. Fusion GPS has no clue what started Operation Crossfire Hurricane. How could they? They are not part of the FBI. The FBI did not even have the Steele Dossier at the time they were tipped off by Downer.
Seriously. Do some legit research instaed of desperately looking for any source that tells you what you want to hear.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
FEB 16, 02:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Doug85GT:
You mean there was not enough evidence to charge ANYONE with collusion. That is because it did not happen.
|
|
Exactly. I agree that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone. But that does not mean there was NO EVIDENCE like you tried to claim.
How many went to jail for lying to investigators? Why did the Trump campaign lie about the Trump Tower meeting? Why all the lying if there was nothing crooked going on?
At least you admit that there was enough evidence to justify an investigation, don't you?
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
FEB 16, 03:31 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Exactly. I agree that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone. But that does not mean there was NO EVIDENCE like you tried to claim.
How many went to jail for lying to investigators? Why did the Trump campaign lie about the Trump Tower meeting? Why all the lying if there was nothing crooked going on?
At least you admit that there was enough evidence to justify an investigation, don't you?
|
|
I said it did not happen. There is a difference. Being at the same building as a murder occurred is evidence that you might have committed the murder. That does not mean you are the one that committed murder. There is a reason why circumstantial evidence may not be conclusive. It is not conclusive here either.
As far as was Crossfire Hurricane justified, the answer is no. The Durham report showed that it was not justified even from the beginning.
FBI, DOJ’s Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ probe was ‘seriously flawed,’ no basis in evidence when opened: Durham
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
| quote | The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane
As set forth in greater detail in Section IV, the record in this matter reflects that upon
receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the
Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire
Hurricane immediately.22 Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward
Trump. 23 The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the
persons who provided the information. Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review
of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence
from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw
information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed
by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b
and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information
about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive
positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning
the subject. In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that
at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings
indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in
contact with any Russian intelligence officials. 24
The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane
during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated
intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving
possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign. As
described in Section IV.B, in the eighteen months leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI was
required to deal with a number of proposed investigations that had the potential of affecting the
election. In each of those instances, the FBI moved with considerable caution. In one such
matter discussed in Section IV.B.l, FBI Headquarters and Department officials required
defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to
be the targets of foreign interference. In another, the FBI elected to end an investigation after
one of its longtime and valuable CHSs went beyond what was authorized and made an improper
and possibly illegal financial contribution to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign entity
as a precursor to a much larger donation being contemplated. And in a third, the Clinton
Foundation matter, both senior FBI and Department officials placed restrictions on how those
matters were to be handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months
leading up to the election. These examples are also markedly different from the FBI' s actions
with respect to other highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source
pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to
divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server. Unlike the
FBI's opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw,
uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan,
the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical
personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information. This lack of
action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to
have prompted the Director of the CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General,
Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its
receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral
memorandum to Director Corney and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's
Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action. 25 The
investigative referral provided examples of information the Crossfire Hurricane fusion cell had
"gleaned to date."
|
|
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 02-16-2024).]
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
FEB 16, 03:40 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Doug85GT:
Being at the same building as a murder occurred is evidence that you might have committed the murder. That does not mean you are the one that committed murder. There is a reason why circumstantial evidence may not be conclusive. It is not conclusive here either.
|
|
100% agree that just "being in the building" does not indicate guilt.
But "lying about being in the building" sure does.
Why all the lying if there was nothing to hide?
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
FEB 16, 03:49 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
100% agree that just "being in the building" does not indicate guilt.
But "lying about being in the building" sure does.
Why all the lying if there was nothing to hide?
|
|
That is why we have a 5th Amendment. They should not have said anything at all. Any errors, lapses in memory or mistakes given to law enforcement can and will be used against you. I make mistakes recounting what I did last week. All it takes is a motivated investigator and every mistake you make will be characterized as a lie. These people were interviewed about what they had done months prior.
Always take the 5th.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
FEB 16, 04:19 PM
|
|
near 440.000.000 USD
DOES HE HAVE IT ?
OFFICIALLY CROOKED CHEATING SCAMMER COURT CERTIFIED
DO YOU STILL LOVE HIM
|
|
|
|