[VS] Onderzoek naar Rusland onderzoek: Kritisch naar FBI, niet Biased

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:50 schreef dellipder het volgende:

Daarom zijn William Barr en John Durham het oneens met sommige bevindingen, omdat zij wel de beschikking hebben over onder andere de oorsprong van de fabricaties en de wijze waarop die de FBI zijn ingevoerd dat het FBI-onderzoek initieerde

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:55 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Om een voorbeeld te noemen heeft FBI heeft de FISC onthouden dat Carter Page een informant van de DoJ was in Buryakov-zaak.
Carter Page is geen agent of een foreign power, zoals verklaard in de FISA onder ede, maar een CHS dat een ander departement hielp.
Cruciale informatie niet geprsenteerd aan de FISC om tot het verzekeren van de FISA veilig te stellen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 17:01 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Micheal Horowitz stelt in zijn rapport enkel: found no documentary evidence en no witnesses provided any such information to us.


Brieven/e-mails niet gevonden en het aanwezige personeel gaf ook geen brieven/e-mails aan ons.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 17:13 schreef dellipder het volgende:
De gevolgtrekking dat er niet vanuit politieke bias is gehandeld kan niet vanuit de vaststelling komen dat er geen "Fuck Trump"-brieven waren gevonden, het personeel geen van zulke brieven aan de OIG heeft gegeven of dat er geen getuigenissen waren afgelegd die dit opbiechtten, omdat dit iets veronderstelt over het motief -en dan ook nog eens enkel over het motief van het huidige personeel; en niet bijvoorbeeld de ontslagen Andrew McCabe of Bill Priestap- en daar kan de OIG niet naar raden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 17:16 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Nogmaals: Micheal Horowitz stelt in zijn rapport enkel: found no documentary evidence en no witnesses provided any such information to us.
En dit gaat alleen over het huidige personeel.

quote:

This is akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage. The question is what occurred when icebergs began appearing. Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared very early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts.

The investigation was largely based on a May 2016 conversation between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in London. Papadopolous reportedly said he heard that Russia had thousands of emails from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. That was viewed as revealing possible prior knowledge of the WikiLeaks release two months later, which was then used to open four investigations targeting the campaign and Trump associates. Notably, Democrats and the media lambasted Trump for saying the Justice Department had been “spying” on his campaign, and many said it was just an investigation into figures like Carter Page. Horowitz describes poorly founded investigations that included undercover FBI agents and an array of different sources. What they really discovered is the main point of the Horowitz report.

From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier. Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama. So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians? In the meantime, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported that to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed. Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.

Who told investigators to turn to the dossier? Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired over his conduct in the investigation after earlier internal investigations. Horowitz contradicts the media claim that the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court. He finds that it was essential to seeking FISA warrants. Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself. Surprisingly little effort was made to fully investigate the dossier when McCabe directed investigators to it, yet investigators soon learned that critical facts reported to the FISA court was false. FISA judges were told that a Yahoo News article was an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier, but Horowitz confirms that Steele was the source of that article. Therefore, Steele was used to corroborate Steele on allegations that were later deemed unfounded.

The report also said that Steele was viewed as reliable and was used as a source in prior cases, yet Horowitz found no support for that and, in fact, found that the past representations of Steele were flagged as unreliable. His veracity was not the only questionable thing unveiled in the report. Steele relied on a character who, Horowitz determined, had a dubious reputation and may have been under investigation as a possible double agent for Russia. Other facts were also clearly misrepresented.

The source relied on by Steele was presented as conveying damaging information on Trump. When this source was interviewed, he said he had no direct information and was conveying bar talk. He denied telling other details to Steele. This was all known to the Justice Department, but it still asked for warrant renewals from the FISA court without correcting the record or revealing exculpatory information discovered by investigators. That included the failure to tell the court that Page was working with the CIA. Finally, Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer doctored a critical email to hide the fact that Page was really working for us and not the Russians.

Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress.

In other words, when the Titanic set sail, there was no reason for it not to. Then there was that fateful iceberg. Like the crew of the Titanic, the FBI knew investigative icebergs floated around its Russia investigation, but not only did it not reduce speed, it actively suppressed the countervailing reports. Despite the many conflicts to its FISA application and renewals, the FBI leadership, including McCabe, plowed ahead into the darkness.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 03:17 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

De aantijgingen dat de Trump-campagne heeft samengespannen met Russen om de 2016 presidentsverkiezingen te beïnvloeden zijn vals gebleken. Dit heeft Robert Mueller geconcludeerd.
Ik haalde evident het Mueller rapport aan. bron

quote:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report focuses only on whether crimes were committed. It addresses two Russian conspiracies to interfere in the 2016 election—one involving a social media influence campaign and the other involving the hacking and dissemination of stolen emails. The Report then addresses whether Trump Campaign associates knowingly entered an agreement with the Russian government to assist those conspiracies.

As many experts have noted, what’s missing from the Mueller Report is the Special Counsel’s counterintelligence findings. We don’t know what the Special Counsel’s Office or the FBI have assessed, for example, with respect to whether Trump associates engaged in reciprocal efforts with Russian agents without entering a criminal agreement to do so, whether Americans have been witting or unwitting Russian assets, and what leverage or influence Moscow may have over particular individuals.

As a shorthand, we may use the term “collusion” to refer to these kinds of activities, which would be implicated in a counterintelligence analysis—though, as Asha Rangappa and I have written, the more analytically precise issues to consider are whether Trump Campaign associates “coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support” to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. Those are important questions regardless of whether such activities amounted to crimes, regardless of whether individuals’ actions and intentions can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of whether Americans acted as unwitting Kremlin assets in support of Russian operations, and regardless of whether individuals and organizations can be prosecuted without endangering First Amendment interests.

Although the Mueller Report does not squarely address these questions of “collusion” that fall outside the scope of potential criminal liability, it can be mined for substantive information that provides some meaningful answers.

What follows is a detailed guide to the Mueller Report’s evidence on collusion. The analysis discusses affirmative evidence and countervailing evidence in the Report, references the Special Counsel’s court filings and reliable news reports that help shed additional light on information in the Report, and identifies significant loose ends that the investigation was unable to answer.

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 17:48 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Ik pik dit er even uit omdat je het regelmatig over de "Russia Collusion Delusion Hoax" hebt. Mueller heeft geen bewijs kunnen vinden voor conspiracy in de zin van de wet. Naar collusion heeft hij helemaal niet gekeken zoals je in het rapport kan lezen maar dat sla je voor het gemak maar even over?

[ afbeelding ]

Collusion heeft wel degelijk plaatsgevonden en is een grond voor impeachment dus spreken over een Collusion Delusion Hoax slaat helemaal nergens op.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
[..]

THE DAY COLLUSION DIED - Parody of American Pie | Don Caron

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 17:16 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Nogmaals: Micheal Horowitz stelt in zijn rapport enkel: found no documentary evidence en no witnesses provided any such information to us.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 17:16 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Nogmaals: Micheal Horowitz stelt in zijn rapport enkel: found no documentary evidence en no witnesses provided any such information to us.
En dit gaat alleen over het huidige personeel.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 19:40 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

En of hij wel goed heeft willen zoeken

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 20:24 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Wil je zeggen dat hij niet z'n best heeft gedaan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 22:04 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Nee, maar dat is wel een optie. Net zoals de Muellercommissie alleen maar onderzoek heeft gedaan naar de eventuele schuld van Trump en ontlastende zaken uit de weg ging.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 22:04 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Nee, maar dat is wel een optie.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 22:18 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Is daar enige onderbouwing voor?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 22:53 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Andy McCabe; “First we fuck Flynn, then we fuck Trump!”

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 22:20 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Kijk, weet je wat bad faith is, als iemand doet alsof Horowitz "niet zijn best" heeft gedaan. Dat is bad faith.

Ik weet dat je er veel tijd in steekt en het dus moeilijk kan zijn als dingen anders lijken te zijn dan je dacht, nog veel moeilijker dan zonder een dergelijke betrokkenheid - en voor velen is dat echt wel al moeilijk. Dat kan er wellicht toe leiden je vast te grijpen aan strohalmen als een Barr die dat soort teksten bezigt.

Maar als je echt meende wat je zei, dat je geen gepolitiseerd openbaar ministerie wil, dan moet je toch inzien dat Barr bij uitstek politiek opereert in menig instantie, zoals met dat soort uitspraken?! Wat vind je bijvoorbeeld van zijn speech voor de Federalist Society:

Speech video
Artikel