From the IG Report, we can get a sense of the arrogance and corruption within the FBI, DOJ, and CIA to influence or undo the 2016 election. It is easily the greatest political scandal in US History. The Democratic Party instigated the unlawful surveillance of not just one individual, but four. Yes, no-back-bone Horowitz concluded that the FBI did not initiate these unlawful acts based on any political bias. They just made mistakes. Give me a break! They did not make just one error, but 17. Their main motivation was not to just expose Russian or foreign influence in our election process, but to bring down candidate Trump! It is so clear and corrupt. The CIA and FBI were weaponized to bring down Donald Trump! This leads all the way to the top of the Democratic elite food chain. Get ready for a nasty ride.
"From the IG Report, we can get a sense of the arrogance and corruption within the FBI, DOJ, and CIA to influence or undo the 2016 election"
I get no sense of a concerted effort to "undo the 2016 election" from the report. Which specific part of the report are you referring to?
"It is easily the greatest political scandal in US History"
It's subjective, but I can think of several others in recent history (including those involving the current White House) that could reasonably be considered more scandalous.
"The Democratic Party instigated the unlawful surveillance of not just one individual, but four."
Which specific evidence is that statement based on? Do you have information that the Inspector General for the Department of Justice does not?
Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
I already know the names of the individuals investigated, thanks.
You said: "The Democratic Party instigated the unlawful surveillance of not just one individual, but four."
My question is, which specific part of the Horowitz report indicates that the FBI engaged in "unlawful surveillance" of those four individuals?
Which "Democrats" are you referring to?
Let me clarify. I am not basing my answers on just Horowitz's report, but the overall corruption seeping out of the Obama administration. It was under the Democratic party's watch that the FBI illegally spied on Trump campaign officials, so ultimately the Democrats are guilty. Whatever the case, the FBI and CIA under the leadership of the past administration felt it was okay to abuse their authority. More heads will roll after the Durham report comes out. This is just the tip of the iceberg. This corruption goes all the way up the Democratic leadership food chain. Just because Horowitz states he found no biasness in documentary evidence, the specific citing of seventeen errors committed by the FBI leaves it open for Barr or others to make their own interpretations. Which clearly is this: the intelligence agencies of the USA were weaponized to take down a political rival. This has to be remedied so it never happens again to another president or presidential candidate.
So these are unnamed individuals you imagine having a hand in the investigation? Okay.....
I don't know why I ever expected actual names.
Who does Rush and Sean blame?
Ok, so you're claiming 1) "the FBI illegally spied on Trump campaign officials" and 2) it conducted "unlawful surveillance" on four individuals, but you accept the Horowitz report does not support these claims. Firstly, I think that's an understatement. The report literally says the opposite of what you are claiming:
"We concluded that [assistant director of FBI Counterintelligence Edward Priestap's] exercise of discretion in opening [the overall investigation based on George Papadopoulos] was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision" (p. iii - Executive Summary, p. 410 - main body of the report)
So if you are not basing your claims on the Horowitz report, what evidence do you have access to, that the Inspector General of the DoJ didn't, which demonstrates that his main conclusions are wrong? Or is this all merely speculation? I'm just trying to be clear.
Did you listen to the senate hearing. Horowitz's report doesn't vindicate anyone, especially the FBI. It wasn't his role to make a final judgment on motive, but to provide the investigative research that is pretty damning if you ask me. Documentary evidence will not give motive, which is what he based his conclusions on. However, he stated today that their could be bias or they could have made huge mistakes. No one came up to him with documents or eyewitness testimony that stated, "We are out to get Trump!"
Yet, their actions sure look like they were out to get Trump! It's clear. To have seasoned FBI agents commit 17 errors on something so important looks pretty fishy to me. They were weaponized to bring down the Trump campaign.
Horowitz doesn't just say there's no evidence of bias or improper motive. He explicitly says the opening of the four investigations was "in compliance with Department and FBI policies", and for an "authorized purpose", with "adequate factual predication":
I think it's safe to say that an investigation that complies with Department and FBI policies and has adequate factual predication, is not an "illegal" investigation.
In relation to the FBI surveilling the Trump campaign itself, the Inspector General's team found no evidence that the FBI placed confidential human source or undercover employees within the Trump campaign, or tasked them to report on the campaign.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf (p. 400)
Though Horowitz does say Department and FBI policies do not provide "sufficient oversight and accountability" for investigative work that has the potential to gather sensitive information about certain first amendment protected activities.
I don't think that supports the claim that "the FBI illegally spied on Trump campaign officials" though. I think it indicates a systemic issue related to DoJ and FBI policies. So again, which specific part of the report, or Horowitz's testimony, supports your claims that the FBI "illegally spied on the Trump campaign" and conducted "unlawful surveillance" on four individuals?
Only a true Trump adorer would get this from the IG report. More Limbaugh spin which equals BS opinions.
Just as I suspected, Limbaugh blames the Deep State for the "faulty" IG report. He's having a fit and Jaba the AG is as well. What does one expect from Barr other than him protecting the POS?
The list of those plotting against Trump grows by the day. How can a conspiracy nut keep track of it all? Oh, that's right. If Rush sez....
Even simpler, if Trump sez....
Even simpler yet. Critical of Trump equals Deep State.
Gotta keep it uncomplicated so the True Believers can keep up.
How many Trump appointees have now joined the Deep State?
Oh, never mind.
Did you watch the Senate hearing? Horowitz stated no one was vindicated by the report, so Comey needs to shut his trap. If anything, the whole FISA system needs to be overhauled so this type of abuse of power never happens again.
Washington never holds itself accountable. No one ever pays for wrong doing. Any citizen is at their mercy and they never apologize.
Anyone who expected any accountability for behind closed doors shenanigans had rose colored glasses firmly in place.
Hopefully, after the Durham report, there will be some justice meted out. The IG report was only the appetizer, but imbedded within Horowitz's research were some damning information against the FBI and CIA. I know his conclusions lacked backbone, but the IG cannot convene a grand jury or pursue conviction. Durham can and he can use a lot of Horowitz's report to support his investigation.
The complete lack of outrage by the left over abuse by the FBI in this matter is disturbing. Purposeful manipulation of lies into facts, the smearing of a person's reputation for reasons Horowitz refused to speculate on, treating a presidential campaign in a manner inconsistent with any known manner in the past are all despicable.
But the thing that bothers me the most is what they did to Carter Page, himself. It can happen to any of us. The government can choose to fabricate evidence and ruin anyone's life.
To those of you who are so partisan that any smeared who are not a part of your little clique is acceptable collateral damage, I pity what I perceive as your emotional acquiescence to your hatred. You are supporting the drive to transform our society into something alien to the ideas which founded this nation.
I agree. This goes beyond Trump or whoever holds office. This goes to the heart of our Democratic republic. Our intelligence agencies have gone rogue and they need to be completely overhauled. Moreover. we have leadership I believe in both parties who hold the Constitution in contempt and believe they are above the law. The kangaroo impeachment court being held in the house is one example of the blatant abuse of power by the majority. There is no impeachable offense, but they continue to parade this complete lie to the American public. We are at the crossroads of our nation and if we do not remedy this, we will cease to exist.
I notice you slid right by Don's post, Minnie. Please go back and give it the response it deserves. Or simply slither away into the woods and find a nice damp rock to burrow beneath. Really, jest funnin' ya!
We don't have woods here in Hawaii, but tropical rain forests. Plus, we don't have snakes. I think I will grab my surf board and hit the beach. We don't slither out here in the Pacific, but surf. Ha! This impeachment thing will die in one week in the senate as Lindsey and Mitch have already proclaimed. What a waste of time.
As interesting as all that is, I was just wondering, as per my previous comment, which specific part of the report, or Horowitz's testimony, supports your claims that the FBI "illegally spied on the Trump campaign" and conducted "unlawful surveillance" on four individuals?
You also said your comments are not based on "just" the Horowitz report, which implies they are based on other evidence. What evidence? Or are your comments speculation written to appear as fact? Again, I'm just trying to sort the facts from the speculation.
Fair enough. Let me get back to you. I think there is more than just four. The FBI and CIA have been going rogue for a long time.
I look forward to what you get back to me with. I'm always open to new information. To be clear, I'm only interested in evidence that supports your specific claims that: 1. the FBI "illegally spied on the Trump campaign" and 2. it conducted "unlawful surveillance" on four individuals as part of the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election.
Then you'll get to witness a REAL kangaroo court when Mitch and Lindsay will rry to avoid calling witnesses in Trump's defense because they don't want Bolton or others being questioned under oath.
I don't think they are trying to avoid this. If they drag this impeachment trial on for a longer duration, it will hurt the Democrats more than Trump. That's just my opinion. The Bidens, Schiff, Holder, Lynch, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and others may be questioned under oath. I don't think the Democrats want this. Bolton is a neocon that doesn't garner much respect. He is a warmonger and thankfully he is not in the administration anymore.
We'll find out soon enough if Trump puts up a defense at all. Mitch would rather not have to ask for any documents Trump refused the House, nor any witnesses either.
Honestly, that would be good. Lets put it all on the table for the public to see. That would be better than this one sided kangaroo court put on by the House
I agree. Call your Senators and representatives and urge them to lay out all the evidence so they can prove Trump's innocence once and for all.
I'd be pleased if they allowed all documents and witnesses to testify from both sides. Why do you blame the House for not getting witnesses and documents they needed?
Barr could have appointed a Special prosecutor to hold the investigation behind closed doors as is common in previous impeachments, but when he refused to do this, the House had no choice but to investigate by themselves.
Now we'll just see how Mitch handles this important historical issue in his chambers.
It will be interesting. I would assume that Barr didn't appoint a special prosecutor because there was no crime. They released the full transcript of the call that Lt Col Vindman, a Democrat witness, said was completely accurate. Based on the call, there was no bullying, no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion, and no abuse of power. Even the Ukrainians, the ones who were supposedly violated by these revolving accusations, said they were not hurt or taken advantage of. If anything, Trump gave them offensive firepower that Obama withheld.
by Don W 16 months ago
The main criticism from Trump and his supporters was that several investigations related to Russia's interference in the 2016 election were politically motivated, and part of a "deep state" operation to discredit Donald Trump. On that point, Horowitz's report is clear:"We did not...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
It begs the question why the media reported Director Comey as a “straight shooter” all along...?Why did they lie to the people and defend the indefensible? What is so damaging is the credibility of the people we are suppose to trust to do the right thing...The requirement to pass the test to become...
by Sharlee 16 months ago
The Mueller report has been handed the Attorney General, and now we await any little tidbits that will be released to the general public. So far it appears there is nothing in the report that the Dems have been predicting would be. Yes, we need to see the report before drawing any...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Inspector General Horowitz has Submitted his Draft Report of Clinton Email Investigation For Principal Review… This indicates we are within weeks of seeing the Horowitz findings. Will there be indictments? Leaks have already emerged indicating there will be several. However,...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Tuesday that Democrats would reject legislation to address the crisis at the U.S-Mexico border, where children have been separated from adults after crossing illegally. The Democrats would rather keep immigration as a talking point than...
by ptosis 4 years ago
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu … o-congress18 minutes from now. For those who are interested.FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency head Adm. Michael Rogers on Monday will break their public silence in the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|