Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

cajunrevenge said:
Has Durham afforded his targets the same due process rights IMPOTUS claims are being denied to him? Are the targets lawyers allowed to cross examine the witnesses? Are the targets defense lawyers going to be granted the ability to put their input into the report? According to IMPOTUS not giving this to the targets is illegal and according to Moscow Mitch it doesnt matter if they committed a crime if they disagree with the process.




But the Horowitz report was beautiful, perfectly exonerated everyone involved. Everyone says it's perfect. The report came out and Republicans were like "oh no, we cant use this" so they go to the backup plan. The insurance policy. They knew it was a hoax so Horowitz wouldn't find anything so they had to find a plan B. That's where Durham comes in. He is a terrible lawyer, a Trump person, donated to Trumps, said a lot of mean and horrible things about Hillary but you womt report about that because you are fake news. I dont want to go into it but a lot of people think he is corrupt. I wouldn't go that far but if I really think about it I probably would say that.
Click to expand...

seems to me Horowitz should investigate the Durham investigation for possible political taint
 
thethe said:
The fact of the matter is it's almost iij impossible to prove intent.
Click to expand...

thethe, just pause for a second and consider where you are getting your information. This is 10,000% wrong. "Intent," in some form or another ("culpability," "malice aforethought," "guilty mind," "willful blindness," etc.) is a classical element of just about every crime and is proven literally everyday in every court. There are instances were we don't care about intent at all, strict liability crimes like statutory rape, but those are noteworthy specifically because they are exceptional. Motive itself is not even relevant... except as it helps prove intent.

If I have a video of a guy robbing a liquor store by pointing a gun at the cashier and saying "Give me the money," intent is going to be probably the easiest part of that case; the defense is probably gonna argue they have the wrong guy, not that the guy in the video was "unintentionally" robbing the store. Likewise, if you had a email from a decision-maker saying "let's screw over Trump," and you could connect that to a specific action, that would also be evidence of intent.

I mean, they literally named a whole Law and Order spinoff after this requirement.

thethe said:
I'll be curious to know your thoughts when Durham reveals COA/NSA and officials within the 5 eyes network framing trump campaign officials.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you; you've been adamantly uncurious about my thoughts on this report. You haven't actually responded to any of my comments, but just keep telling me random other stuff from outside the report.
 
I did address the report. Horowitz said the errors were either incompetence or bias.

You clearly think its innocent and just examples of stupidity. I'm not sure how we can reconcile those differences when its 100% clear to me that the FBI was tasked with 'getting' Trump.

How else can you explain Kleinsmiths actions?

Prosecutors being prosecutors is a cop out.
 
Horowitz said the errors were either incompetence or bias.
Click to expand...

Please cite me where Horowitz verifies the existence of political bias having any effect on the investigation.

Just to be clear:

"Verify" does not equal "Leaves open a possibility." Please do not respond with any information from outside the report.
 
Last edited:
Metaphysicist said:
Please cite me where Horowitz verifies the existence of political bias having any effect on the investigation.

Just to be clear:

"Verify" does not equal "Leaves open a possibility." Please do not respond with any information from outside the report.
Click to expand...

He testified in front of the Senate and said those words.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thefed...misconduct-simply-incompetence-hard-sell/amp/

IG Horowitz then responded in a way that perhaps Sen. Peters did not expect “So, I want to draw a distinction there. We did not — what we didn’t find was that they were considering in August and September whether to seek a FISA. We didn’t see evidence there in those communications.”

“But as to the failures that occurred, we didn’t find any of the explanations particularly satisfactory. In fact, unsatisfactory across the board.”

“In the absence of satisfactory answers, I can’t tell you as I sit here whether it was gross incompetence — and I think with the volume of errors, you could make an argument that that would be a hard sell, that it was just gross incompetence, to intentional, or somewhere in between, and what the motivations were.”
 
"Verify" does not equal "Leaves open a possibility."
Click to expand...

Horowitz, from your article:

I can think of plenty of motivations that could have caused that to occur, but we didn’t have any hard evidence that I can sit here and tell you why did these occur. I can tell you they occurred, I can tell you we didn’t get good explanations, but I can’t tell you why.”
Click to expand...

I mean, this is explicitly him not verifying ANY explanation, either exculpatory or inculpatory.

Again, I am agreeing with you that Horowitz found the FISA was bad. You are just adding things to what he is saying for some reason. I am absolutely open to the idea one possible explanation is Clinesmith was operating with some kind of politically motivated malfeasance (among other possible explanations), but to claim Horowitz is verifying that this happened is to blatantly misread him.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Horowitz, from your article:



I mean, this is explicitly him not verifying ANY explanation, either exculpatory or inculpatory.

Again, I am agreeing with you that Horowitz found the FISA was bad. You are just adding things to what he is saying for some reason. I am absolutely open to the idea one possible explanation is Clinesmith was operating with some kind of politically motivated malfeasance (among other possible explanations), but to claim Horowitz is verifying that this happened is to blatantly misread him.
Click to expand...

17 errors all in one direction perpetrated by what should have been the best of the best.

I personally, with my trumpism at level 100 mind you, cannot see a scea rip where these errors were just "whoops".

Horowitz cant make those claims without hard evidence and there is really now at to prove this bias. You have to absorb all the evidence to come to that clear conclusion but its not for Horowitz to decide that. He makes those statements as an insight into his thought process.
 
thethe said:
He is saying it to the extent he can. It's kind of hard not to infer the real meaning based on the body of evidence available. But to each his own.
Click to expand...

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones"
 
p. 122:

The Crossfire Hurricane team told us that the proposal for FISA coverage targeting Carter Page originated from the team, not an instruction from management. The team also told us that its interest in obtaining a FISA was based upon Page's prior contacts with known Russian intelligence officers, which the team believed made him most receptive to receiving the offer of assistance from the Russians reported in the [Friendly Foreign Government] information (described in Chapter Three) provided to the FBI in late July 2016. Case Agent 1 said that he had hoped that emails and other communications obtained through FISA electronic surveillance would help provide valuable information about what Page did while in Moscow in July 2016 and the Russian officials with whom he may have spoken.
Click to expand...

If you are really interested in this, you could read the relevant sections of the report.
 
Metaphysicist said:
p. 122:

The Crossfire Hurricane team told us that the proposal for FISA coverage targeting Carter Page originated from the team, not an instruction from management. The team also told us that its interest in obtaining a FISA was based upon Page's prior contacts with known Russian intelligence officers, which the team believed made him most receptive to receiving the offer of assistance from the Russians reported in the [Friendly Foreign Government] information (described in Chapter Three) provided to the FBI in late July 2016. Case Agent 1 said that he had hoped that emails and other communications obtained through FISA electronic surveillance would help provide valuable information about what Page did while in Moscow in July 2016 and the Russian officials with whom he may have spoken.

If you are really interested in this, you could read the relevant sections of the report.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of what they wrote down as their official response. Page was an asset of the CIA. This is so obviously an obligatory response to get something documented.

But thats fine, you can actually place your faith in the integrity of a team that deserves no benefit of the doubt based on what we are now aware of.
 
My property professor pointed something out in class once, and it has really stuck with me. Whenever you are reading a court opinion, and the judge writes "Obviously" or "Clearly," that is often in fact the least supported part of the whole opinion. People tend to instinctively use these words to gloss over what they feel most defensive over.
 
Metaphysicist said:
My property professor pointed something out in class once, and it has really stuck with me. Whenever you are reading a court opinion, and the judge writes "Obviously" or "Clearly," that is often in fact the least supported part of the whole opinion. People tend to instinctively use these words to gloss over what they feel most defensive over.
Click to expand...

I dont understand why you would choose to give these agents any benefit of the doubt.

Page was an asset of the CIA. The intelligence agencies started sharing information more fluidly after 9/11. There is a very high likelihood that the FBI agents and senior leadership who prepared the FISA warrant were aware of this fact.
 
thethe said:
I dont understand why you would choose to give these agents any benefit of the doubt.

Page was an asset of the CIA. The intelligence agencies started sharing information more fluidly after 9/11. There is a very high likelihood that the FBI agents and senior leadership who prepared the FISA warrant were aware of this fact.
Click to expand...

So the senior leadership at the FBI wanted to end up with egg on their faces??? Where's your logic in that?
 
The ironic thing here is thethe is complaining about bias in an investigation and using bad information but that's exactly what Gooogliani is doing with Biden. His witnesses are so bad that they can't even get visas to come to the US from Trumps own regime. Googliani will likely be disbarred if he ever tries to file this nonsense with an actual court.





Also want to mention that Googliani has an open invitation to give out any information he has on Biden in the Senate Judiciary Comittee chaired by little Lindsey Graham. Problem is for Rudy he would have to go under oath to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top