IG Report

[*michaelsean*]

(12-11-2019, 05:32 PM)jj22 Wrote: Graham really swung and missed. Republicans are not doing a good job at defensing Trump at all.

Barr is being exposed for what we already know he was. A political hack that has got caught lying every time he's worked in an Administration.

I disagree that the Mueller report wasn't used because Dems think it exonerated Trump. It never did, and Barr has long been called out for lying in his "review". It wasn't used because this was about Ukraine and not Russia. They kept it simple as they should have.

”This isn't about Ukraine," Pelosi said. "It's about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding — withholding of that military assistance? Russia. It's about Russia. Russia invading eastern Ukraine. Over 10,000 people, now maybe 13,000, some of them in the absence of our conveying that military assistance that was voted in a bipartisan way by the Congress of the United States. So sometimes people say, 'Well, I don't know about Ukraine. I don't know that much about Ukraine.' Well, our adversary in this is Russia. All roads lead to Putin. Understand that."

[GMDino]

[Dill]

(12-11-2019, 10:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: ”This isn't about Ukraine," Pelosi said. "It's about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding — withholding of that military assistance? Russia. It's about Russia. Russia invading eastern Ukraine. Over 10,000 people, now maybe 13,000, some of them in the absence of our conveying that military assistance that was voted in a bipartisan way by the Congress of the United States. So sometimes people say, 'Well, I don't know about Ukraine. I don't know that much about Ukraine.' Well, our adversary in this is Russia. All roads lead to Putin. Understand that."

Well, Trump withheld aid from Ukraine, not Russia, so it's sort of about the Ukraine.

But the withholding action benefited Russia. That's a serious foreign policy consequence.

And just to give Trump an edge on Biden. 

What does Pelosi say to Tucker Carlson and others who like Russia and don't like Ukraine?

[BakertheBeast]

The whole Ukraine fiasco leads back to Russia because that is what Putin wanted.
Trump has told over 10K lies, if he wasn't president would be in jail right now for defrauding his charity and running a scam university.
He met yesterday with the Russian envoy behind closed doors. To get his latest orders from Putin?
Yeah, I believe he is telling the truth about the Ukraine.

[*bfine32*]

Is this the report that had 17 omissions?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/ig-report-here-are-the-17-specific-inaccuracies-and-omissions-in-the-fbis-fisa-warrants-against-carter-page

I'm sure my friends that want transparency can condemn this.

[Belsnickel]

I don't know if the report itself has been linked, but the areas of concern are in the executive summary found here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Just in case anyone wants to go look at the information from a site that doesn't have a popup promoting itself as generating "liberal tears" when they visit it. Always better to go straight to the source and all.

[Belsnickel]

(12-19-2019, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this the report that had 17 omissions?

I'm sure my friends that want transparency can condemn this.

The thing about this is that this is business as usual for federal law enforcement. If you were to ask a federal defense attorney they would look at the list and go "yeah, this is the norm." I think it's an overall culture in our justice system that needs some adjusting and not something too concerning about this particular case. The big picture is that things were found to be justified and unbiased; focusing on those omissions is an attempt of deflection by the right wing. Now, if they (and you) would suddenly like to jump on the bandwagon of criminal justice reform and seek to amend the laws and policies that allow our law enforcement to get away with these sorts of things then I am all for it. I doubt the sincerity in the concern for these process lapses, though.

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 06:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The thing about this is that this is business as usual for federal law enforcement. If you were to ask a federal defense attorney they would look at the list and go "yeah, this is the norm." I think it's an overall culture in our justice system that needs some adjusting and not something too concerning about this particular case. The big picture is that things were found to be justified and unbiased; focusing on those omissions is an attempt of deflection by the right wing. Now, if they (and you) would suddenly like to jump on the bandwagon of criminal justice reform and seek to amend the laws and policies that allow our law enforcement to get away with these sorts of things then I am all for it. I doubt the sincerity in the concern for these process lapses, though.

Oh, not me. I've always said we don't need to see behind the curtain. So I'm unsure how you attach "concern" to me. I was just wondering what my transparency folks thought about it and their concerns. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-19-2019, 08:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, not me. I've always said we don't need to see behind the curtain. So I'm unsure how you attach "concern" to me. I was just wondering what my transparency folks thought about it and their concerns. 

Ah. Well, if we are speaking specifically about transparency only then that changes my response a bit. I believe that there is a time and a place for transparency in government, but there are other times when transparency is a hindrance to effective governance. However, I am more in favor of transparency when it comes to bureaucratic cogs like these folks making decisions. I think shining a light on this process is a good thing so long as we make sure people understand this is how these processes tend to go. This is a matter of civil rights and liberties, but by discussing it only in the context of Gates and such it turns it into more of a partisan discussion.

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 08:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ah. Well, if we are speaking specifically about transparency only then that changes my response a bit. I believe that there is a time and a place for transparency in government, but there are other times when transparency is a hindrance to effective governance. However, I am more in favor of transparency when it comes to bureaucratic cogs like these folks making decisions. I think shining a light on this process is a good thing so long as we make sure people understand this is how these processes tend to go. This is a matter of civil rights and liberties, but by discussing it only in the context of Gates and such it turns it into more of a partisan discussion.

I didn't discuss it in the context of anything. I simply asked how my transparency friends feel about these 17 omissions. 

How do you determine the time and place for transparency? Seems like quite a large responsibility. 

I will give you credit for addressing the matter; while many transparency folks seem to have misplaced their keyboards.

But just so we're clear: I have no issue with the FBI masking what they felt they should. Of course I'm not as "nuanced" as many around here. 

[SunsetBengal]

Has anyone read appendix 1, of the IG report? (I'll admit that I hadn't bothered to actually read much of it, until I heard someone talking about it, on the drive home today) In addition to the 17 errors and omissions that have gotten the bulk of attention, Appendix 1 highlights over 50 things found wrong in the FISA applications.

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2020, 08:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Has anyone read appendix 1, of the IG report? (I'll admit that I hadn't bothered to actually read much of it, until I heard someone talking about it, on the drive home today) In addition to the 17 errors and omissions that have gotten the bulk of attention, Appendix 1 highlights over 50 things found wrong in the FISA applications.

Yup. I was listening to a federal defense attorney talk about that back when it came out. It was ridiculous. He was talking about how much this sort of thing happens and it being a systemic problem in our criminal justice system.

[GMDino]

(01-02-2020, 09:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. I was listening to a federal defense attorney talk about that back when it came out. It was ridiculous. He was talking about how much this sort of thing happens and it being a systemic problem in our criminal justice system.

Did they say anything about how the GOP loved this kind of stuff so they could "tough on crime"?  

All seriousness aside this is like the old joke that straight guys don't want gay men hitting on them because their afraid the gay guys will treat them like the straight guys treat women.  It's never  a problem unless it can happen to you.