Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source? (2 Viewers)

Even if the name of source is redacted?



This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?

By saying that, do you think the FBI makes it less likely or more likely that people with knowledge of crimes by senior officials (of any political stripe) will come forward?

Josh Hawley's face is so punch-able.

We don't know what we don't know.

/thread

I have a problem with this in general. Selective leaking or disclosing data that only helps one party is extremely dishonest. It was the main, and strongest critism of the twitter files. If Republicans really want to do this, release every rumor the FBI has looked at in the last 6 years.

It's such a transparent play. You try to play up with the FBI not being forthcoming, and biased. You do this to help the twice indicted Republican front runner who the FBI may send to jail.

I have no idea how the Republican base consistently, and constantly falls for this stuff.

coldseat said:

Josh Hawley's face is so punch-able.

Click to expand...

Just more performative BS. Typical Republican tactics on public display, this oversight hearing was regarding FISA and Republicans took the opportunity Redirect the hearing to score points instead of actual governing. The Senate used be a place for the adults but Senator's like Graham and Cruz has brought the antics of the House to the Senate.

Snarky Sack said:

Even if the name of source is redacted?

Click to expand...

Because someone could read the information that is not redacted, and work backwards to figure out who the source was. To give you an example, early in Trump's presidency, he invited a group of Russians into the White House, and reportedly bragged about some information he had about Syria. It was quickly pointed out that he had apparently given the Russians classified information that came from Israel, and his response was, "I never said it was from Israel." Sometimes, you don't need all of the information to piece together where it came from. It also endangers your ability to cultivate sources. Someone my be less likely to come forward with information if they feel that you will give up their information without a fight.

Snarky Sack said:

This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?

Click to expand...

Man, I really hate to do this, because I don't want to hijack this thread...but I can't let this go by untouched. It is BEYOND interesting that you refer to the FD-1023 as "evidence against the Biden family," even though the FD-1023 is a form agents use to record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources....yet, in another thread, a document filed by with the courts by the FBI, including quoted text messages, statements from individuals, photographs, and a detailed listing of items recovered by a search warrant is not evidence of anything.

Sack is out of his depth, and it is showing.

is this RoofGardner in sheeps clothing?

FullMonte said:

Because someone could read the information that is not redacted, and work backwards to figure out who the source was. To give you an example, early in Trump's presidency, he invited a group of Russians into the White House, and reportedly bragged about some information he had about Syria. It was quickly pointed out that he had apparently given the Russians classified information that came from Israel, and his response was, "I never said it was from Israel." Sometimes, you don't need all of the information to piece together where it came from. It also endangers your ability to cultivate sources. Someone my be less likely to come forward with information if they feel that you will give up their information without a fight.

Click to expand...

Fair point.

Then let the FBI redact anything that would point to who provided the information. Yes, that would probably cause doubt to be cast on whether the FBI redacted identifying information, or redacted information they just don't want people to see. But that's what happens when a tax-funded agency provides documents that look like this and calls it "transparency:"



But, you're missing my point, here. My fault, now that I look at my OP.

I'll clarify. Suppose the document did clearly identify the person who made the report of bribery of the Biden family, or make it possible for an insider to identity him. "His life would be in danger?" "It's a life and death matter?" Does that mean someone would kill him?

Who?

If it doesn't mean someone will kill him, what does it mean? That's the question that the GOP oversight committee should be asking, not that the FBI would answer.

FullMonte said:

Man, I really hate to do this, because I don't want to hijack this thread...but I can't let this go by untouched. It is BEYOND interesting that you refer to the FD-1023 as "evidence against the Biden family," even though the FD-1023 is a form agents use to record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources....yet, in another thread, a document filed by with the courts by the FBI, including quoted text messages, statements from individuals, photographs, and a detailed listing of items recovered by a search warrant is not evidence of anything.

Click to expand...

That's on-topic, I think. You have a point. I should have said "negative information about the Biden family," to be more precise.

Ya readin' this, @MT15?

What does it tell you that the FBI, who is loath to ever say anything negative about the Bidens, openly states that anyone providing information detrimental to them needs witness protection?

If the Bidens really accepted a five million dollar bribe, spread amongst several family members, putting a stop to that would be well worth giving the source a new identity and all that.

Snarky Sack said:

Fair point.

Then let the FBI redact anything that would point to who provided the information. Yes, that would probably cause doubt to be cast on whether the FBI redacted identifying information, or redacted information they just don't want people to see. But that's what happens when a tax-funded agency provides documents that look like this and calls it "transparency:"

But, you're missing my point, here. My fault, now that I look at my OP.

I'll clarify. Suppose the document did clearly identify the person who made the report of bribery of the Biden family, or make it possible for an insider to identity him. "His life would be in danger?" "It's a life and death matter?" Does that mean someone would kill him?

Who?

If it doesn't mean someone will kill him, what does it mean? That's the question that the GOP oversight committee should be asking, not that the FBI would answer.


That's on-topic, I think. You have a point. I should have said "negative information about the Biden family," to be more precise.

Ya readin' this, @MT15?

What does it tell you that the FBI, who is loath to ever say anything negative about the Bidens, openly states that anyone providing information detrimental to them needs witness protection?

If the Bidens really accepted a five million dollar bribe, spread amongst several family members, putting a stop to that would be well worth giving the source a new identity and all that.

Click to expand...

let me get this straight.
All information about the Bidens is accurate. All information about Trump is fabricated. Am i reading this right?

Bigdaddysaints said:

let me get this straight.
All information about the Bidens is accurate. All information about Trump is fabricated. Am i reading this right?

Click to expand...

That's because the info on Biden came from the Kremlin! Duh!

Bigdaddysaints said:

let me get this straight.
All information about the Bidens is accurate. All information about Trump is fabricated. Am i reading this right?

Click to expand...

and any redacted info about Biden is incriminating, and any redacted info about Trump is exonerating.

We're dealing with a very detail oriented fair minded person here.

Bigdaddysaints said:

let me get this straight.
All information about the Bidens is accurate. All information about Trump is fabricated. Am i reading this right?

Click to expand...

Uh . . . no. I just reread that it says nothing like that.

Bigdaddy, who do you think will kill the source if the 1023 is released?

Not Hunter, surely?

Is this also the thread where we talk about Ronnie Reagan?

Snarky Sack said:

Uh . . . no. I just reread that it says nothing like that.

Bigdaddy, who do you think will kill the source if the 1023 is released?

Not Hunter, surely?

Click to expand...

obviosly Hillary Clinton.. duh..

I mean, people threaten to kill bartenders and Target employees over Tans stuff, its the world we live in..

Bigdaddysaints said:

obviosly Hillary Clinton.. duh..

I mean, people threaten to kill bartenders and Target employees over Tans stuff, its the world we live in..

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, you mean this:

“The bombs will detonate in several hours, guess which ones have the bombs. Time is ticking,” the email reads, also ending with the date “4/19/1995,” the date of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Oklahoma City Police Department spokesperson Gary Knight said that several news outlets notified them about the emailed threats, adding that after evacuating the listed stores as a precaution, authorities didn’t find any suspicious items, according to the Post.

South Burlington (Vt.) police chief Shawn Burke said news outlets in Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York all received the same emailed threat to Target stores over the weekend. It accused the retail chain of betraying the LGBTQ+ community and named the locations of four stores in the three states, including the South Burlington location.

As to Hillary, I don't see it this time. I think after Epstein, she has to be tired of doing all the wet work for everyone else.

Or is it more likely that the FBI is being a little Drama Queen Royal Person to justify not releasing the form?

Snarky Sack said:

Oh yeah, you mean this:

“The bombs will detonate in several hours, guess which ones have the bombs. Time is ticking,” the email reads, also ending with the date “4/19/1995,” the date of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Oklahoma City Police Department spokesperson Gary Knight said that several news outlets notified them about the emailed threats, adding that after evacuating the listed stores as a precaution, authorities didn’t find any suspicious items, according to the Post.

South Burlington (Vt.) police chief Shawn Burke said news outlets in Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York all received the same emailed threat to Target stores over the weekend. It accused the retail chain of betraying the LGBTQ+ community and named the locations of four stores in the three states, including the South Burlington location.

As to Hillary, I don't see it this time. I think after Epstein, she has to be tired of doing all the wet work for everyone else.

Or is it more likely that the FBI is being a little Drama Queen Royal Person to justify not releasing the form?

Click to expand...

Have they made any arrests or identified any suspects?

Snarky Sack said:

Fair point.

Then let the FBI redact anything that would point to who provided the information. Yes, that would probably cause doubt to be cast on whether the FBI redacted identifying information, or redacted information they just don't want people to see. But that's what happens when a tax-funded agency provides documents that look like this and calls it "transparency:"

Click to expand...

Ok, so let's say the report says "Thomas Williams called and said that he has recordings of Joe Biden receiving $ 5 million in bribes on three dates (12/11/2014, 4/15/2016, and 8/11/2016) from a Ukranian Oligarch named Sergey Yedevich."

Now, the only people who were present at all three meetings are Mr. Yedevich, Hunter Biden, and Mr. Yedevich's aide Boris Sheckel. If the FBI were to redact the name "Thomas Williams," how long would it take for Yedevich to figure out who it was that ratted him out? Or for that matter, knowing that he paid those bribes on those three dates, the dates would have to be reacted too, along with Yedevich's name.

So, now we are left with a redacted report that says "********* called and said that he has recordings of Joe Biden receiving $5 million in bribes ******************** from a ****************"

Would you be satisfied with a report that looked like that? Or would you claim that the FBI was covering for Biden?

Snarky Sack said:

I'll clarify. Suppose the document did clearly identify the person who made the report of bribery of the Biden family, or make it possible for an insider to identity him. "His life would be in danger?" "It's a life and death matter?" Does that mean someone would kill him?

Who?

Click to expand...

You don't think that Ukranian oligarch might want to kill the guy who ratted him out? Also, let's say that FBI did provide the individual with a new name and identity. How likely do you think it is that another Ukranian person will come forward to the FBI knowing that they will end up spilling this person's identity and that person will have to give up their life and start a new one?

With that said, I'll follow up with a question. Since the FD-1023 is simply a document reporting a raw uncofirmed report, and is not actually evidence of anything, why is it so important for it to be released? The members of the House have read the document, so they know exactly what it says. They have all of the information in the document. They have the information they need to do their "oversight" work that they claim. How does having the actual document in their hands give them any more ability to do that work?

To put it another way. Let's say I called the most experienced local police detective, and told him that I had proof that you were a child molester. He takes that report, never hears from me again, and files it away. Now, there is a member on this message board who has a personal grievance with you, and is a journalist. He states publicly that he heard that the document exists, and he doesn't care if it's true or not, he wants to write an article for the paper about how you are a child molester. Would you be ok with the local police giving him that document so that he can say in his article that he got a document from the most experienced detective in the area, which makes it a credible report, that you are a child molester?