FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe (DOJ IG Report thread) (1 Viewer)

[bdb13]

Washington (CNN) —

An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.

The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's review of the FBI's effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. Horowitz will release the report next month.

Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham's criminal probe.

Exclusive: Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe - CNN Politics

A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

www-m.cnn.com

Terrible if true. Trump will obviously seize upon this.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I agree, so why didn't Schiff or Nadler go through the correct process through the courts to force them to testify? If it is so important to hear from them then why did they writhe on the floor in a tantrum instead of following the proper legal course available?

That's a great question. I really wish they would have started the legal process to compel the testimony. Their lack of fighting doesn't change the fact that there is some seriously messed up directives coming directly from the Oval Office.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It is working through the courts.

They have said several times that they feel waiting months for the courts to decide only gives the president more time to cheat at the next election.

That is their reasoning, it's not a mystery.

Have they started the process to get the courts to enforce subpoenas? I don't think I was aware of this, but I am glad to see it happening.

 

[samiam5211]

Have they started the process to get the courts to enforce subpoenas? I don't think I was aware of this, but I am glad to see it happening.

They have cases involving Don McGann's testimony and a staffer from the NSC who Bolton as also added his name to.

I'm not sure if there are any others, but the rulings on those two cases would probably be a quasi precedent for anyone else refusing to testify since the same legal issues would apply.

 

[bdb13]

It is working through the courts.

They have said several times that they feel waiting months for the courts to decide only gives the president more time to cheat at the next election.

That is their reasoning, it's not a mystery.

With there being no chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office I don't really understand how this approach makes a dime's worth of difference in lessening Trump's ability to "cheat."

The Democrats are approaching this the wrong way because of course they are.

 

[JimEverett]

With there being no chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office I don't really understand how this approach makes a dime's worth of difference in lessening Trump's ability to "cheat."

The Democrats are approaching this the wrong way because of course they are.

Right. To buy the reasons given as the actual reasons you have to do more than even suspend disbelief.

 

[samiam5211]

With there being no chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office I don't really understand how this approach makes a dime's worth of difference in lessening Trump's ability to "cheat."

The Democrats are approaching this the wrong way because of course they are.

I wasn't agreeing with the strategy. Was just stating it to answer FWtex's question.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

They have cases involving Don McGann's testimony and a staffer from the NSC who Bolton as also added his name to.

I'm not sure if there are any others, but the rulings on those two cases would probably be a quasi precedent for anyone else refusing to testify since the same legal issues would apply.

I completely forgot about the case Bolton attached himself to. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I think that every single mistake that was highlighted in the IG report should be addressed so they never happen again. The breakdown of the process is very troubling and concerns me greatly.

Trump has committed impeachable offenses and every witness the WH has blocked from testifying should be compelled to come forth and testify so that the country may truly see what is happening. We are a nation divided and the absolute disgusting behavior of the president should be something the entire country unites to stand against.

It is possible for both of these things to be true at the same time.

It certainly is possible.

However, there is only evidence of the former and not the latter unless you define his election to the office as the impeachable offense.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I am sorry I missed Ted Cruz live today.

User Clip: "This wasn't Jason Bourne. That was Beavis and Butthead."

- @tedcruz

www.c-span.org

 

[samiam5211]

I am sorry I missed Ted Cruz live today.

User Clip: "This wasn't Jason Bourne. That was Beavis and Butthead."

- @tedcruz

www.c-span.org

The dems should make posters with quotes from the 2016 campaign by Republican senators about Trump.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It certainly is possible.

However, there is only evidence of the former and not the latter unless you define his election to the office as the impeachable offense.

No, I choose to stick with the "extorting a foreign leader for election help" offenses.

 

[Beach Friends]

I am sorry I missed Ted Cruz live today.

User Clip: "This wasn't Jason Bourne. That was Beavis and Butthead."

- @tedcruz

www.c-span.org

Cruz did a good job highlighting the more significant instances of fraud on the court.

This has to be one of the worst days in the history of the FBI. I think Durham gets the C Eye A.

 

[Beach Friends]

 

[samiam5211]

This has to be one of the worst days in the history of the FBI. I think Durham gets the C Eye A.

This isn’t even in the same ballpark as the Hoover era.

 

[FWtex]

They have cases involving Don McGann's testimony and a staffer from the NSC who Bolton as also added his name to.

I'm not sure if there are any others, but the rulings on those two cases would probably be a quasi precedent for anyone else refusing to testify since the same legal issues would apply.

I might be wrong, but I thought they dropped those cases because they did not want to let Trump run out the clock through the courts. It is very disturbing that the Democrats have this desire to rush this through and then they claim Trump is obstructing them.

 

[samiam5211]

I might be wrong, but I thought they dropped those cases because they did not want to let Trump run out the clock through the courts. It is very disturbing that the Democrats have this desire to rush this through and then they claim Trump is obstructing them.

What is disturbing about it?

Are you saying that Trump has not been obstructive?

He’s not the first president to defy a subpoena, but he is the first one to defy all subpoenas. This isn’t anywhere within the realm of acceptable.

I don’t see anything about those cases being dropped.

 

[Beach Friends]

What is disturbing about it?

Are you saying that Trump has not been obstructive?

He’s not the first president to defy a subpoena, but he is the first one to defy all subpoenas. This isn’t anywhere within the realm of acceptable.

I disagree. I don't blame him one bit. He's not invited to the dinner, he doesn't have to send a dish.

He has every right to assert executive privilege. If the Democrats disagree, they can resolve it in court.

He has over 90% approval among Republicans. He's never going to be removed.

He has seen firsthand how unfair "the system" can be. Before you disagree, remember what thread you are in and what we saw today.

 

[samiam5211]

I disagree. I don't blame him one bit. He's not invited to the dinner, he doesn't have to send a dish.

He has every right to assert executive privilege. If the Democrats disagree, they can resolve it in court.

He has over 90% approval among Republicans. He's never going to be removed.

He has seen firsthand how unfair "the system" can be. Before you disagree, remember what thread you are in and what we saw today.

Complying with subpoenas isn’t an option.

The courts will eventually rule that way.

We only had to wait for the courts because Trump is violating the law.