FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe (DOJ IG Report thread) (2 Viewers)

[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.

 

[SaintForLife]

You guys are pretty excited with all of this hyper speculation. Not seeing anything Brennan has to be concerned about from that article. That Durham and Barr were going to turn over every little rock and look under it for a worm was always known.

Ultimately, I highly doubt Durham is going to charge Brennan, Comey or anybody significan with any crime. I doubt they did anything outside of their authority. You guys may hate them, but they served this country for years under different administration and Comey is a Republican (don't know Brennan political affiliation). They wouldn't have put their career and life in jeopardy to order an illegal covert operations on a US political candidate (like you guys seem to think and suggest).

Not sure what y'all are expecting/hoping they'll be charged with.

There is plenty Brennan should be concerned about in this article.

Five Questions Still Remaining After the Release of the Horowitz Report

The inspector general report on the Russia investigation was thorough, but it also raised some head-scratching questions

www.rollingstone.com

When the Democrats or people here are only left with the Comey is a Republican, or so and so is a decorated public servant then you can see they are grasping at straws.

 

[SaintForLife]

Lawfare has been a blog that has been cited many times by those on the left the last 3 years of the Russia investigation. The same blog that's run by Benjamin Wittes who is a close friend of Comey.

Intel Community Blog Founder Admits Nunes Was Right About Spygate

"A lot of us look bad right now," said Lawfare co-founder Bobby Chesney in a podcast published Thursday.

thefederalist.com

The co-founder of the prominent intelligence community blog, Lawfare, admitted that a recent report from the Justice Department inspector general on FBI FISA abuses for Trump campaign surveillance has destroyed their own credibility.

On a Thursday podcast hosted by Stewart Baker, a partner at the Washington office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, the blog’s founder, Bobby Chesney admitted that the damming report from the DOJ IG documenting FBI abuses and vindicating the infamous Nunes memo on the discredited Steele Dossier alleging Russian collusion has been destructive to his publication’s reputation.

“Is there somebody who since the release of the Horowitz paper, someone in political life or a pontificator looks better or worse as a result of this report and why?” Baker asked the panel of three legal experts who specialize in the intelligence community.

"I feel like all of us, who, you might call us the ‘Lawfare crowd’ who were often denounced or criticized at least in the older days as being too quick to credit and too trust the good faith and completeness of the efforts of the FBI in this kind of context. A lot of us look bad right now and we’re sort of watching anxiously to see how the broader OIG investigation sheds light on whether this was a one-off problem or a broader problem but there’s not question that a lot of our positions don’t look as persuasive as a result of how this has turned out."

 

[coldseat]

So, you think that Mifsud just happened to bump into Papadopoulos?

I have no idea how they met, I doubt you do either.

But to be clear, I have not kept up on the minutiae of this investigation. As the investigation hasn't been completed, I don't really see a reason to entertain the conspiracy theories that are floating around. Plus, that's not something I'd usually do anyway.

 

[coldseat]

There is plenty Brennan should be concerned about in this article.

Five Questions Still Remaining After the Release of the Horowitz Report

The inspector general report on the Russia investigation was thorough, but it also raised some head-scratching questions

www.rollingstone.com

When the Democrats or people here are only left with the Comey is a Republican, or so and so is a decorated public servant then you can see they are grasping at straws.

If you say so.

Don't really read anything there, just a lot of questions and possible conflation/speculation. But have no doubt Durham will chase every one of those questions down to answer them. I'm also sure the report will be especially critical of anything out of order, of which we already know there are a few things.

I still highly doubt anybody significant will be charged in the end.

 

[SaintForLife]

I have no idea how met, I doubt you do either.

But to be clear, I have not kept up on the minutiae of this investigation. As the investigation hasn't been completed, I don't really see a reason to entertain the conspiracy theories that are floating around. Plus, that's not something I'd usually do anyway.

You entertained the Trump conspired with Russia conspiracy theory for 3 years. Why stop now

 

[coldseat]

You entertained the Trump conspired with Russia conspiracy theory for 3 years. Why stop now

This doesn't interest me as much.

There was also a lot more concerning behavior on the part of Trump, his campaign and his administration (i.e. like the Trump tower meeting, like all of the lying that they were caught red handed in, like all of Trump's obstruction, etc.) that was coming out real time that made that a lot more plausible and an active concern. By contrast, this already happened and all that's coming right out now is speculation from unanswered/unclear question from the Horowitz report in which he clearly stated the investigation was properly predicated and there was no political pressure from top down. So ......

 

[Dadsdream]

The Chicago Tribune has no problem calling the Russia Collusion investigation a "hoax" and calls on the media to name the names. The Trib also has no problem lumping that hoax together with the push for impeachment as . . . well, reporter John Kass has a way with words and I fully concur with him.

When will the Washington media correct the record and publicly burn their sources in the Obama FBI, the intelligence community and the political class who lied to them for years about that now-discredited Trump-Russia hoax?

That hoax served as pretext for President Barack Obama’s FBI and CIA and others to investigate, and spy upon, the presidential campaign of a rival.

As if by design, the now discredited Trump-Russia story consumed President Donald Trump’s White House and our politics for three years. And from the fetid cauldron of lies and spin grew the wholly partisan Democratic impeachment of the president

Column: Will Washington media expose the liars who spun the Trump-Russia hoax?

When will the Washington media correct the record and publicly burn their sources in the Obama FBI, the intelligence community and the political class who lied to them for years about that now-disc…

www.chicagotribune.com

 

[FullMonte]

I am sure that every now and then even Alex Jones says something that is true. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day. Neither is reliable.

I don't know why there is this desperate desire to defend the use of the dossier. It was garbage even Steele's sources were shocked the gossip they provided was used for anything, let alone to throw the most powerful nation in the world into chaos.

Please show me where I have defended the use of the dossier. I simply took issue with a single sentence, and when I responded to that message, I removed everything but that one sentence. My response had nothing to do with the usage of the dossier, Steele's methods, Steele's sources, or anything other than that one sentence.

 

[FullMonte]

All he can do is play a semantics game by focusing on there was at least something on the Dossier was true even if 97% wasn't true. We do know from the IG report that ZERO of the major claims in the Dossier were true and NONE of the information from the Dossier that was used on the FISA application was true.

Nope, that's straight out false. I never once did anything of that sort. Let's sum this up.

You said: "I don't see how anyone can credibly say that there are parts of the Dossier that were true."
I pointed out that a section of the Horowitz report stated that some parts of the Dossier were corroborated.
You are now saying "We do know from the IG report that ZERO of the major claims in the Dossier were true and NONE of the information from the Dossier that was used on the FISA application was true."

That is a different statement from your original statement which was that NOTHING in the Dossier was true. I haven't read the entire report, so I'll have to take your word for it that it states that none of the major claims in the Dossier were true, and that none of the information from the Dossier used on the FISA application was true.

I will say, however, that if none of the information surrounding Page was correct, does that mean that this article from 2017 that says that Page corroborated portions of the dossier concerning him in his congressional testimony is wrong?

Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier

The House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page's testimony before the panel last week.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Nope, that's straight out false. I never once did anything of that sort. Let's sum this up.

You said: "I don't see how anyone can credibly say that there are parts of the Dossier that were true."
I pointed out that a section of the Horowitz report stated that some parts of the Dossier were corroborated.
You are now saying "We do know from the IG report that ZERO of the major claims in the Dossier were true and NONE of the information from the Dossier that was used on the FISA application was true."

That is a different statement from your original statement which was that NOTHING in the Dossier was true. I haven't read the entire report, so I'll have to take your word for it that it states that none of the major claims in the Dossier were true, and that none of the information from the Dossier used on the FISA application was true.

I will say, however, that if none of the information surrounding Page was correct, does that mean that this article from 2017 that says that Page corroborated portions of the dossier concerning him in his congressional testimony is wrong?

Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier

The House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page's testimony before the panel last week.

www.businessinsider.com

That's funny that you are using an article from 2017 and from the reporter Natasha Bertrand who is a known mouthpiece for GPS fusion. We have the IG report to know all of the things about Page from the dossier were lies.

Page testified that he met with Rosneft and he didn't say anything about receiving a bribe as the Steele Dossier aka Russian disinformation alleged.

 

[SaintForLife]

I often wonder how Obama's name has escaped being mentioned in all the Trump Russia investigation news. If the Trump administration started surveillance on Bernie Sanders's campaign because they thought they were too close to Venezuela you better believe the words Trump administration would be in every single news story.

 

[BobE]

It's a crime to lie to the FBI well unless you work for the FBI

Andrew McCabe said he lied to FBI about Wall Street Journal leak

Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe apologized for lying to agents who spent weeks investigating the source of a leak to the Wall Street Journal that actually came from him.

nypost.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It's a crime to lie to the FBI well unless you work for the FBI

Andrew McCabe said he lied to FBI about Wall Street Journal leak

Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe apologized for lying to agents who spent weeks investigating the source of a leak to the Wall Street Journal that actually came from him.

nypost.com

What a schmuck.

 

[wardorican]

The Chicago Tribune has no problem calling the Russia Collusion investigation a "hoax" and calls on the media to name the names. The Trib also has no problem lumping that hoax together with the push for impeachment as . . . well, reporter John Kass has a way with words and I fully concur with him.

When will the Washington media correct the record and publicly burn their sources in the Obama FBI, the intelligence community and the political class who lied to them for years about that now-discredited Trump-Russia hoax?

That hoax served as pretext for President Barack Obama’s FBI and CIA and others to investigate, and spy upon, the presidential campaign of a rival.

As if by design, the now discredited Trump-Russia story consumed President Donald Trump’s White House and our politics for three years. And from the fetid cauldron of lies and spin grew the wholly partisan Democratic impeachment of the president

Column: Will Washington media expose the liars who spun the Trump-Russia hoax?

When will the Washington media correct the record and publicly burn their sources in the Obama FBI, the intelligence community and the political class who lied to them for years about that now-disc…

www.chicagotribune.com

Editorial Collumnist John Kass. He's not a reporter, and he's a pretty strong worded columnist. And a column doesn't speak for the whole paper.

Look at his other stuff out there.

John Kass

John Kass

townhall.com

 

[wardorican]

That's funny that you are using an article from 2017 and from the reporter Natasha Bertrand who is a known mouthpiece for GPS fusion. We have the IG report to know all of the things about Page from the dossier were lies.

Page testified that he met with Rosneft and he didn't say anything about receiving a bribe as the Steele Dossier aka Russian disinformation alleged.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate.

How Old Claims Compare to IG Report - FactCheck.org

We take a look at how past claims made by Trump stack up to the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General report on the FBI's investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating with Russia's election interference.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Dadsdream]

Editorial Collumnist John Kass. He's not a reporter, and he's a pretty strong worded columnist. And a column doesn't speak for the whole paper.

Look at his other stuff out there.

John Kass

John Kass

townhall.com

None of which means he's wrong, of course, and the the Tribune's editorial staff perused it and published it.

 

[wardorican]

None of which means he's wrong, of course, and the the Tribune's editorial staff perused it and published it.

"The Chicago Tribune has no problem calling the Russia Collusion investigation a "hoax" and calls on the media to name the names. The Trib also has no problem lumping that hoax together with the push for impeachment as "

I don't think that's factual accurate. It's your opinion. And it's a stretch.

The Tribune isn't saying that.

 

[wardorican]

If you want a view on what the Editorial Board actually thinks, click on an "editorial" not just a "voice" article.

Editorial: Get on with Trump’s impeachment trial. Then comes Election Day.

We reckon that what you think about the impeachment of President Donald Trump is influenced greatly by your opinion of the man and his leadership capacity. If you previously were inclined to oppose…

www.chicagotribune.com

Speaking of the American people: 0ur focus since the impeachment inquiry began has been on the voters who elect presidents to four-year terms. The House debate involved a decision whether to remove Trump from office because of the seriousness of his misconduct, or leave Trump’s fate in the hands of voters. That is, to overturn the 2016 election — or not.

Our view is that Trump deserves censure, not impeachment and removal from office. He committed serious misconduct by attempting to shake down the president of Ukraine for personal political gain. Trump abused presidential power. But his misdeeds regarding Ukraine did not threaten the security and integrity of American governance. We’ve said often that voters should be the ones to judge Trump’s fitness to continue in office. The Senate trial, even if it changes few minds, will provide the public with the fullest account of the impeachment allegations, including Trump’s defense.
l

And when an Editorial speaks for the Editorial Board,they are clear about it. They say this at the end..

"Editorials reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board, as determined by the members of the board, the editorial page editor and the publisher."

So, again, you're stretching things to fit what you want it to mean. Kass's Opinion piece wasn't an Editorial, and did not have that note at the bottom speaking for the Paper as a whole.