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.

 

[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 "

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

The Tribune isn't saying that.

Pardon me, the Tribune published an opinion by an editorial writer who said, etc, etc, etc.,

The newspapers often take editorial stances and publish opinion pieces of writers whose writings support that stance.

 

[Intensesaint]

Pardon me, the Tribune published an opinion by an editorial writer who said, etc, etc, etc.,

The newspapers often take editorial stances and publish opinion pieces of writers whose writings support that stance.

Ah but only when ward says it doesn't. He must have some special authority you don't have

 

[JimEverett]

I am a little surprised at that position of the Tribune Editorial Board.

Would there be a large degree of support for censure with liberals/Democrats if a substantial number of Republicans would support it?

 

[Dadsdream]

I am a little surprised at that position of the Tribune Editorial Board.

Would there be a large degree of support for censure with liberals/Democrats if a substantial number of Republicans would support it?

Which Democratic candidate would the Chicago Tribune endorse? I don't see Obama making a choice. Neither will the Tribune . . . until he does.

In the meantime, The Federalist has published an editorial about probabilities in a card game and by comparison, stating it is statistically impossible for all the FBI's Spygate mistakes to have been "errors."

There’s no way 17 glaring omissions, mistakes, mischaracterizations, and straight-up lies can make their way, undetected, unquestioned, and uncorrected, through the now-legendary labyrinth of supervisory coordination, from line agents to Woods Procedures to FBI supervisors to DOJ reviewers to FBI counsel, FBI deputy director, FBI director, DOJ general counsel, deputy attorney general, and attorney general certification.

There’s no way none of those people caught one of those 17 mistakes. No way each link in the chain—every single one of them—simply assumed this one time that the previous link had carried out all of their supervisory and verification responsibilities and blindly affixed their certification mark on the package without review. No way it all falls one way.

It’s Statistically Impossible For The FBI's Spygate Errors To All Be Mistakes

Perhaps this wasn’t the most statistically improbable perfect storm of innocent FBI oversights and clerical errors, all of which worked against Carter Page.

thefederalist.com

 

[wardorican]

Ah but only when ward says it doesn't. He must have some special authority you don't have

No, the Chicago Tribune speaks for when their Editorials speak for the Editorial board, the paper, and the publisher. I'm just giving DD a hard time for trying to add more gravitas to the article he posted. He is the one who is stretching the meaning. He could have just, you know, posted the article and let that writers opinion stand on its own. But no, he had to say that the Tribune is saying it. Well, they're not.

 

[wardorican]

I am a little surprised at that position of the Tribune Editorial Board.

Would there be a large degree of support for censure with liberals/Democrats if a substantial number of Republicans would support it?

Yes, I'd have been fine with Censure alone, if they felt like impeachment wouldn't quite stick the landing. I think most people agree that what he did was wrong. Even if Censure of a President is pretty fangless. Unlike a member of congress who would be removed from committees, at least.

Removal from office shouldn't be the only remedy, but he clearly needed to be told that he was wrong to do this, and to stop. Once the Mueller investigation ended and he knew nothing was going to happen, he started this Ukraine stuff.

But there's a point where the members of the house and senate need to stand up for the Employees of the State Department, DoD, and other agencies who have been bullied for political gain.

 

[Dadsdream]

I'm just giving DD a hard time . . .

Quoted for truth.

 

[MT15]

Quoted for truth.

He has a valid point, and as a journalist at one point you knew what you were doing. It wasn’t a forthright and honest way to present the POV you presented.

The most important thing about a discussion board is the ability to present our views in a forthright manner, without inflating or representing things as other than what they really are.

 

[SaintForLife]

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

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

It would be nice if you posted your own thoughts and not just naked link....did I do that right? Just messing with you because many here on the left say that when they don't like what someone posts but remain silent when someone does that if they agree with what they said.

Why are you posting articles from 2018 and from the Lawfare blog? See my post above about how the Lawfare founder admitted they don't look good after the IG report. There's no need to look at 2018 article on the Steele Dossier. We have the IG report to show us the Steele Dossier was 98% BS. What's your opinion on the Steele Dossier after we've seen the IG report?

 

[MT15]

You’re quoting an opinion as fact, it seems to me.

Anyway, the dossier only matters in the Page FISA and not the broader investigation.

so,

 

[SaintForLife]

You’re quoting an opinion as fact, it seems to me.

Anyway, the dossier only matters in the Page FISA and not the broader investigation.

so,

Which opinion are you refering to that I quoted? The post on the Lawfare blog where the founder says they don't look good after the IG report?

The broader investigation wasn't being discussed here. It's mainly been the FISA abuse, The Steele Dossier aka Russian Disinformation and the IG report so

 

[wardorican]

It would be nice if you posted your own thoughts and not just naked link....did I do that right? Just messing with you because many here on the left say that when they don't like what someone posts but remain silent when someone does that if they agree with what they said.

Why are you posting articles from 2018 and from the Lawfare blog? See my post above about how the Lawfare founder admitted they don't look good after the IG report. There's no need to look at 2018 article on the Steele Dossier. We have the IG report to show us the Steele Dossier was 98% BS. What's your opinion on the Steele Dossier after we've seen the IG report?

I honestly haven't gone through it in enough detail to comment.

My point about the first blog was their comment about what the dossier was.. just raw intelligence. Not verified. And to treat it as such. I just wanted to share that.

"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. "

The second big was the fact checking done regarding the IG report. I should have made a comment there, but just using them as a referee. But, since I'm not fully versed in the details, I didn't want to have too strong of an opinion on it. I thought it would help mediate the disagreement.

 

[MT15]

Which opinion are you refering to that I quoted? The post on the Lawfare blog where the founder says they don't look good after the IG report?

The broader investigation wasn't being discussed here. It's mainly been the FISA abuse, The Steele Dossier aka Russian Disinformation and the IG report so

wow, you’re really reaching. The IG report covers a lot more than the FISA, and dossier. Is that all you really think the IG report covered?

 

[Archies Ghost]

wow, you’re really reaching. The IG report covers a lot more than the FISA, and dossier. Is that all you really think the IG report covered?

 

[MT15]

I get why you guys want to ignore the parts of the IG report that dont follow your narrative, but geesh, don’t act like it’s all about Carter Page.

That was part of the report, but not all.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I get why you guys want to ignore the parts of the IG report that dont follow your narrative, but geesh, don’t act like it’s all about Carter Page.

That was part of the report, but not all.

You posted that the scope of the report ranged far beyond the FISA. I posted the scope of the report directly from the DOJ press release addressing the scope of the report.

 

[MT15]

You posted some bullet points from what I can tell. The words in your screen shot even say these are “included” they do not appear to be all encompassing.

Do you know how to post a link, Archie? It’s so much better than a cropped screen shot if you can do it.

 

[Archies Ghost]

You posted some bullet points from what I can tell. The words in your screen shot even say these are “included” they do not appear to be all encompassing.

Do you know how to post a link, Archie? It’s so much better than a cropped screen shot if you can do it.

https://oig.justice.gov/press/2019/2019-12-09.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

The first link is the press release.

The second link is the actual report.

The scope of the report is on the first page of the executive summary, which is what was lifted for the press release.

You make it obvious you haven’t bothered to read the report yet continue to argue about what it says.

I suggest reading at least the executive summary and then read Horowitz’ reaction to the idea that it “exonerated” anyone who worked on the issues investigated.

No American citizen should be subjected to the sort of investigative abuse he uncovered.