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.

 

[SaintForLife]

Sorry, there is no way the IG investigation can be considered sufficient. After all, it doesn't appear to show that there was an organized conspiracy among members at the highest level of the government to overthrow Trump.

The IG investigation lacked the power to compell testimony from former or non-DOJ employees thus the need for Durham.

Therefore, we need another investigation...and another...and another...until one of them reaches that conclusion.

That sounds awfully similar to the approach towards Trump.

 

[SaintForLife]

Interesting that you ask "do you think he will make up things"....shortly after you posted an article that said "Mr Barr's skepticism could place more pressure on John H Durham...to find evidence backing Mr. Barr's position."

Are you claiming that Durham will make up evidence?

 

[FullMonte]

The IG investigation lacked the power to compell testimony from former or non-DOJ employees thus the need for Durham.

That sounds awfully similar to the approach towards Trump.

Really? Can you tell me which investigation(s) were done towards Trump that reached a conclusion, had a report stating that conclusion issued, then was reinvestigated?

I mean...you know, like how Republicans investigated Benghazi after it had been investigated multiple times....then reinvestigated Hillary's emails after it was investigated?

Are you claiming that Durham will make up evidence?

No. I'm simply pointing out that your article actually implied that Durham was going to be pressured to find evidence that supports Barr's claim. You would agree that an investigator trying to find evidence that fits a particular outcome is a bad thing, right?

Oh...and since you asked that question, I have to respond. Since you stated, directly, that Adam Schiff made up evidence. Can you let me know what evidence Schiff made up?

 

[coldseat]

Are you claiming that Durham will make up evidence?

You're acting like you already know what's in the Durham report and know that it will be beneficial to Trump. Personally, I wouldn't take Barr's word on anything. Dude has been shown to outright misrepresent and lie in order to serve Trump.

If Durham's report basically says the same thing as Horowitiz's report, will you give up the deep state conspiracy theory? Or will you keep on believing democrats orchestrated an illegal surveillance operation with the help of the deep state?

 

[SaintForLife]

Really? Can you tell me which investigation(s) were done towards Trump that reached a conclusion, had a report stating that conclusion issued, then was reinvestigated?

That's not what your previous post stated that I quoted. You talked about multiple investigations until a desired outcome was found. That's been a constant theme since Trump was elected.

I mean...you know, like how Republicans investigated Benghazi after it had been investigated multiple times....then reinvestigated Hillary's emails after it was investigated?

So politics as usual right?

No. I'm simply pointing out that your article actually implied that Durham was going to be pressured to find evidence that supports Barr's claim. You would agree that an investigator trying to find evidence that fits a particular outcome is a bad thing, right?

The author implying what he thinks Barr will do doesn't mean anything right now. That's his opinion. I believe I had read that Barr came across possible criminal actions and that's when he brought in Durham so it seems like you have it backwards.

Oh...and since you asked that question, I have to respond. Since you stated, directly, that Adam Schiff made up evidence. Can you let me know what evidence Schiff made up?

Schiff lied to the media for years by claiming he had evidence of Trump treasonously colluding with Russia. Once the Mueller report was released and he was asked about the evidence he said it's been in plain sight all along. He also lied about his contact with the whistleblower. He also completely made up what Trump said on the Ukraine call.

 

[SaintForLife]

You're acting like you already know what's in the Durham report and know that it will be beneficial to Trump. Personally, I wouldn't take Barr's word on anything. Dude has been shown to outright misrepresent and lie in order to serve Trump.

If Durham's report basically says the same thing as Horowitiz's report, will you give up the deep state conspiracy theory? Or will you keep on believing democrats orchestrated an illegal surveillance operation with the help of the deep state?

I'm not acting like I know what will happen with Durham, but I trust that he will find the truth wherever it may lead.

We already know that the Obama administration intiated the spying on the Trump campaign. The question is was it done lawfully or not. We've already seen reports about the FBI agent altering a document in the Russia probe and plenty of other questionable actions that deserve investigation.

 

[coldseat]

I'm not acting like I know what will happen with Durham, but I trust that he will find the truth wherever it may lead.

And if it doesn't say what you want it to say? What investigation/report will you be looking to next to reveal "the truth"?

 

[Beach Friends]

That's not what your previous post stated that I quoted. You talked about multiple investigations until a desired outcome was found. That's been a constant theme since Trump was elected.

So politics as usual right?
The author implying what he thinks Barr will do doesn't mean anything right now. That's his opinion. I believe I had read that Barr came across possible criminal actions and that's when he brought in Durham so it seems like you have it backwards.
Schiff lied to the media for years by claiming he had evidence of Trump treasonously colluding with Russia. Once the Mueller report was released and he was asked about the evidence he said it's been in plain sight all along. He also lied about his contact with the whistleblower. He also completely made up what Trump said on the Ukraine call.

I had not seen the Pelosi interview. That's bizzare that she would double down like that.

 

[FullMonte]

That's not what your previous post stated that I quoted. You talked about multiple investigations until a desired outcome was found. That's been a constant theme since Trump was elected.

No, it's not. What I said was that because the one particular investigation did not get the result they wanted, they are going to reinvestigate it. You say it's a constant theme since Trump was elected, but that's not true. They have investigated different things as they occurred. To the best of my knowledge, they have not reinvestigated one particular thing after getting a result they did like.

Schiff lied to the media for years by claiming he had evidence of Trump treasonously colluding with Russia. Once the Mueller report was released and he was asked about the evidence he said it's been in plain sight all along.

My turn. "That's not what your previous post stated that I quoted." You said, and I'll quote it again "What are you scared about Durham finding out? Do you think he will make up things like Schiff did? " You ask if someone thinks Durham will make up something in his investigation "like Schiff did." So, I'll ask again, did Schiff make up anything in his investigation?

He also lied about his contact with the whistleblower.

Did he? Did he ever say that none of the aides to the Intelligence Committee met with the whistleblower?

He also completely made up what Trump said on the Ukraine call.

He paraphrased what Trump said on the call, and he actually stated that was what he was doing. He said that he was going to give "the essence of" what Trump said. Are we going to take the position that anytime someone exaggerates a conversation that took place to make a point, they are lying? Because if that is where we are, Trump's supporters are going to be VERY busy.

 

[samiam5211]

I remember a time when those on the left were skeptical of the FBI and CIA, but suddenly Orange man bad have made them make a 180 and now trust everything from the FBI and CIA.

The president is a criminal and he hates law enforcement.

 

[SaintForLife]

No, it's not. What I said was that because the one particular investigation did not get the result they wanted, they are going to reinvestigate it. You say it's a constant theme since Trump was elected, but that's not true. They have investigated different things as they occurred. To the best of my knowledge, they have not reinvestigated one particular thing after getting a result they did like.



My turn. "That's not what your previous post stated that I quoted." You said, and I'll quote it again "What are you scared about Durham finding out? Do you think he will make up things like Schiff did? " You ask if someone thinks Durham will make up something in his investigation "like Schiff did." So, I'll ask again, did Schiff make up anything in his investigation?



Did he? Did he ever say that none of the aides to the Intelligence Committee met with the whistleblower?



He paraphrased what Trump said on the call, and he actually stated that was what he was doing. He said that he was going to give "the essence of" what Trump said. Are we going to take the position that anytime someone exaggerates a conversation that took place to make a point, they are lying? Because if that is where we are, Trump's supporters are going to be VERY busy.

Schiff made up [Mod Edit: Do not use words that trip the profanity filter on the MCB board] during a congressional hearing and that's okay? I don't see how anyone can have a rational defense of Schiff literally making up the contents of a call in a congressional hearing.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Schiff made up shirt during a congressional hearing and that's okay? I don't see how anyone can have a rational defense of Schiff literally making up the contents of a call in a congressional hearing.

Did he claim that he was reading verbatim from the partial transcript?

 

[samiam5211]

Schiff made up shirt during a congressional hearing and that's okay? I don't see how anyone can have a rational defense of Schiff literally making up the contents of a call in a congressional hearing.

He didn't make anything up.

No one who heard that actually thought he was quoting Trump. It was crystal clear what he was doing.

The fact that Team Trump continues to latch on to this like it is actually something meaningful shows just how pathetic his defense is.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Did he claim that he was reading verbatim from the partial transcript?

That wasn't a transcript. Don't forget that it clearly stated that it wasn't a transcript at the top of the page.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That wasn't a transcript. Don't forget that it clearly stated that it wasn't a transcript at the top of the page.

Yep. I figured calling it a partial transcript was easier than calling it a "non-transcript record that is labeled as such on the document but is referred to as a transcript by Trump supporters to imply that it is a complete and accurate recounting of the call despite it not being so."

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Schiff made up shirt during a congressional hearing and that's okay? I don't see how anyone can have a rational defense of Schiff literally making up the contents of a call in a congressional hearing.

I'm glad you found time to react, but the question remains: did Schiff portray the words he spoke as being the actual words spoken by Trump as documented in the incomplete record of the phone call?

 

[FullMonte]

Schiff made up shirt during a congressional hearing and that's okay? I don't see how anyone can have a rational defense of Schiff literally making up the contents of a call in a congressional hearing.

Schiff paraphrased a conversation, and stated directly that he was doing so.

I would like to get you on the record....

Is it your position that anyone in the government who paraphrases something is doing something bad, with no rational defense of said action?

 

[bdb13]

Schiff paraphrased a conversation, and stated directly that he was doing so.

I would like to get you on the record....

Is it your position that anyone in the government who paraphrases something is doing something bad, with no rational defense of said action?

I mean, he essentially gave a fictionalized account of the conversation, I think it's a serious stretch and lacks much credibility for him to say he was paraphrasing. I didn't like it at the time and no matter what you think of it, it certainly didn't do the Democrats any favors for those who are naturally skeptical of them anyways.