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

Users who are viewing this thread

    bdb13

    Well-known member
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    2,075
    Reaction score
    3,387
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Offline
    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.

    Terrible if true. Trump will obviously seize upon this.
     
    Strange. That's the EXACT same thing I said about the Russia Collusion Investigation. Seriously!
    I guess our definition of low level must be different. Trump's Personal Attorney, Trumps former National Security Advisor, Trump former Campaign Manager, Trump Campaign advisers aren't low level. If someone that high in Obama's administration is indited from the Durham investigation, I will eat crow.
     
    I will bet the house that this article is a complete over exaggeration of what Durham said if it is not complete fake news. Durham is conducting a criminal investigation and disclosing anything to the IG would be a ridiculous presumption on the media. The flow of information works in the opposite direction and Durham has no benefit or obligation to disclose anything to the IG.

    If Durham finds anyone violated the law, I hope they are prosecuted punished accordingly. If he finds anyone violated policy, I hope they lose their jobs.

    I'm sure that he will manage to find at least a couple of people who did not act appropriately.

    I don't have any concern that he will find anywhere near enough to change the results of the Russia investigation in any meaningful way.

    Nothing Durham finds will exonerate Trump.
     
    Strange. That's the EXACT same thing I said about the Russia Collusion Investigation. Seriously!

    The President's campaign manager is not low level.

    The 13 Russians who were indicted are not low level bureaucrats, they are foreign operatives who intended to harm the country.
     
    The President's campaign manager is not low level.

    The 13 Russians who were indicted are not low level bureaucrats, they are foreign operatives who intended to harm the country.
    Trump was the intended target, in my opinion.
    Did they nail Trump? No.
    From my perspective, anything short of the big dog, main target is "low-level," given whom they were aiming for.
    But, that's just my opinion.
     
    Trump was the intended target, in my opinion.
    Did they nail Trump? No.
    From my perspective, anything short of the big dog, main target is "low-level," given whom they were aiming for.
    But, that's just my opinion.

    I don't think that Mueller was appointed by the Republicans in DoJ to find dirt on Trump.

    They were trying to get to the bottom of an attack on the United States.
     
    Trump was the intended target, in my opinion.
    Did they nail Trump? No.
    From my perspective, anything short of the big dog, main target is "low-level," given whom they were aiming for.
    But, that's just my opinion.


    [mod edit... inflammatory language intended to provoke, and not discuss]

    How do you justify anything he has done prior and post election?

    I mean anything?

    How do you justify that everyone around him is doing time?

    How do you justify what he is doing to farmers, manufacturing, the military, the national debt, and so on and so on?
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Here's an example of what I mean about Trump paraphrasing people all the time. If you think everything Schiff says should be discredited b/c he explicitly stated that he was paraphrasing a phone call, then you must be ready to impeach Trump immediately after this, right?




    Note, Zelensky did not say anything like that in his interview, but that was Trump's interpretation.


    I don't think he explicitly stated that he was paraphrasing. If he had, he would have said, "I am paraphrasing."

    Instead he babbled some weird crap that a lot of people didn't catch and then read from a paper as if he was quoting.

    But, it doesn't matter how we see it. Either Schiff hurt side or he did not.
     
    I don't think he explicitly stated that he was paraphrasing. If he had, he would have said, "I am paraphrasing."

    Instead he babbled some weird crap that a lot of people didn't catch and then read from a paper as if he was quoting.

    But, it doesn't matter how we see it. Either Schiff hurt side or he did not.

    Schiff started off with:
    Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates:

    If you listen or read that and then think he's giving an exact quote then I don't know what to tell you.

    The only people who think Schiff made up a Trump conversation are those who didn't listen to Schiff and only listened to the pro-Trump pundits afterwards. So, it seems unlikely they were willing to actually listen to him anyway.
     
    I don't think he explicitly stated that he was paraphrasing. If he had, he would have said, "I am paraphrasing."

    Instead he babbled some weird crap that a lot of people didn't catch and then read from a paper as if he was quoting.

    But, it doesn't matter how we see it. Either Schiff hurt side or he did not.

    You may have a point...after all, "this is the essence of what the president communicates," should be interpreted as "I am stating what the president said, word for word."

    I think it's BEYOND interesting that people seem to think that when Schiff remarked about what a document that clearly states that it is not a word for word transcript, the fact that his words don't match that document means that he wasn't directly quoting the president. Anyone who read from that memo, word for word, is still not directly quoting the president.
     
    You may have a point...after all, "this is the essence of what the president communicates," should be interpreted as "I am stating what the president said, word for word."

    I think it's BEYOND interesting that people seem to think that when Schiff remarked about what a document that clearly states that it is not a word for word transcript, the fact that his words don't match that document means that he wasn't directly quoting the president. Anyone who read from that memo, word for word, is still not directly quoting the president.

    Despite what you want to believe, this was not merely "paraphrasing." Even Schiff later described his dramatic reading as a "parody."

    It was a silly way to start what should have been a serious proceeding.
     
    Despite what you want to believe, this was not merely "paraphrasing." Even Schiff later described his dramatic reading as a "parody."

    It was a silly way to start what should have been a serious proceeding.

    Yes silly. We agree.

    Not sure why people still have their panties in a bunch over it though.
     
    Last edited:
    Despite what you want to believe, this was not merely "paraphrasing." Even Schiff later described his dramatic reading as a "parody."

    It was a silly way to start what should have been a serious proceeding.

    I agree that it wasn't done the best way. But, the original point remains. Anyone who heard the entirety of Schiff's statement, and doesn't see that he stated at the beginning that he was not quoting the president is being willfully ignorant.
     
    I am not sure.. explain this to me... Does this mean there is a possibility that the dossier that started the Russian Collusion investigation was false?
     
    I am not sure.. explain this to me... Does this mean there is a possibility that the dossier that started the Russian Collusion investigation was false?

    I'm not sure where you get the idea that a dossier started the Russia investigation.
     
    Why are y'all still talking about Schiff paraphrasing the Trump call? That isn't even remotely relevant to anything it going on now. There was no harm that was done from that parody reading. I doubt anybody on here can even remember what he said without going to look it up. The only reason it keeps coming up is because it's a republican talking point.

    Why are people wasting time defending it? It's doesn't need to be defended, the cries from the right just need to be ignored. Anytime somebody brings it up, just respond with a laughing reaction. That's what you do when things get to the ridiculous.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom