Inspector General Review of the Trump/Russia Investigation
STANV said:
paulsurovell said:
Hillary could have done everyone a big favor if she had just owned up to her financing of the dossier and apologized for its false and incendiary allegations which led our country down a rabbit hole and poisoned relations with the country that we depend on for our survival.
This seems to be the basis of your world view; that we "depend on" Russia for our survival. If you wish you can explain what that means.
We rely on Russian leaders and the military chain of command to refrain from destroying us in a matter of minutes by intent, by accident, or by mistaken belief that we have launched an attack on them.
In order to minimize the chances for this, we need good communications. That has been destroyed by a scam called Russiagate.
Macron has it right:
paulsurovell said:
We rely on Russian leaders and the military chain of command to refrain from destroying us in a matter of minutes by intent, by accident, or by mistaken belief that we have launched an attack on them.
In order to minimize the chances for this, we need good communications. That has been destroyed by a scam called Russiagate.
That's like saying that you rely on Sbenois to not kill you, so you should stop arguing with him.
Our "communication" with Russia does not mean kowtowing to Putin. And our "communication" has not been harmed one iota by what you call "Russiagate".
What prevents Russia from doing what you fear is that it would be suicide on their part. They are not crazy.
STANV said:
What prevents Russia from doing what you fear is that it would be suicide on their part. They are not crazy.
If only the same could be said about our leadership.
STANV said:
paulsurovell said:
We rely on Russian leaders and the military chain of command to refrain from destroying us in a matter of minutes by intent, by accident, or by mistaken belief that we have launched an attack on them.
In order to minimize the chances for this, we need good communications. That has been destroyed by a scam called Russiagate.
That's like saying that you rely on Sbenois to not kill you, so you should stop arguing with him.
This attempt at analogy is in poor taste. For the record, I know @sbenois, and although he is a knee-jerk hawk, pro-death penalty, over-the-top wannabe Internet bully, he is a cute, cuddly, oversized, Yoo-Hoo-drinking puppy dog in real life.
STANV said:
Our "communication" with Russia does not mean kowtowing to Putin. And our "communication" has not been harmed one iota by what you call "Russiagate".
What prevents Russia from doing what you fear is that it would be suicide on their part. They are not crazy
You don't seem to have read the Politico piece by Sam Nunn and Ernest Moniz that I linked, so let me post an excerpt:
[ . . . ]
Today, many of those mechanisms [ to reduce the chance of accedents or miscalculations leading to nuclear war ] have atrophied. The relationship between the U.S. and Russia is fraught and communications are feeble. Western sanctions placed on Russia in response to Vladimir Putin’s acts of aggression have further frozen relations, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in America’s 2016 elections continues to roil American politics, and Donald Trump’s administration is imperiled if it touches anything related to Russia.
But it’s not just the means of managing risk that have withered; it’s the will. Arms control efforts have been eroded and, some suggest, should be eliminated. U.S. and Russian leaders publicly boast of their respective nuclear arms and preparedness to use them—possibly in response to non-nuclear attacks. Military technologies are advancing rapidly, and the risk that cyberattacks could target nuclear warning and command-and-control systems is ever-increasing. The threat of catastrophic terrorism has greatly increased nuclear dangers. Meanwhile, U.S. and Russian military forces are again operating in close proximity, with increased chances that an inadvertent collision—or a deliberate act of aggression, accident, or terrible miscalculation—could lead to the fatal use of nuclear weapons for the first time in nearly 75 years.
The U.S. and Russia are sleepwalking toward a nuclear disaster, and America’s best hope of avoiding catastrophe is reengaging with Russia now—with Congress taking the lead.
Reengagement cannot wait for the special counsel’s office to complete its work, or for new leadership to take office in the Kremlin or White House—the stakes are simply too high. Congressional leaders from both parties must help create the political space to steer the world’s nuclear superpowers away from catastrophe.
In this moment of unprecedented circumstances, Congress must develop a governance agenda—shared by a broad consensus of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, and between Congress and the White House—that successfully challenges the now-prevailing assumption that we have no choice on Russia policy except self-imposed paralysis.
[ List of specific proposals ]
good interview with Lisa Page
paul, we expect a detailed analysis of all of the lies she says in that interview.
drummerboy said:
good interview with Lisa Page
paul, we expect a detailed analysis of all of the lies she says in that interview.
Nothing particularly noteworthy.
What did you learn from the interview?
And while we're talking about articles, do you think the Ernest Moniz / Sam Nunn article (above) which says
The U.S. and Russia are sleepwalking toward a nuclear disaster, and
America’s best hope of avoiding catastrophe is reengaging with Russia
now—with Congress taking the lead.
merits as much attention as the Lisa Page interview?
paulsurovell said:
And while we're talking about articles, do you think the Ernest Moniz / Sam Nunn article (above) which says
The U.S. and Russia are sleepwalking toward a nuclear disaster, and
America’s best hope of avoiding catastrophe is reengaging with Russia
now—with Congress taking the lead.merits as much attention as the Lisa Page interview?
It's not on-topic with respect to either investigating Trump, or the results of the Inspector General review.
That being said, it doesn't provide support for Paul's positions on dealing either with Trump or with Russia.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
good interview with Lisa Page
paul, we expect a detailed analysis of all of the lies she says in that interview.
Nothing particularly noteworthy.
What did you learn from the interview?
Instead of asking for others' responses, Paul can indicate or respond to anything in this interview that relates to his argument: "If you want to know the intentions of the FBI during that period, look at the texts between Strzok and Lisa Page (head of the FBI investigation and FBI legal counsel respectively)."
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
good interview with Lisa Page
paul, we expect a detailed analysis of all of the lies she says in that interview.
Nothing particularly noteworthy.
What did you learn from the interview?Instead of asking for others' responses, Paul can indicate or respond to anything in this interview that relates to his argument: "If you want to know the intentions of the FBI during that period, look at the texts between Strzok and Lisa Page (head of the FBI investigation and FBI legal counsel respectively)."
She said nothing noteworthy with regard to her texts with Strzok, mainly because the interviewer was acting like more of a PR rep for Page, rather than a journalist asking tough questions.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
And while we're talking about articles, do you think the Ernest Moniz / Sam Nunn article (above) which says
The U.S. and Russia are sleepwalking toward a nuclear disaster, and
America’s best hope of avoiding catastrophe is reengaging with Russia
now—with Congress taking the lead.merits as much attention as the Lisa Page interview?
It's not on-topic with respect to either investigating Trump, or the results of the Inspector General review.
That being said, it doesn't provide support for Paul's positions on dealing either with Trump or with Russia.
No, it's very much a consequence of the media frenzy over the investigation scam which promoted Russia hysteria that led to this:
Donald Trump’s administration is imperiled if it touches anything related to Russia.
Totally on-topic.
paulsurovell said:
This attempt at analogy is in poor taste. For the record, I know @sbenois, and although he is a knee-jerk hawk, pro-death penalty, over-the-top wannabe Internet bully, he is a cute, cuddly, oversized, Yoo-Hoo-drinking puppy dog in real life.
Actually the person who posts as sbenois once told me that sbenois is simply a fictional character. I would not describe him exactly as you do, but for the purposes of MOL I think my analogy is apt.
However if you prefer I could substitute nohero, ml1 or drummerboy.
paulsurovell said:
Donald Trump’s administration is imperiled if it touches anything related to Russia.
I disagree. If Donald Trump were capable of engaging in actual negotiation with Russia and did so it would only help him.
But wouldn't your position be absolutely the same if Russia actually did interfere with the 2016 election, which you dispute?
STANV said:
I disagree. If Donald Trump were capable of engaging in actual negotiation with Russia and did so it would only help him.
But wouldn't your position be absolutely the same if Russia actually did interfere with the 2016 election, which you dispute?
Trump would be compromised in any dealings with Russia as a result of being waist-deep in conflicts of interest there, in addition to his refusal to pursue any goal other than his own self-interest.
If Trump were a man truly interested in pursuing close diplomatic ties with Russia, he could and certainly would do that, regardless of how he's portrayed by mainstream media. It's not as though he's someone deterred by the disapproval of the establishment.
PVW said:
Barr doesn’t accept key inspector general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation
Of course he doesn't.
Barr has been auditioning for a Supreme Court nomination since he was sworn in.
Next comes Durham's report.
PVW said:
Barr doesn’t accept key inspector general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation
Of course he doesn't.
Well, doesn't he have a DOJ investigation looking into the same thing? That thing with the Connecticut Federal Attorney?
I can't believe that I wish Sessions didn't resign. Barr is probably the worst Trump appointee so far.
Trump wanted to know where his Roy Cohn was and he found him in Barr. The Attorney General is supposed to represent the public, not the president. Barr will go down as the worst Attorney General in the history of the U.S. He has no integrity.
eta - If Trump wins a second term, Barr will be on the Supreme Court.
cramer said:
eta - If Trump wins a second term, Barr will be on the Supreme Court.
I wonder about this only because he's nearly 70 years old and the GOP has typically picked much younger people for the job.
Number 3 person at State Department:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/david-hale-ukraine-election-meddling-074891
This is potentially big news, if confirmed by Horowitz's and Durham's final reports:
"The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr [that would be Durham] to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence, people familiar with the matter said.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said. The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.
Among Horowitz’s questions: whether a Maltese professor [Joseph Mifsud] who interacted with a Trump campaign adviser was actually a U.S. intelligence asset deployed to ensnare the campaign, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the inspector general’s findings have not been made public.
But the intelligence agencies said the professor was not among their assets, the people said. And Durham informed Horowitz’s office that his investigation had not produced any evidence that might contradict the inspector general’s findings on that point."
..........
"That could rebut conservatives’ doubts — which Barr has shared with associates in recent weeks — that Horowitz might be blessing the FBI’s Russia investigation prematurely, and that Durham could potentially find more, particularly with regard to the Maltese professor."
Nunes et al. have been saying that Mifsud was CIA plant who set-up Papadopoulos.
The Inspector General's report is now officially out.
A word of caution to those of you who just stop at the headline - don't.
Politico:
Watchdog report rips FBI handling of Russia probe
For those who'd like to read the report itself first, prior to reading the coverage of it:
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/0aa46525-5513-41d3-b093-4a38fb5046de/note/2c183f0a-497b-4f66-9dda-c43d1434f20a.pdf
ETA - this is the executive summary, not the full report. It's about 20 pages.
nohero said:
The Inspector General's report is now officially out.
A word of caution to those of you who just stop at the headline - don't.
Politico:
Watchdog report rips FBI handling of Russia probe
and Barr has already issued his deeply dishonest comment on the report. Anyone who doesn't read the report is probably going to believe it says the opposite of what it actually says.
Full report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6571534/OIG-Russia-Investigation-Report.pdf
Tidbit from page 94:
Steele told us that the reports he generated were not designed to be "finished products" and instead were "to be briefed off of orally versus consumed as a written product." He said that the reports were "mostly single source reporting" and were uncorroborated intelligence "up to a point," but were informed by background research and his judgment as an intelligence professional. Steele explained that it was his firm's practice to faithfully report everything a reliable source provided and not to withhold information because it was controversial. He denied "tailoring" his reporting to meet the needs of his clients and explained that doing so ultimately was not a good business practice because it would result in loss of reputation. We also asked Steele whether his research was "opposition research" and biased. He provided a similar response and explained that his firm would not be in business if it provided biased information. Steele called the allegation that he was biased against Trump from the start "ridiculous." He stated that if anything he was "favorably disposed" toward the Trump family before he began his research because he had visited a Trump family member at Trump Tower and "been friendly" with [the family member] for some years. He described their relationship as "personal" and said that he once gifted a family tartan from Scotland to the family member.
Media reports identify Ms. Ivanka Trump as that family member.
nohero said:
Full report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6571534/OIG-Russia-Investigation-Report.pdf
Tidbit from page 94:
Steele told us that the reports he generated were not designed to be "finished products" and instead were "to be briefed off of orally versus consumed as a written product." He said that the reports were "mostly single source reporting" and were uncorroborated intelligence "up to a point," but were informed by background research and his judgment as an intelligence professional. Steele explained that it was his firm's practice to faithfully report everything a reliable source provided and not to withhold information because it was controversial. He denied "tailoring" his reporting to meet the needs of his clients and explained that doing so ultimately was not a good business practice because it would result in loss of reputation. We also asked Steele whether his research was "opposition research" and biased. He provided a similar response and explained that his firm would not be in business if it provided biased information. Steele called the allegation that he was biased against Trump from the start "ridiculous." He stated that if anything he was "favorably disposed" toward the Trump family before he began his research because he had visited a Trump family member at Trump Tower and "been friendly" with [the family member] for some years. He described their relationship as "personal" and said that he once gifted a family tartan from Scotland to the family member.Media reports identify Ms. Ivanka Trump as that family member.
Ivanka tried to hire Steele to make sure their business interests were protected overseas.
ml1 said:
nohero said:
The Inspector General's report is now officially out.
A word of caution to those of you who just stop at the headline - don't.
Politico:
Watchdog report rips FBI handling of Russia probe
and Barr has already issued his deeply dishonest comment on the report. Anyone who doesn't read the report is probably going to believe it says the opposite of what it actually says.
Trump and Russia's defenders will follow the same playbook they are following with impeachment, arguing a lot of process points to distract from the core factual takeaway -- there were legitimate grounds to launch the investigation, and there were legitimate reasons to focus on these specific Trump campaign officials.
The report notes several instances were policy and procedure intended to balance safeguarding civil rights in the face of law enforcement investigations were not followed or where followed but could be strengthened. While they do not negate the overall legitimacy and findings of the investigation, I do hope they get addressed, as it's to all our benefit to do so. I don't have much confidence that under Barr they will be though. Instead, I expect that Trump, Barr, and those with an interest in defending Trump's interests (at the expense of the nation's) will make a lot of noise about these as a distraction, while doing nothing of substance to correct them.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
If you prefer mainstream media manufactured hysteria, I'll accept that.