The FBI is so arrogant

ScottW

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 2:01:02 AM7/24/19

to

They know the MSM won't check their work so they presume no one will.

They're wrong.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/454409-robert-mueller-soon-may-be-exposed-as-the-magician-of-omission-on-russia

A lot of the mueller report is based upon FBI assessments. Many of which are turning out to be just a load of crap.

I have a feeling mueller may be back to testify in his own defense....again.

ScottW

MiNe109

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 8:27:03 AM7/24/19

to

On 7/24/19 1:01 AM, ScottW wrote:

> https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/454409-robert-mueller-soon-may-be-exposed-as-the-magician-of-omission-on-russia
>
> A lot of the mueller report is based upon FBI assessments. Many of
> which are turning out to be just a load of crap.

It's strange there's so much hostility to a report that exonerates the
President.

George M. Middius

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 11:40:23 AM7/24/19

to

MiNe109 wrote:

> > A lot of the mueller report is based upon FBI assessments. Many of
> > which are turning out to be just a load of crap.
>
> It's strange there's so much hostility to a report that exonerates the
> President.

I see your air quotes. Scottie doesn't see them because he's off the leash
again.

ScottW

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 12:49:37 PM7/24/19

to

Why was the origin of the complaint beyond the purview of the investigation?

BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections are far more dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which is nothing new.

ScottW

Art Sackman

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 12:59:43 PM7/24/19

to

This guy is alleged to be one of the election meddlers

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/detail/people/macedonian-farmer-a-greek-farmer-living-in-the-mountains-of-macedonia-in-no/

MiNe109

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 2:12:33 PM7/24/19

to

https://politicalcartoons.com/sku/224441/

MiNe109

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 2:14:43 PM7/24/19

to

On 7/24/19 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:40:23 AM UTC-7, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>> MiNe109 wrote:
>>
>>>> A lot of the mueller report is based upon FBI assessments.
>>>> Many of which are turning out to be just a load of crap.
>>>
>>> It's strange there's so much hostility to a report that
>>> exonerates the President.
>>
>> I see your air quotes. Scottie doesn't see them because he's off
>> the leash again.
>
> Why was the origin of the complaint beyond the purview of the
> investigation?

The purview is Trump-Russia connections. What is this origin of which
you speak?

> BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections are far more
> dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which is nothing new.

True in that Comey had a big part in tanking Hillary's chances.

ScottW

unread,

Jul 24, 2019, 9:35:43 PM7/24/19

to

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:14:43 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 7/24/19 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:40:23 AM UTC-7, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
> >> MiNe109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>> A lot of the mueller report is based upon FBI assessments.
> >>>> Many of which are turning out to be just a load of crap.
> >>>
> >>> It's strange there's so much hostility to a report that
> >>> exonerates the President.
> >>
> >> I see your air quotes. Scottie doesn't see them because he's off
> >> the leash again.
> >
> > Why was the origin of the complaint beyond the purview of the
> > investigation?
>
> The purview is Trump-Russia connections. What is this origin of which
> you speak?

"Mueller’s team alleges that Mifsud is the person who fed a story in spring 2016 to Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos about Moscow possessing purloined emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was the earliest known contact in the now-debunked collusion narrative and the seminal event that the FBI says prompted it on July 31, 2016, to open its probe into the Trump campaign."

>
> > BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections are far more
> > dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which is nothing new.
>
> True in that Comey had a big part in tanking Hillary's chances.

His press conferences were wrong and a gross violation of protocol which can largely be blamed on Loretta Lynch for her meeting with Clinton and then recusing herself in a fashion...but it was not illegal.

His signatures on FISA applications with fraudulent evidence (the Steele dossier) was illegal.

I would also note the dems repeatedly claim it was illegal for a campaign to receive something of value from a foreign gov't. Well...we know the Clinton campaign received something of value because they paid big bucks for it.

Every time a dem made a speech calling for impeachment for obstruction or collusion, if you substituted Clinton for Trump...they'd really have a case.

ScottW

MiNe109

unread,

Jul 25, 2019, 11:32:13 AM7/25/19

to

On 7/24/19 8:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:14:43 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 7/24/19 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:40:23 AM UTC-7, George M.
>>> Middius wrote:
>>>> MiNe109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of the mueller report is based upon FBI assessments.
>>>>>> Many of which are turning out to be just a load of crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's strange there's so much hostility to a report that
>>>>> exonerates the President.
>>>>
>>>> I see your air quotes. Scottie doesn't see them because he's
>>>> off the leash again.
>>>
>>> Why was the origin of the complaint beyond the purview of the
>>> investigation?
>>
>> The purview is Trump-Russia connections. What is this origin of
>> which you speak?
>
> "Mueller’s team alleges that Mifsud is the person who fed a story in
> spring 2016 to Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos about
> Moscow possessing purloined emails from former Secretary of State
> Hillary Clinton. It was the earliest known contact in the
> now-debunked collusion narrative and the seminal event that the FBI
> says prompted it on July 31, 2016, to open its probe into the Trump
> campaign."

That looks like it falls under the Trump-Russia purview.

>>> BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections are far
>>> more dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which is nothing
>>> new.
>>
>> True in that Comey had a big part in tanking Hillary's chances.
>
> His press conferences were wrong and a gross violation of protocol
> which can largely be blamed on Loretta Lynch for her meeting with
> Clinton and then recusing herself in a fashion...but it was not
> illegal.

Who said it was illegal? It's interesting to contrast the universal the
Clinton/Lynch appearance of impropriety to the routine Trump
interactions with the AGs of his presidency.

> His signatures on FISA applications with fraudulent evidence (the
> Steele dossier) was illegal.

No, it wasn't. Standards of evidence, etc. Also, too:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/ig-russia-investigation-steele.html

tl:dr Russia investigation started before the Steele dossier was submitted.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/12/20691643/pompeo-russia-investigation-trump-barr-politico

> I would also note the dems repeatedly claim it was illegal for a
> campaign to receive something of value from a foreign gov't.
> Well...we know the Clinton campaign received something of value
> because they paid big bucks for it.

You still don't understand the difference between buying something and
receiving a gift.

> Every time a dem made a speech calling for impeachment for
> obstruction or collusion, if you substituted Clinton for
> Trump...they'd really have a case.

Hard to do as she's a private citizen. When did the Russians offer her
stolen emails?

ScottW

unread,

Jul 25, 2019, 11:55:06 AM7/25/19

to

Exactly, but Mueller claimed some BS for never even interviewing Mifsud and still claiming he's a Russian operative.

>
> >>> BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections are far
> >>> more dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which is nothing
> >>> new.
> >>
> >> True in that Comey had a big part in tanking Hillary's chances.
> >
> > His press conferences were wrong and a gross violation of protocol
> > which can largely be blamed on Loretta Lynch for her meeting with
> > Clinton and then recusing herself in a fashion...but it was not
> > illegal.
>
> Who said it was illegal?

Nobody...but I'm contrasting what Comey did to the Hillary campaign with what he did to the Trump campaign. Huge difference.

> It's interesting to contrast the universal the
> Clinton/Lynch appearance of impropriety to the routine Trump
> interactions with the AGs of his presidency.

Makes no sense. Lynch was not Clinton's AG and with his wife being under investigation, Lynch was way out of bounds taking a meeting with him.
But as I said...if she wasn't so stupid (or didn't get caught), you wouldn't have had Comey in front of the microphone.

>
> > His signatures on FISA applications with fraudulent evidence (the
> > Steele dossier) was illegal.
>
> No, it wasn't. Standards of evidence, etc. Also, too:

You're simply wrong. The IG report should be definitive.

>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/ig-russia-investigation-steele.html

behind a pay wall.

>
> tl:dr Russia investigation started before the Steele dossier was submitted.

Doesn't make it legal to lie to FISA or hide exculpatory evidence or lie to congress about when the investigation started.
You're digging you're own grave here.

>
> https://www.vox.com/2019/7/12/20691643/pompeo-russia-investigation-trump-barr-politico
>
> > I would also note the dems repeatedly claim it was illegal for a
> > campaign to receive something of value from a foreign gov't.
> > Well...we know the Clinton campaign received something of value
> > because they paid big bucks for it.
>
> You still don't understand the difference between buying something and
> receiving a gift.

The law makes no distinction when receiving from a foreign government.
Paying for it doesn't make it legal.

ScottW

MiNe109

unread,

Jul 25, 2019, 4:11:16 PM7/25/19

to

He did tell Papadopoulos the Russians had dirt on Clinton. That's acting
like an operative and the point was what Papadopoulos believed.

If you have Mifud's current location, I'm sure authorities will be happy
to interview him.

>>>>> BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections are
>>>>> far more dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which is
>>>>> nothing new.
>>>>
>>>> True in that Comey had a big part in tanking Hillary's
>>>> chances.
>>>
>>> His press conferences were wrong and a gross violation of
>>> protocol which can largely be blamed on Loretta Lynch for her
>>> meeting with Clinton and then recusing herself in a fashion...but
>>> it was not illegal.
>>
>> Who said it was illegal?
>
> Nobody...but I'm contrasting what Comey did to the Hillary campaign
> with what he did to the Trump campaign. Huge difference.

Implicated hers, cleared his. Yes, indeed a huge difference.

>> It's interesting to contrast the universal the Clinton/Lynch
>> appearance of impropriety to the routine Trump interactions with
>> the AGs of his presidency.
>
> Makes no sense. Lynch was not Clinton's AG and with his wife being
> under investigation, Lynch was way out of bounds taking a meeting
> with him. But as I said...if she wasn't so stupid (or didn't get
> caught), you wouldn't have had Comey in front of the microphone.

I omitted a word. The Clinton meeting was universally criticized.
Contrast that with Trump's attempt to micromanage investigations into
his own behavior.

>>> His signatures on FISA applications with fraudulent evidence
>>> (the Steele dossier) was illegal.
>>
>> No, it wasn't. Standards of evidence, etc. Also, too:
>
> You're simply wrong. The IG report should be definitive.

You haven't shown anything that rises to the level of illegality or even
how it could be illegal.

>> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/ig-russia-investigation-steele.html
>
>>
> behind a pay wall.

Follow the link in the vox story below (2nd to last paragraph).

>> tl:dr Russia investigation started before the Steele dossier was
>> submitted.
>
> Doesn't make it legal to lie to FISA or hide exculpatory evidence or
> lie to congress about when the investigation started. You're digging
> you're own grave here.

Ah, you think the footnote about the source of funding coming from
sources hostile to the Trump campaign is inadequate. Weak tea.

>> https://www.vox.com/2019/7/12/20691643/pompeo-russia-investigation-trump-barr-politico
>>
>>>
>>
I would also note the dems repeatedly claim it was illegal for a
>>> campaign to receive something of value from a foreign gov't.
>>> Well...we know the Clinton campaign received something of value
>>> because they paid big bucks for it.
>>
>> You still don't understand the difference between buying something
>> and receiving a gift.
>
> The law makes no distinction when receiving from a foreign
> government. Paying for it doesn't make it legal.

Yes, it does. I showed you the citation and the legal explanation.

ScottW

unread,

Jul 26, 2019, 12:09:49 AM7/26/19

to

Yeah, the question now is whose operative?

> and the point was what Papadopoulos believed.
>
> If you have Mifud's current location, I'm sure authorities will be happy
> to interview him.

The FBI has no problem contacting Mr. Mifsud.

https://www.scribd.com/document/419539117/MifsudEmail2FBI-022017

>
> >>>>> BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections are
> >>>>> far more dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which is
> >>>>> nothing new.
> >>>>
> >>>> True in that Comey had a big part in tanking Hillary's
> >>>> chances.
> >>>
> >>> His press conferences were wrong and a gross violation of
> >>> protocol which can largely be blamed on Loretta Lynch for her
> >>> meeting with Clinton and then recusing herself in a fashion...but
> >>> it was not illegal.
> >>
> >> Who said it was illegal?
> >
> > Nobody...but I'm contrasting what Comey did to the Hillary campaign
> > with what he did to the Trump campaign. Huge difference.
>
> Implicated hers, cleared his. Yes, indeed a huge difference.

Comey cleared Trump? I'm sure he'll be stunned to find that out.

>
> >> It's interesting to contrast the universal the Clinton/Lynch
> >> appearance of impropriety to the routine Trump interactions with
> >> the AGs of his presidency.
> >
> > Makes no sense. Lynch was not Clinton's AG and with his wife being
> > under investigation, Lynch was way out of bounds taking a meeting
> > with him. But as I said...if she wasn't so stupid (or didn't get
> > caught), you wouldn't have had Comey in front of the microphone.
>
> I omitted a word. The Clinton meeting was universally criticized.
> Contrast that with Trump's attempt to micromanage investigations into
> his own behavior.

Just more of your little bubble world BS.

>
> >>> His signatures on FISA applications with fraudulent evidence
> >>> (the Steele dossier) was illegal.
> >>
> >> No, it wasn't. Standards of evidence, etc. Also, too:
> >
> > You're simply wrong. The IG report should be definitive.
>
> You haven't shown anything that rises to the level of illegality or even
> how it could be illegal.

It appears the court has a history of failing to enforce it's own rules but it has the ability to file contempt charges for failing to disclose sources, questions on authenticity, and certainly for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence.
FWIW...Mueller was dragged into a FISC hearing as a new FBI director to fix the FBI's application process which had a track record of submitting bogus applications. The Wood's procedure was developed. Doesn't seem to have done much good though.

>
> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/ig-russia-investigation-steele.html
> >
> >>
> > behind a pay wall.
>
> Follow the link in the vox story below (2nd to last paragraph).

Random comment about the Huber thing? That investigation was waiting on Mueller and Barr shelved it handing the task to Durham.

>
> >> tl:dr Russia investigation started before the Steele dossier was
> >> submitted.
> >
> > Doesn't make it legal to lie to FISA or hide exculpatory evidence or
> > lie to congress about when the investigation started. You're digging
> > you're own grave here.
>
> Ah, you think the footnote about the source of funding coming from
> sources hostile to the Trump campaign is inadequate. Weak tea.

Why do I feel like I'm asking for cogent comment from someone as senile as Mueller in this thread?

>
> >> https://www.vox.com/2019/7/12/20691643/pompeo-russia-investigation-trump-barr-politico
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> I would also note the dems repeatedly claim it was illegal for a
> >>> campaign to receive something of value from a foreign gov't.
> >>> Well...we know the Clinton campaign received something of value
> >>> because they paid big bucks for it.
> >>
> >> You still don't understand the difference between buying something
> >> and receiving a gift.
> >
> > The law makes no distinction when receiving from a foreign
> > government. Paying for it doesn't make it legal.
>
> Yes, it does. I showed you the citation and the legal explanation.

Are you back to treating this as a campaign finance/expenditure issue? GMAFB.

ScottW

MiNe109

unread,

Jul 26, 2019, 9:33:25 AM7/26/19

to

Given Mifsud's association with Ivan Timofeev and Stefan Roh the smart
money's on Russia.

>> and the point was what Papadopoulos believed.
>>
>> If you have Mifud's current location, I'm sure authorities will be
>> happy to interview him.
>
> The FBI has no problem contacting Mr. Mifsud.
>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/419539117/MifsudEmail2FBI-022017

His fiancee should get in touch with the FBI to find him.

>>>>>>> BS charges from gov't agencies to influence elections
>>>>>>> are far more dangerous than feeble Russian meddling which
>>>>>>> is nothing new.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True in that Comey had a big part in tanking Hillary's
>>>>>> chances.
>>>>>
>>>>> His press conferences were wrong and a gross violation of
>>>>> protocol which can largely be blamed on Loretta Lynch for
>>>>> her meeting with Clinton and then recusing herself in a
>>>>> fashion...but it was not illegal.
>>>>
>>>> Who said it was illegal?
>>>
>>> Nobody...but I'm contrasting what Comey did to the Hillary
>>> campaign with what he did to the Trump campaign. Huge
>>> difference.
>>
>> Implicated hers, cleared his. Yes, indeed a huge difference.
>
> Comey cleared Trump? I'm sure he'll be stunned to find that out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/26/remember-when-new-york-times-cleared-trump-collusion-before-election/?utm_term=.444690677da8

>>>> It's interesting to contrast the universal the Clinton/Lynch
>>>> appearance of impropriety to the routine Trump interactions
>>>> with the AGs of his presidency.
>>>
>>> Makes no sense. Lynch was not Clinton's AG and with his wife
>>> being under investigation, Lynch was way out of bounds taking a
>>> meeting with him. But as I said...if she wasn't so stupid (or
>>> didn't get caught), you wouldn't have had Comey in front of the
>>> microphone.
>>
>> I omitted a word. The Clinton meeting was universally criticized.
>> Contrast that with Trump's attempt to micromanage investigations
>> into his own behavior.
>
> Just more of your little bubble world BS.

Wasn't the Lynch thing widely condemned? Didn't the Mueller Report show
several instances of Trump trying to influence his AG?

>>>>> His signatures on FISA applications with fraudulent evidence
>>>>> (the Steele dossier) was illegal.
>>>>
>>>> No, it wasn't. Standards of evidence, etc. Also, too:
>>>
>>> You're simply wrong. The IG report should be definitive.
>>
>> You haven't shown anything that rises to the level of illegality or
>> even how it could be illegal.
>
> It appears the court has a history of failing to enforce it's own
> rules but it has the ability to file contempt charges for failing to
> disclose sources, questions on authenticity, and certainly for
> failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. FWIW...Mueller was dragged
> into a FISC hearing as a new FBI director to fix the FBI's
> application process which had a track record of submitting bogus
> applications. The Wood's procedure was developed. Doesn't seem to
> have done much good though.

Yes, a lot to hang on a footnote.

>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/ig-russia-investigation-steele.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
behind a pay wall.
>>
>> Follow the link in the vox story below (2nd to last paragraph).
>
> Random comment about the Huber thing? That investigation was waiting
> on Mueller and Barr shelved it handing the task to Durham.

No.

>>>> tl:dr Russia investigation started before the Steele dossier
>>>> was submitted.
>>>
>>> Doesn't make it legal to lie to FISA or hide exculpatory evidence
>>> or lie to congress about when the investigation started. You're
>>> digging you're own grave here.
>>
>> Ah, you think the footnote about the source of funding coming from
>> sources hostile to the Trump campaign is inadequate. Weak tea.
>
> Why do I feel like I'm asking for cogent comment from someone as
> senile as Mueller in this thread?

Because you don't understand evidence and prefer to throw shade than
face facts.

>>>> https://www.vox.com/2019/7/12/20691643/pompeo-russia-investigation-trump-barr-politico
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
I would also note the dems repeatedly claim it was illegal for a
>>>>> campaign to receive something of value from a foreign gov't.
>>>>> Well...we know the Clinton campaign received something of
>>>>> value because they paid big bucks for it.
>>>>
>>>> You still don't understand the difference between buying
>>>> something and receiving a gift.
>>>
>>> The law makes no distinction when receiving from a foreign
>>> government. Paying for it doesn't make it legal.
>>
>> Yes, it does. I showed you the citation and the legal explanation.
>
> Are you back to treating this as a campaign finance/expenditure
> issue? GMAFB.

Since you're arguing it is a campaign matter ("the Clinton campaign
received something"), so are you.