FBI may have modified witness reports, misled DOJ watchdog with 'false information,' GOP Rep says

a reply to: The GUT

I don't know who said there wasn't "anything wonky" about McCabe but let's not forget what turned out to be "wonky" about McCabe — it wasn't that he was leading up a conspiracy to "hurt Trump" — it was that he'd authorized a leak to right-wing outlet, WSJ, confirming the existence of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which if anything, caused harm to the Clinton campaign, and then tried to cover up for it.

What happens when the IG report on leaking drops and it reveals the "rogue" "patriots" in the NY field office leaking to the press and Team Trump? Do I need to remind you of all that October 2016 talk about how the FBI was in revolt and the Trump crowd cheering the "deep state" "saving us" from Clinton?

How's that for wonky?

a reply to: The GUT

If you stop and look at all this from the outside, it's really confusing what position the left is taking here. (by "the left", I am referring to people like Anti, who are against anything "Trump".)

The FBI did lots of wrong things. They were wrong. Defending them is wrong. It's like defending Hillary for the e-mail thing. She broke the law, she did wrong things, she just didn't get punished, and should have.

From what I try to understand , most of us here (on the other side) Understand Trump's deficiencies just as well, but don't dwell on this nearly as much. And it sure looks like all we are really interested in is justice. Which I don't understand someone being against, unless they are criminals too.

Maybe I am just lost and don't "get it".

a reply to: The GUT

The cracks in the façade are really starting to show, aren't they?

It won't be long before the dam bursts and when it does, I can only imagine the silliness that will ensue.

I think Huber and his team have been busy as beavers whilst most eyes were chasing the laser pointer or invented and poorly executed deflections.

Instead of building a dam, though, Huber and co have been deconstructing the one prior administrations and the intelligence apparatus have erected over the last several decades.

Since it wasn't built overnight, it won't be taken down overnight. It's going to be a process and it would seem the process actually has begun.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Seems like things are moving faster now..

I wonder who's going to jail first.

I'll bet Strzok.

I'm going with McCabe. He got frog-marched out the door a few months ago, whereas Strozok probably hasn't even finished clearing off his desk yet.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's not some random disproven claim, it's being actually investigated. By people with no bias.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What "growing evidence" is there that 302s were edited to "either prosecute or not prosecute individuals?" Rumors published by Sara Carter back in January?

I dont know what all of it is, but:

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's not some random disproven claim, it's being actually investigated. By people with no bias.

Pretty much everyone has a bias of some sort. The issue always is, do they let that bias interfere in their investigation.

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What "growing evidence" is there that 302s were edited to "either prosecute or not prosecute individuals?" Rumors published by Sara Carter back in January?

I dont know what all of it is, but:

This whole fiasco is shady AF

a reply to: network dude

If you stop and look at all this from the outside

You couldn't be further from the outside if you were miniaturized and lived in Trump's pants pocket.

The FBI did lots of wrong things. They were wrong. Defending them is wrong.

Funny, I don't remember saying that what McCabe did was right. In fact, I don't recall arguing that any of the "lot of things" that the FBI did wrong were right. That's a complete straw man. You're simply deflecting from the fact that this thread is pretexted on an unsubstantiated allegation.

Let me break it down for you Sparky:

I asked what the actual evidence of modification of 302s was. If there was wrong doing, of course I wouldn't defend it. It would be like somebody saying to you that you don't care that Trump and Putin personally conspired during the election in response to you asking what proof there was that they did.

From what I try to understand , most of us here (on the other side) Understand Trump's deficiencies just as well, but don't dwell on this nearly as much.

Yeah well people aren't the best judges of their own bias.

And it sure looks like all we are really interested in is justice. Which I don't understand someone being against, unless they are criminals too.

Unless it's Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, etc.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Unless it's Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, etc.

Looks like Manafort is going to get what he probably deserves. Cohen---was he targeted to try and get to Trump and in the process setting dangerous precedent? That matters. Even moreso in Flynn's case. Think of Hillary's lies as opposed to Flynn's lie. I think we want to see the equal application of Justice and not butthurt political targeting. That's the epitome of sleaze and unequally applied "justice." That's the real point here.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yawn. I posted the source and in my op stated a gop rep was saying this. Nothing omitted.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

The IG report said they did. They displayed a willingness to hurt Trump.

What does Vive la resistance mean to you?

a reply to: Thejoncrichton

So among 302s not turned over to (some committee) because they weren't relevant to understanding the focus of (some) investigation, there are some "VERY inflammatory things" that are going to "absolutely inflame Congress" for some reason.

Given the date, this would appear to be a reference to 302s from the Clinton investigation, turned over to the House Oversight committee in the middle August of 2016 (about a month prior) at the request of the Republicans.

Nowhere does Strzok imply that any 302s were/would be/should be modified thoughhe does say that there was "VERY inflammatory things" (by Strzok's estimation) in the 302s that weren't turned over. That would seem to provide a possible motive for modifying other 302s but it's not evidence that any 302s were in fact modified.

Horowitz said that the OIG had been asked to look into this and that it was.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The omission was on the part of the Fox News writer who characterized Horowitz's response instead of just publishing it for no obvious legitimate reason.

Horowitz said it was being looked into because they had received referrals (like Meadows) to do so, not as you had been led to assume, because Horowitz was in possession of any kind of evidence that 302s had been modified.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You mean like the Trump campaign colluding with the Russian government? 

There is no evidence of that claim at this point either and I think you know that. I agree with much of what you said about some of the stupid stories, fake news if you will but both sides are equally guilty of fake news. Earlier today, ABC ran a graphic stating that Manafort pleaded guilty to 5 counts of manslaughter. He has not pleaded guilty to anything, in fact, entered a not guilty plea.

At this point, there is more evidence that people against Trump are the actual ones who colluded with Russians. The three main stars are all foreigner born, the British spy who used Russian KGB contacts to complete the dossier, a Australian junior ambassador with long ties to the Clinton machine and the rest of the cast falling all over each other to get dirt on DJT.

We can't forget the ineffective FBI whom after at least 2 years of investigating cannot verify anything but the vow to stop him and claim an insurance policy against him, that's scary stuff right there.

Manaforts maybe guilty, however the FBI declined after an earlier investigation to file charges, Michael Cohn sounds like an idiot and just to get another lawyer off the streets, I hope he is guilty. Trump says stupid stuff, he may be guilty of cheating on his wife and poor decisions but I don't see him selling out to Putin anymore than I buy Obama dressed as Satan or Hillary murdering 2 FBI agents

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

The IG report said they did. They displayed a willingness to hurt Trump.

What does Vive la resistance mean to you?

You misunderstand, I agree with the IG report. All I said was everyone has bias, one way or another.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

Yes, and I don't care about bias, unless you act on it. The IG report said top FBI officials showed a willingness to do so. Saying damn I hate Trump but he won, here's to hoping he loses in 4 years, that is fine, saying damn Trump won, Vive la resistance we will do something about this is extremely scary.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Falsifying statements for one.

You're not even funny anymore, you must be a paid shill, because no one could be as gullible and imbecilic as you appear to be from your posts.

Jaden

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What "growing evidence" is there that 302s were edited to "either prosecute or not prosecute individuals?" Rumors published by Sara Carter back in January?

I dont know what all of it is, but:

That's pretty damning if true.

But lets look at who would have made these proposed alterations to 302's. I'm sure only a very select few had access to them, much less able to alter them.