Spygate is unravelling

[Cunt]

This Brian Cates chap seems to think it is more than a 'nothingburger'.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1235 ... 78400.html

Yes, Horowitz referred EVERYBODY involved in the Carter Page FISA warrant fraud to the DOJ for investigation.

[Tero]

Everyone in DC hated the man's guts, all democrats and about 90% of republicans. "We wanted a libertarian and we got this!"

[Cunt]

Everyone in DC hated the man's guts, all democrats and about 90% of republicans. "We wanted a libertarian and we got this!"

If there was a bunch of corrupt government officials being investigated for their corruption, that would explain why they hate him.

Schumer, who is among the most experienced, leading politicians, just threatened a couple of judges publicly. I bet he hates Trump, too.

[Tero]

Yeah Schumer is allowed to do that. He is not their boss. Trump is not allowed to do that, he is again manipulating. Schumer has no power.

[Cunt]

Yeah Schumer is allowed to do that. He is not their boss. Trump is not allowed to do that, he is again manipulating. Schumer has no power.

The judge responded that he was NOT allowed to do it, so then Schumer bravely walked it back.

Trump didn't threaten judges physically, the way Schumer did. I remember him saying a judge should recuse themselves. Quite a different thing.

[Tero]

Yeah but Trump is an asshole.

[Cunt]

Yeah but Trump is an asshole.

No argument here.

Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, Sanders, Warren and just about every politician I can think of fits that description, too.

[Brian Peacock]

This Brian Cates chap seems to think it is more than a 'nothingburger'.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1235 ... 78400.html

Yes, Horowitz referred EVERYBODY involved in the Carter Page FISA warrant fraud to the DOJ for investigation.

Two of the four warrants issued in 2016 were ruled 'invalid' (not fraudulent) by the DOJ in 2019. Two of the four warrants weren't. Do you think the subsequent invalidations are evidence of undue political influence in the initial issuing of warrants that allowed FBI investigators to undertake surveillance of Carter Page, and how might this relate to the valid warrants and to the matters to which he later confessed and/or was convicted for?

[Joe]

It Is what he said.
'didn't find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation...'

It doesn't look like it conflicts with his quoted answer about what he didn't say.

Right, which is why I think it's not useful for determining the truth of Trump's claim. It doesn't change the bottom line that fact the report does not conclude the FBI investigation was influenced by political bias.

Can you zoom out a little and tell me your overall view on spygate?

My view zooms out a lot, and removes Trump from the picture. His drama is secondary to the challenge that FISA and its secret court poses to the civil liberties of Americans. The Horowitz report opens another window into how this compromise of 4th Amendment rights and national security needs invites abuse.

Being Canadian I doubt this is very interesting to you, while the Trump show is quite entertaining, but this article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a pretty good primer if you are.

[Cunt]

Right, which is why I think it's not useful for determining the truth of Trump's claim. It doesn't change the bottom line that fact the report does not conclude the FBI investigation was influenced by political bias.

It also doesn't say there wasn't any evidence. It says that two kinds of evidence were not present.

Lots of room for fuckery in statements like that.

Can you zoom out a little and tell me your overall view on spygate?

My view zooms out a lot, and removes Trump from the picture. His drama is secondary to the challenge that FISA and its secret court poses to the civil liberties of Americans. The Horowitz report opens another window into how this compromise of 4th Amendment rights and national security needs invites abuse.

Being Canadian I doubt this is very interesting to you, while the Trump show is quite entertaining, but this article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a pretty good primer if you are.

Only in the abstract sense. You zoomed out so much, I can't tell what your opinion on spygate is.

It's ok, its dangerous to stick a flag in the mud, when it could surely be wrong. I don't have much faith in my guess, but at least I'm willing to guess.

I think the thing reminds me of the work I did around social work and 'confidentiality' requirements.

See, I found that rarely it protects the declared beneficiary (the clients) and very often protects others incidentally (shitty workers who decide not to break confidentiality)

Leaving people so much room to hide things is an invitation. Shitty, lying fuckers who don't like accountability will hide things behind those (often VERY well understood) obstructions.

Oh, and almost all people are shitty, lying fuckers in this context.

So no surprise that there was shit hidden behind these redactions, secrecy and just close-mouthed habits.

But I still think I'll stick my flag in the mud, and claim that the investigation was politically motivated, a lot more than 'intel' motivated.

What kind of evidence would change my mind?

Well, the pee-pee dossier for one. Mainly, that one would convince me that the 'NPC's who initially fell for the 'Russian Collusion' hoax had at least a reason to fall for it. The fact that it isn't present means they fell for other stuff without needing that initial bit of evidence to be present.

Maybe a US district judge could change my mind...

Last December, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General issued a
comprehensive report examining, among other things, applications to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court for authority to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. person Carter W.
Page. The OIG found that those applications contained significant factual inaccuracies and
omissions relevant to whether there was probable cause to believe Page was an agent of the
Russian government. There is thus little doubt that the government breached its duty of candor
to the Court with respect to those applications.
The frequency and seriousness of these errors in a case that, given its sensitive nature,
had an unusually high level of review at both DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have
called into question the reliability of the information proffered in other FBI applications

(emphasis mine)

Nope, that didn't do it...

[Joe]

Right, which is why I think it's not useful for determining the truth of Trump's claim. It doesn't change the bottom line that fact the report does not conclude the FBI investigation was influenced by political bias.

It also doesn't say there wasn't any evidence. It says that two kinds of evidence were not present.

Lots of room for fuckery in statements like that.

Ain't it the truth!

However, the US still operates under the presumption of innocence, at least for now. Unless evidence is found to the contrary, the FBI investigation was not a politically motivated witch hunt. I guess I'd paraphrase some language from another infamous report and say, "while this report does not conclude that the FBI committed a crime, it also does not exonerate them.

Can you zoom out a little and tell me your overall view on spygate?

My view zooms out a lot, and removes Trump from the picture. His drama is secondary to the challenge that FISA and its secret court poses to the civil liberties of Americans. The Horowitz report opens another window into how this compromise of 4th Amendment rights and national security needs invites abuse.

Being Canadian I doubt this is very interesting to you, while the Trump show is quite entertaining, but this article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a pretty good primer if you are.

Only in the abstract sense. You zoomed out so much, I can't tell what your opinion on spygate is.

Not my problem. You have everything you need to figure it out, if you're willing. No offense if you're not.

It's ok, its dangerous to stick a flag in the mud, when it could surely be wrong. I don't have much faith in my guess, but at least I'm willing to guess.

I think the thing reminds me of the work I did around social work and 'confidentiality' requirements.

See, I found that rarely it protects the declared beneficiary (the clients) and very often protects others incidentally (shitty workers who decide not to break confidentiality)

Leaving people so much room to hide things is an invitation. Shitty, lying fuckers who don't like accountability will hide things behind those (often VERY well understood) obstructions.

Oh, and almost all people are shitty, lying fuckers in this context.

So no surprise that there was shit hidden behind these redactions, secrecy and just close-mouthed habits.

But I still think I'll stick my flag in the mud, and claim that the investigation was politically motivated, a lot more than 'intel' motivated.

What kind of evidence would change my mind?

Well, the pee-pee dossier for one. Mainly, that one would convince me that the 'NPC's who initially fell for the 'Russian Collusion' hoax had at least a reason to fall for it. The fact that it isn't present means they fell for other stuff without needing that initial bit of evidence to be present.

Maybe a US district judge could change my mind...

Last December, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General issued a
comprehensive report examining, among other things, applications to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court for authority to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. person Carter W.
Page. The OIG found that those applications contained significant factual inaccuracies and
omissions relevant to whether there was probable cause to believe Page was an agent of the
Russian government. There is thus little doubt that the government breached its duty of candor
to the Court with respect to those applications.
The frequency and seriousness of these errors in a case that, given its sensitive nature,
had an unusually high level of review at both DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have
called into question the reliability of the information proffered in other FBI applications

(emphasis mine)

Nope, that didn't do it...

Canada's a free country so you can stick your flag in whatever mud you like. Just be careful it's actually mud, and really your flag.

[Cunt]

Looks like the evidence against Gen. Flynn was 'lost' by the authorities who insist he did something wrong.

Of course, that might not be relevant.

[Cunt]

His lawyer (Sidney somethingorother) just announced that there was stuff on the Weiner laptop which should be investigated. Tens of thousands of State Dept. emails, along with whatever the perv had saved on the same machine.

Again, might not be relevant.

[Cunt]

Mueller indicted Russians. (who would never show up for an expensive trial)

The Russians got a good lawyer.

Charges dropped WITH PREJUDICE.

Doesn't that mean there isn't anything left of this 'Russian-Trump-Hoax'?

I'm going to hate him a little less, since this is another accusation which came up empty. I wonder what Mueller thinks of it. Think he'll get an interview on CNN?

[Brian Peacock]

From the little I know about Mueller - and it is a little - he seems like a by-the-book kind of guy. I don't think we'll see him signing a book deal or doing a kiss-and-tell interview - at least not any time soon.