Fox hosts spin IG report that debunks their own conspiracies about the Russia probe: “We were right"

redleghunter said:

Once again demonstrating (1) you are not even getting what people write to you and (2) you did not read the IG report executive summary.

Click to expand...

I showed you what the summary said. Would you like me to show you again?

HannahT said:

his scares the heck out of me. They can choose to pick on anyone for any reason, and are more than willing doctor things to get the job done. That's what they did, and 'we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision'?

Click to expand...

That's what Trump's own Justice Department IG determined. At some point, you need to accomodate reality into your ideas.

The Barbarian said:

That's what Trump's own Justice Department IG determined. At some point, you need to accomodate reality into your ideas.

Click to expand...

And you need to learn reading skills. I'm speaking of Carter Page, and what happened to him - and your not reading a word, and just assuming I'm debating over bias?

Over the years, Page's dealings in Russia caught the attention of US government officials, who suspected that he may be working as an agent of Moscow. Intelligence officials knew of him as far back as 2013, well before he joined the Trump campaign.

Click to expand...

If you read the report - which you clearly are refusing to. I guess it wouldn't accommodate your reality - as you put it - the FISC court found that Page was working for the CIA in Russia. That tends to be the opposite of 'agent of Moscow' your article mentions.

The FBI falsified an email that was sent to them clarifying that he was INDEED working for the CIA - not Russia. The documentation sent from the CIA that showed he worked for them - not Russia - was then doctored/altered by the FBI to show the opposite, and then presented to the FISC court to get approval for his surveillance.

In other words, the FBI knew he didn't work for Russia and wanted the FISC court to think he was. Couldn't find evidence to show 'cause' for surveillance, and so they made it up instead.

That also was something the IG Determined, and the FISC court wrote in rebuke this week to the FBI - along other things.

HannahT said:

If you read the report - which you clearly are refusing to.

Click to expand...

I just showed you the report. It's long, but you should read all of it, not just carefully-edited pieces people give you.

Take the time,and do it.

The Barbarian said:

I just showed you the report. It's long, but you should read all of it, not just carefully-edited pieces people give you.

Take the time,and do it.

Click to expand...

I have read the report unlike you. I'm not posting articles from years ago, and pretending they are current. I was posting from the report itself - yet you know that...since I clarified that already.

You are the one refusing to acknowledge even what the FBI has already acknowledged.

HannahT said:

And you need to learn reading skills. I'm speaking of Carter Page, and what happened to him - and your not reading a word, and just assuming I'm debating over bias?



If you read the report - which you clearly are refusing to. I guess it wouldn't accommodate your reality - as you put it - the FISC court found that Page was working for the CIA in Russia. That tends to be the opposite of 'agent of Moscow' your article mentions.

The FBI falsified an email that was sent to them clarifying that he was INDEED working for the CIA - not Russia. The documentation sent from the CIA that showed he worked for them - not Russia - was then doctored/altered by the FBI to show the opposite, and then presented to the FISC court to get approval for his surveillance.

In other words, the FBI knew he didn't work for Russia and wanted the FISC court to think he was. Couldn't find evidence to show 'cause' for surveillance, and so they made it up instead.

That also was something the IG Determined, and the FISC court wrote in rebuke this week to the FBI - along other things.

Click to expand...

I see you read the report.

redleghunter said:

...

Click to expand...

Search up "april 24 2019 trump fighting all subpoenas" ==

Here's a conservative paper reporting on it, but take your pick from 20 or 30 news sources:
Trump declares he’ll ‘fight all the subpoenas’ from House Democrats

We know McGahn was blocked by the administration from testifying.

And then Congress went to court, and the judge finally ruled against the non-Constitutional blocking, but it took months.

And does everyone know what happened next? The administration immediately appealed.

It's not hard to see the tactic.

Block witnesses that know something, and then appeal over and over when courts continue to rule that unconstitutional.

That's "obstruction" regardless of what anyone wants to say about it.

Halbhh said:

Search up "april 24 2019 trump fighting all subpoenas" ==

Here's a conservative paper reporting on it, but take your pick from 20 or 30 news sources:
Trump declares he’ll ‘fight all the subpoenas’ from House Democrats

We know McGahn was blocked by the administration from testifying.

And then Congress went to court, and the judge finally ruled against the non-Constitutional blocking, but it took months.

And does everyone know what happened next? The administration immediately appealed.

It's not hard to see the tactic.

Block witnesses that know something, and then appeal over and over when courts continue to rule that unconstitutional.

That's "obstruction" regardless of what anyone wants to say about it.

Click to expand...

Have no idea what this has to do with what I posted.

redleghunter said:

Have no idea what this has to do with what I posted.

Click to expand...

Ah it was post #11, which was a response to post #8, where it seemed in #11 you are agreeing that "obstruction" (post #8) is only an "assertion" (post #11).

If though it happens that you do agree that the "obstruction" of Congress -- article 2 of the impeachment -- isn't merely an 'assertion', but are already agreeing it did happen, then ok.

Halbhh said:

Ah it was post #11, which was a response to post #8, where it seemed in #11 you are agreeing that "obstruction" (post #8) is only an "assertion" (post #11).

If though it happens that you do agree that the "obstruction" of Congress -- article 2 of the impeachment -- isn't merely an 'assertion', but are already agreeing it did happen, then ok.

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS does not believe it is obstruction as they took on the case. So article 2 is void.

redleghunter said:

The SCOTUS does not believe it is obstruction as they took on the case. So article 2 is void.

Click to expand...

Are you saying the McGhan case is already being taken up by the Supreme Court? Wow. That would be news. (I don't follow all the news much like I used to)

redleghunter said:

The SCOTUS does not believe it is obstruction as they took on the case. So article 2 is void.

Click to expand...

But do you actually think it's fine for an American administration to just refuse to give documents and to block witnesses from Congress?

I understand though that the Supreme Court has already agreed long ago that Congress does have the Constitutional authority to summon witnesses under it's Constitutional authority to oversee governmental activities (it has funded).

Halbhh said:

Are you saying the McGhan case is already being taken up by the Supreme Court? Wow. That would be news. (I don't follow all the news much like I used to)

Click to expand...

It would be news. But the House decided not to go to court.

The three cases SCOTUS took up were subpoenas the Executive branch appealed to the courts. They are for other matters but still challenged to Congressional subpoenas.

The House just didn’t want to get entangled in challenging in the courts the subpoenas on close executive advisors aka executive privilege.

The House Democrats said time was of the essence, that Trump occupying the office of President was an existential threat to our Republic. That he had to be removed immediately. Yet Nancy Pelosi has not sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate yet and has no immediate plans to do so. Meaning I guess removing Trump isn’t all that time sensitive. Welcome to Beltway politics.

Halbhh said:

But do you actually think it's fine for an American administration to just refuse to give documents and to block witnesses from Congress?

Click to expand...

Ask previous presidents who used executive privilege. It’s there to protect the executive branch from becoming the servant of the other two branches.

Obama and Eric Holder used it to deny Congress information on Benghazi and Fast and Furious back in 2013 if I am not mistaken. The courts eventually last year ordered the executive branch to cough up certain documents. Took a long time but the Obama administration had every right to appeal to the third branch of government when there was disagreement between the first and second branches of government.

The link below shows all cases of executive privilege since President Kennedy. Two points. I think it is dated as it does not show the Fast and Furious decision by the courts. Second point, looking at what the courts favored privilege and what they denied shows that if the House Democrats challenged the Trump subpoenas in court they would be successful. The question is why they did not. Maybe they just did so because they wanted another article of impeachment? In the case of Nixon he was refused by the courts to protect his own White House tapes. The courts would no doubt based on this precedent and all the privilege requests denied Clinton in his impeachment inquiry have granted Pelosi what they wanted.

Assertions of Executive Privilege from Kennedy to Obama - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Edit: It seems it took 4 years to decide the Obama case.

Judge rejects Obama's executive privilege claim over Fast and Furious records

But they had to get impeachment done immediately! Trump is an existential threat to our Republic! She now sits on the articles showing she is a liar.

Halbhh said:

I understand though that the Supreme Court has already agreed long ago that Congress does have the Constitutional authority to summon witnesses under it's Constitutional authority to oversee governmental activities (it has funded).

Click to expand...

Yes and the Executive branch has the right to fight subpoenas in court. It’s why we have the separation of powers and three branches of government in our Constitution. So that one cannot be the tyrant of the other.

redleghunter said:

But they had to get impeachment done immediately! Trump is an existential threat to our Republic! She now sits on the articles showing she is a liar.

Click to expand...

Some folks must think they've found a way to keep Trump from exposing all the corruption by certain folks in the Government, if the Ukraine is any indication of how much there is the mountain is very high.

Gigimo said:

Some folks must think they've found a way to keep Trump from exposing all the corruption by certain folks in the Government, if the Ukraine is any indication of how much there is the mountain is very high.

Click to expand...

I think we might find out Ukraine has bought a lot of US politicians. And unfortunately find out there are no laws covering how they are being bought.

tulc said:

Nice...since the only people who have been shown to be corrupt so far are the people President Trump has in his administration...you know, the ones in jail or on their way to jail. Seen this:
All the Trump associates convicted or sentenced in the Mueller investigation

Because so far? It seems the only "corruption? exposed are people tied to President Trump.
tulc(if that was the corruption President Trumps was exposing then, mission accomplished!)

Click to expand...

Have you forgot that the Obama administration was aware of this stuff and did..... nothing.

Makes you wonder how much they benefitted from those folks?

redleghunter said:

I think we might find out Ukraine has bought a lot of US politicians.

Click to expand...

Yeah and I've seen speculation that it was politicians on both sides of the fence, some gone and some still around. Most of them seem to be keeping their mouths shut (along with the MSM) hoping nobody notices, but some are "projecting" their sins onto others that's what the last 3 years has been all about.