Adam Schiff censured

hislegacy said:

yes, he does.

Click to expand...

No he doesn't.

3. The opening o f Crossfire Hurricane
The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."203 The starting point for the Office's inquiry was to examine what information was known or available to the FBI about any such ties as ofJuly 31, 2016, prior to opening Crossfire Hurricane. That question then divided itself into two related questions: (i) what was the information that predicated the opening of the investigation and (ii) did that information support such an investigation being opened not as an "assessment" or "preliminary" investigation, but from the start as a "full" investigation. In exploring these questions, we determined the following:

Durham only questioned that the investigation started as a full investigation. He did not say there should have been no investigation. He suggests the investigation 'could have' started at a lower level than full.

Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation.

Since, in the end, the investigation secured multiple convictions, it's hard for me to believe how a preliminary investigation would not have ultimately resulted in a full investigation with substantially identical results.

hislegacy said:

Prove it

Click to expand...

Attorneys general guidelines for Domestic FBI operations:

SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIVE MATTER: an investigative matter involving the activities of a domestic public official or political candidate (involving corruption or a threat to the national security), religious or political organization or individual prominent in such an organization, or news media, or any other matter which, in the judgment of the official authorizing an investigation, should be brought to the attention of FBI Headquarters and other Department of Justice officials.

Durham report: The personnel involved in the decision to open a full investigation have stated that they acted within the FBI 's governing principles as set forth in the AGG-Dom and DIOG that required an authorized purpose and an "articulable factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates" that an activity constituting a federal crime or a national security threat "may be" occurring.

hislegacy said:

yes, he does.

Click to expand...

Durham doesn't say that, nor should he say that knowing that the report from the Australians turned out to be factually true.

Q was in April of 2016, Mifsud told you that he had returned from Moscow where he had learned from high-level Russian Government officials that Russia had, quote, "dirt on Clinton," including thousands of emails. Is that accurate?

A Yeah. So my understanding, my current memory of this meeting was that he invited me to the Andaz Hotel in London by Liverpool Street Station, I guess on April 26, 2016. And at this meeting, he was giddy, you know, like he had something he wanted to get off his chest. And he tells me that the Russians have thousands of Hillary Clinton emails.

hislegacy said:

I did not realize you were in the meeting in person.

Since you provide no link - it reads as first person.

Wanna try again?

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll be happy to provide a link. That was from page 21 in the transcript from the congressional hearing which shows that what the Australians had heard turned out to be true. papadopoulos page 21

hislegacy said:

no link = I'm not going to believe it. Why do you not provide links?

Click to expand...

I'm quoting from page 56 the Durham report. durham report

hislegacy said:

Without any evidence.

Click to expand...

They had the predicate from the Australians that Papadopoulos had heard in early May that Russia had Hillary emails and were going to release them anonymously, which is what Russia was already doing when they received the raw information. So that's evidence that what Papadopoulos had said to the Australians was correct. papadopoulos page 21

From page 55 the Durham report:
Although not referenced in the Opening EC, FBI officials have later pointed to the importance of the Australian information when viewed in conjunction with Russia's likely connections to the Wiki Leaks disclosures and its efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections.

From the Horowitz report:
In March and May 2016, FBI field offices identified a spear phishing campaign by the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (GRU), targeting email addresses associated with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as efforts to place malware on DNC and DCCC computer networks. In June and July 2016, stolen materials were released online through the fictitious personas "Guccifer 2.0" and "DCLeaks." In addition, in late July 2016, Wikileaks released emails obtained from DNC servers as part of its "Hillary Leak Series." By August 2016, the USIC assessed that in the weeks leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections, Russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact or disrupt the elections. In addition to the Russian infiltration of DNC and DCCC computer systems, between March and August 2016, the FBI became aware of numerous attempts to hack into state election systems. These included confirmed access into elements of multiple state or local electoral boards using tactics, techniques, and procedures 49 associated with Russian state-sponsored actors. 163 The FBI learned that Russian efforts also included cyber-enabled scanning and probing of election related infrastructure in several states. It was in this context that the FBI received information on July 28, 2016, about a conversation between Papadopoulos and an official of a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) in May 2016 during which Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion" from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama.

hislegacy said:

And Adam Schiff repeatedly lied to the American public - that is why he was justly censured. The topic of this thread.

Click to expand...

This is what Schiff said to the American people about evidence of Trump campaign collusion/cooperation with Russia, none of which should be characterized as a lie:

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign,” he said. “My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help — no, instead that son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians. You might think it was ok that he took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s ok that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think it’s OK. I don’t.”

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility,” he added. “I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent. You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK he lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK, that that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt, and evidence of collusion.”

“I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK,” concluded Schiff. “The day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day America lost its way.”

JustOneWay said:

I understand about 400 years when trump might have only 20 years left. How about he is sentenced just to 20 years?

JFK was President. trump is not the President. And we probably shouldn't go down that path with the conversation.

Click to expand...

They shouldn't of gone down that path with JFK....

If DT is alive in 2024... he will become President again. They just keep making him more and more popular.

Fantine said:

The Republican controlled Senate refused to issue subpoenas for the first impeachment trial.
Alexander Vindman and others have the evidence.

I don't have a monopoly on truth. Republicans like Cheney and Kinzinger are truth tellers as well.

Click to expand...

Cheney and Kinzinger have gotten what they deserve.... One loses pathetically in a primary, rightly so... the other backs out in shame.
They are hardly truth tellers.

However, if you believe that they tell the truth.... I can understand your point of view in this matter.

hislegacy said:

And Adam Schiff repeatedly lied to the American public - that is why he was justly censured.

Click to expand...

hislegacy said:

no link = I'm not going to believe it. Why do you not provide links?

Click to expand...

No link to the specific lies Schiff allegedly told = I'm not going to believe it. Why do you not provide links?

Cheney and Kinzinger were rejected by a party that has lost its way following authoritarian demagogues. I use the plural because several states have elected authoritarian demagogues in the same mold as the former president (minus the indictments).
The two are prophetic figures, conservatives without the baggage.

Fantine said:

Cheney and Kinzinger were rejected by a party that has lost its way following authoritarian demagogues. I use the plural because several states have elected authoritarian demagogues in the same mold as the former president (minus the indictments).
The two are prophetic figures, conservatives without the baggage.

Click to expand...

Cheney and Kinzinger are Democrats in sheeps clothing.. They got their deserts from the people that they were supposed to represent...

Nobody "lost their way" Cheney and Kinzinger were very well aware of what they were doing and their agenda... The people who put them in office were duped and acted to end the power that these two had.