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

[The Barbarian]

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.

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

 

[The Barbarian]

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'?

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

 

[HannahT]

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

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.

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

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.

 

[HannahT]

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.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I see you read the report.

 

[Halbhh]

...

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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

 

[Halbhh]

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

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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

 

[Halbhh]

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

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)

 

[Halbhh]

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

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).

 

[redleghunter]

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)

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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

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.

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).

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.

 

[Gigimo]

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.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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]

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.

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

Sentenced:

• Former Trump 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to 7.5 years in prison this March for bank and tax fraud and crimes related to his work as a political consultant in Ukraine.
• Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen: Received a three-year prison sentence in Dec. 2018 for tax evasion, bank fraud, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations.
• Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Convicted of lying to investigators about about Russian contacts. He served 12 days in prison and in October, filed to run for former Rep. Katie Hill's California seat.
• Richard Pinedo: The California man was sentenced to six months in prison in Oct. 2018 for selling bank account numbers to Russians who engaged in election interference. He has no known connection to Trump.
• Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan: Pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his work for law firm Skadden, Arps, Meagher, & Flom LLP and Affiliates in 2012. He was sentenced to 30 days in prison and a $20,000 fine.
• Ex-Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty in Feb. 2018 to conspiracy and lying to the FBI. After cooperating extensively in multiple investigations, Gates was sentenced in December to 45 days in jail, three years of probation and 300 hours of community service.

Awaiting sentencing:

• Former national security adviser Michael Flynn: The retired three-star general pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in Dec. 2017. He will be sentenced on Jan. 28.
• Roger Stone: Convicted of obstruction, giving false statements to a House committee and witness tampering. He also lied to Congress about his efforts to learn more about when WikiLeaks would publish damaging emails about 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

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!)

 

[Gigimo]

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!)

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?

 

[Gigimo]

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

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.

 

[tulc]

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

I'm aware the only people going to jail are the people President Trump surrounded himself with, and I'm aware his supporters like to try and bring President Obama up when they can't actually support President Trump.

Makes you wonder how much they benefitted from those folks?

Well since you didn't show any evidence of a connection between them, I'm going to go with: "Apparently, not at all."
tulc(is getting ready for church)