Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ana the Ist" data-source="post: 77269213" data-attributes="member: 302807"><p>OK. You have no idea what you're talking about or what you're reading. This will be short. </p><p></p><p>The bolded sections you highlighted.</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii)</em></p><p></p><p>Along with...</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts</em> <em>had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials,</em></p><p></p><p>Refers to how the FBI is supposed to handle intel and its evaluation before opening a full investigation under these or similar circumstances. </p><p></p><p>You're criticism of his use of the word 'significant" is invalid....as it's almost certainly coming word for word from the FBI's own policy as explained in whatever guidelines set out in their procedural guidelines in Sections IV.A.3.b and c. </p><p></p><p>You keep talking about how they had already been investigating the Russians hacking Hillary as if that somehow means that they can just abandon their own rules, responsibilities, and procedures....when opening a completely different investigation into a candidate running for President. </p><p></p><p>They can't....nor should they....because a lot of dumb people out there not only believe the president is still guilty, but the constant leaking of this onerous investigation was nothing more than an attempt to ruin any reelection attempts. It's not Durham's choice to use the word significant....and the other investigation into Russian disinformation doesn't matter. Obviously, it would be smart to frequently meet the agents running that investigation and compare intel....but that's it. The one investigation wasn't merely expanded to include Trump. A completely separate investigation into any possible criminal actions of the Trump campaign was opened. Why? Probably because of the reason I stated earlier. It's a completely different set of crimes....and considerations...and they could reasonably come into evidence of another nation besides Russia involving themselves. </p><p></p><p></p><p>We good now?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ana the Ist, post: 77269213, member: 302807"] OK. You have no idea what you're talking about or what you're reading. This will be short. The bolded sections you highlighted. [I]Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii)[/I] Along with... [I]collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts[/I] [I]had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials,[/I] Refers to how the FBI is supposed to handle intel and its evaluation before opening a full investigation under these or similar circumstances. You're criticism of his use of the word 'significant" is invalid....as it's almost certainly coming word for word from the FBI's own policy as explained in whatever guidelines set out in their procedural guidelines in Sections IV.A.3.b and c. You keep talking about how they had already been investigating the Russians hacking Hillary as if that somehow means that they can just abandon their own rules, responsibilities, and procedures....when opening a completely different investigation into a candidate running for President. They can't....nor should they....because a lot of dumb people out there not only believe the president is still guilty, but the constant leaking of this onerous investigation was nothing more than an attempt to ruin any reelection attempts. It's not Durham's choice to use the word significant....and the other investigation into Russian disinformation doesn't matter. Obviously, it would be smart to frequently meet the agents running that investigation and compare intel....but that's it. The one investigation wasn't merely expanded to include Trump. A completely separate investigation into any possible criminal actions of the Trump campaign was opened. Why? Probably because of the reason I stated earlier. It's a completely different set of crimes....and considerations...and they could reasonably come into evidence of another nation besides Russia involving themselves. We good now? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
Top
Bottom