User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 140

Thread: Trump's excuses for delaying aid are destroyed

  1. #51
    Points: 5,346, Level: 17
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 404
    Overall activity: 80.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered5000 Experience Points
    TheLiquidGuy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    148
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    1,148
    Points
    5,346
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    52
    Thanked 138x in 111 Posts
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    He didn't break any rules.

    If you don't know what you are talking about. You shouldn't talk. If you lived by that rule, we would seldom hear from you.

    Calm down.

    He did break a rule:

    Do not talk about, or even hint at, the contents of an ongoing investigation.

    Now when I say rule, I mean rule. It's not a law. But it's a policy that any credible prosecutors office adheres to.
    Fair trials do not allow the accused to block witnesses from testifying against him.
    "legal therefore moral" is a non sequitur.
    If we are to keep our liberty, the price is eternal vigilance.
    I wish we could agree on what the facts are. I wish we could agree on what a fact is.


  2. #52
    Points: 5,346, Level: 17
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 404
    Overall activity: 80.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered5000 Experience Points
    TheLiquidGuy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    148
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    1,148
    Points
    5,346
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    52
    Thanked 138x in 111 Posts
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Untrue. The conclusion was that nobody admitted to political bias. Additionally, 17 serious acts of misconduct occurred, most around misleading the FISA court, altering evidence, and withholding exonerating evidence.
    Peter, it seems you are the one being misleading here. Here is a direct outtake from the report (pg 14, last paragraph):

    "We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified."

    That's very different from what you said "17 serious acts of misconduct occurred, most around misleading the FISA court"

    He found 17 "errors/omissions" not "serious acts of misconduct." He specifically states they didn't find intentional misconduct.

    Also, I couldn't find anything about withholding exculpatory or exonerating evidence. Please provide a quotation with page number if your claim is true.

    Keep in mind the Carter Page FISA warrant is 412 pages long. So 17 omissions or errors might not seem as bad as you thought
    Last edited by TheLiquidGuy; 12-11-2019 at 01:51 AM.
    Fair trials do not allow the accused to block witnesses from testifying against him.
    "legal therefore moral" is a non sequitur.
    If we are to keep our liberty, the price is eternal vigilance.
    I wish we could agree on what the facts are. I wish we could agree on what a fact is.


  3. #53
    Points: 42,510, Level: 50
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 1,040
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181721
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18,758
    Points
    42,510
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    22
    Thanked 13,406x in 8,335 Posts
    Mentioned
    194 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiquidGuy View Post
    Calm down.

    He did break a rule:

    Do not talk about, or even hint at, the contents of an ongoing investigation.

    Now when I say rule, I mean rule. It's not a law. But it's a policy that any credible prosecutors office adheres to.
    I don't think Durham's credibility is in question.

    On February 22, 2018, John H. Durham was sworn in as the presidentially appointed United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

    Mr. Durham had served as the interim U.S. Attorney since October 28, 2017, after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed an order appointing him to the position. President Donald Trump nominated Mr. Durham to serve as U.S. Attorney on November 1, 2017, and the U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination on February 16, 2018.

    Prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Durham served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in various positions in the District of Connecticut for 35 years, prosecuting complex organized crime, violent crime, public corruption and financial fraud matters.

    From 2008 to 2017, Mr. Durham served as Counsel to the U.S. Attorney; from 1994 to 2008, he served as the Deputy U.S. Attorney, and served as the U.S. Attorney in an acting and interim capacity in 1997 and 1998; from 1989 to 1994, he served as Chief of the Office’s Criminal Division, and from 1982 to 1989, he served as an attorney and then supervisor in the New Haven Field Office of the Boston Strike Force in the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section.

    From 2008 to 2012, Mr. Durham also served as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for the purpose of investigating matters relating to the destruction of certain videotapes by the CIA and the treatment of detainees by the CIA. From 1998 to 2008, Mr. Durham served as a Special Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and Head of the Justice Task Force, where he reviewed alleged criminal conduct by FBI personnel and other law enforcement corruption in Boston, led the prosecution of a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent and a former Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant, and handled direct appeals and related proceedings following convictions after trial.

    From 1978 to 1982, Mr. Durham served as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office headed by Arnold Markle, and from 1977 to 1978, he served as a Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney in the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney.

    From 1975 to 1977, Mr. Durham worked as a Volunteer in Service to America (VISTA) on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana.

    Mr. Durham graduated, with honors, from Colgate University in 1972 and the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1975.

    Mr. Durham has served as an Instructor in the Criminal Justice Department at the University of New Haven, as a Moot Court Judge at the Yale School of Law, and as a lecturer for the Connecticut Bar Association.

    Mr. Durham is the 52nd U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, an office that was established in 1789.


    https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/meet-us-attorney
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-11-2019)

  5. #54
    Points: 72,826, Level: 65
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 324
    Overall activity: 45.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    hanger4's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    212771
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mountains of WNC
    Posts
    27,781
    Points
    72,826
    Level
    65
    Thanks Given
    12,961
    Thanked 13,880x in 9,391 Posts
    Mentioned
    466 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiquidGuy View Post
    He cannot compel witness. But he can approach and ask. And as I understand it he did speak to alot of people. A few declined. Most didn't.


    You didn't address my other two points.


    We are getting way off topic. But I should also point out something about Barr. More evidence that the durham report is intended to be political: I just heard that Barr laid out a timeline for when the Durham report will come in. Real investigations are done when they are done. Not when it's conveniently close to a federal election.
    Your other points are immaterial to the point/correction made. There is no redundancy.

  6. #55
    Points: 72,826, Level: 65
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 324
    Overall activity: 45.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    hanger4's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    212771
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mountains of WNC
    Posts
    27,781
    Points
    72,826
    Level
    65
    Thanks Given
    12,961
    Thanked 13,880x in 9,391 Posts
    Mentioned
    466 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiquidGuy View Post
    Calm down.

    He did break a rule:

    Do not talk about, or even hint at, the contents of an ongoing investigation.

    Now when I say rule, I mean rule. It's not a law. But it's a policy that any credible prosecutors office adheres to.
    What content has Durham revealed ??

  7. #56
    Original Ranter
    Points: 545,434, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    429947
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    163,101
    Points
    545,434
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    96,256
    Thanked 80,927x in 54,574 Posts
    Mentioned
    2247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiquidGuy View Post
    Peter, it seems you are the one being misleading here. Here is a direct outtake from the report (pg 14, last paragraph):
    "We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified."

    That's very different from what you said "17 serious acts of misconduct occurred, most around misleading the FISA court"

    He found 17 "errors/omissions" not "serious acts of misconduct." He specifically states they didn't find intentional misconduct.

    Also, I couldn't find anything about withholding exculpatory or exonerating evidence. Please provide a quotation with page number if your claim is true.

    Keep in mind the Carter Page FISA warrant is 412 pages long. So 17 omissions or errors might not seem as bad as you thought
    They knew the Steele Dossier was fake and used it at the FISA court. That is one reason why Barr and Durham disagree with the IG's finding that nobody deliberately broke the law.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  8. #57
    Original Ranter
    Points: 545,434, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    429947
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    163,101
    Points
    545,434
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    96,256
    Thanked 80,927x in 54,574 Posts
    Mentioned
    2247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hanger4 View Post
    What content has Durham revealed ??
    Didn't all he say was that the two investigations were different.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  9. #58
    Points: 72,826, Level: 65
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 324
    Overall activity: 45.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    hanger4's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    212771
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mountains of WNC
    Posts
    27,781
    Points
    72,826
    Level
    65
    Thanks Given
    12,961
    Thanked 13,880x in 9,391 Posts
    Mentioned
    466 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Didn't all he say was that the two investigations were different.
    Yup, that's it, I'm unaware of any investigation content (who, what, where, when, et al) being publicly dropped or leaked, tis why I asked @TheLiquidGuy to substantiate his 'Durham broke the rules' comment.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to hanger4 For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-11-2019)

  11. #59
    Points: 5,346, Level: 17
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 404
    Overall activity: 80.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered5000 Experience Points
    TheLiquidGuy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    148
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    1,148
    Points
    5,346
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    52
    Thanked 138x in 111 Posts
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Didn't all he say was that the two investigations were different.
    Partial Durham statement...
    ...However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
    Speaking up at this time was not only unnecessary, but a clear attempt to control the narrative. It belies political motivation. Mueller was the gold standard for being tight lipped and staying out of politics. Thats how this should have been handled as well.

    Statement like this are unexpected in real investigations because they are risky and do not even help the investigator to investigate at all. If you were the investigator, why would you take the risk of possibly revealing something that could impede or damage your investigation?

    As for what he revealed. He didn't give explicit details, but even general reveals like the ones I bolded are risky and inadvisable. For example, Saying he did not agree with aspects of the IG report obviously reveals something about Durham’s own conclusion. BTW, why does Durham already know his own conclusions when he is not expected to finish until mid 2020? And why does he know he will finish mid 2020? Real investigations are finished when they are finished (and not just when they are close to elections).
    Last edited by TheLiquidGuy; 12-12-2019 at 04:00 AM.

  12. #60
    Points: 5,346, Level: 17
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 404
    Overall activity: 80.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered5000 Experience Points
    TheLiquidGuy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    148
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    1,148
    Points
    5,346
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    52
    Thanked 138x in 111 Posts
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hanger4 View Post
    Yup, that's it, I'm unaware of any investigation content (who, what, where, when, et al) being publicly dropped or leaked, tis why I asked @TheLiquidGuy to substantiate his 'Durham broke the rules' comment.
    See #59
    Fair trials do not allow the accused to block witnesses from testifying against him.
    "legal therefore moral" is a non sequitur.
    If we are to keep our liberty, the price is eternal vigilance.
    I wish we could agree on what the facts are. I wish we could agree on what a fact is.


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO