Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Russiagate Fallout: Damaged respect for many government institutions

Russiagate Fallout: Damaged respect for many government institutions

The IG report was narrowly focused; might Comey be prosecuted later on other actions? Would that help restore public trust?

montage by WAJ okay to use

The revelations in the report by IG Horowitz released this past Thursday are disturbing on many levels, but one of the deepest and most basic is of the power of institutions such as the FBI if they become corrupted and corrupt.

What used to be reserved for the plot of movies has now been revealed to have actually happened, and the maneuverings easily could have remained secret if just a few circumstances had been otherwise.

Talk about fostering distrust and paranoia!

Here’s just one example:

And from a comment found on my blog:

Comey is strutting around and running his mouth, as if he knows that he will never be prosecuted…

This got me thinking, and a horrible thought at that.

Could it be that we have all been way too naive and blind to boot, and that all of this “resistance” by apparently every high level official in the alphabet agencies—from both those officials already in place, or starting immediately after their appointment—is a sign that the the coup we feared was taking place today actually took place some time ago and, moreover, that it was successful?

That despite the maintenance of the outward forms of our Republican government—now an ossified and dead shell—it is actually the members of the Deep State, working underneath that concealing, protective shell, who are de facto calling the shots and running the country, as they have been doing for quite some time now?

Whether correct or not, that sort of thinking has been fostered by Russiagate, including the documentation in IG Horowitz’s report. While it’s not true that everyone was naive prior to this—some people have been alleging Deep State control of things for a long time, however naive we were, we are all less naive now. When paranoia, right or wrong, seems justified, it doesn’t bode well for the nation.

As with Watergate and Nixon (which pales in comparison with this), the question can and should be asked: “What did Obama know and when did he know it?” But will that question be asked by anyone with the power to answer it?

This is not the first time the American public has seen what appears to be a two-tiered system of justice. Some people are hounded, harassed, and found guilty of infractions that seem minor while others (in particular, Democrats and members of what has come to be known as the Deep State) are winked at when they appear to be committing acts that are far worse. A discerning person, looking at the situation, can’t help but notice it.

And way too many Americans are willing to look the other way if the person committing the infraction is a member of their party and is out to kneecap a member of the opposite party. Rule of law? What’s that?

I do have a caveat, however. The fat lady has not yet sung on James Comey. The IG report that came out Thursday is not in the nature of a final report. It only concerns Comey’s taking and leaking of the memos, and the DOJ declined to prosecute on that issue alone. Some analysts are saying that this was because that was a weaker case compared to other cases that can and will be made later against Comey. So the DOJ’s decision in this more narrow matter doesn’t mean that Comey will not be prosecuted for some other actions of his connected with Russiagate.

That said, I wonder whether Comey will ever be indicted. I tend to doubt it.

I believe that this entire incident has damaged respect for many government institutions. The loss of such respect—and the apparent loss of integrity within these institutions that has caused that loss of respect—is a profound loss to the nation. It leads us further down a dark path towards more and more chaos and a scrambling for power with no objective rules. That is the deeper meaning and the deeper threat behind these events.

[Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

How long did it take for the IG to tell us what we have all known for over a year? Maybe they’ll be done “investigating” before I die. I doubt it. There won’t be accountability – the corruption is too deep.

“I do have a caveat, however. The fat lady has not yet sung on James Comey.”

My, my, you *are* optimistic. Nothing will happen to this crew, ever, the coup was successful, we have a 2-tier justice system.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to rdmdawg. | September 1, 2019 at 4:56 pm

    We’ve always had a two tier justice system. Drunk driving is an example. The rich kid, or the football champion, gets a ride home courtesy of Officer Friendly. The average Joe sits in jail waiting for his arraignment and bail hearing.

    When was the last time a rich man went to the chair or the gas chamber?

Excellent comment “found on my blog.” The deep state DOJ and FBI thwart the investigations into their wrong doing, and no-one in authority seems interested in or able to stop the stalling. I admit to losing faith in all our institutions, to the extent that I am uncomfortable thinking well of some who I think I should respect, such as AG Barr. Seems to me Barr could call someone into his office to explain document by document why materials are not being produced. Bad actors are being protected, probably by other bad actors, and it just goes on and on.

So I have a question for those in the legal profession … with regard to the ‘equal protection clause’ which would seem to be the inspiration for the ‘equal justice under law’ banner over the Supreme court – why is it when someone like Comey skates for his crimes, aren’t there a rash of appeals from those convicted of similar / lesser crimes? For my (non-legal) sense of what’s right and fair under the law, it seems like that’s a kind of gov’t sanctioned violation of their constitutional rights …

Jennifer Rubin of the WaPo represents a small percentage of people who think the Republican Party should be “burned to the ground.”

If we’re to share such a mindset, I think there might be a much more sizable percentage of the population who think many of our institutions should be burned to the ground.

Working in law enforcement I see that the integrity of the person at the top has a profound influence on the thinking and morale of the rank and file and thus a potential influence on their actions at times.

If you’re going to burn anything to the ground, it should be those in positions of immense power who intentionally and knowingly abuse that power.

Our institutions are only as corrupt as the people who run them.

    “Our institutions are only as corrupt as the people who run them….”

    ALL our institutions are now corrupt. ALL of them. After 8 years of clinton, 8 years of karl rove, 8 years of obama/jarrett/clinton: it’s over, kids.

    Jennifer was talking about President Trump, and everyone who supports him, few of them that is. She’s another dumpster fire.

It’s not “damaged” respect. It’s ALL respect.

The FBI, CIA and IRS are completely suspect: their use as a tool of oppression has been demonstrated by obama/jarrett/clinton. ONLY a great purge of these agencies of corrupt political operatives of the likes of comey and imprisonment of the likes of comey will remedy this.

Our government can no longer be trusted.

    The “damage” occurred a long time ago. The Obama treason and Deep State coup destroyed what little respect remained.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Rusty Bill. | September 1, 2019 at 5:04 pm

      Nixon weaponised the IRS decades ago.

      The FBI has been at the beck and call of whatever regime is in power at a particular time. They gladly recorded MLK’s bedroom gymnastics for LBJ’s… uhm… “pleasure”.

      Obama’s use of the fibbies on Trump is just business as usual. And, those 35,000 agents are only too happy who along with it.

    Firing squads. Public executions. These villains tried to engineer a coup. If they aren’t subjected to capital punishment, as most countries would do, they (or others) will try it again in the future.

Conservative Beaner | September 1, 2019 at 3:10 pm

“Criminal defense attorneys must be dancing around the courtrooms today because they know that many prospective jurors are never going to believe anything an FBI agent says on the stand.”

Maybe that is part of the plan. Eliminate trust in the government and there will be calls to replace it. When they do replace it there will be no Bill of Rights because powerful and corrupt men and women will ensure that it doesn’t.

By the way, if I ever serve on a jury and a government agent is testifying I may not believe them either.

The FACT that the bogus investigation, based on bogus ‘facts’, not only started but gained so much traction –> that lost trust in the FBI and DOJ and others simply can’t be repaired quickly.
If ‘the system’ had stopped this sooner, then repair might be feasible. The system not only didn’t stop it, the system nourished the probe! The system failed.
Does this mean that the prior comment about ‘the coup has happened and the resistance is actually calling the shots’ is accurate? I don’t know one way or the other – and that concerns me.

There is no longer a rule of law in these United States.

It died on July the 5th when comey chose not to prosecute hillary. his articular travesty is just confirmation.

What little respect I had for the fbi, cia or irs is gone, not damaged, but gone.

I have been interviewed by fbi agents 5 times in the course of my work. Only one of the employers they were investigating got indictments, the other 4 times were just fishing expeditions.

I will probably be arrested if I get interviewed again because I will not be able to hide my distrust and disrespect.

Charlie Hargrave

Top criminal defense lawyers are practically dancing in the streets.

The ENTIRE WAY the FBI conducts its business relies upon the public thinking that they are above reproach.

That’s why they persist with the complete bullshit interviews that they do with them writing from memory what they THINK you said and having it stand in a court of law. It relied on the public thinking that FBI agents are highly trained professionals that are always honest and never wrong.

That trust is 100% gone.

The CIA and FBI are jokes. Only a fool would trust either at this point. Unless substantial remedial action is taken soon, there will be no reason to trust any part of the federal government.

    Connivin Caniff in reply to BerettaTomcat. | September 1, 2019 at 3:57 pm

    Only a fool or a D.C. Juror (largely redundant). That is what concerns me. Even if there is a possibility of prosecutions, would you want to try the cases in D.C.?

    The only FBI agents I would trust are Scully and Mulder… I just re-viewed the old video “Don’t Talk to Cops” by James Duane. It’s worth 30 minutes of your time.

Connivin Caniff | September 1, 2019 at 3:55 pm

Comey is the paradigm narcissist. It is amazing how he displays that dark trait so openly, without the slightest awareness or reserve. It is right in everyone’s faces! He should be the clinical example of narcissism for years of text books to come.

“This got me thinking, and a horrible thought at that.

“Could it be that we have all been way too naive…”

You could have stopped right there.

From the very first time when a small group of non-elected people were elevated above their peers with special titles and privileges, you have run the risk of corruption through elitism. Does that make everyone in these agencies corrupt? No, but it drastically increases the odds that some or many were to begin with or will become so as time goes by.

A significant part of the problem started when T. Roosevelt persuaded the gov’t to grant federal agencies the power to enact and enforce regulations as though they were laws. “Laws for thee, but not for me” because they’re the ones defacto creating the rules on the fly with little to no interest in the consequences.

I don’t know a single person who does not believe the FBI/DOJ/IRS are not corrupt to the last man or woman. No one believes the “rank and file are good people ” nonsense anymore.
The difference is liberals like the corruption because it helps them. They do not understand these corruptocrats are helping themselves. Comey was clearly counting on Clinton’s election because he was going to extort her.

Defense attorneys were already using the Clinton defense. Now they have the Clinton-Comey defense. Too bad it’s too late for General Petraeus.

Edward Kennedy killed a woman by letting her drown. He got the most microscopic of slaps on the wrist.

JFK used to share the IRS returns of prominent Republican donors with reporters and laugh about them. He was never prosecuted, nor did the reporters reveal to the public the abuse of power that made Nixon look like a saint by comparison.

William Jefferson Clinton raped and groped any woman he could get his hands on. No jail time for him.

Senators Sherrod Brown and Tom Carper beat up their wives. They still serve in the Senate.

Hillary! should have danced Danny Deever for deliberately running an illegal email server that fed classified information to our geopolitical enemies such as Russia. No charges whatsoever.

Senator John Kerry supported the Communists in Southeast Asia, the same ones torturing and killing American soldiers. He almost became President and did become Secretary of State.

There are countless other examples. The point is this: by the time it was obvious the country was descending into totalitarian darkness the process had been going on for a long time. The question is: is it reversible? I think it is, but not without a civil war that will make the first one look like a love fest.

As one perceptive writer put it: progressives want you dead or enslaved.

    Well, that’s fascism for you.

    Re: Ted the Swimmer, if you get the chance, find a copy of “Senatorial Privilege” by Leo Damore. One of Ted’s cousins [I believe] had Catholic guilt and spilled his guts to Damore.

    1. Ted spent over 2-hours that fateful night making about 35 calls from a payphone in the hotel.
    2. Ted had an expired driver license and the charges would have been more severe, so the Registry of Motor Vehicles had a person go in on a SUNDAY to make a license that Ted surrendered the following MONDAY.
    3. The local sheriff was ordered to lower the estimated speed of the incident to reduce the charges. He later resigned in protest.
    4. Mary Jo had an air pocket that reportedly lasted about 2-hours. Her fingernails were rubbed raw. Had Ted notified authorities immediately, she might have been saved.

There will be no meaningful prosecutions of any of the higher ups in the various Get trump operations. If there are any prosecutions at all.

People have to understand that the Obama Administration, up to and including the POTUS, was involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise. If HRC had been elected everything would have been fine. It would have been business as usual and everyone would have skated. Yo ensure that, first the IC Russian Collusion predicate was manufactured. Then it was sold as a valid CoI op [Crosssfire Hurricane] to obtain a Title I FISA warrant to surveil the Trump Campaign. Still, HRC lost. And, because of the slap-dashed nature of the operations, evidence of criminal wrongdoing abounded. This necessitated the operation to get Trump removed from office through impeachment. The problem is that, ulike Watergate where there really was a small group of conspirators to coverup the burglary, the Obama crime family involved an enormous number of people within the US LE and US and foreign IC as well as civilian assets, such as the DNC, the HRC campaign and Fusion GPS, and the WH, inclluding the POTUS. There was also a number of Congressmen who may have been involved, such as John McCain.

The bureaucracy can not take the chance on creating another John Dean. Too many head would roll.

Ask LeVoy Finnicum, Vicki Weaver, or the Branch Davidian children. Oh, you can’t. The FBI murdered them.

If you look into the entrapment of Randy Weaver and the horrible prosecutorial misconduct that led the Judge to dismiss the charges against the Bundys WITH PREJUDICE (for their ranch, they were found Not Guilty over Malheur) this is merely the corruption in the imperal city – but out here in flyover country, we’ve tasted their contempt in a more profound way.

Strok, Comey, etc. didn’t kill anyone.

    Mac45 in reply to tz. | September 1, 2019 at 7:50 pm

    First of all, there was no evidence that Randy Weaver was “entrapped”. He sold the shotgun knowingly. He was largely acquitted because of the loss of his wife and son, neither of which would have happened if he had simply surrendered himself during the year long negotiations involving thee Marshal’s Office. Finnicum was engage in armed burglary and advanced upon LEOs in a threatening manner while reaching for his pistol. In his case, it was probably a suicide attempt. The Branch Davidian children were more than likely murdered by their parents. They had plenty of time to evacuate the children and any adults who wished to leave, before the assault by the FBI. And, many of them did, in fact, leave. People do NOT have a right to resist a lawful arrest or to ignore a lawful court order.

    Second, while there was obviously great animus displayed toward The Bundys, largely due to the fact that Bundy refused to honor the several court orders ordering him to remove his beeves from federal land and the armed threats directed against the BLM personnel who were enforcing the movement order. Bundy was NOT some innocent, but was a provocateur. That he and his clan managed to skate is unfortunate.

It’s just slightly possible that if there were massive firings at the FBI and some really, really big shots actually went to jail, that some small part of the confidence I have lost in our political and legal systems might be restored.

The coup did happen and they did win but the coup wasn’t in the FBI/DOJ it was in SCOTUS.

Once SCOTUS found that they could make up laws and get away with it they became our real rulers.

We see it now in the Federal courts fighting Trump on everything. But historically not a single major Democrat initiative, other than the Great Society, has ever come about through the regular democratic process.

From coddling criminals to abortion to gay marriage to Obamacare are all the result of activist judges ruling us.

It could take a civil war. How else to bust up, among other things, our corrupt “education” system?

Trust should not be restored — as if that could happen with a snap of the fingers — before we see that trust is again deserved. That will take some doing, quite a bit. Until then we wait and watch, and assess.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 1, 2019 at 11:02 pm

Archey Declarations Prove Comey/McCabe “Small Group” Hid Information From FBI Investigators, Until They Could Get Mueller Appointed…

The Last Refuge

What strikes me as amazing is that when a the typical person is found doing what Comey did (akin to some of what Hillary Clinton did) they are prosecuted to the nth degree, but, since this is Comey, the Left/MSM are running about looking for an argument they can sell to the public to show how a crime really wasn’t a crime. It seems they have settled on the amazingly absurd idea that Comey was a whistle blower and therefore justified in what he did in releasing classified material. (You’ll note that Comey purposely under-classified the secrecy level of his notes in order to provide some degree of protection from prosecution. Anyone who ever held a clearance knows Comey’s actions were premeditated, a manipulation of the legal and security system, and clearly illegal.)
>
Now imagine the absurdity of claiming Comey was a whistle blower. First ask what the role of a whistle blower is? They are people who see illegal or unethical behavior being performed by some organization and, since they lack the power to be heard within the organization to bring about change or justice, they resort to whistle blowing activity in order to be let the public know of the nefarious activity being conducted in the hopes of affecting change. To claim that Comey was in an organization where his voice could not be heard, where he did not have enough clout to affect any kind of change, etc., is simply beyond the pale.

New Neo: Whether correct or not, that sort of thinking has been fostered by Russiagate, including the documentation in IG Horowitz’s report.

That sort of thinking has been pervasive on the political right for generations.

New Neo: That said, I wonder whether Comey will ever be indicted. I tend to doubt it.

Well, that’s probably because there’s insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime.

New Neo: I believe that this entire incident has damaged respect for many government institutions.

That part is true. Comey violated FBI procedures with regards to the Clinton investigation—twice, and again when he leaked the memos. Violating FBI procedures undermines respect for the process, and sets a bad example for others in the FBI. Comey would argue the damage is less than it would have been, but he could have simply spoke out, and let the memos wait.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 2, 2019 at 4:21 pm

    Zachriel: That sort of thinking has been pervasive on the political right for generations.

    and not without good reason

    due to the outright lying and lawbreaking the Democrats have gotten away with in just Obama’s 8 years alone proves there is a systematic problem within the highest federal agencies

    the IRS abuse of power in targeting conservatives ring a bell?

    Clinton runs an illegal server filled with no less than 100 (or is it 300) classified emails, Comey declines to prosecute

    not to mention the destruction of subpoenaed drives (hard evidence) during the investigation into it

    FISA abuses, built on a phony dossier, and the IG is still 2+ years into trying to figure out if THAT is a crime?

    and that was just in the last 5 years

    Zachriel: Well, that’s probably because there’s insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime.

    we’ve been over this in another thread

    there is far and away enough evidence to bring charges against Comey on two issues – mishandling classified information and illegally having such info

    he was not FBI director when he passed his memos (which Horowitz had to admit in that report was federal property) off to unauthorized personnel

    heck, Comey could even be charged with perjury to the Senate and even lying to the President

    Zachriel: That part is true. Comey violated FBI procedures with regards to the Clinton investigation—twice, and again when he leaked the memos. Violating FBI procedures undermines respect for the process, and sets a bad example for others in the FBI. Comey would argue the damage is less than it would have been, but he could have simply spoke out, and let the memos wait.

    you are missing the point

    Comey has even less of an argument than you are making due to his memos being mostly BS in the first place

    at the time of Comey’s short-lived time as FBI head under Trump, he was running a counter-intelligence scam on his presidency based on an entirely false premise

    and this is after he tanks Hillary’s email scandal despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary

    I know you are a liberal – but man get off the pipe here because you are still chalk full of smoke with no fire

      fishstick: and not without good reason

      The claims is that the “deep state” runs the country. While history shows that there are valid reasons for concern about government overreach or agencies run amok, the right often devolves into hysterics about black helicopters and whatnot.

      fishstick: the IRS abuse of power in targeting conservatives ring a bell?

      Sure. One office of the IRS took shortcuts. The rules said the groups couldn’t be primarily political, and there was a flood of “Tea Party” groups. It wasn’t unreasonable to suppose a political motive, so they were selected for higher scrutiny, but the methodology was wrong. Liberal groups were also negatively affected by the methodology.

      fishstick: Clinton runs an illegal server filled with no less than 100 (or is it 300) classified emails, Comey declines to prosecute

      Because there was insufficient evidence that Clinton committed a criminal act.

      fishstick: not to mention the destruction of subpoenaed drives (hard evidence) during the investigation into it

      The erasure of emails under subpoena was illegally done by a technician, but the evidence is that he was acting on his own to cover his own mistakes.

      fishstick: FISA abuses, built on a phony dossier, and the IG is still 2+ years into trying to figure out if THAT is a crime?

      The primary claim of the dossier, that the Russians were interfering in the U.S. election, and that they were trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign, have been substantially confirmed.

      fishstick: there is far and away enough evidence to bring charges against Comey on two issues – mishandling classified information and illegally having such info

      That is incorrect. The government would have to show that Comey knew the information was relating to the national defence and that he knew the information could be injurious to the United States. The available evidence indicates otherwise. Comey says he wrote the memos specifically to exclude such information, so that would be exculpatory. Notably, Trump’s Department of Justice declined to prosecute.

      fishstick: Comey could even be charged with perjury to the Senate and even lying to the President

      Lying to the congress would be a crime, but courts have found that lying to the president is not generally a crime. What lie did Comey tell the Senate?

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 2, 2019 at 5:58 pm

        Zachriel: The claims is that the “deep state” runs the country. While history shows that there are valid reasons for concern about government overreach or agencies run amok, the right often devolves into hysterics about black helicopters and whatnot.

        “Deep State” refers to left of center career insiders, and usually in non-appointed positions using their positions and influence to disrupt right of center policy

        and very recent history shows they do run amok with various overreaching in the highest of government positions

        just look at the actions of Lois Lerner and James Comey

        those are two that just got caught red-handed

        and lets not go into talk about the leftist judges trying to roadblock President Trump

        Zachriel: Sure. One office of the IRS took shortcuts. The rules said the groups couldn’t be primarily political, and there was a flood of “Tea Party” groups. It wasn’t unreasonable to suppose a political motive, so they were selected for higher scrutiny, but the methodology was wrong. Liberal groups were also negatively affected by the methodology.

        no they actually got caught, then exposed, then reprimanded by a federal judge

        just because Lerner didn’t see a day in a prison cell does not mean her office (or the Obama camp) was justified in their actions

        and no – liberal groups were not affected to even a hundredth of the degree conservatives were, primarily Tea Party constituents

        so you can save that as an excuse for someone else

        Zachriel: Because there was insufficient evidence that Clinton committed a criminal act.

        her server was illegal on multiple fronts – even against Obama’s own established protocol

        each classified email sent to that server – what’s the count now 300 something? – is an individual federal crime

        the only thing keeping her out of a courtroom is an AG unwilling to prosecute

        even Comey had to admit in his presser trying to absolve Hillary of guilt that she broke numerous laws while as Secretary of State on the issue of her server alone

        Zachriel: The erasure of emails under subpoena was illegally done by a technician, but the evidence is that he was acting on his own to cover his own mistakes.

        IF you believe that

        but even still – it still doesn’t absolve HRC of that charge

        not to mention the smashed harddrives, which is also hard evidence destroyed under a federal subpoena

        Zachriel: The primary claim of the dossier, that the Russians were interfering in the U.S. election, and that they were trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign, have been substantially confirmed.

        but it hasn’t

        the Mueller report had to admit not a single vote was changed nor likely was altered by your so-called Russia collusion angle

        at best the Democrats can cry Russia used disinformation to try and interfere with the election

        but there is still no evidence of any election tampering or of Trump colluding with Russia (whatever that means)

        none of it has been confirmed

        that is why the Democrats have changed the goalposts from Russia Collusion to now “obstruction” and “he’s racist”

        Zachriel: That is incorrect. The government would have to show that Comey knew the information was relating to the national defence and that he knew the information could be injurious to the United States. The available evidence indicates otherwise. Comey says he wrote the memos specifically to exclude such information, so that would be exculpatory. Notably, Trump’s Department of Justice declined to prosecute.

        you keep saying this but it doesn’t matter

        Comey even having the material constitutes a crime

        that is what you are missing and the fact you are intentionally ignoring here

        Comey no longer had the authority to even possess his own very memo he wrote under the capacity of his office

        as for AG Barr not prosecuting – that is hardly a defense there

        I hardly though he would be the one to prosecute Hillary or Comey

        the fact you hear almost nothing about him speaks volumes to what he is actually doing – which amounts to nothing

        but hey – he can try to prove me wrong

        Zachriel: Lying to the congress would be a crime, but courts have found that lying to the president is not generally a crime. What lie did Comey tell the Senate?

        Comey claimed he did not authorize anyone to leak information to the media – which the IG indicated his response was untrue

        he also was caught lying about his own memos to the FBI – which is can still constitute a perjury charge

        that revolves around disclosure to admit he had a specific memo the agency at the time was unaware of (at the time)

          fishstick: “Deep State” refers to left of center career insiders, and usually in non-appointed positions using their positions and influence to disrupt right of center policy

          “A deep state, also known as a state within a state, is a form of clandestine government made up of hidden or covert networks of power operating independently of a state’s political leadership, in pursuit of their own agenda and goals.” The deep state in United States is usually considered a conspiracy theory.

          fishstick: just look at the actions of Lois Lerner and James Comey

          Lerner wouldn’t be considered deep state. It was one office that ran amok. A conspiracy monger might see a conspiracy surrounding Comey, but the monger would have to squint real hard.

          fishstick: and lets not go into talk about the leftist judges trying to roadblock President Trump

          That’s not “deep state”, but an independent judiciary and the balance of powers.

          fishstick: no they actually got caught, then exposed, then reprimanded by a federal judge

          You mean yes they actually got caught, then exposed, then reprimanded by a federal judge. No criminal charges were ever filed.

          fishstick: liberal groups were not affected to even a hundredth of the degree conservatives were, primarily Tea Party constituents

          Actually, dozens of liberal groups with words like “progressive” in their names were also subjected to enhanced scrutiny.

          fishstick: each classified email sent to that server – what’s the count now 300 something? – is an individual federal crime

          Well, no. The law requires the elements of “scienter and bad faith” be established. In particular, the government would have to prove that the person knew the information was relating to the national defense and that it would be injurious to the United States. Clinton extensively used the secure State Department intranet for secure communications, and email for day-to-day communications. It’s common for classified information to show up in emails, and a constant problem for the government. The evidence does not support a criminal charge.

          fishstick: not to mention the smashed harddrives, which is also hard evidence destroyed under a federal subpoena

          Memory devices are often destroyed after being erased as a security measure, but in this case were destroyed before the subpoena. However, emails were erased from the server after the subpoena.

          fishstick: the Mueller report had to admit not a single vote was changed nor likely was altered by your so-called Russia collusion angle

          There’s no evidence that any ballots were changed. There is no way to know whether voters changed their mind after exposure to Russian propaganda, or in reaction to the felonious theft and release of DNC emails, something in which Trump reveled.

          fishstick: you keep saying this but it doesn’t matter

          Of course the law matters when you claim someone has broken the law.

          fishstick: Comey even having the material constitutes a crime

          It’s not a crime if it doesn’t meet the lawful criteria, as explained above.

          fishstick: Comey claimed he did not authorize anyone to leak information to the media – which the IG indicated his response was untrue

          Comey testified he did authorize a leak of the memos to the media. He said the leaks contained no classified information.

          Inspector General: “We found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the Memos to members of the media.”

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 3, 2019 at 5:19 pm

          Zachriel: “A deep state, also known as a state within a state, is a form of clandestine government made up of hidden or covert networks of power operating independently of a state’s political leadership, in pursuit of their own agenda and goals.” The deep state in United States is usually considered a conspiracy theory.

          yeah and in this case – “Deep State” refers to left of center career insiders, and usually in non-appointed positions using their positions and influence to disrupt right of center policy

          not really seeing how anything you typed disproves anything I typed

          conspiracy is only conspiracy if and only if there is no evidence of such an existence

          like Trump-Russia collusion

          but considering the actions of the former FBI head James Comey, and former IRS chair Lois Lerner, it is not much of stretch to claim the political left has tainted the upper echelon of the federal government

          Zachriel: Lerner wouldn’t be considered deep state. It was one office that ran amok. A conspiracy monger might see a conspiracy surrounding Comey, but the monger would have to squint real hard.

          hate to break it to ya – she is a leftist buddy who had like 50 something WH meetings with Obama in his first term

          the office ran amok due to the actions of an Obama presidency

          Comey on the other hand ran a false narrative to first spy on a presidential transition then later initiate a special prosecution to derail said administration

          no one has to squint “real hard” to understand the implications of Comey’s actions

          Zachriel: That’s not “deep state”, but an independent judiciary and the balance of powers.

          that’s still “deep state” aka the left abusing authority of station

          and these federal judges are getting bad enough for that a case is making its way to the Supreme Court addressing this very issue

          Zachriel: You mean yes they actually got caught, then exposed, then reprimanded by a federal judge. No criminal charges were ever filed.

          you are forgetting the main reason Lois Lerner wasn’t prosecuted was simply because the shame of her departure happened under the Obama presidency

          his DOJ was never going to bother bringing up a case against her

          Comey (and Strzok) aren’t being prosecuted because Horowitz (another lefty) is using his office as a roadblock to their prosection

          I’ve said it many a time before that Trump should have been long rid of this IG when he came out and said Strzok was somehow ‘unbiased’ in his actions as an FBI deputy, despite the mountain of evidence he had showing the contrary

          Zachriel: Actually, dozens of liberal groups with words like “progressive” in their names were also subjected to enhanced scrutiny.

          No. They actually were not

          having a near dozen “liberal” organizations fall under the IRS scrutiny does not compare to the hundreds upon hundreds of “conservatives” were by comparison

          just stop trying to make this argument

          it is even weaker than your defense of Comey

          Zachriel: Well, no. The law requires the elements of “scienter and bad faith” be established. In particular, the government would have to prove that the person knew the information was relating to the national defense and that it would be injurious to the United States. Clinton extensively used the secure State Department intranet for secure communications, and email for day-to-day communications. It’s common for classified information to show up in emails, and a constant problem for the government. The evidence does not support a criminal charge.

          again – you miss the fact the server itself was illegal

          heck, her server was even against the Obama administrations own policy

          that is the only fact that matters here

          your concept of “scienter and bad faith” is something dealt within the courts, not investigations of potentially illegal activity

          her email server had literally hundreds of “classified” documents

          one does not need to “prove” HRC knew those files were being sent to her own unsecure line

          the fact they were there is proof enough

          as each one could be brought up as an individual infraction under the law

          Zachriel: Memory devices are often destroyed after being erased as a security measure, but in this case were destroyed before the subpoena. However, emails were erased from the server after the subpoena.

          you are just sounding silly at this point

          they were erased while under court subpoena, same with her blackberry devices that were smashed to bits

          besides – why would her camp even smash them at all if they weren’t a security risk?

          Zachriel: There’s no evidence that any ballots were changed. There is no way to know whether voters changed their mind after exposure to Russian propaganda, or in reaction to the felonious theft and release of DNC emails, something in which Trump reveled.

          what Russian ‘propaganda’ though

          none of that was ever specified in the Mueller report

          and it was never actually proven that Russia even scored the theft of the DNC emails – as the server that was supposedly hacked was never inspected by the FBI but by a Democratic Party third party

          the info the Mueller team ran on the idea Russia hacked the server, was outsourced

          it did not even come from their own department

          face it – there is just no evidence Russia had any real meddling in the 2016 election

          it is still at this point, just conjecture

          Zachriel: Of course the law matters when you claim someone has broken the law. It’s not a crime if it doesn’t meet the lawful criteria, as explained above.

          you can keep typing this but I’ll keep repeating this

          Comey broke two laws in mishandling of FBI property then also leaking such property to unauthorized personnel

          he was no longer FBI director when his secret memos became public thus Horowitz (if he wanted to) could a build a case on that angle

          Zachriel: Comey testified he did authorize a leak of the memos to the media. He said the leaks contained no classified information.

          Inspector General: “We found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the Memos to members of the media.”

          actually he testified first he wasn’t the source of the leak

          this was during the Strzok affair

          plus the memos were later tagged with “classified” status even if none of that info ever made the public light

          and that hardly clears Comey of the charges of misappropriating such federal material he no longer had the authority to wield

          in this case – it would not matter if such “notes” were not national state secrets

          merely having unauthorized access to FBI documents is an infraction itself

          fishstick: “Deep State” refers to left of center career insiders, and usually in non-appointed positions using their positions and influence to disrupt right of center policy

          Your own description sounds more like bureaucratic inertia, rather than a state within a state.

          fishstick: {Lerner} is a leftist buddy who had like 50 something WH meetings with Obama in his first term

          So? The evidence argues against a deep state conspiracy, but suggests bureaucratic bungling. That was the conclusion of the courts.

          fishstick: Comey on the other hand ran a false narrative to first spy on a presidential transition then later initiate a special prosecution to derail said administration

          There was more than sufficient evidence in the public domain to support a warrant. And there’s a great deal of evidence that remains redacted. Notably, there is no public knowledge that the FISC has gotten involved. Perhaps the court is raising a ruckus in secret, but it’s doubtful that would remain under wraps for long.

          fishstick: having a near dozen “liberal” organizations fall under the IRS scrutiny does not compare to the hundreds upon hundreds of “conservatives” were by comparison

          The reports are that it was dozens compared to hundred. That is not “not affected even a hundredth of the degree”. It’s math.

          fishstick: you miss the fact the server itself was illegal

          No. It was against policy to use personal email for State business.

          fishstick: your concept of “scienter and bad faith” is something dealt within the courts, not investigations of potentially illegal activity

          That’s doesn’t make sense. You are saying a prosecutor has to show intent in court, but can’t investigate the elements of intent. Indeed, intent is an important consideration in much of criminal law, and consequently, is an important aspect of criminal investigation. It’s encapsulated in the famous categorical trinity from criminology: “Means, Motive and Opportunity”, which forms the basic framework for criminal detection.

          fishstick: one does not need to “prove” HRC knew those files were being sent to her own unsecure line

          Only if you want to charge her with a crime.

          fishstick: none of that was ever specified in the Mueller report

          Where you been? Mueller charged Russian nationals with interfering in the U.S. election through propaganda, and with attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

          Meanwhile, Russian agents have been charged in the hacking of the DNC.

          fishstick: and it was never actually proven that Russia even scored the theft of the DNC emails

          Well, there is a courtroom ready for the Russian agents so accused.

          fishstick: the info the Mueller team ran on the idea Russia hacked the server, was outsourced

          Expert witnesses are a typical standard of proof. In this case, however, the FBI was provided the server logs, and made their own analysis. Most important, this is part of a pattern of cyberwarfare by Russia against open democracies around the world.

          fishstick: merely having unauthorized access to FBI documents is an infraction itself

          If you mean a criminal infraction, then you won’t mind citing the statute.

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 4, 2019 at 11:10 am

          Zachriel: Your own description sounds more like bureaucratic inertia, rather than a state within a state.

          state within a state isn’t the modern use of the “Deep State” verbiage

          it is more of a left-wing bureaucracy running in tandem with the D-Party and set against the R-Party

          Zachriel: So? The evidence argues against a deep state conspiracy, but suggests bureaucratic bungling. That was the conclusion of the courts.

          and it also proves a left-wing bias within these institutions

          Zachriel: There was more than sufficient evidence in the public domain to support a warrant. And there’s a great deal of evidence that remains redacted. Notably, there is no public knowledge that the FISC has gotten involved. Perhaps the court is raising a ruckus in secret, but it’s doubtful that would remain under wraps for long.

          it is actually the polar opposite

          there was no evidence at all to the original counter-intelligence upon the Trump campaign team

          it all started with a foreign diplomat (I think from Australia) and a phony Russian dossier

          and the FISA court issued the FBI 5 or 6 continuous warrants, based on information the FBI even had to admit later was unverified

          that in of itself is another crime

          Zachriel: The reports are that it was dozens compared to hundred. That is not “not affected even a hundredth of the degree”. It’s math.

          Correct

          except the numbers showed it was a dozen “liberals” groups when compred to a hundred “conservative” ones

          and this doesn’t take into account the “liberal” organizations that were tagged were nominally pushed through despite being flagged while the “conservative” ones got stalled through the process for months on end

          Zachriel: No. It was against policy to use personal email for State business.

          No. it is still against the law to have classified documents pass through unsanctioned points of access, which HRC’s homemade server classified as

          what makes it even worse is others in her team had access to this same exact server without having proper clearances

          Zachriel: That’s doesn’t make sense. You are saying a prosecutor has to show intent in court, but can’t investigate the elements of intent. Indeed, intent is an important consideration in much of criminal law, and consequently, is an important aspect of criminal investigation. It’s encapsulated in the famous categorical trinity from criminology: “Means, Motive and Opportunity”, which forms the basic framework for criminal detection.

          but Horowitz is the investigative body

          not the prosecutor

          the argument you are still trying to make here has no bearing on Comey’s reasoning for his actions being somehow lawful under some penal code

          Zachriel: Only if you want to charge her with a crime.

          except only having said documents on an illegal device is sufficient enough to be charged with a crime

          Zachriel: Where you been? Mueller charged Russian nationals with interfering in the U.S. election through propaganda, and with attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

          Meanwhile, Russian agents have been charged in the hacking of the DNC.

          yet the FBI still cannot prove the Russians hacked the DNC server

          it was a premise they ran on – not something they actually verified

          answered this question – did the FBI inspect the DNC server that was supposedly hacked?

          in addition – most of the Russians you claim were charged with “election interference” was at best an internet campaign

          which anyone can f-ing do

          so the Mueller team would have to prove in court that each specific Russian charged somehow affected US voter’s minds with internet ads?

          and the one Russian that plead guilty had nothing to do with the 2016 election or the Trump campaign or transition teams

          the better question is – where have you been?

          the Mueller report was a total dud, made even more evident in his own hearing, then the media shift away from Russia collusion to “obstruction”

          Zachriel: Well, there is a courtroom ready for the Russian agents so accused.

          again – the FBI hasn’t even verified the DNC claims because they had never inspected the server that was supposedly hacked

          Zachriel: Expert witnesses are a typical standard of proof. In this case, however, the FBI was provided the server logs, and made their own analysis. Most important, this is part of a pattern of cyberwarfare by Russia against open democracies around the world.

          you miss the point they were provided info by a third party hired by the Democrats themselves

          this isn’t an expert witness – it is a literal employee of the DNC – whose own data was never confirmed nor cross-examined by any FBI investigative body

          in other words – its tainted data

          again – with the Russia election interference, it was an internet campaign the majority were charged with

          not actual election interference

          there is a monumental difference

          Zachriel: If you mean a criminal infraction, then you won’t mind citing the statute.

          I’m no law expert but I’m sure Comey broke a federal infraction somewhere with his lying to the FBI, withholding federal documents, and intentionally passing off such documents to unauthorized personnel

MrE: why is it when someone like Comey skates for his crimes

Because there was insufficient evidence to charge Comey with a crime.

CDR D: Firing squads. Public executions.

“I love the smell of napalm in the morning… smells like victory.”

ceh9876: There is no longer a rule of law in these United States.

Overstatement. The vast majority of U.S. institutions continue to work effectively, including constraining the president thus far. The major damage is allowing foreign entities to continue to undermine the electoral process, and the fracturing of important alliances.

Connivin Caniff: Comey is the paradigm narcissist.

Comey is but the pale light of the moon compared to the bright noon sun of Trump.

MrSatyre: A significant part of the problem started when T. Roosevelt persuaded the gov’t to grant federal agencies the power to enact and enforce regulations as though they were laws.

The regulatory state dates to the Washington Administration. The oldest extant regulatory agency dates to the Civil War.

trinko: Once SCOTUS found that they could make up laws and get away with it they became our real rulers.

Darn that John Marshall (Marbury, 1803).

Rick: It could take a civil war. How else to bust up, among other things, our corrupt “education” system?

Nothing like a civil war to make up for somebody somewhere not following the proper procedures with regards to releasing memos.

Cleetus: To claim that Comey was in an organization where his voice could not be heard, where he did not have enough clout to affect any kind of change, etc., is simply beyond the pale.

That’s a reasonable point. However, Comey believed that once he was gone, that the truth could get buried. When Trump suggested he had tapes of their conversations, Comey leaked the memos.

    Edward in reply to Zachriel. | September 2, 2019 at 4:12 pm

    Tell us, how much time have you spent working with Bureau personnel? Or, other than an intimate knowledge of Bureau operations and methods, what is your basis for claiming to know exactly what Comey believed and precisely why he did what he did (as opposed to any CYA statements by Comey)?

    Or is it all speculation and male bovine excrement?

      Edward in reply to Edward. | September 2, 2019 at 4:14 pm

      Yes, I did that. Wasted a few moments replying to a true believer. My only excuse is I’m old and I forget which ones are the trolls on sites where they aren’t blocked.

      Edward: what is your basis for claiming to know exactly what Comey believed and precisely why he did what he did

      We have Comey’s actions, the sequence of events, and Comey’s testimony which is consistent with his normal modes of behavior. This isn’t necessarily conclusive, but is certainly stronger evidence than “Is not!”

      But we’ll restate: However, Comey suggested that once he was gone, the truth could get buried. When Trump suggested he had tapes of their conversations, Comey leaked the memos.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 2, 2019 at 5:24 pm

        none of which you typed here is consistent with Horowitz’s own report into this manner

        again – the only reason Comey wasn’t recommended for prosecution (by the IG) is due to Horowitz twisting a defense saying the memos ‘could’ be considered Comey’s property and that his intent cannot be proven to have been knowingly giving out classified information

        if Horowitz cannot prove Comey’s intent in his own example, then he sure as well can’t disprove it either if taking a harder stance that even having any one of these “memos” being entirely unauthorized coupled with illegally handling a federal document

        even after all this time – you still haven’t separated Comey the FBI director who wrote these memos from Comey the not-FBI director who leaked said memos

        I agree if Comey was still FBI director when he leaked this information out – then there would likely be no roadmap to his prosecution

        but any prosecutor could easily build a case and bring charges against, if they wanted to

        Horowitz just clearly doesn’t want to

        Zachriel: But we’ll restate: However, Comey suggested that once he was gone, the truth could get buried. When Trump suggested he had tapes of their conversations, Comey leaked the memos.

        except for the fact there is no truth in the case Comey was trying to build against Trump by leaking these memos

        Comey even admits this that his main goal was to build a special prosecution team against the President

        and this was against a President he had already been undermining since BEFORE his election

        do you not think that Comey knew the entire case built against Trump at that point in time had been based on two foreign agents and a dossier filled to the brim with unverified data?

        and now we are finding out the FBI was trying to plant moles into the Trump transition team?

        I know you are a liberal here but again – even after 3 years of investigating smoke, there is still no fire

        Comey was proven to be completely unjustified in his own actions

        and the really scary thing was – this big buffoon was in charge of the FBI

          fishstick: if Horowitz cannot prove Comey’s intent in his own example, then he sure as well can’t disprove it either if taking a harder stance that even having any one of these “memos” being entirely unauthorized coupled with illegally handling a federal document

          What law are you claiming Comey broke?

          fishstick: except for the fact there is no truth in the case Comey was trying to build against Trump by leaking these memos

          Comey says that Trump asked him to back off of the Flynn investigation. That directly undermines the rule of law.

          I’ve watched these sorts of investigations since back before Watergate and the one certainty I’ve learned is that speculation is meaningless.

          The Department of Justice has proven over and over again to be completely “gutless” when it come to prosecuting the “governing class” .. there are two classes in this country: those for which the laws apply and those who are above the law. If there is any inequity in this country, it all starts with the DOJ.

          Neo: The Department of Justice has proven over and over again to be completely “gutless” when it come to prosecuting the “governing class”

          There’s no doubt that the rich and well-connected are much less likely to be arrested, charged, to be charged at higher levels, to be found guilty, or to be punished severely. However, that’s not new, but something that’s been true throughout legal history.

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 4, 2019 at 9:08 am

          Zachriel: There’s no doubt that the rich and well-connected are much less likely to be arrested, charged, to be charged at higher levels, to be found guilty, or to be punished severely. However, that’s not new, but something that’s been true throughout legal history.

          true enough, but in this case the big obstacle still remains that an Obama holdover is running this investigation

          thus his conclusions can be easily argued (and are) in being drawn on the base premise of a “non-prosecution”

          Horozwitz acts more like a defense team trying to excuse all this bad behavior he has ‘discovered’ instead of an investigator trying to build a reasonable case for a prosecution

          if I was Trump – I would have fired him already

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 4, 2019 at 1:22 pm

        Zachriel: We have Comey’s actions, the sequence of events, and Comey’s testimony which is consistent with his normal modes of behavior. This isn’t necessarily conclusive, but is certainly stronger evidence than “Is not!”

        just have to point this out – one could easily see this exact same sequence as irregular behavior by a rogue government agent

        Comey’s actions were petty (and I would argue illegal) to say in the least and were against his better character – if he ever had one

        what makes this whole fiasco worse is the entire basis of the counter-investigation Comey was a part of – and one he kept hidden from Trump the candidate to Trump the president – was based entirely on a falsehood

        even after a 2+ year investigation into every aspect of Trump’s campaign, Trump’s family, and presidential team, and Democrats are still no where close to even bringing a case against him for Russia collusion

        most of the special counsel’s “victories” were of crimes not even associated with Trump the candidate nor Russia itself

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 2, 2019 at 5:02 pm

    Zachriel: Because there was insufficient evidence to charge Comey with a crime.

    again – there was ample evidence to charge Comey with a plethora of crimes

    perjury, mishandling of federal documents, unauthorized access to such documents, just to name a bare few

    Zachriel: “I love the smell of napalm in the morning… smells like victory.”

    lets be honest here – death is likely too good for these assclowns

    Comey, HRC, Strzok, Lynch, Clapper, heck most of the Obama cabal deserve to spend 20 years to life in small cell for their abuses of power

    not that any of THAT will likely happen but it is no less than what they truly deserve

    Zachriel: Comey is but the pale light of the moon compared to the bright noon sun of Trump.

    I’m sorry but I’m going to have to call BS here

    Trump isn’t even half as the conceited man-child your boy Obama was while he was in office

    and that is saying alot because Trump has a big ego

    the only difference is, Trump actually does something a “right-winger” rarely does and that is fight back against the leftist media horde

    Trump is practically a saint compared to Comey

    Zachriel: The regulatory state dates to the Washington Administration. The oldest extant regulatory agency dates to the Civil War.

    great way to take MrSatyre out of context

    and the Civil War was almost 90 years and like 20 states after the first administration

    oh lest we not forget, electricity (and mass transportation) was only revolutionized across America – a few decades later

    jackshit (literally) had any regulation back then

    you are talking 2 completely different time periods

    Zachriel: Darn that John Marshall (Marbury, 1803).

    yeah nothing like judges having federal overreach beyond their original station, eh?

    instead of interpreting the law (and any future law) as written, opened the door for the loony leftists to later interpret words (and text) as though they were Humpty Dumpty

    Zachriel: Nothing like a civil war to make up for somebody somewhere not following the proper procedures with regards to releasing memos.

    again I think you overthought the analogy made here

    I myself don’t really think another Civil War is even possible – due to military advances – it is not going to end well politically for these federal agencies if one specific party continues gets the kid glove treatment while the other side gets lambasted with the letter of the law

    right now the IRS was used by the Democrats as a tool not that long ago

    now it is coming out the FBI, CIA, and with the aid of foreign bodies colluded to spy on then obstruct a Trump presidency

    remember – 3 years ago, I would bet my life savings you were of the opinion Trump was crazy for even suggesting his campaign was wiretapped

    well it is not so crazy now

    Zachriel: That’s a reasonable point. However, Comey believed that once he was gone, that the truth could get buried. When Trump suggested he had tapes of their conversations, Comey leaked the memos.

    yet Horowitz even had to admit in his own report that Comey’s objective was a vindictive one

    Comey did not leak his memos because he felt some higher calling of truth and justice

    he did it in the hopes a special council would be formed to openly investigate the President as a Russia plant

    and we know now much of THAT has been already proven by other investigations to been predicated and built upon a lie, one of which is ironically told by Comey himself

    the evidence the OIG gathered showed Comey did this to ‘get back’ at the President who had canned his sorry ass, and we now know had every reason to

    do you agree?

      fishstick: perjury, mishandling of federal documents, unauthorized access to such documents, just to name a bare few

      Mishandling of federal documents is not generally a crime. However, perjury would be a crime. What perjury did Comey commit?

      fishstick: Trump isn’t even half as the conceited man-child your boy Obama was while he was in office

      Haha! Funny!

      fishstick: and the Civil War was almost 90 years and like 20 states after the first administration

      Four score and seven years after the founding, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was established.

      fishstick: instead of interpreting the law (and any future law) as written, opened the door for the loony leftists to later interpret words (and text) as though they were Humpty Dumpty

      The vast expansion of liberty in the United States occurred under Marbury.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 2, 2019 at 6:16 pm

        Zachriel: Mishandling of federal documents is not generally a crime. However, perjury would be a crime. What perjury did Comey commit?

        wrong – mishandling of federal documents, showing them to unauthorized personnel, then leaking them is a serious federal infraction

        especially when you no longer have proper clearance, which not-FBI director Comey had at the time

        Comey lied to Congress about his role in leaking his memos, then to the FBI about having federal material

        again while as not-FBI director

        Zachriel: Haha! Funny!

        I find it to be more sad actually

        Zachriel: Four score and seven years after the founding, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was established.

        and what does that have to do with this?

        we talking about banking now?

        Zachriel: Comey says that Trump asked him to back off of the Flynn investigation. That directly undermines the rule of law.

        you do realize that Trump could literally have ordered Comey to desist his investigation into Flynn, then order him to re-open a case against Hillary Clinton into her illegal server

        and still be within his legal right as President of the United States?

        the President did not break a law, nor did he undermine the law by doing so

        you do realize that, right?

        Zachriel: What law are you claiming Comey broke?

        have you read anything I’ve typed thus far?

        Zachriel: No. The Inspector General found that Comey acted on “own strongly-held personal convictions”. He was deeply concerned with Trump’s behavior, and viewed it as a grave threat to the rule of law in the United States.

        No. that is actually the conclusion the IG drew from his investigation

        many others have pointed out that his very own report undermines the defense Horowitz for some reason decided to write for Comey

          fishstick: mishandling of federal documents, showing them to unauthorized personnel, then leaking them is a serious federal infraction

          There is no law concerning the handling of federal documents as a whole, though there are laws that cover certain federal documents, such as those relating to the national defense.

          fishstick: especially when you no longer have proper clearance, which not-FBI director Comey had at the time

          Oh, you mean classified documents. You should have said so. Classified documents are not protected by law per se, unless they are pertaining to the national defense, and would be injurious to the United States. Even then, the government has to prove “scienter and bad faith”.

          18 U.S. Code § 793
          Gorin v. United States

          fishstick: Comey lied to Congress about his role in leaking his memos, then to the FBI about having federal material

          You keep making the claim. You might want to provide specifics.

          fishstick: we talking about banking now?

          You were talking about the regulatory state.

          fishstick: you do realize that Trump could literally have ordered Comey to desist his investigation into Flynn, then order him to re-open a case against Hillary Clinton into her illegal server

          Sure. But even valid powers can be abused. A simple example is the president telling people they will be pardoned if they commit crimes at the president’s behest; or if that is too rarefied for you, accepting a wad of cash in return for voting for a piece of legislation.

          fishstick: have you read anything I’ve typed thus far?

          Yes. All of it. Something about mishandling federal documents, which is generally not a crime. As for mishandling of classified documents, we have repeatedly addressed that question.

          fishstick: that is actually the conclusion the IG drew from his investigation

          That’s right. You handwaved towards the Inspector General’s report, while we quoted it directly, contradicting your claim.

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 3, 2019 at 5:35 pm

          Zachriel: There is no law concerning the handling of federal documents as a whole, though there are laws that cover certain federal documents, such as those relating to the national defense.

          I’m not legal expert – but I’m sure there is

          unauthorized access to federal data is a crime somewhere on the books

          Zachriel: Oh, you mean classified documents. You should have said so. Classified documents are not protected by law per se, unless they are pertaining to the national defense, and would be injurious to the United States. Even then, the government has to prove “scienter and bad faith”.

          again more of the “national defense” and “scienter and bad faith” argument

          still holds no merit in this conversation as the former pertains only to the taking of FBI property and then sharing it is still a crime and the latter is better settled in the courtroom, not in an IG report

          there was more than enough evidence to meet the requirement of several federal charges

          Zachriel: You keep making the claim. You might want to provide specifics.

          THAT isn’t specific enough?

          Zachriel: You were talking about the regulatory state.

          that particular code (OOC) talks about banks

          I just found it an odd thing to type in this particular discussion as I wasn’t seeing the argument you were trying to make with it

          Zachriel: Sure. But even valid powers can be abused. A simple example is the president telling people they will be pardoned if they commit crimes at the president’s behest; or if that is too rarefied for you, accepting a wad of cash in return for voting for a piece of legislation.

          but none of that actually happened here

          so is your argument now – because Trump didn’t tell Comey to literally drop the investigation that constitutes to obstructing the investigation into Flynn at that time?

          I mean that is a wild leap in logic there

          Zachriel: Yes. All of it. Something about mishandling federal documents, which is generally not a crime. As for mishandling of classified documents, we have repeatedly addressed that question.

          I doubt you did simply because you keep typing the same stuff over and over and over

          Comey merely having those memos which he wrote in the capacity of his FBI employment then retaining them without said agency’s knowledge can be brought up as a charge of mishandling federal documents

          which Horowitz concluded in his report that those memos were FBI property

          then Comey showed said memos to an unauthorized person without proper clearance which is another infraction

          then he even withheld one of the memos from the FBI when told to return them, another infraction

          then it is revealed said memos were tagged with classified info, another infraction

          Zachriel: That’s right. You handwaved towards the Inspector General’s report, while we quoted it directly, contradicting your claim.

          mostly because Horowitz himself is a political hack

          nothing I’ve typed has contradicted the facts above

          what’s worse is you’ve even come to different conclusions than ones drawn in the IG report itself that Comey’s actions were not “personal” which Horowitz had to admit was

          fishstick: unauthorized access to federal data is a crime somewhere on the books

          It has to be a specific statute, not just because you think such a law should exist. For instance, grand jury information is protected.

          Zachriel: the government has to prove “scienter and bad faith”.

          fishstick: the former pertains only to the taking of FBI property and then sharing it is still a crime and the latter is better settled in the courtroom, not in an IG report

          On the former, if you are referring to the Espionage Act, then the mere fact of classification is not sufficient. The government has to prove the person knew the information was relating to the national defense, and the person would reasonably believe it would be injurious to the United States. As to the latter, then what you suggest is unethical and against DOJ guidelines which prohibit prosecuting someone unless the government believes it can satisfy the elements of a conviction, in this case, being able to show “scienter and bad faith”.

          fishstick: fishstick: Comey lied to Congress about his role in leaking his memos, then to the FBI about having federal material

          fishstick: THAT isn’t specific enough?

          No. To prove criminal lying, you have to provide an exact quote, that the statement was material, show that it was false, and that the person knew it was false. At least provide the quote.

          fishstick: but none of that actually happened here

          Trump told “worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly.” Trump denies the report. A Trump aide said Trump was “joking”, which actually confirms the report.

          fishstick: because Trump didn’t tell Comey to literally drop the investigation that constitutes to obstructing the investigation into Flynn at that time?

          You had argued that “Trump could literally have ordered Comey to desist his investigation into Flynn”. We pointed out that even valid use of powers could break the law, and provided hypothetical examples, such as taking a wad of cash in return for voting for a piece of legislation. While a representative has the valid power to vote for legislation, doing so in return for a wad of cash constitutes a corrupt motive, and would be a crime.

          fishstick: Comey merely having those memos which he wrote in the capacity of his FBI employment then retaining them without said agency’s knowledge can be brought up as a charge of mishandling federal documents

          Sure. It was against FBI policy and subject to administrative review. On the other hand, to find that a crime was committed, you have to point to a specific criminal statute, and show the facts fit the elements of the criminal statute, as well as the relevant precedent.

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 4, 2019 at 1:12 pm

          Zachriel: It has to be a specific statute, not just because you think such a law should exist. For instance, grand jury information is protected.

          again – I am not a legal expert

          but I’m sure Comey crossed a federal line somewhere in his possession and mishandling of federal documents which were later tagged with a level of classified information

          Zachriel: On the former, if you are referring to the Espionage Act, then the mere fact of classification is not sufficient. The government has to prove the person knew the information was relating to the national defense, and the person would reasonably believe it would be injurious to the United States. As to the latter, then what you suggest is unethical and against DOJ guidelines which prohibit prosecuting someone unless the government believes it can satisfy the elements of a conviction, in this case, being able to show “scienter and bad faith”.

          actually I never brought up the Espionage Act

          you are the one who keeps doing it

          and again – the intent of actions is usually done in the courtroom, not by an investigative body such as the OIG

          the OIG only needs to present findings of actions that broke law and code, but Horowitz delved further in trying to give reasoning why Comey’s actions were not crimes

          that is highly odd (and partisan)

          Zachriel: No. To prove criminal lying, you have to provide an exact quote, that the statement was material, show that it was false, and that the person knew it was false. At least provide the quote.

          from what I understand, a senator has already made a referral to the DOJ for Comey to be prosecuted of his statement

          now whether or not AG Barr actually decides to pick it up and actually prosecute him – well, doubtful considering his previous actions

          Zachriel: Trump told “worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly.” Trump denies the report. A Trump aide said Trump was “joking”, which actually confirms the report.

          the report of what – obstruction?

          talking about using his legal presidential powers is not obstructing an investigation

          even one run by Mueller’s team of partisan Democrats

          even Mueller’s report and his own testimony, one of the few questions he bothered to answer during his testimony, stated his team was not hindered by the President or his own actions

          so now you are claiming “obstruction” is “talking” about legally using his presidental powers to end an investigation we now know, and soon to be revealed by the next IG report, that was based on lies and even Russia propaganda (the dossier)?

          let that sink in – there is more evidence out there that the entire Mueller probe was started by a “Russian” than actual verifiable 2016 election interference

          and pardoning powers are still not “obstruction”

          so what is Trump actually “obstructing” here by jokingly offering a pardon for wall completion that has already been cleared by the judiciary

          Zachriel: You had argued that “Trump could literally have ordered Comey to desist his investigation into Flynn”. We pointed out that even valid use of powers could break the law, and provided hypothetical examples, such as taking a wad of cash in return for voting for a piece of legislation. While a representative has the valid power to vote for legislation, doing so in return for a wad of cash constitutes a corrupt motive, and would be a crime.

          but Trump would not have broken the law, nor his action constitute an obstruction charge, if he had literally done just that

          but your stance is that because he didn’t do the above – that constitutes evidence of “obstruction”?

          because he didn’t do it

          he let the entire faux investigation into his administration run its full course, without using the powers of his office to intervene

          so your hypothetical makes no sense here

          Zachriel: Sure. It was against FBI policy and subject to administrative review. On the other hand, to find that a crime was committed, you have to point to a specific criminal statute, and show the facts fit the elements of the criminal statute, as well as the relevant precedent.

          I’ve already addressed this – a zealous team interested in holding Comey accountable could have easily built a case upon the evidence within the IG’s own report of the former FBI director’s misconduct

          that’s is more of a stain on Horowitz – an Obama holdover – than on the system itself somehow working (by your analysis)

          Please see below.

      fishstick: the evidence the OIG gathered showed Comey did this to ‘get back’ at the President who had canned his sorry ass

      No. The Inspector General found that Comey acted on “own strongly-held personal convictions”. He was deeply concerned with Trump’s behavior, and viewed it as a grave threat to the rule of law in the United States.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 4, 2019 at 1:29 pm

        Zachriel: No. The Inspector General found that Comey acted on “own strongly-held personal convictions”. He was deeply concerned with Trump’s behavior, and viewed it as a grave threat to the rule of law in the United States.

        just have to point this out but the flip side to this is also true: Comey was full of shit and Horowitz just chose to believe in it

        Comey’s actions as FBI head in being part of a ring spying on a US presidential candidate then his actions when leaking his ill-gotten memos to an equally shameful press has done far more harm to the rule of law in the United States than you think Trump has ever done in his term

Beginning with J. Edgar the Bureau’s management has seen “Job 1” as gaining power, “turf” and prestige for the Bureau. Branching out from the heretofore routine political in-fighting with other Federal law enforcement agencies to attempting to interfere with a Presidential election and then administration is something new, and should be seen as a result of the term of office of His Imperial Executiveness, Emperor Barak the Nonpareil.

fishstick: state within a state isn’t the modern use of the “Deep State” verbiage

Redefining terms doesn’t make for an effective argument.

fishstick: it is more of a left-wing bureaucracy running in tandem with the D-Party and set against the R-Party

Bureaucracies work according to their own rules and requirements having much less to do with partisan politics and more to do with the incentives inherent to bureaucracies.

fishstick: there was no evidence at all to the original counter-intelligence upon the Trump campaign team

The FISC disagrees with your assessment. There were over four hundred pages in the Carter Page application, much of which is still redacted, so you can’t make such a categorical statement. But what we do know seems more than persuasive.

fishstick: and the FISA court issued the FBI 5 or 6 continuous warrants, based on information the FBI even had to admit later was unverified that in of itself is another crime

You keep making vague claims. You need to be specific. What information was “unverified”? What specific statute do you think was violated?

fishstick: except the numbers showed it was a dozen “liberals” groups when compred to a hundred “conservative” ones

So not less than a hundredth.

fishstick: No. it is still against the law to have classified documents pass through unsanctioned points of access, which HRC’s homemade server classified as

What specific statute do you think was violated? Do you think that the act of classification is definitive in court?

fishstick: but Horowitz is the investigative body

That’s right. And as the investigative body, he is charged with investigating intent, especially when a finding of intent is required by the criminal statute.

fishstick: yet the FBI still cannot prove the Russians hacked the DNC server

The government has already shown probable cause, which is required to issue an indictment. The government is said they are ready to prove their case, and the courts are ready to adjudicate whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

fishstick: so the Mueller team would have to prove in court that each specific Russian charged somehow affected US voter’s minds with internet ads?

No. They only have to show that Russian agents feloniously hacked the DNC server, that they released the emails to cause political damage to the Clinton campaign, and that they spent money on an army of trolls used to spread propaganda on social media for the purpose of influencing the election; all of which is illegal.

fishstick: this isn’t an expert witness – it is a literal employee of the DNC

That is incorrect. They are an independent cybersecurity firm that was contracted by the DNC. They are experts in the field, and as such, constitute admittable testimony in U.S. courts. Other cybersecurity firms have developed evidence supporting the original conclusion, as have foreign intelligence services.

The DNC also provided the FBI the server logs, which the FBI independently analyzed. More important, this is part of a pattern of cyberwarfare by Russia against open democracies, not just the U.S.

fishstick: it was an internet campaign the majority were charged with

That would be illegal foreign interference in the election.

fishstick: I’m no law expert but I’m sure Comey broke a federal infraction somewhere with his lying to the FBI, withholding federal documents, and intentionally passing off such documents to unauthorized personnel

Lying to the FBI would be a crime, but you haven’t pointed to any lies. There is no general law about federal documents. If you mean classified documents, then we refer you to our comments about the Espionage Act, and why that would not apply in this case.

fishstick: one could easily see this exact same sequence as irregular behavior by a rogue government agent

Comey’s actions were irregular. He claimed necessity. None of it constitutes a crime.

fishstick: again – I am not a legal expert

It’s your claim. You accused Comey of a crime, but don’t even know what crime he committed.

fishstick: the report of what – obstruction?

It wouldn’t be obstruction. Telling subordinates to break the law and that he will then issue a pardon is an abuse of power, and a violation of his oath of office. It’s an example of a valid power, but the exercise of which is motivated by a corrupt intent.

fishstick: I’ve already addressed this – a zealous team interested in holding Comey accountable could have easily built a case upon the evidence within the IG’s own report of the former FBI director’s misconduct

Well, you said it, but didn’t address it. You have to say what criminal law he broke, and how his actions fit the law.

fishstick: Comey was full of shit

Perhaps, but that’s not against the law.

I need to point this out

this is a fucking archaic message system this website runs

three fucking replies have been auto-deleted here

someone needs to check this system to see if improvements can be made

ok nothing what I did from last night loaded

not sure what is going on but to divide everything into smaller sections to post

well this is my fourth attempt to reply to this (ugh)

I’ll try to keep this even shorter than my previous three attempts

Zachriel: Redefining terms doesn’t make for an effective argument.

I didn’t redefine anything here

you misunderstood the context of my inference of “Deep State”

Zachriel: Bureaucracies work according to their own rules and requirements having much less to do with partisan politics and more to do with the incentives inherent to bureaucracies.

except the top echelon of our federal government agencies seems to be a hotbed of leftist hacks

Zachriel: The FISC disagrees with your assessment. There were over four hundred pages in the Carter Page application, much of which is still redacted, so you can’t make such a categorical statement. But what we do know seems more than persuasive.

the entire fiasco of Trump-Russia collusion was started by a foreign diplomat coupled with a foreign spy who compiled a dossier (ironically) filled with Russia disinformation

I’m not sure where you are getting your information from but there was no credible evidence out there that could have spawned their attempts to spy on the Trump campaign, then continue to spy on the Trump transition

Zachriel: You keep making vague claims. You need to be specific. What information was “unverified”? What specific statute do you think was violated?

the entire dossier was unverified

even the FBI had to later admit this

what is even worse is the FBI and DOJ under the Obama camp used circular news to collaborate the dossier as being a legitimate document

Zachriel: The government has already shown probable cause, which is required to issue an indictment. The government is said they are ready to prove their case, and the courts are ready to adjudicate whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

except that the Mueller team got caught with their pants down when one of the Russian companies had the gall to show up in court

turns out the Mueller team wanted a delay because they lacked the evidence to continue to trial

but the funniest thing here is you bring up “probable cause” which you don’t realize is the argument being made against Comey as well

Zachriel: That’s right. And as the investigative body, he is charged with investigating intent, especially when a finding of intent is required by the criminal statute.

this is incorrect

IG Horowitz only needs to prove there was “probable cause”, which there is plenty hard evidence of in his own report that clearly shows various misconducts being made

the OIG doesn’t need to prove there was a specific intent proved beyond a reasonable doubt for cases to be made

that is a judgement call and Horowitz twice thus far has used his own office and position to create an “intent” barrier against prosecution in trying to claim a crime is not a crime

    fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 6, 2019 at 5:53 am

    yeah I think this page is reaching some sort of text limit

    Zachriel: That is incorrect. They are an independent cybersecurity firm that was contracted by the DNC. They are experts in the field, and as such, constitute admittable testimony in U.S. courts. Other cybersecurity firms have developed evidence supporting the original conclusion, as have foreign intelligence services.

    but the point still stands that an outside source (not FBI) and one hired by the victim party, in this case the DNC, makes the stance that the evil Russians hacked their server

    the FBI did not run an independent inspection of said DNC server

    nor did the DNC even allow them to, instead outsourcing it

    now why was that?

    Zachriel: The DNC also provided the FBI the server logs, which the FBI independently analyzed. More important, this is part of a pattern of cyberwarfare by Russia against open democracies, not just the U.S.

    you do realize that server logs is not server software, right?

    that would be like an IRS audit where the person audited only provides a couple pages of their income

    plus Mueller team would have to take everything the third party did at face value and run with it – which they did because there was no actual inspection on the server itself

    in court – that would get blown to pieces

    not that it would ever get there

    Zachriel: That would be illegal foreign interference in the election.

    but anyone could literally do that

    you are talking Facebook ads here and possibly other internet forums and websites

    it is such a flimsy argument because how would one judge the impact of each Russia troll’s actions?

    I mean you do realize that the Obama administration did far worse in their attempt to undermine Bibi’s reelection in 2016, right?

    they actually used taxpayer funds to put people on the ground over in Isreal and even went as far as to physically engage their electorate in training activists and establishing a voter database

    and here you are talking about Russia internet trolls which amounts to no more common adspace anyone in the world can do

    fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 6, 2019 at 5:54 am

    Zachriel: Perhaps, but that’s not against the law.

    perhaps your most honest assessment of James Comey yet

    Zachriel: Comey’s actions were irregular. He claimed necessity. None of it constitutes a crime.

    remember – Comey’s actions only needs to meet the threshold of a charge, not a conviction

    his claim of “necessity” can easily be disregarded just by going by his actions alone

    “intent” is nominally a court matter, not an investigation matter on whether an infraction occurred

    Zachriel: Well, you said it, but didn’t address it. You have to say what criminal law he broke, and how his actions fit the law.

    crime 1 – unauthorized access to federal documents (memos)

    crime 2 – misappropriation of same federal documents

    crime 3 – mishandling of same federal documents

    this is when he showed them to his friend/lawyer who then leaked them to a media outlet

    crime 4 – withholding of a federal document

    he kept one memo when an FBI team came to finally collect them and would later have to turn that back in too

    and that is just 4 potential charges off just a single action Comey had done, shortly after being canned

    Zachriel: It wouldn’t be obstruction. Telling subordinates to break the law and that he will then issue a pardon is an abuse of power, and a violation of his oath of office. It’s an example of a valid power, but the exercise of which is motivated by a corrupt intent.

    but now you want to charge Trump with an infraction of “corrupt intent” off something he has yet to do?

    this is funny

    how about charging those caught red-handed with infractions of “corrupt intent” of something they did do?

    Lois Lerner, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe… just to name a few

    heck we can throw in Hillary Clinton with her secret server while her own camp destroyed federal property with hammers even while under a court order

    or did you think there wasn’t any “corrupt intent” there?

fishstick: except the top echelon of our federal government agencies seems to be a hotbed of leftist hacks

Except the top echelon are appointed by the elected president, many of which also are subject to approval by the elected Senate.

fishstick: the entire fiasco of Trump-Russia collusion was started by a foreign diplomat coupled with a foreign spy who compiled a dossier (ironically) filled with Russia disinformation

There was a number of lines of evidence. Papadopoulos, the hack of the DNC, the large number of contacts between Russian agents and members of the Trump campaign. And there is a great deal of redacted information in the FISA applications. Multiple investigations have found Russian interference, including the Special Counsel.

Meanwhile, you simply ignored our point. The FISC under the supervision of Chief Justice Roberts saw the evidence and found probable cause.

fishstick: the entire dossier was unverified

And the FISC was properly informed that it was raw intelligence, collected for partisan political purposes, but that the source had been reliable in the past.

fishstick: except that the Mueller team got caught with their pants down when one of the Russian companies had the gall to show up in court

You do realize that the case is still ongoing?

fishstick: IG Horowitz only needs to prove there was “probable cause”, which there is plenty hard evidence of in his own report that clearly shows various misconducts being made

Probable cause that which law was broken?

fishstick: the OIG doesn’t need to prove there was a specific intent proved beyond a reasonable doubt for cases to be made

No. But he does have to have probable cause of intent if he is to be charged under certain statutes. Of course, you’ve never said which laws Comey broke.

fishstick: but the point still stands that an outside source (not FBI) and one hired by the victim party

So? That’s standard operating procedure. If a security guard sees someone break into a facility, his testimony is generally admissible in court — even though he works for the facility. You can impeach a witness, but not for just doing their job.

fishstick: but anyone could literally do that

And anyone can rob a bank. It’s illegal. But at least now you’ve identified the problem. The interference is to Trump’s advantage, so he pretends there is not interference. That encourages attacks on the U.S. electoral system. Expect the attacks to intensify, and other countries to follow suit.

fishstick: it is such a flimsy argument because how would one judge the impact of each Russia troll’s actions?

The law doesn’t require that the effort has impact, only that it was an attempt at illegal interference.

52 USC 30121: It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication

fishstick: I mean you do realize that the Obama administration did far worse in their attempt to undermine Bibi’s reelection in 2016, right?

Uh, no. But it’s irrelevant.

fishstick: crime 1 – unauthorized access to federal documents (memos) crime 2 – misappropriation of same federal documents crime 3 – mishandling of same federal documents

None of those are crimes. If you disagree, please provide the statute.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 6, 2019 at 11:23 am

    Zachriel: Except the top echelon are appointed by the elected president, many of which also are subject to approval by the elected Senate.

    you do realize that Trump did not appoint any of the characters I have been talking about, right?

    nearly all were Obama holdovers from his two terms

    Zachriel: There was a number of lines of evidence. Papadopoulos, the hack of the DNC, the large number of contacts between Russian agents and members of the Trump campaign. And there is a great deal of redacted information in the FISA applications. Multiple investigations have found Russian interference, including the Special Counsel.

    but none of which constitutes a FISA warrant

    the hack of the DNC was never determined by the FBI as they used an outside source to make a determination

    the “large number” of Russian contacts were greatly overexaggerated and were later shown to be so in many not being connected to the Russian government

    redacted information is still unknown to the public at large – so even you cannot make a determination that THIS is the probe’s saving grace

    plus anything the Special Counsel did – had nothing to do with obtaining these FISA warrants

    you do realize all that came after the spy ring, right?

    Zachriel: Meanwhile, you simply ignored our point. The FISC under the supervision of Chief Justice Roberts saw the evidence and found probable cause.

    I didn’t ignore your point

    you are ignoring mine

    then you make another bad assumption in saying the judges found probable cause when their testimony (if they even gave one yet) has not been made public

    we don’t know yet if the judges (including C.J. Roberts) were told much of the information relayed to them in the court doc was unverified material

    that should come out in the coming IG report – although it is possible it may be included within

    Zachriel: And the FISC was properly informed that it was raw intelligence, collected for partisan political purposes, but that the source had been reliable in the past.

    wrong again

    the judge was lied to on a number of issues

    raw intelligence is one thing, unverified information collected from a partisan source is another beast

    and it is irrelevent that the “source” had been reliable in the past

    under FBI standards, they still have to verify the information, which testimony is already out there they knew wasn’t

    in fact they even knew much of the dossier was bogus

    Zachriel: You do realize that the case is still ongoing?

    yes

    but your retort still does not refute the point I made in that the Mueller team got caught with their pants down when one of these Russian companies actually showed up to court

    it was almost like they didn’t expect for THAT to have happened

    that is why most others who didn’t believe in the Russia hoax to begin with could only shake our heads at how unprepared and foolish the Mueller team looking in trying to delay the case + prevent discovery

    Zachriel: Probable cause that which law was broken?

    now I know you aren’t comprehending any argument I am making

    Zachriel: No. But he does have to have probable cause of intent if he is to be charged under certain statutes. Of course, you’ve never said which laws Comey broke.

    incorrect – Horowitz only needs to show Comey’s actions met the bare requirement for a case trial or a more serious inquiry

    that is what probable cause is

    Zachriel: So? That’s standard operating procedure. If a security guard sees someone break into a facility, his testimony is generally admissible in court — even though he works for the facility. You can impeach a witness, but not for just doing their job.

    but when same Democrat bank is ‘robbed’ and said security team was hired by Democrats, it is a highly partisan procedure to take that guard at his word that anything he says isn’t political motivated when his testimony is: this is somehow the Republicans’ fault

    especially when we later learn no Republican was even involved in the affair

    the fact still remains the FBI did not inspect said ‘hacked’ server and neither did the DNC allow it to be inspected but only by their hired team

    now, why is that?

    Zachriel: And anyone can rob a bank. It’s illegal. But at least now you’ve identified the problem. The interference is to Trump’s advantage, so he pretends there is not interference. That encourages attacks on the U.S. electoral system. Expect the attacks to intensify, and other countries to follow suit.

    first off – the internet is not a bank, its a world-wide virtual marketplace that literally anyone can enter and even adapt or alter to their whims

    but there is no law on the books (I’m aware of) where it is illegal to be a so-called internet troll in posting a political view

    the problem for your argument also arises in that the Mueller report also states Trump was the same recipient of the same trolling ‘attacks’

    again I state – literally anyone can do what the Russians (government or not) supposedly did

    but it remains the same that it is a ridiculously flimsy argument considering the prosecution would have to prove how each impact could have influenced the election?

    the liklihood of any real impact at all is virtually nill as the Mueller report has to conclude there was no election tampering coupled with the Trump campaign having no coordination with the Putin government

    again – the net is the net

    if one makes the argument that what 13 or 15 Russians (supposedly) did is illegal, then what about all the foreign websites running nothing but negative stories on right-wing politicians and movements?

    is that not trying to influence public opinion?

    it is a very slippery slope hence why the Democrats stance on this has always been a most flimsy argument

    Zachriel: The law doesn’t require that the effort has impact, only that it was an attempt at illegal interference.

    in this one particular instance – I actually do agree with the base premise of your argument but it falls apart everywhere else

    but main jist of the problem arises from the argument I made above

    then THIS is also coupled with the fact in how the DNC server got “hacked” in the first place

    it wasn’t done by a hacking program where a team of Russians were diligently trying to break through a firewall

    it was done by a phishing email Podesta idiotically fell for

    I might feel badly about the embarassment the Democrats had to go through in the 2016 cycle if they weren’t the ones that did it to themselves

    the fact is – they got exposed, then lost, and now want to blame Russia, Russia, Russia that a political outsider somehow managed to beat “the most qualified candidate in history”

    the above quote is Obama’s own words

    Zachriel: Uh, no. But it’s irrelevant.

    uh, yeah. IT was far worse than what you are trying to accuse Russians of

    and it is completely relevent because it shows the hypocricy of the political left when trying to understand what exactly happened and why it happened

    Zachriel: None of those are crimes. If you disagree, please provide the statute.

    the very statue you posted

    but I’m sure there are others out there Comey violated as well

      fishstick: you do realize that Trump did not appoint any of the characters I have been talking about

      The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI are both Trump appointees. They run their respective organizations. They are the responsible parties.

      fishstick: but none of which constitutes a FISA warrant

      Apparently, the FISC disagreed with your assessment.

      fishstick: the hack of the DNC was never determined by the FBI as they used an outside source to make a determination

      Multiple investigations have confirmed Russian involvement, including the Special Counsel.

      fishstick: we don’t know yet if the judges (including C.J. Roberts) were told much of the information relayed to them in the court doc was unverified material

      They were. You can read it in the FISA application.

      fishstick: under FBI standards, they still have to verify the information

      No. They just have to verify the source, and provide appropriate caveats, which they did.

      fishstick: Horowitz only needs to show Comey’s actions met the bare requirement for a case trial or a more serious inquiry

      The government has to show probable cause (including intent if that is part of the statute), and have a belief that a conviction is reasonable based on the facts and the law.

      fishstick: but when same Democrat bank is ‘robbed’ and said security team was hired by Democrats, it is a highly partisan procedure to take that guard at his word that anything he says isn’t political motivated when his testimony is

      That’s exactly wrong. The security guard’s testimony is admissible, just like any witness. If you want to impeach the witness, you need more than they were just doing their job.

      fishstick: but there is no law on the books (I’m aware of) where it is illegal to be a so-called internet troll in posting a political view

      There’s nothing illegal about a private Russian citizen publishing an opinion. It is illegal for the Russian government to hire an army of trolls to interfere in a U.S. election, much less to hack into the DNC, then release the information to cause maximum political turmoil.

      fishstick: but it remains the same that it is a ridiculously flimsy argument considering the prosecution would have to prove how each impact could have influenced the election?

      That’s not an element of the statute.

      fishstick: it was done by a phishing email Podesta idiotically fell for

      That was a separate hack, but it was also illegal. The URL used to phish Podesta has been traced to Russian intelligence.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 6, 2019 at 4:19 pm

        Zachriel: The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI are both Trump appointees. They run their respective organizations. They are the responsible parties.

        Comey, McCabe, Horowitz, Weissman, Rosenstein, and the rest of the cabal were all Obama holdovers

        not Trump appointees

        I have no idea where you got that notion from

        Zachriel: Apparently, the FISC disagreed with your assessment.

        yes – because they were lied to

        we should know if they have given any sworn statements on the topic of the FISA warrants they issued after they were informed the bulk of the information was not only partisan in its nature but unverified BS as well

        Zachriel: Multiple investigations have confirmed Russian involvement, including the Special Counsel.

        actually it was only multiple investigations ran by the same group of people who ran with a third party source

        fact still remains – FBI did not inspect said hacked DNC server

        Zachriel: They were. You can read it in the FISA application.

        I did – and nearly all of it is redacted

        but from what has been leaked (thus far) – the information within the Steele dossier was the key feature to the first warrant and its subsequent renewals

        and the federal judges – were not told of this

        Zachriel: No. They just have to verify the source, and provide appropriate caveats, which they did.

        no, standard FBI procedure has them verify the information, not the source

        there are leaks of sworn testimony to come out that the FBI did not even bother to check for any verity

        but it gets even worse due to the FBI and DOJ even knowing the dossier was chalked full of disinformation

        Zachriel: The government has to show probable cause (including intent if that is part of the statute), and have a belief that a conviction is reasonable based on the facts and the law.

        proving Comey’s intent was “just” is a courtroom matter, something that should only be handled by his defense team

        not investigative body in an inquiry of his own wrongdoing

        and again – probable cause is an easy enough conclusion to draw due to Comey’s behavior

        Zachriel: That’s exactly wrong. The security guard’s testimony is admissible, just like any witness. If you want to impeach the witness, you need more than they were just doing their job.

        it is admissible

        but it is also tainted

        that is what you are not seeing (well because you are a lefty)

        Zachriel: There’s nothing illegal about a private Russian citizen publishing an opinion. It is illegal for the Russian government to hire an army of trolls to interfere in a U.S. election, much less to hack into the DNC, then release the information to cause maximum political turmoil.

        first off – that is all still conjecture as no court case will likely ever address the verity of Russian agents working under Putin somehow created “untold political turmoil” because they released truthful intel on the world stage

        second – there is still no proof that will withstand in court that the DNC was hacked by the Russians

        because I’m telling you the first thing any Russian defense lawyer is going to ask the court – “where is the FBI discovery of said hacked server?”

        but the answer we all know is – the Mueller team cannot give it to them

        hence the reason of the delay in that case

        in the end – the findings the FBI concluded will be seen as being done by an outside party at the employ of the DNC

        and THAT is not a good look in the courtroom when you are trying to prove this Russian company was somehow tainting the 2016 election

        Zachriel: That’s not an element of the statute.

        you continue to miss the point

        it is almost unprovable

        even if you can get these Russians to a courtroom

        the discovery phase alone would be a nightmare for the prosecution since they can’t give the data to the Russian defense teams

        Zachriel: That was a separate hack, but it was also illegal. The URL used to phish Podesta has been traced to Russian intelligence.

        there was no other hack on that particular DNC server

        atleast any one that actually be shown in the court of law

        now, there might have been a data breach (physical) on the DNC server – this happening later – but again, we cannot know the certainty of any of THIS because the DNC refused access to the server

Here’s the closest to a general prohibition on taking federal records:

18 U.S. Code § 2071

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Now try to apply this to Comey. He was director of the FBI when he created and took possession the memos. When he was asked for the memos, he provided them. He says they were his personal records, though that contention was rejected by the Inspector General.

Note that the law requires intent.

e z

Zachriel: Now try to apply this to Comey.

everything in that code applies directly to WHAT Comey had done with his FBI memos – after being fired from his job

Zachriel: He was director of the FBI when he created and took possession the memos.

but he was no longer FBI director when kept possession of said memos and leaked them through an unauthorized person/channel

Zachriel: When he was asked for the memos, he provided them.

except he kept one of them, which he was then forced to return later

Zachriel: He says they were his personal records, though that contention was rejected by the Inspector General.

exactly so

that is why his action there constitutes an infraction

Zachriel: Note that the law requires intent.

in just going by the US Code you provide – Comey’s actions constitute 4 different infractions defined under it

that is enough “probable cause” to warrant 4 separate charges

again – “intent” is something Comey has to prove in his defense in a courtroom

not something IG Horowitz has to prove to meet a charge

    fishstick: everything in that code applies directly to WHAT Comey had done with his FBI memos – after being fired from his job

    You have to establish criminal intent.

    fishstick: but he was no longer FBI director when kept possession of said memos

    Except that doesn’t fit the statute. Comey didn’t remove the memos after he was no longer in the FBI, much less conceal, mutilate, or destroy them.

    And you still have to establish criminal intent.

    fishstick: “intent” is something Comey has to prove in his defense in a courtroom

    No. That is simply not correct. In U.S. jurisprudence, the government has to prove all the elements of the crime, including intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.

      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 6, 2019 at 3:43 pm

      Zachriel: You have to establish criminal intent.

      you keep typing this but you don’t

      it is the actions that are prosecuted, not intentions

      the infraction itself is all that is needed to suffice

      Zachriel: Except that doesn’t fit the statute. Comey didn’t remove the memos after he was no longer in the FBI, much less conceal, mutilate, or destroy them.

      except it does fits the statute you posted

      as Comey was found with the memos (federal documents) days to weeks after being fired as FBI director

      he even concealed one afterwards

      Zachriel: And you still have to establish criminal intent.

      again – Comey no longer had the capacity to hold those memos after being fired

      one can easily infer Comey’s reasoning, especially when you weigh his conduct afterwards

      Zachriel: No. That is simply not correct. In U.S. jurisprudence, the government has to prove all the elements of the crime, including intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.

      that is during a trial

      we are talking about what leads up to the trial

      you keep confusing the two

fishstick: Comey, McCabe, Horowitz, Weissman, Rosenstein, and the rest of the cabal were all Obama holdovers not Trump appointees

Actually Rosenstein is a Trump nominee. Comey was a Republican who had been nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents. McCabe and Weissmann were career FBI. They all answer to the Attorney General, currently Trump nominee Barr. Horowitz, however, is an Obama nominee. Taken together, that hardly suggests the “deep state”. Rather, it’s seems more like rather typical bureaucratic resistance to a sea change in policy.

fishstick: I did – and nearly all of it is redacted

The FISA application says that the dossier was compiled for someone who “was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit {Trump’s} campaign.”

fishstick: but from what has been leaked (thus far) – the information within the Steele dossier was the key feature to the first warrant and its subsequent renewals

You apparently haven’t read the application. There’s a lot more than just the dossier in the application, and much more that is redacted.

fishstick: no, standard FBI procedure has them verify the information, not the source

That is incorrect. Otherwise, you could never use informants to get a search warrant. Gee whiz, police use drug addicts and mobsters to get search warrants based on their reliability in the past.

fishstick: proving Comey’s intent was “just” is a courtroom matter, something that should only be handled by his defense team not investigative body in an inquiry of his own wrongdoing

You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it any more true. We have pointed you to the statute. To get an arrest warrant means showing probable cause of each element of a crime, which in this case requires a showing of intent.

fishstick: but it is also tainted

You’re seriously claiming that a security guard would not be considered a reliable witness to a burglary simply because he works for a security firm hired by the victim.

fishstick: there is still no proof that will withstand in court that the DNC was hacked by the Russians

Of course there is. You yourself stumbled into how we know the Russians hacked into Podesta’s account.

fishstick: because I’m telling you the first thing any Russian defense lawyer is going to ask the court – “where is the FBI discovery of said hacked server?”

And they will use the rules of evidence and bring in the contracted security firm. Of course, the Russians know the strength of the evidence against them, which is why they will never show up in court.

fishstick: the discovery phase alone would be a nightmare for the prosecution since they can’t give the data to the Russian defense teams

Um, the data is in the DNC server logs, the unique tools used to accomplish the hack, the URL used to phish Podesta’s account, etc.

fishstick: you keep typing this but you don’t it is the actions that are prosecuted, not intentions

That is incorrect. Intent is part of the necessary showing for charging someone under many U.S. statutes, including homicide.

fishstick: as Comey was found with the memos (federal documents) days to weeks after being fired as FBI director

The statute doesn’t apply to keeping records that have been lawfully acquired.

fishstick: that is during a trial

No. If the statute requires intent, then intent has to be part of the investigation, and it has to be part of the probable cause charging warrant. Even when intent is not part of a statute, intent is still investigated as it makes the evidence more intelligible. Remember the categorical trinity from criminology: “Means, Motive and Opportunity”, which is the foundation of criminal investigation.

Zachriel: Actually Rosenstein is a Trump nominee.

noted – had no idea this guy this guy managed to slip through the cracks

still it doesn’t absolve him of the guilt of signing off on one of the FISA applications which still shows that even Trump’s own department heads were working to undermine his administration

Zachriel: Comey was a Republican who had been nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Comey was a Republican, key word is ‘was’

I highly doubt his vote in 2016 was for Trump

and considering his behavior before and after Trump’s election, you cannot make the case this guy was non-partisan

Zachriel: McCabe and Weissmann were career FBI. They all answer to the Attorney General, currently Trump nominee Barr.

you mean currently as of Feb 14, 2019

that means for almost 2 years – these jokers were not answering to AG Barr but to AG “no-show” Sessions, who took himself completely out of the picture

Zachriel: Taken together, that hardly suggests the “deep state”. Rather, it’s seems more like rather typical bureaucratic resistance to a sea change in policy.

taken altogether – the fact still remains that during this exhausting cycle of Trump-Russia collusion, the upper echelon of these departments were coordinated by a group of anti-Trumpers

Zachriel: The FISA application says that the dossier was compiled for someone who “was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit {Trump’s} campaign.”

the FISA application also states said dossier was used as one of the prime source materials to obtain the warrant

without it, said warrants don’t get issued

you can try to deflect from this but you cannot escape from the certainty of it

Zachriel: You apparently haven’t read the application. There’s a lot more than just the dossier in the application, and much more that is redacted.

well considering most of the application is redacted – one cannot read the application

but from the summaries gained from what isn’t redacted – much of it has been proven to be falsehoods

not a great sign for those who are still trying to defend these warrants were issued in the first place

Zachriel: That is incorrect. Otherwise, you could never use informants to get a search warrant. Gee whiz, police use drug addicts and mobsters to get search warrants based on their reliability in the past.

still your analysis is incorrect

standard operating procedure is the FBI has to verify information

in this case – they knew the information was likely false propaganda

so not only did they not verify the contents of the dossier, there is testimony out there by agents that they knew the information was likely not-true

Zachriel: You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it any more true. We have pointed you to the statute. To get an arrest warrant means showing probable cause of each element of a crime, which in this case requires a showing of intent.

and you keep typing this, but it doesn’t make it any more true

and I will keep continuing to point out the discrepancies of proving “intent” to proving “action”

Zachriel: You’re seriously claiming that a security guard would not be considered a reliable witness to a burglary simply because he works for a security firm hired by the victim.

no – you are claiming that

I never brought up the security guard defense – you did

what I am saying is Crowdstrike’s conclusion that the FBI used in their own conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC server would likely been seen as tainted testimony

because you cannot get around the fact the FBI never inspected the DNC server

in fact – the DNC went around the entire process in not allowing it

I keep asking this question to you – now why was that?

Zachriel: Of course there is. You yourself stumbled into how we know the Russians hacked into Podesta’s account.

I didn’t stumble into anything

we don’t know, and certainly not the FBI, knows where that phishing email came from exactly

could have been Russian, but may not have been

again – the server has never been examined except by those affiliated with the DNC

Zachriel: And they will use the rules of evidence and bring in the contracted security firm. Of course, the Russians know the strength of the evidence against them, which is why they will never show up in court.

but one Russian company did – and the prosecution wanted to a delay to prevent the discovery of evidence

you do know that right?

what that delay motion proved was the Mueller team got caught flatfooted in building a legal case against them that would withstand cross examination

Zachriel: Um, the data is in the DNC server logs, the unique tools used to accomplish the hack, the URL used to phish Podesta’s account, etc.

except that data does not come from DNC’s own server logs but by logistics ran by a third party source

you do realize that computer logs can be modified, don’t you

that is why it was important for the source material itself (the DNC server) to be inspected

instead they relied on a third party hired by the DNC, who has shown every reason not to be trusted

Zachriel: That is incorrect. Intent is part of the necessary showing for charging someone under many U.S. statutes, including homicide.

but “intent” can easily be shown through “action”

you keep ignoring what I’m typing because it is bursting your little bubble

Comey’s actions prior to Trump’s elections and afterwards shows “intent”

that alone satisfies the bare minimum requirement for an indictment

besides – the “intent” you claim is the standard is often brushed to the side when the Democrats do their dog & pony show trials like in the case of Zimmerman and Freddie Gray

and that is just to name two where the evidence of “intent” could never meet the threshold of an honest trial – yet we had trials anyway

didn’t we?

now compare that to Comey’s dismissal of HRC’s email scandal where the evidence of law breaking was in full view and Horowitz’s dismissal of Comey’s actions as being not-unlawful despite the mountain of evidence he found

“intent” is a judgement phrase that seems to have two different meanings to liberals like yourself

Zachriel: The statute doesn’t apply to keeping records that have been lawfully acquired.

you still don’t see the disparity

there’s FBI director Comey who wrote and held possession of said records

then there’s fired FBI director Comey who held then leaked possession of said records

had Comey still been a federal employee, you might have a case where his mishandling of these federal documents would not constitute an infraction

when Comey got canned – he no longer had the authority to even possess those memos, as they were compiled under the capacity of his former office

Zachriel: No. If the statute requires intent, then intent has to be part of the investigation, and it has to be part of the probable cause charging warrant. Even when intent is not part of a statute, intent is still investigated as it makes the evidence more intelligible. Remember the categorical trinity from criminology: “Means, Motive and Opportunity”, which is the foundation of criminal investigation.

looks like I have to type this yet again – Comey’s intent is proven in his own actions

before the 2016 election then afterwards

should Comey ever go to trial – his defense would have to try to prove his actions weren’t of ill intent

that is what should have happened

but Horowitz – who looks to be the last Obama holdover in the government’s upper ranks – is using his office to forestall any case to be made because he knows these guys will get blown in court for their corrupt actions

fishstick: still it doesn’t absolve him of the guilt of signing off on one of the FISA applications which still shows that even Trump’s own department heads were working to undermine his administration

Well, he’s responsible, but guilt implies a crime, which doesn’t appear to be the case.

fishstick: I highly doubt his vote in 2016 was for Trump

Perhaps not, but that’s not a crime.

fishstick: and considering his behavior before and after Trump’s election, you cannot make the case this guy was non-partisan

After FBI investigators unanimously decided not to indict Clinton, he made two very public statements on the matter, contrary to FBI policy, and damaging to the Clinton campaign.

fishstick: that means for almost 2 years – these jokers were not answering to AG Barr but to AG “no-show” Sessions, who took himself completely out of the picture … the upper echelon of these departments were coordinated by a group of anti-Trumpers

Sessions was a Trump nominee, as was Rosenstein who replaced him as acting Attorney General.

fishstick: the FISA application also states said dossier was used as one of the prime source materials to obtain the warrant

Can you cite the language from the application to that effect? It was important evidence, if that is what you mean. Many of the primary claims of the dossier have been confirmed, including that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the election, and that Russian agents were attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign. That some of the claims in the dossier were found wanting doesn’t mean the warrant wasn’t justified at the time. Many investigations don’t result in criminal charges.

fishstick: standard operating procedure is the FBI has to verify information

They have to provide probable cause. Ignoring our example doesn’t make it go away. Warrants are often issued based on sources. If you had to verify the details of what the source has told you, then you probably don’t need the source.

fishstick: and I will keep continuing to point out the discrepancies of proving “intent” to proving “action”

You can’t issue a charge for someone for premeditated murder unless you have probable cause of premeditation. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you.

fishstick: I never brought up the security guard defense – you did

Yes, and you said the security guard’s testimony would be “tainted”.

Zachriel: That’s exactly wrong. The security guard’s testimony is admissible, just like any witness. If you want to impeach the witness, you need more than they were just doing their job.

fishstick: it is admissible but it is also tainted

fishstick: what I am saying is Crowdstrike’s conclusion that the FBI used in their own conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC server would likely been seen as tainted testimony

Why is that? They have no vested interest in the case. By the way, other cybersecurity firms have reached the same conclusion, as has the Special Counsel, and the U.S. and foreign intelligence communities. Gee whiz. We even have the URL used to phish Podesta’s account.

fishstick: I keep asking this question to you – now why was that?

Because they were busy, if you remember. They had their cybersecurity team provide the FBI the server logs, and the FBI has stated that this was sufficient for the investigation.

fishstick: we don’t know, and certainly not the FBI, knows where that phishing email came from exactly

Yes, we do. They made a mistake when they set up the phish, which resulted in publicly revealing the origin. Guccifer 2.0 also made a mistake at one point with his VPN, which also revealed his location at the headquarters for Russian intelligence in Moscow.

fishstick: but one Russian company did – and the prosecution wanted to a delay to prevent the discovery of evidence

Sure, but now the trial is back on track. As noted above, they are arguing over discovery. The prosecution is concerned as some of the protected information previously provided to the defense ended up being leaked and altered by Russian trolls.

fishstick: but “intent” can easily be shown through “action”

Possibly. But you have to show that when you apply for the warrant, contrary to what you have said.

fishstick: then there’s fired FBI director Comey who held then leaked possession of said records

That’s right, and the statute doesn’t address the situation.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 7, 2019 at 4:25 pm

    Zachriel: Well, he’s responsible, but guilt implies a crime, which doesn’t appear to be the case.

    what are you talking about – his signature is on one of the FISA applications

    I doubt Horowitz will come to the conclusion of an actual crime occurring with the whole FISA fiasco, given his track record on his previous two reports

    but there is a special prosecution was assigned (3 years later than it should have) who will look into the matter far more than Horowitz and his team likely bothered to

    Zachriel: Perhaps not, but that’s not a crime.

    never said it did

    you are claiming Comey is a Republican

    his actions don’t show him ever having a favorable opinion of Trump

    I would even go further and wager his voting record the past several elections has likely been all blue

    Zachriel: After FBI investigators unanimously decided not to indict Clinton, he made two very public statements on the matter, contrary to FBI policy, and damaging to the Clinton campaign.

    you forgot to type this: before trying to absolve HRC of an indictment thus ensuring her election bid remains in tact

    that presser (which you think is a negative) was actually quite positive for HRC

    had a Republican nominee been in her position – a charge would have been filed and their election been virtually over

    plus Comey employed the good old “intent” defense despite the mountain of evidence showing the contrary

    and none of the above actually delves into how the FBI tanked their investigation into Hillary’s secret server and it goes much further back than James Comey’s presser

    Zachriel: Sessions was a Trump nominee, as was Rosenstein who replaced him as acting Attorney General.

    and they both proved to be not much of one

    hence why they no longer employed

    but I see you still ignore much of the cast of characters in the entire affair being Obama holdovers and appointees

    Zachriel: Can you cite the language from the application to that effect? It was important evidence, if that is what you mean. Many of the primary claims of the dossier have been confirmed, including that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the election, and that Russian agents were attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign. That some of the claims in the dossier were found wanting doesn’t mean the warrant wasn’t justified at the time. Many investigations don’t result in criminal charges.

    what part of the entire Steele dossier – each element of it – being unverified do you not understand?

    they weren’t found wanting – many were found to be entirely bogus

    we won’t know for sure how much of the application the FISA judges knew was a falsehood until they go before court and testify under oath, but I would wager at this point they were not told the bulk to the information they signed off on was partisan in nature

    Zachriel: They have to provide probable cause. Ignoring our example doesn’t make it go away. Warrants are often issued based on sources. If you had to verify the details of what the source has told you, then you probably don’t need the source.

    again – they still have to verify the information

    you keep ignoring it but the fact remains not only did they not verify the dossier, the agents knew it was untrue disinformation

    Zachriel: You can’t issue a charge for someone for premeditated murder unless you have probable cause of premeditation. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you.

    why are you talking about a murder charge here?

    we are talking about actions being relevant to “intent”

    Zachriel: Yes, and you said the security guard’s testimony would be “tainted”.

    you keep using this fallacy argument

    I never said the security guard’s testimony is “tainted”

    you did

    I’m applying how any testimony Crowdstrike would give could be interpreted by a defense team asking simple questions of how they obtained that information, who their employer was, and the lack of the FBI themselves not physically inspecting said DNC server

    what do you think the Russians are going to do? just say – “ok?”

    and again I keep asking – why did the DNC go to such lengths not to show the government, under Obama’s watch, their own server?

    Zachriel: Why is that? They have no vested interest in the case. By the way, other cybersecurity firms have reached the same conclusion, as has the Special Counsel, and the U.S. and foreign intelligence communities. Gee whiz. We even have the URL used to phish Podesta’s account.

    why wouldn’t they have a vested interest in the case?

    they were hired by the DNC and are the sole voice on the matter

    that gives them every reason to have a vested interest in the case because should they be exposed to have tainted the logs themselves to create a certain outcome (Russian tampering) – that would kill their bottom line

    and you keep missing the point that no other cybersecurity firm ever tested the DNC server

    not the FBI, not the Special Counsel, and no other US or foreign entity

    it was just Crowdstrike and the logs they provided at the behest of the DNC

    gee whiz – this isn’t even a debate point

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 7, 2019 at 4:26 pm

    Zachriel: Because they were busy, if you remember. They had their cybersecurity team provide the FBI the server logs, and the FBI has stated that this was sufficient for the investigation.

    that’s your answer

    because they were busy?

    do you realize how silly that argument would sound in a courtroom

    so you had a massive security breach on your server, correct?

    yes

    did you get the FBI to look into it?

    no, we refused to let them look at it

    why?

    we were busy but we hired a team to look into it

    and?

    they said it was the Russians

    Zachriel: Yes, we do. They made a mistake when they set up the phish, which resulted in publicly revealing the origin. Guccifer 2.0 also made a mistake at one point with his VPN, which also revealed his location at the headquarters for Russian intelligence in Moscow.

    you do realize you are going off logs that came from the DNC

    without a cross examination on the base material – the server itself – those logs can be made to show anything they want

    so if the DNC really wanted to show their server really got hacked – why hide it from a US government inspection?

    Zachriel: Sure, but now the trial is back on track. As noted above, they are arguing over discovery. The prosecution is concerned as some of the protected information previously provided to the defense ended up being leaked and altered by Russian trolls.

    that doesn’t make alot of sense

    the prosecution knows what the information is, so how would they know if sensitive information was leaked or altered in some way?

    there would never be a question of it happening at all because it IS or IS NOT

    from what I read on the case – the prosecution is actually trying to prevent such documents from being passed off in the discovery phase due to the (fear) of that actually occurring

    I cannot find any follow up articles on this case except the judge dismissed the delay

    Zachriel: Possibly. But you have to show that when you apply for the warrant, contrary to what you have said.

    it isn’t possible, it is you can show “intent” through action

    thing is Horowitz is the one technically in charge of these summations and he’s been shown to make judgement calls to not prosecute

    I said it way back when he released his first IG report that this guy needed to be fired, however Sessions was the AG then

    so it is more the question if AG Barr is serious in pursuing charges against these goons

    Zachriel: That’s right, and the statute doesn’t address the situation.

    so in your mind – there is no difference between FBI director Comey holding federal docs and no-longer-employed Comey holding same federal docs

    ??? seriously?

fishstick: what are you talking about – his signature is on one of the FISA applications

So you are alleging that Rosenstein deliberately signed a falsified FISA application.

fishstick: that presser (which you think is a negative) was actually quite positive for HRC

Having decided not to prosecute, under Justice Department policies, that’s all they should have said. Twice, Comey’s comments sent Clinton’s poll numbers plummeting.

fishstick: plus Comey employed the good old “intent” defense despite the mountain of evidence showing the contrary

Showing intent is required under the statute you say applies.

fishstick: again – they still have to verify the information

A drug addict who was caught with a small quantity of contraband turns state evidence. He has provided reliable information during the course of his cooperation and now says that a house on Maple Street is a drug marketplace. The police go to court, and guess what: The judge signs a search warrant based on the testimony of a drug addict who is profiting from a reduced sentence for his cooperation.

We have explained it to you. Not sure how else to help you.

fishstick: why are you talking about a murder charge here? we are talking about actions being relevant to “intent”

It’s an example showing how intent applies under specific statutes.

fishstick: I never said the security guard’s testimony is “tainted”

Sure you did.

Zachriel: That’s exactly wrong. The security guard’s testimony is admissible, just like any witness. If you want to impeach the witness, you need more than they were just doing their job.

fishstick: it is admissible but it is also tainted

Yet the testimony of a reputable security firm, absent impeaching evidence, is probably stronger than the evidence of a drug addict wanting a reduced sentence.

fishstick: you do realize you are going off logs that came from the DNC

It’s not on the DNC log. Podesta was using Gmail. The public knowledge of the URL comes from an email that the Russians leaked that they had stolen from Podesta, confirmed by reference to Podesta’s email history.

fishstick: from what I read on the case – the prosecution is actually trying to prevent such documents from being passed off in the discovery phase due to the (fear) of that actually occurring

Because it already happened before. What’s interesting is that your echochamber is such that even when Russian trolls are involved in altering leaking sensitive information to create chaos in the U.S. legal system, you seem to be unable to make the connection between that and all their other trolling activities.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 8, 2019 at 11:25 am

    Zachriel: So you are alleging that Rosenstein deliberately signed a falsified FISA application.

    pretty much – yes

    you just now realized that?

    Zachriel: Having decided not to prosecute, under Justice Department policies, that’s all they should have said. Twice, Comey’s comments sent Clinton’s poll numbers plummeting.

    except an actual indictment on the infractions Comey went over in great detail would have literally killed her campaign

    HRC got off easy in that presser when all things are considered

    Zachriel: A drug addict who was caught with a small quantity of contraband turns state evidence. He has provided reliable information during the course of his cooperation and now says that a house on Maple Street is a drug marketplace. The police go to court, and guess what: The judge signs a search warrant based on the testimony of a drug addict who is profiting from a reduced sentence for his cooperation.

    what is this suppose to prove?

    Zachriel: We have explained it to you. Not sure how else to help you.

    no you really did not

    you keep bringing up these weird comparisons to try and argue your point – which further convolutes the conversation

    first it was a security guard, now a drug addict

    none of your comparisons can get around how the data logs will hold up in cross when the DNC server itself was never examined by the FBI or any government agency

    Zachriel: It’s an example showing how intent applies under specific statutes.

    yet “intent” can always be shown by an individual’s action

    that applies under any statue

    do note – I’m not saying that the “intent” will always hold up in court

    but it can definitely get the accused into a courtroom to see if their “intent” holds up under legal scrutiny

    Zachriel: Sure you did.

    no I didn’t

    you are trying to make that argument for me

    I never once brought up the security guard argument

    Zachriel: Yet the testimony of a reputable security firm, absent impeaching evidence, is probably stronger than the evidence of a drug addict wanting a reduced sentence.

    possibly – but here’s the kicker

    there is no absent impeaching evidence because said server is in the hands of the DNC who refuses to let anyone else inspect it

    again I ask – why did the DNC refuse the FBI inspection, any government inspection that I am aware of, and only show logs that came from a third party source that they had hired

    because the entire basis of the Russian “hack” – which really wasn’t a hack – is based on a third party source

    I agree that Crowdstrike’s “word” would hold up moreso than a drug addict (in the example you made) but you have to realize the defense team is going to ask why a full inspection was not done by the FBI themselves and start poking holes into the logs from there

    you do realize that for every expert witness the prosecution puts up, the defense will (likely) do the same

    that’s why you needed a full scope investigation into the DNC server from the very beginning and one that was working in tandem with the US government body so all findings can be double-checked in a non-partisan manner

    instead the have the word of the DNC, via their hired party, that the Russians hacked their server

    Zachriel: It’s not on the DNC log. Podesta was using Gmail. The public knowledge of the URL comes from an email that the Russians leaked that they had stolen from Podesta, confirmed by reference to Podesta’s email history.

    you are confusing three different topics here when regarding the DNC server

    first is there’s the Podesta thing where he fell for a phishing email

    second is the another hack (attempts to breach it) that was supposed to have happened to it

    third is a separate leak that came from same server via a physical device – think a USB harddrive

    thing is – no one can determine if any of the three above are connected in any way shape or form

    because the DNC won’t let anyone see the server itself, except their own contracted party

    Zachriel: Because it already happened before.

    read again what I typed there: from what I read on the case – the prosecution is actually trying to prevent such documents from being passed off in the discovery phase due to the (fear) of that actually occurring

    Zachriel: What’s interesting is that your echochamber is such that even when Russian trolls are involved in altering leaking sensitive information to create chaos in the U.S. legal system, you seem to be unable to make the connection between that and all their other trolling activities.

    but what is more interesting is that in your echochamber is that the actions of the Democrats themselves actually created this entire fiasco

    in fact – the Democrats have actually made it far worse in trying to further the very argument you are trying to make in that “Russia” was trying to sow chaos into the US legal system

    but Trump was never responsible for the data breach

    Podesta was by his own stupidity

    there could have been other actors that had access to the DNC server – but since it was never fully inspected we cannot know for any certainty

      fishstick: yes

      What evidence do you have that Rosenstein, Trump’s pick, deliberately signed a falsified FISA application.

      fishstick: what is this suppose to prove?

      It’s a typical example of probable cause for a warrant. You contend that a contracted security firm with a respectable reputation has less credibility than a drug addict promised a lesser sentence.

      fishstick: but it can definitely get the accused into a courtroom to see if their “intent” holds up under legal scrutiny

      You can’t just wave your hands when applying for a warrant. If the statute requires a showing of intent, then you have to have evidence showing intent when applying for the warrant. For premeditated murder, for instance, you might show that the gun was purchased just a few days before the murder. While not conclusive, it may be sufficient for probable cause.

      fishstick: you are trying to make that argument for me

      We quoted you, thrice.

      fishstick: instead the have the word of the DNC, via their hired party, that the Russians hacked their server

      We have the victim’s account, the release of the stolen documents, the expert testimony of their contracted security firm, the server logs, the FBI analysis of the server logs (which FBI experts say was sufficient for the investigation), the specific tools used for the hack traced to Russian intelligence, the revealed location of Guccifer 2.0, and other evidence from other sources showing a pattern of cyberwarfare by Russian government agents. We also have the accompanying crime of the Podesta hack, chair of of the Clinton campaign. Gee whiz, we even have Russian trolls trying to disrupt the trial of United States v. Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian firm with close ties to Putin.

      fishstick: from what I read on the case – the prosecution is actually trying to prevent such documents from being passed off in the discovery phase due to the (fear) of that actually occurring

      It’s already occurred before!

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 8, 2019 at 12:00 pm

        Zachriel: What evidence do you have that Rosenstein, Trump’s pick, deliberately signed a falsified FISA application.

        well his name is on the application for starters

        Zachriel: It’s a typical example of probable cause for a warrant. You contend that a contracted security firm with a respectable reputation has less credibility than a drug addict promised a lesser sentence.

        but I never brought up the drug addict defense

        you did

        you aren’t reading what I am typing and don’t realize yourself what you are typing

        Zachriel: You can’t just wave your hands when applying for a warrant. If the statute requires a showing of intent, then you have to have evidence showing intent when applying for the warrant. For premeditated murder, for instance, you might show that the gun was purchased just a few days before the murder. While not conclusive, it may be sufficient for probable cause.

        but you are saying Comey’s actions of mishandling federal documents, leaking said material, withholding said material from the feds, and even his own friggen testimony cannot meet the standard of “probable cause”

        I don’t know how much longer you can continue to ignore the facts of Comey’s actions and argue you can’t imply “intent”

        Zachriel: We quoted you, thrice.

        no – you quoted yourself three times

        you are the one who keeps trying to use that fallacy

        Zachriel: We have the victim’s account, the release of the stolen documents, the expert testimony of their contracted security firm, the server logs, the FBI analysis of the server logs (which FBI experts say was sufficient for the investigation), the specific tools used for the hack traced to Russian intelligence, the revealed location of Guccifer 2.0, and other evidence from other sources showing a pattern of cyberwarfare by Russian government agents. We also have the accompanying crime of the Podesta hack, chair of of the Clinton campaign. Gee whiz, we even have Russian trolls trying to disrupt the trial of United States v. Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian firm with close ties to Putin.

        but they still don’t have a federal inspection of the DNC server, do they?

        so everything you just typed – is seen through the logs provided by the DNC themselves

        Zachriel: It’s already occurred before!

        now I know you are NOT reading (or comprehending) what I am typing

        I was pointing out the reason the prosecution’s motion to delay discovery was for that very reason

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 8, 2019 at 1:55 pm

    Zachriel: Because it already happened before.

    another thing about this item is you completely misread what I typed and the reasoning behind it

    if the scenario occurred where this Russian company leaked the info – and websites were out running disinformation against it utilizing documents within the discovery

    then the prosecution would not have issued the delay such a motion as the team should know (at this point) if websites were out there running these leaks or not

    in this case – the judge would have been given verified information that these websites were out there and linked to a foreign oligarch

    so it would never have been a point of contention

    this Russian company either did it or not

    and if not – then the leak had to come from somewhere else

BUT the funniest thing of all and the reason the liberal whinefest still continues is because the truth got out

that is the bottomline in all this but the media and the Democrats needed a scapegoat for their own blunder

while at the same turning a blind eye to the illegal spying that was orchestrated on the Trump campaign, to the Trump transition, to the Trump presidency that is now being exposed to the public

it is WHY all these things are happening

in their minds – Trump never had a chance to win the presidency but when he did win the election, the heads of Obama’s administration realized their own backdoor investigation could be blown wide open

and it is

whether or not AG Barr will try to hold anyone accountable is another discussion…

but remember – right around the time Trump won the election, the left was calling him crazy and un-American in him suggesting his team was under secret surveillance

well President 45 doesn’t sound so crazy anymore for suggesting that now, eh?

then let us skip forward to AFTER a near 3 year investigation into all things Trump, and the collusion narrative collapses as there was never any real evidence there of

it was all based on foreign sources, one who really hated Trump, coupled with unverified information, and partisan speculation by US intelligence and their allies

and this doesn’t even take into account how the Mueller probe went from investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election to investigating any possible infraction they could possibly find on anyone connected to Trump, dating back a decade before he runs for office?

how (and why) did Mueller arrive to there?

surely it wasn’t for a political reason, right? (wink wink)

btw – the person who signed that order to expand the probe was Rod Rosenstein who we now know who was privy to the entire spy ring set up on Trump due to his signature on one of the FISA applications

but somehow along the way – you liberals convinced yourselves all of the above was justified because “Russia” tried to interfere with the 2016 election?

now that some are finally in position to question the audacity to question the integrity of the campaign the Democrats ran on for the past 3 years, the liberals want to cry wolf and say it was somehow ‘fair and lawful’?

while at the same time calling for impeachment for obstruction for actions that did not occur

yeah that is a ‘winning’ strategy

seriously – I don’t know how much more hypocritical your side can become

    fishstick: whether or not AG Barr will try to hold anyone accountable is another discussion…

    Gee whiz, if even Trump’s hand-picked hack won’t indict, doesn’t that tell you something?

    fishstick: all of the above was justified because “Russia” tried to interfere with the 2016 election?

    Russia did interfere in the U.S. election. Trump denies this, against all evidence, meaning that vultures will now gather to pick apart the U.S. electoral process.

      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 8, 2019 at 12:21 pm

      Zachriel: Gee whiz, if even Trump’s hand-picked hack won’t indict, doesn’t that tell you something?

      perhaps, perhaps not

      depends on what action AG Barr takes

      honestly – I’m not too hopeful he brings a charge because he is part of the same cabal

      I see him as Sessions-lite but he can prove me wrong

      Zachriel: Russia did interfere in the U.S. election. Trump denies this, against all evidence, meaning that vultures will now gather to pick apart the U.S. electoral process.

      but there is no proof the Russia government interfered with the the actual US election process

      Mueller and his team could not conclude any votes were changed due to what the “Russians” supposedly did

      the above coupled with how our voting system works – it is highly unlikely any “Russian” vulture could ever pick apart the process

      I mean where did that last line of yours come from?

      at best – you can only describe it as internet farming and trolling, which I’ve stated numerous times, anyone can do

      so we gonna determine foreign election interference in the future by adspaces?

      I mean you are just beating a dead bush by this point

      Mueller and his team had to conclude (rather unwittingly) that the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russian regime, despite their best effort to prove so

      now – if you want to talk about real election interference then look no further than your boy Obama

      google OneVoice and what they were proven had DONE by our own government body

      you might be shocked (but I doubt it)

fishstick: but I never brought up the drug addict defense

That’s right. You had claimed that an expert cybersecurity firm could not be trusted for probable cause because they were contracted by the victim. We pointed out that known criminals are often used as sources for providing probable cause for warrant applications. Your position is contrary to legal practice in the United States.

fishstick: but you are saying Comey’s actions of mishandling federal documents, leaking said material

You have yet to cite a statute that criminalizes “mishandling” of federal documents.

fishstick: but they still don’t have a federal inspection of the DNC server

The evidence we do have doesn’t go away because you choose to ignore it.

fishstick: but there is no proof the Russia government interfered with the the actual US election process

Not with the ballot process, though we know they attempted to hack into several state systems. However, we also know they illegally interfered with the election, such as by hacking into the chair of the Clinton campaign’s emails, then releasing to cause political damage to the Clinton campaign.

fishstick: so we gonna determine foreign election interference in the future by adspaces?

Of course that’s illegal, though only a tiny portion of Russia’s cyberwarfare efforts.

By turning a blind eye to this, you are enabling the undermining of American democracy.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 8, 2019 at 2:35 pm

    Zachriel: That’s right. You had claimed that an expert cybersecurity firm could not be trusted for probable cause because they were contracted by the victim. We pointed out that known criminals are often used as sources for providing probable cause for warrant applications. Your position is contrary to legal practice in the United States.

    by jove – you finally realize you are the one making that argument

    but I have to ask again – did the FBI conduct a full inspection on the DNC server?

    because technically speaking in the court of law, all we have to go on is the logs provided by the DNC’s expert witness

    you may not want to see it but there is a huge difference when DNC claims one thing but will later have to affirm to the court they denied a FBI inspection

    again – why was that?

    Zachriel: You have yet to cite a statute that criminalizes “mishandling” of federal documents.

    I’m sure there are statues a plenty for having authorized access to federal documents, leaking documents, and then the failure to return of such material

    Zachriel: The evidence we do have doesn’t go away because you choose to ignore it.

    but the ‘evidence’ we do have is provided by the DNC

    Zachriel: Of course that’s illegal, though only a tiny portion of Russia’s cyberwarfare efforts.

    but is it?

    there is no way to feasibly police it and then prosecute it

    let’s just say a foreign entity buys adspace, no matter where, and runs some sort of political ad

    how the hell are you going to be able to single that out amongst ALL the others and then make legal determinations based upon it on which is legal and which is not, upon the statute of election interference, tampering, disinformation, and whatnot?

    because it is going to be a game of Where’s Waldo? where that ad could be lost within another 20 (or more) that say the exact same thing

    THIS is the argument you are trying to make in saying “Russia” hacked the election

    it is ridiculous because the very premise you are trying to describe it as – is absurd on its face

    Zachriel: By turning a blind eye to this, you are enabling the undermining of American democracy.

    I haven’t turned a blind eye to this

    you are overstating the impact any of this (even if true) actually had on the general electorate

    what makes up the US voting infrastructure was never compromised in the 2016 election

    the Mueller team had to come out and say in their own report of a determination in no single vote being altered

    but like I asked you before – if they even could make a determination, how would they even go about to prove it?

    especially in the court of law

    but what the Democrats have done is wholeheartedly undermined the American democracy moreso than Putin ever could with their lunacy in the Trump-Russia narrative and what led up to the Mueller probe in the first place

    did you ever think we would get to the point where the FBI, DOJ, and CIA used foreign intel, some of which we know now is Russian disinformation, to spy on a Presidential campaign?

    and I would argue the above was done for highly political reasons

    but we’ll see how far that rabbit hole goes

      fishstick: did the FBI conduct a full inspection on the DNC server?

      No. They did not. However, the cybersecurity firm that was working on the problem provided the FBI the server logs, which the FBI said was sufficient for the investigation.

      fishstick: all we have to go on is the logs provided by the DNC’s expert witness

      The server logs, the specialized tools used, the exposure of Guccifer 2.0’s location, the URL used to phish Podesta’s account, etc.

      fishstick: I’m sure there are statues a plenty for having authorized access to federal documents, leaking documents, and then the failure to return of such material

      Great! You’re the one making the claim that someone broke the law. Please provide the statute you believe was broken.

      fishstick: how the hell are you going to be able to single that out amongst ALL the others and then make legal determinations based upon it on which is legal and which is not, upon the statute of election interference, tampering, disinformation, and whatnot?

      Um, by investigating the facts surrounding the allegations. We know the Russians bought political ads. Sometimes, they even paid in rubles. We know the Russian government deployed an army of trolls on social media to interfere in the election. We know that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta’s account, then released the information to cause maximum political damage to the Clinton campaign. All of this is illegal.

      And we know that Trump encouraged them to do so.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 8, 2019 at 4:53 pm

        Zachriel: No. They did not. However, the cybersecurity firm that was working on the problem provided the FBI the server logs, which the FBI said was sufficient for the investigation.

        and who paid that cybersecurity firm to provide those logs to the FBI who never inspected that “hacked” server?

        Zachriel: The server logs, the specialized tools used, the exposure of Guccifer 2.0’s location, the URL used to phish Podesta’s account, etc.

        except the FBI recently admitted in a recent court hearing that they were never given such material

        instead the FBI relied on the conclusions Crowdstrike drew in their finds given the log history on said “hacked” server

        in addition to these all these logs being redacted

        so it is hardly clear and uncut as you are making it sound

        again – why did the DNC refuse the FBI to inspect said server?

        Zachriel: Great! You’re the one making the claim that someone broke the law. Please provide the statute you believe was broken.

        I’ll do you one better in the comparison below

        Zachriel: Um, by investigating the facts surrounding the allegations.

        yet every allegation surrounding the FBI counter-intelligence scheme against Trump (thus far) have proven actions of bias against Trump and favoritism for Hillary

        but you see no infractions here correct?

        Zachriel: We know the Russians bought political ads.

        not against any law that I am aware of

        yet somehow this supersedes Comey’s unauthorized access to federal documents?

        Zachriel: Sometimes, they even paid in rubles.

        also likely not against the law

        yet somehow this supersedes Comey’s mishandling of federal documents (later marked with sensitive material) to other unauthorized personnel who then leaked them?

        the internet isn’t solely US territory you know

        Zachriel: We know the Russian government deployed an army of trolls on social media to interfere in the election.

        noted

        but yet this somehow supersedes Comey not handing over all federal material in his possession to FBI staff when confronted of his confiscation of said federal material?

        Zachriel: We know that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta’s account, then released the information to cause maximum political damage to the Clinton campaign.

        no we don’t

        that is the story you liberals keep peddling

        none of THAT is definitively proven

        you just assume the evil “Ruskies” did it

        Mueller did not seek an interview with Assange, who has stated his source was not a Russian

        but here’s a very odd thing about the above – why hasn’t Assange, as WikiLeaks hosted the leaks, or anyone within his organization not been charged with anything?

        it isn’t like Mueller or his team cannot get access to him now-a-days since he got extradited

        Zachriel: All of this is illegal.

        actually only the last item would be technically illegal

        Russians can purchase adspace and do whatever they want with them and I doubt paying in rubles is a US federal infraction

        heck – I’m not even sure employing the fabled army of Russian trolls is illegal either

        Zachriel: And we know that Trump encouraged them to do so.

        so it’s Trump’s fault Hillary ran a secret server and Podesta fell for a phishing email?

        I also suppose its Trump’s fault that DNC also rigged their primary to favor HRC as well, right?

        I see you are quick to blame anyone but your own donkeys

        bottom line – Trump didn’t “hack” anything you dolt

        he just had the audacity to beat the “most qualified candidate in history”

        and the above are Obama’s own words, not mine

          fishstick: and who paid that cybersecurity firm to provide those logs to the FBI

          The victim of the crime.

          fishstick: except the FBI recently admitted in a recent court hearing that they were never given such material

          Please provide a citation so we can see what you are talking about.

          The DNC servers were mostly cloud-based. If the FBI had taken all the physical computers, then the DNC would have been out of business. The physical machine is meaningless. It’s the data on the machines that matter, and the FBI was provided data-images of the servers.

          fishstick: not against any law that I am aware of

          You already forgot?

          52 U.S. Code § 30121: It shall be unlawful for-

          (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

          (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

          (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

          (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication

          fishstick: also likely not against the law

          No, but a heck of a tell for someone to pay for a U.S. election ad in rubles.

          fishstick: why hasn’t Assange, as WikiLeaks hosted the leaks, or anyone within his organization not been charged with anything?

          : U.S. v. AssangeASSANGE and WikiLeaks have repeatedly sought, obtained, and disseminated information that the United States classified due to the serious risk that unauthorized disclosure could harm the national security of the United States.

          Note the grand jury indictment refers to a specific statute, 18 U.S. Code §  793, states that the information is relating to the national defense, and includes Assange’s alleged intent. All of these elements are required for an indictment and for a conviction.

          Here’s an overview as to the types of evidence linking Russia to the DNC hack, and why the “But the servers!” incantation is vacuous mumbo-jumbo.

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 9, 2019 at 1:39 pm

          Zachriel: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904?lang=en

          also known as the Democratic National Committee

          Zachriel: Please provide a citation so we can see what you are talking about.

          that little nugget I was referring to comes from the pre-trial goings of the Roger Stone case

          an article talking about it: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/doj-admits-fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-report-on-dnc-russian-hacking-claim/

          the court filing can be found at the bottom of that article or just click here: https://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports

          to sum it up for you – the intelligence apparatus (and special counsel) of the US government relied on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm in full and that it was created by a paid contractor for a victim (DNC) who would not allow the FBI (or NSA) to even investigate their claim

          the team that is prosecution Roger Stone had to LITERALLY admit, they do not have the information

          instead they are used the “it is irrelevent to this case” defense without even realizing how bad their admission made the entire scenario look for them

          Zachriel: No, but a heck of a tell for someone to pay for a U.S. election ad in rubles.

          you do realize that the internet isn’t some US territory, right?

          pretty sure it is NOT illegal for any foreign national to do this, but let us just say they did, so should all those EU magazines, news sites, and news shows (on tv) that ran non-stop anti-Trump stories for the past 3 years be charged for election tampering?

          after all, links to their websites (such as the Guardian) pop up all over the place on the internet, even on your web browsers like Google

          Zachriel: Note the grand jury indictment refers to a specific statute, 18 U.S. Code §  793, states that the information is relating to the national defense, and includes Assange’s alleged intent. All of these elements are required for an indictment and for a conviction.

          you do realize that that specific case has nothing to do with the Mueller probe, right?

          what I was referring to was how the Mueller team, for some reason, never sought out an interview with Assange whose WikiLeaks who was the original leaker

          the funny thing is Assange was ready to talk way back in early 2017, or atleast show who weren’t the hacker/s, but the FBI under Comey killed the immunity deal

          then for some reason – Mueller went around and focused on Roger Stone and claimed that somehow this guy was the more guilty party

          that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to go after Roger Stone because he supposedly had a close relationship with Guccifer 2.0 but bypass WikiLeaks who had direct contact with the leaker himself (or herself)

          Zachriel: Here’s an overview as to the types of evidence linking Russia to the DNC hack, and why the “But the servers!” incantation is vacuous mumbo-jumbo.

          it is alot more than ‘mumbo-jumbo’

          did you even hear (or read) Comey’s testimony in front of the House commitees?

          he plainly says out in mulitples his department used outside determinations to make their conclusions

          Comey even had to state THAT is outside of normal FBI practices

          gee… I wonder why

          but don’t believe James Comey, take this piece gotten off a simple google search

          https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/17/fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-unredacted-or-final-report-on-alleged-russian-hacking-because-none-was-produced/

          don’t believe an ex-CIA analyst who has been critical on both political sides, then here’s another

          https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904?lang=en

          btw – Aaron Mate is a liberal investigative reporter

          link to .doc of the motion for discovery is in that link as well

for some reason my last post (at 1:39pm) only shows up on the web browser when I’m logged in

just going to double post it in 2 sections just to be sure it goes through LI

(repost)

Zachriel: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904?lang=en

also known as the Democratic National Committee

Zachriel: Please provide a citation so we can see what you are talking about.

that little nugget I was referring to comes from the pre-trial goings of the Roger Stone case

an article talking about it: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/doj-admits-fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-report-on-dnc-russian-hacking-claim/

the court filing can be found at the bottom of that article or just click here: https://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports

to sum it up for you – the intelligence apparatus (and special counsel) of the US government relied on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm in full and that it was created by a paid contractor for a victim (DNC) who would not allow the FBI (or NSA) to even investigate their claim

the team that is prosecution Roger Stone had to LITERALLY admit, they do not have the information

instead they are used the “it is irrelevent to this case” defense without even realizing how bad their admission made the entire scenario look for them

Zachriel: No, but a heck of a tell for someone to pay for a U.S. election ad in rubles.

you do realize that the internet isn’t some US territory, right?

pretty sure it is NOT illegal for any foreign national to do this, but let us just say they did, so should all those EU magazines, news sites, and news shows (on tv) that ran non-stop anti-Trump stories for the past 3 years be charged for election tampering?

after all, links to their websites (such as the Guardian) pop up all over the place on the internet, even on your web browsers like Google

    fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 9, 2019 at 5:01 pm

    Zachriel: Note the grand jury indictment refers to a specific statute, 18 U.S. Code §  793, states that the information is relating to the national defense, and includes Assange’s alleged intent. All of these elements are required for an indictment and for a conviction.

    you do realize that that specific case has nothing to do with the Mueller probe, right?

    what I was referring to was how the Mueller team, for some reason, never sought out an interview with Assange whose WikiLeaks who was the original leaker

    the funny thing is Assange was ready to talk way back in early 2017, or atleast show who weren’t the hacker/s, but the FBI under Comey killed the immunity deal

    then for some reason – Mueller went around and focused on Roger Stone and claimed that somehow this guy was the more guilty party

    that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to go after Roger Stone because he supposedly had a close relationship with Guccifer 2.0 but bypass WikiLeaks who had direct contact with the leaker himself (or herself)

    Zachriel: Here’s an overview as to the types of evidence linking Russia to the DNC hack, and why the “But the servers!” incantation is vacuous mumbo-jumbo.

    it is alot more than ‘mumbo-jumbo’

    did you even hear (or read) Comey’s testimony in front of the House commitees?

    he plainly says out in mulitples his department used outside determinations to make their conclusions

    Comey even had to state THAT is outside of normal FBI practices

    gee… I wonder why

    but don’t believe James Comey, take this piece gotten off a simple google search

    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/17/fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-unredacted-or-final-report-on-alleged-russian-hacking-because-none-was-produced/

    don’t believe an ex-CIA analyst who has been critical on both political sides, then here’s another

    https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904?lang=en

    btw – Aaron Mate is a liberal investigative reporter

    link to .doc of the motion for discovery is in that link as well

okay so this is my third try to repost this as the site somehow hides it

I think it is because of the links

Zachriel: h ttps://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904?lang=en

also known as the Democratic National Committee

Zachriel: Please provide a citation so we can see what you are talking about.

that little nugget I was referring to comes from the pre-trial goings of the Roger Stone case

an article talking about it: h ttps://www.investmentwatchblog.com/doj-admits-fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-report-on-dnc-russian-hacking-claim/

remove the obvious space

the court filing can be found at the bottom of that article or just click here: h ttps://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports

remove the obvious space

article summary – the intelligence apparatus (and special counsel) of the US government relied on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm in full and that it was created by a paid contractor for a victim (DNC) who would not allow the FBI (or NSA) to even investigate their claim

the team that is prosecuting Roger Stone had to LITERALLY admit, they do not have the information

instead they are used the “it is irrelevant to this case” defense without even realizing how bad their admission made the entire scenario look for them

Zachriel: No, but a heck of a tell for someone to pay for a U.S. election ad in rubles.

you do realize that the internet isn’t some US territory, right?

pretty sure it is NOT illegal for any foreign national to do this, but let us just say they did, so should all those EU magazines, news sites, and news shows (on tv) that ran non-stop anti-Trump stories for the past 3 years be charged for election tampering?

after all, links to their websites (such as the Guardian) pop up all over the place on the internet, even on your web browsers like Google

    fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 9, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    yeah it looks like the links shadow tagged my posts

    be wary of that if anyone is reading this

    the way you get around it is by putting an obvious space in the web address so it shows up on the post without it becoming a ‘clicky’

    —-

    Zachriel: Note the grand jury indictment refers to a specific statute, 18 U.S. Code §  793, states that the information is relating to the national defense, and includes Assange’s alleged intent. All of these elements are required for an indictment and for a conviction.

    you do realize that that specific case has nothing to do with the Mueller probe, right?

    what I was referring to was how the Mueller team, for some reason, never sought out an interview with Assange whose WikiLeaks who was the original leaker

    the funny thing is Assange was ready to talk way back in early 2017, or atleast show who weren’t the hacker/s, but the FBI under Comey killed the immunity deal

    then for some reason – Mueller went around and focused on Roger Stone and claimed that somehow this guy was the more guilty party

    that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to go after Roger Stone because he supposedly had a close relationship with Guccifer 2.0 but bypass WikiLeaks who had direct contact with the leaker himself (or herself)

    Zachriel: Here’s an overview as to the types of evidence linking Russia to the DNC hack, and why the “But the servers!” incantation is vacuous mumbo-jumbo.

    it is alot more than ‘mumbo-jumbo’

    did you even hear (or read) Comey’s testimony in front of the House commitees?

    he plainly says out in multiples his department used outside determinations to make their conclusions

    Comey even had to state THAT is outside of normal FBI practices

    gee… I wonder why

    but don’t believe James Comey, take this piece gotten off a simple google search

    h ttps://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/17/fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-unredacted-or-final-report-on-alleged-russian-hacking-because-none-was-produced/

    don’t believe an ex-CIA analyst who has been critical on both political sides, then here’s another

    h ttps://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1140435091719675904?lang=en

    btw – Aaron Mate is a liberal investigative reporter

    link to .doc of the motion for discovery is in that link as well

Zachriel: The server logs, the specialized tools used, the exposure of Guccifer 2.0’s location, the URL used to phish Podesta’s account, etc.

fishstick: except the FBI recently admitted in a recent court hearing that they were never given such material (cites DOJ Response to MTC Crowdstrike Reports).

That contradicts your claim. The DOJ Response only addresses the server logs, and the redacted material only “concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack.”

fishstick: pretty sure it is NOT illegal for any foreign national to do this

52 U.S. Code § 30121

fishstick: but let us just say they did, so should all those EU magazines, news sites, and news shows (on tv) that ran non-stop anti-Trump stories for the past 3 years be charged for election tampering?

There is nothing illegal about reporting on events in the United States, or having an opinion on the U.S. election. It is illegal for a foreign national to spend anything of value on electioneering.

fishstick: you do realize that that specific case has nothing to do with the Mueller probe, right?

You had asked, “Why hasn’t Assange, as WikiLeaks hosted the leaks, or anyone within his organization not been charged with anything?” In fact, Assange has been charged with a crime by the U.S., and is now subject to extradition.

fishstick: he plainly says out in multiples his department used outside determinations to make their conclusions

He also plainly stated that FBI experts said the information they were provided was sufficient to determine that Russia was the source of the hack of the DNC. And you keep ignoring that Russia also hacked Podesta, and have engaged in a pattern of cyberwarfare against other open democracies.

Zachriel: That contradicts your claim. The DOJ Response only addresses the server logs, and the redacted material only “concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack.”

where does it contradict?

did you even bother to read the court docs there?

the DOJ’s statement is in short form – we don’t have the unredacted logs nor did we see it

their argument though is Roger Stone shouldn’t be granted access to it (despite the fact) because his trial is somehow not about Russia “hacking”

Zachriel: 52 U.S. Code § 30121

show me a foreign national in jail that prosecuted under this statue for purchasing internet adspace

Zachriel: There is nothing illegal about reporting on events in the United States, or having an opinion on the U.S. election. It is illegal for a foreign national to spend anything of value on electioneering.

“electioneering” is any oral or written attempt to persuade persons to refrain from voting or to vote for or vote against any candidate or issue

so a negative foreign press, even a domestic one, wouldn’t be “electioneering”?

that is a very broad term you just introduced

but again – show me a foreign national that was prosecuted for buying such adspace

Zachriel: You had asked, “Why hasn’t Assange, as WikiLeaks hosted the leaks, or anyone within his organization not been charged with anything?” In fact, Assange has been charged with a crime by the U.S., and is now subject to extradition.

but you continually ignore he wasn’t charged by the Mueller team

in fact – him and WikiLeaks were all but ignored ignored by said special counsel

his prosecution is being done by the DOJ itself, not by the special counsel

Zachriel: He also plainly stated that FBI experts said the information they were provided was sufficient to determine that Russia was the source of the hack of the DNC. And you keep ignoring that Russia also hacked Podesta, and have engaged in a pattern of cyberwarfare against other open democracies.

yet his explanation completely undercuts Comey own argument in trying to make that distinction

because logic dictates it can’t

you also got the former NSA vets out there saying that without direct access to the server’s software systems, there is no way to determine whether or not the malware was “Russian” in origin

because you need access to the device to run said data transfers through multiples programs to trace the possible origin

THAT did not happen here

otherwise – the Mueller report would have had multiple NSA print-outs showing just that in where these “packets” ended up overseas and what servers they pinged off of

and you cannot do any of this from a computer log – given months to even a year after the “hack”

fishstick: where does it contradict?

Your claim was that the FBI wasn’t provided evidence of the Russian hack. Your own citation confirms that they were provided that evidence. There is a lot of other evidence as well, including the Podesta hack.

fishstick: so a negative foreign press, even a domestic one, wouldn’t be “electioneering”?

Read the statute to see how it applies. They explicitly define electioneering under section 30104(f)(3). We can point you to it, but we can’t make you read it. You have to do that yourself.

fishstick: in fact – him and WikiLeaks were all but ignored ignored by said special counsel

Because he was being investigated by another prosecutor who has indicted Assange under 18 U.S. Code §  793. Assange and the indicted Russians can make your arguments if they want — if they show up in court.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 10, 2019 at 9:27 am

    Zachriel: Your claim was that the FBI wasn’t provided evidence of the Russian hack. Your own citation confirms that they were provided that evidence. There is a lot of other evidence as well, including the Podesta hack.

    but the evidence in question is logs and conclusions given to them by a third party hired by the DNC

    and they were redacted

    the FBI is on record of admitting they never saw either the final report, as the three reports they were given were finalized, nor did they ever obtain an unredacted version

    Zachriel: Read the statute to see how it applies. They explicitly define electioneering under section 30104(f)(3). We can point you to it, but we can’t make you read it. You have to do that yourself.

    it is you who is ignoring the statute and how it would apply to foreign nationals

    you don’t even address the argument I made of what “electioneering” really is or could be defined to be

    even under case law

    based on your answer here – I’m assuming you can’t find a case where a foreign national got convicted based on the scenario you yourself imply a couple posts back

    Zachriel: Because he was being investigated by another prosecutor who has indicted Assange under 18 U.S. Code §  793. Assange and the indicted Russians can make your arguments if they want — if they show up in court.

    but you do realize you dodged answering the question why the Mueller probe seemingly had no qualm of the actions of Assange and WikiLeaks during their 3 year investigation into all things Trump

    it doesn’t change the fact Assange’s prosecution is not being done or swayed by information gathered by the former special counsel

    at least nothing from what I can find on the net

      fishstick: but the evidence in question is logs and conclusions given to them by a third party hired by the DNC

      That’s right. The FBI was provided the server logs, which FBI experts said was sufficient for their investigation.

      fishstick: you don’t even address the argument I made of what “electioneering” really is or could be defined to be

      We cited the statute, even quoting the core language, then pointed to the legal definition of electioneering for purposes of the statute. But you don’t address the language of the statute, even though it is clearly pertinent to your contention.

      fishstick: but you do realize you dodged answering the question why the Mueller probe seemingly had no qualm of the actions of Assange and WikiLeaks during their 3 year investigation into all things Trump

      That is incorrect. The Mueller report explicitly states that Assange accepted the stolen DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0, meaning Assange was in direct contact with Russian intelligence agents.

        Russian agents transferring the stolen emails to Assange just before their release is direct evidence that Russian agents hacked the DNC. You don’t even need the DNC server logs to come to this conclusion, but the DNC server logs provide additional direct evidence.

        We also have the identification of the specialized tools used in the DNC attack, the exposure of Guccifer 2.0’s location, the Podesta hack; and most important, the pattern of Russian cyberwarfare against other democratic systems around the world.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 10, 2019 at 10:59 am

          Zachriel: Russian agents transferring the stolen emails to Assange just before their release is direct evidence that Russian agents hacked the DNC. You don’t even need the DNC server logs to come to this conclusion, but the DNC server logs provide additional direct evidence.

          you do realize there is still no direct evidence of those claims you typed out

          it is like you completely whiffed on the entire conversation we have been having up to now

          the Mueller probe (and FBI) used a third party source (hired by the DNC) to make those determinations

          the FBI, nor the NSA, ever got access to physical server/s with the malware installed

          plus now we have learned that the logs in question that Comey claims is “sufficient proof” held many redactions and not finalized by said third party source – Crowdstrike

          Zachriel: We also have the identification of the specialized tools used in the DNC attack, the exposure of Guccifer 2.0’s location, the Podesta hack; and most important, the pattern of Russian cyberwarfare against other democratic systems around the world.

          except all of this is “asserted” in the Muller report, and only further collaborated on by past actions of Russian operatives

          the bottom line is (and stil) – the FBI (or NSA) never got the drives to run logistics and tracing programs

          had THAT actually occurred, the Mueller report would have read more like a blueprint of HOW and WHERE all these attempts were, what servers across the US and continental Europe got pinged, and where these “packets” of the data transfers ended up

          all that came from Crowdstrike who (we later learned) provided the logs months to even a year after the “hack” itself, which also held redactions the intelligence community never saw

          instead the report reads as a circular argument where an “assertion” is made, then collaborated by another “assertion”, then backed by a source in the intelligence community as a highly plausible “scenario”

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 10, 2019 at 10:45 am

        Zachriel: That’s right. The FBI was provided the server logs, which FBI experts said was sufficient for their investigation.

        yes – and Comey is both highly unusual and a not-general practice done by FBI standards

        and this does not even bring into question, the three server logs provided were done months in advance, held redactions, and were the product of a third party hired by the DNC

        Comey can claim it was sufficient but the above completely undercuts his entire argument

        Zachriel: We cited the statute, even quoting the core language, then pointed to the legal definition of electioneering for purposes of the statute. But you don’t address the language of the statute, even though it is clearly pertinent to your contention.

        yet there is no trials that I can find where foreign nationals are subjected to US legal prudence under said statute

        you do realize you are talking about internet adspace, right?

        Zachriel: That is incorrect. The Mueller report explicitly states that Assange accepted the stolen DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0, meaning Assange was in direct contact with Russian intelligence agents.

        is it?

        so why did the Mueller team not issue indictments for Assange or known or suspected members of WikiLeaks?

        the special counsel’s first priorty was investigating “Russian” election interference, no?

        plus making reference to something in the Mueller report doesn’t indicate proof

        hence Mueller constantly saying “not under my purview” when questioned of the origins of all his report’s assertions

fishstick: you do realize there is still no direct evidence of those claims you typed out

The Department of Justice, who has charged the people involved, and the grand juries, who examined the evidence and issued indictments, disagree.

fishstick: the Mueller probe (and FBI) used a third party source (hired by the DNC) to make those determinations

That is not correct. The information transfer from Russian agents to Assange is independent of the evidence provided by DNC security experts.

fishstick: yet there is no trials that I can find where foreign nationals are subjected to US legal prudence under said statute

Many foreign nationals have run afoul of campaign law. Placing ads on social media is a new angle, but still covered by the same law.

fishstick: so why did the Mueller team not issue indictments for Assange or known or suspected members of WikiLeaks?

Asked and answered. Because another team was working the case. They have since indicted Assange.

You have also repeatedly ignored the consilience of multiple lines of evidence. It’s not just “But the servers!”

Zachriel: The Department of Justice, who has charged the people involved, and the grand juries, who examined the evidence and issued indictments, disagree.

how so? when the origin of said evidence ultimately came from the DNC themselves

you cannot explain away that their server was never fully inspected by the FBI nor the NSA

which Comey had to admit in open testimony was not government standard

Zachriel: That is not correct. The information transfer from Russian agents to Assange is independent of the evidence provided by DNC security experts.

except the origin of those same “assertions” also comes from the basis that “Russians” was the source of the hacking

again I ask – where is the FBI or NSA inspection that proves this?

the only hard evidence the Mueller report indicates stems from logs provided by Crowdstrike – the party hired by the DNC and which said report also conveniently were redacted themselves

if Republicans ran an investigation of this magnitude on faulty premise such as this, then the media would be running around claiming the entire investigation was a sham

so why is it when the Democrats do this, there’s nothing but cricket noises from your side?

you do realize there could be no verification on the logs, the FBI and special counsel was given, right?

especially when the Crowdstrike reports were both redacted and never finalized

Zachriel: Many foreign nationals have run afoul of campaign law. Placing ads on social media is a new angle, but still covered by the same law.

you still looking for a prosecution under that statute, eh?

Zachriel: Asked and answered. Because another team was working the case. They have since indicted Assange.

no you are getting timelines mixed up now

you do realize that Assange’s extradition came well after the Mueller probe was in full motion, right?

years after in fact

the special counsel could still have investigated Assange as a person of interest and WikiLeak’s role as the principal leaker in their own case

but they didn’t

now why was that?

Zachriel: You have also repeatedly ignored the consilience of multiple lines of evidence. It’s not just “But the servers!”

but the “consilience” or agreeance was based on the premise “Russians” hacked the DNC server

the premise of the ‘multiple lines of evidence’ you typed comes directly from the logs provided by Crowdstrike via the Democratic National Committee

then we learn later, those logs were both redacted and not finalized

then provided months to the last a year after the “hacking” incident

fishstick: except the origin of those same “assertions” also comes from the basis that “Russians” was the source of the hacking

The communications between Russian agents and Assange were intercepted.

Zachriel: The communications between Russian agents and Assange were intercepted.

okay then Mueller should have had no problem actually showing the public such communications (evidence) of their DNC affair

but wait – that isn’t directly stated in his own report, is it?

as the actual evidence of what did occur – well no one could determine what actually happened

the “communications” you are referring to (from reports I’ve read) is a meeting in his embassy hideout

but what goes unsaid is – Assange did this alot in his time in London

it was not a log communications that detailed what actually transpired in that meeting, is it?

fishstick: that isn’t directly stated in his own report, is it?

You might want to actually read the Mueller report.

On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject “big archive” and the message “a new attempt.”163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”164 Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it.165 On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Guccifer 2.0 account that it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”166 On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC computer networks.167 The Democratic National Convention began three days later.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 11, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    Zachriel: You might want to actually read the Mueller report.

    I’ll address this in two points

    first:

    yet you still keep missing that the entire basis you are referring to in that paragraph there comes via Crowdstrike

    which means it comes via D N C

    ie – the FBI nor NSA ever came to those ‘direct’ conclusions because they were never given access to the “hacked” servers, weren’t they?

    the Mueller team used a third party determination to do so

    I keep typing but you keep ignoring it

    so how plausible does it sound that the FBI determination was – Russia hacked DNC servers – when they or any government agency inspected the “hacked” devices, while given redacted logs months to even a year after said “hack”, then to top it all off, the logs weren’t even finalized

    Mueller himself – at the House hearing – showed those who were really watching, the real integrity of his investigation

    it was a partisan effort, led by Democrats operatives (many of which who had ties to Hillary herself), to create a crime where there was none, and then blame Donald Trump for it

    hence why the probe – which began at Russian election interference somehow became an expedition into exploring all things Trump, much of which had nothing to do with the election itself

    now to the second:

    I present the case of…

    so if the Mueller team “confirms” that WikiLeaks worked Guccifer 2.0 – and let me just say for argument’s sake – he was the only hacker and source of the DNC server leak

    (which he wasn’t but that is a different topic)

    but lets just say the case above is 100% absolutely true with definitive proof that can withstand the legal scrutiny of cross

    then WHY was not Assange nor anyone associated with WikiLeaks indicted by the Mueller special counsel?

    and don’t give me the answer that another team was prosecuting him because there was no such prosecution

    Assange wasn’t in custody until April of 2019

    Mueller probe started way back in May of 2017

    so what was the hold up?

    for 2 years, Mueller and his team of Democrat prosecutors somehow overlooked the original leaker of the DNC hack?

    that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, doesn’t it?

fishstick: yet you still keep missing that the entire basis you are referring to in that paragraph there comes via Crowdstrike

The U.S. intercept of communications between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence is not from CrowdStrike.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 12, 2019 at 11:12 am

    there was no direct line of communications intercepted

    from what I can find on the net

    otherwise the Mueller report would have shown logs of where these “packets” ended up and what servers they pinged off of

    that did not happen here because the FBI never got access to the DNC servers nor could the NSA run their tracing programs on the malware

    CrowdStrike’s logs was the main source of why the FBI pointed at the Russians (or Russian government) for the DNC leak

    here’s a Buzzfeed (leftwing site) story trying to make the case of Russian interference citing the above: h ttps://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/he-solved-the-dnc-hack-now-hes-telling-his-story-for-the

    however very recently we learned that the “logs” that were used to make this very determination were both redacted and non-finalized

    the latter means they were an incomplete analysis still ongoing (and that maybe)

    we learned the above from the pre-trial motions against Roger Stone where his defense tried to obtain said “logs” but were rebuffed by the prosecution that they didn’t exist

    here’s an article talking about it: h ttps://www.investmentwatchblog.com/doj-admits-fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-report-on-dnc-russian-hacking-claim/

      fishstick: otherwise the Mueller report would have shown logs of where these “packets” ended up and what servers they pinged off of

      The Mueller report is a summary. There are thousands of pages of additional evidence. Are you saying the Mueller report is lying about the communications between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

      This has nothing to do with CrowdStrike as the intercepted communications came long after the hack itself.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 12, 2019 at 1:24 pm

        Zachriel: The Mueller report is a summary. There are thousands of pages of additional evidence.

        well all this “evidence” must be in the same secret vault that also houses Adam Schiff notions of irrefutable proof of collusion

        because no one else has yet to see it

        Zachriel: Are you saying the Mueller report is lying about the communications between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

        I would say their is a high probability of just that

        because why else wasn’t Assange or anyone with WikiLeaks given an indictment?

        and like I stated many times before – the data the FBI (and special counsel) used to make the assertion Russia hacked the election comes from a third party associated with the DNC

        Zachriel: This has nothing to do with CrowdStrike as the intercepted communications came long after the hack itself.

        actually CrowdStrike came before the infamous leak

        it is right in there in the Buzzfeed story I sent you

        apparently there were multiple breaches upon the DNC server system

        the first was malware months to maybe even a year installed

        this malware acted as a backdoor into the system

        and much like Hillary’s secret server, there were multiple points of entry into their server

        i.e. it did not come from one point of access in a single country but multiple in multiple

        had the NSA actually inspected these servers and ran logistics on the malware – the public would likely have seen the actual blueprint where all the data transfers ended up without speculation

        the second was a specific phishing email that the DNC claims is the Guccifer 2.0 “hack”

        the problem is – this was never confirmed because all we have to really go on this is redacted and never finalized logs of their hired party, CrowdStrike

        I’ve gone over the particulars of this many times on this page already

        the third was a physical data breach on the server who Assange says was his source aka his Guccifer 2.0

        no one ever talks about this particular one because it completely blows up the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion and of a Putin backed hacking scheme to disrupt the US election

        the actual evidence of this is the “packet” or data transfer exceeding download limitations through a landline

        you see someone had the audacity to check the actual WikiLeak leak and noticed a discrepancy in the time stamps

        here is an article talking about it: h ttps://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review

        you aren’t going to read this but the gist of what it says is the transfer times would be impossible over the net given the time stamps shown

        thus someone had to have physical access to the server itself

        it was also shown that the files that were leaked were done so in a rich text format – doing this to edit them with a false digital fingerprint

        and of course – all the above, has no mention in the Mueller report

You might want to look at the evidence detailed in the indictment of the Russian hackers:

United States v. Netyksho and others

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 12, 2019 at 11:16 am

    and where did all this information come from?

    why from the CrowdStrike logs of course

      fishstick: and where did all this information come from?

      There are multiple lines of evidence. For instance, the spearphishing data comes from a mistake made when setting up the URL, revealing the origin, as well as revealing hundreds of phishing attempts, customized for each target. We can show you the indictment, but we can’t make you read it.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 12, 2019 at 12:49 pm

        Zachriel: There are multiple lines of evidence. For instance, the spearphishing data comes from a mistake made when setting up the URL, revealing the origin, as well as revealing hundreds of phishing attempts, customized for each target.

        but all this “evidence” comes from the Democratic National Committee via CrowdStrike

        Zachriel: We can show you the indictment, but we can’t make you read it.

        and I can’t make you comprehend that the special counsel’s determinations were based on logs gathered by a third party associated with the DNC

        which we later learn were both redacted and never finalized

        their entire body of framework – even the way the Mueller report reads as a jigsaw puzzle of innuendos – all stems from what the DNC says happened

        again I ask – did the FBI or NSA ever run logistics upon the DNC “hacked” servers

fishstick: but all this “evidence” comes from the Democratic National Committee via CrowdStrike

We have corrected you on this several times. We have suggested you read the indictment. There are independent lines of evidence, such as intercepted communications that have nothing to do with CrowdStrike.

Russia is engaging in cyberwarfare, which threatens to undermine open democracies around the world.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 12, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    Zachriel: We have corrected you on this several times.

    and I’ve pointed out, several times, where those “corrections” are based on a faulty premise

    Zachriel: We have suggested you read the indictment.

    I have

    it is allegations of misconduct, key word there being allegations

    Zachriel: There are independent lines of evidence, such as intercepted communications that have nothing to do with CrowdStrike.

    wrong – it all stemmed from the CrowdStrike logs

    again – did the FBI or NSA ever inspect the DNC servers?

    Zachriel: Russia is engaging in cyberwarfare, which threatens to undermine open democracies around the world.

    I can’t argue with you here but the impact you and your ilk are claiming that the evil “Russians” somehow managed to inflict a massive amount of damage on the US political system is highly suspect and quite frankly bullshit

    you do realize that the leaks and hacks were born from the DNC and the pansuit’s own stupidity

    and the “disinformation” campaign you claim they were engaged in was internet adspace – and like I said, anyone in the world can do

      fishstick: wrong – it all stemmed from the CrowdStrike logs

      That doesn’t even make sense. The intercepted emails between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 occurred well after the DNC hack, and didn’t go through the DNC server or whatever it is you think happened.

        fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 12, 2019 at 2:04 pm

        did you even read that Buzzfeed story I linked you?

        CrowdStrike was already in the DNC’s employ before the official leak happened

        they had, a month prior, determined the DNC server was malware infected

          fishstick: CrowdStrike was already in the DNC’s employ before the official leak happened

          And what does that have to do with the intercepted emails between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | September 12, 2019 at 6:36 pm

          well you implied CrowdStrike could not have made that determination just because

          how else do you think that “packet” was supposedly tracked?

          certainly it wasn’t the FBI or the NSA because … they never got to inspect the servers

fishstick: certainly it wasn’t the FBI or the NSA because

Why would emails between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 be on the DNC server system. That makes no sense.

Zachriel: Why would emails between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 be on the DNC server system. That makes no sense.

ok then, so where are the emails between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

I’m not sure where you are getting this from because the contents of the Mueller report are still in allegation mode, and don’t show the actual .doc files detailing any conversations made between the two parties

h ttps://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

the link above is the 12 Russian indictment file

if you pay attention while reading it – you would realize that all the “evidence” in this file could only have been gathered by CrowdStrike logs, not by FBI or NSA inspections

thus the determinations made by the intelligence community ultimately stem from the DNC themselves


from what I am reading, through your own links, it was “secret” meetings at the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK that the intelligence community “put together” to show a correlation between Assange and “Russians”

otherwise the only other way to prove Assange really was working with this particular hacker is to show the “packet” that WikiLeaks received is the same one that was gotten off the phishing email off Podesta’s login

it is the “packet” (or data transfer) that is their claim of coordination

again which cannot be stated with any certainty because the FBI nor the NSA ever inspected the DNC servers to track said “packet”

so it all goes back to CrowdStrike

    fishstick: I’m not sure where you are getting this from because the contents of the Mueller report are still in allegation mode

    So you think the Mueller report is lying about the emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

    On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject “big archive” and the message “a new attempt.”163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”164 Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it.165 On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Guccifer 2.0 account that it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”166 On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC computer networks.167 The Democratic National Convention began three days later.

    fishstick: ok then, so where are the emails between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

    Presumably in the thousands of pages of evidence that underlie the Mueller report. (They are thought to have been acquired by British intelligence.) Again, are you claiming the Mueller report is lying about the emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 14, 2019 at 1:53 pm

      Zachriel: So you think the Mueller report is lying about the emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

      Zachriel: Presumably in the thousands of pages of evidence that underlie the Mueller report. (They are thought to have been acquired by British intelligence.) Again, are you claiming the Mueller report is lying about the emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0?

      well they are not exactly forthcoming with the “evidence” now are they?

      case in point – Mueller team had to scramble to even build a case file when the Russian company reps showed up in court

      case in point – the Roger Stone prosecution team having to admit the feds did not have the unredacted CrowdStrike logs nor the finalized version of their report

      case in point – Herr Mueller himself sounding entirely lost about the contents of his own report during his House hearing

      so yes and yes – the possibility is alot higher than it should be in an investigation of this magnitude because everything snowballed due to the actions and secrecy of the DNC coupled with the broad interpretations the special counsel used to make their determinations

      you could not have watched Mueller’s testimony and thought he was being honest and forthcoming, right?

        fishstick: well they are not exactly forthcoming with the “evidence” now are they?

        It’s typical for the source of evidence to be kept secret if it involves investigative methods, or foreign intelligence services. When it goes to court, the court can decide what needs to be made available to the defense, and what can be made available to the public.

        So you think that the Mueller report lied about the emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. Well, you can make up whatever you want, but it doesn’t make for a convincing argument. You had said everything traced to CrowdStrike, and that is clearly not the case. That was just one example of many found in the various publicly available documents, including the URL used in the Podesta hack.

        There are multiple lines of evidence, supported by independent cybersecurity experts and intelligence agencies around the world, along with a pattern of cyberwarfare by Russia against open democracies. None of this goes away just because you don’t like the implications.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 14, 2019 at 4:18 pm

          well sorry I guess that the other set of facts showing the less than stellar Mueller squad ignoring other key evidences that did not enter your little liberal bubble world of “Russia” butthurt

          the Mueller report reads as allegations you know – not multiple lines of evidence proving Russia (or Putin) “hacked” the election

          an example of a line of evidence would be the Steele dossier being complete BS and how it was used to get a FISA warrant, and its 3 renewals

          or the top heads of the federal government running secret surveillance on the president-to-be

          that is no longer Trump crazy talk, right?

          because those are facts which Democrats now have to admit

          other lines of evidence is the Steele dossier being confirmed to hold disinformation gained by those evil Ruskies, and the FBI actually knew it at that time

          then we learn – more facts – that the determinations made were done through CrowdStrike (via DNC) of servers that were never inspected, of logs that were both redacted and never finalized, and other “evidences” no one else has seen

          did you even see the Mueller hearing? or atleast the highlights of it?

          because he did not sound like someone who was running an honest investigation into the matter of Russian election interference?

fishstick: the Mueller report reads as allegations you know

That is incorrect. The Mueller report directly states there are emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. This evidence is summarized in the summary report, but thousands of pages of evidence were provided to the Attorney General along with the report. If this claim were false, then Trump’s Attorney General, and most of the staff of the Department of Justice would have to be in on the deception. These emails and direct messages are evidence independent of CrowdStrike’s analysis of the DNC server.

In addition, evidence of the Podesta hack is independent of CrowdStrike, and is based on mistakes made by the Russian agents involved, which allowed investigators to see hundreds of phishing attacks perpetrated by Russian agents.

There is other independent evidence, but let’s see if you can ever admit what has already been demonstrated.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 15, 2019 at 11:27 am

    Zachriel: That is incorrect. The Mueller report directly states there are emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. This evidence is summarized in the summary report, but thousands of pages of evidence were provided to the Attorney General along with the report.

    I’ve already asked this question before – so why wasn’t WikiLeaks or Assange then indicted by the special counsel on these matters?

    especially if the evidence is that clear cut as you claim

    Zachriel: If this claim were false, then Trump’s Attorney General, and most of the staff of the Department of Justice would have to be in on the deception.

    AG at the time was Jeff Sessions who (for some reason) removed himself entirely out of the matter

    these investigations were being run by Obama holdovers than Trump picks par your claim

    Zachriel: These emails and direct messages are evidence independent of CrowdStrike’s analysis of the DNC server.

    again I’ve already asked this question – then how did the intelligence community come to these determinations?

    Zachriel: In addition, evidence of the Podesta hack is independent of CrowdStrike, and is based on mistakes made by the Russian agents involved, which allowed investigators to see hundreds of phishing attacks perpetrated by Russian agents.

    wrong – the Podesta hack was not independent of CrowdStrike as it was based on their logs of their analysis

    which again – we learned later held redacted info and were never finalized before the FBI ever got hold of them

    Zachriel: There is other independent evidence, but let’s see if you can ever admit what has already been demonstrated.

    so then – why does the Mueller report read as a list of allegations and not a blueprint on HOW Russia “hacked” the election?

    now we both know WHY, not that you will ever admit to that :p

fishstick: so why wasn’t WikiLeaks or Assange then indicted by the special counsel on these matters?

There are First Amendment concerns. You would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WikiLeaks is more than a passive recipient of the information. However, that is irrelevant to the claim that the Russians are the source of the stolen emails. The Russian agents have been indicted. Meanwhile, Assange has been indicted for another case under the Espionage Act.

fishstick: then how did the intelligence community come to these determinations?

It’s redacted in the public report, but reports are that it came from British intelligence. To try the Russian intelligence agents, the evidence would have to be available at trial, but not necessarily made public.

In any case, we have provided independent lines of evidence pointing to Russian government involvement in the hacks; the emails and direct messages between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the Podesta hack, and the pattern of cyberwarfare against open democratic societies engaged in by Russia.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend