Breaking: ALL 4 FISA Warrants Were Illegal IG rules!

www.washingtonexaminer.com... guess the IG did a second report on Comey

The Justice Department inspector general is preparing to release a report on the conduct of fired FBI Director James Comey in the Trump-Russia investigation, according to a number of sources with knowledge of the situation. The specific timing of the report's release is not clear. The Comey report is separate from a larger inspector general report on the DOJ's handling of the Trump-Russia probe. That report, sometimes referred to by Republicans as an investigation into "FISA abuse," is expected to be released later. It is not clear why the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, chose to write a separate report on Comey. Among other things, Comey has been under investigation for his handling of several memos he wrote memorializing conversations with President Trump. The memos began in January 2017, when Trump was still president-elect, and continued until April 2017, the month before Trump summarily fired the FBI director.

so we have to wait for this one to drop as well but if all these little details keep getting out it does lend credence to the idea that some if not all of it has all ready leaked out.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

That report on Comey listed above is the one where the DOJ decided not to press charges. I think the DOJ is waiting for a bigger shoe to drop in the FISA report to bust both McCabe and Comey at the same time. They're not going to bust anyone for leaking or lying because too much of it has gone on over the years.

a reply to: Sillyolme

So he is allowed to give his FBI work product to the press surreptitiously?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I think the DOJ is waiting for a bigger shoe to drop in the FISA report to bust both McCabe and Comey at the same time.

I think you are waiting for years now for something that is never going to happen because it is BS.
Ditto HRC and Benghazi.
Ditto Clinton Foundation.
Ditto Clinton and Whitewater.
Ad infinitum..

Right wing media sells it's followers on false narratives and by the time they fizzle out they invent new ones.

Rinse and repeat, live in a world of BS.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Ill keep saying it until I think you got it.

There was no Russian Hoax... They interfered with the election. They filled the internet with bs and they are still doing it.
The warnings have been issued but of course trump wont do anything about it because he needs them to do the same thing again.

I cant wait to see what happens when they # with a republican candidate and then see what you say.

They did mess with a republican candidate. They constructed a fake pee-pee dossier and gave it to the DNC who then used it to spy on said republican candidate.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Cite the 15 most damaging Russian posts on the internet that got the most votes swung ....

taps foot waiting ....

well ?

well?

😃

I have an easier one for you. In the 448 page Special Council report, cite the page where they exonerated the President.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Ill keep saying it until I think you got it.

There was no Russian Hoax... They interfered with the election. They filled the internet with bs and they are still doing it.
The warnings have been issued but of course trump wont do anything about it because he needs them to do the same thing again.

I cant wait to see what happens when they # with a republican candidate and then see what you say.

They did mess with a republican candidate. They constructed a fake pee-pee dossier and gave it to the DNC who then used it to spy on said republican candidate.

That was never disproved.
It very much sounds like something Trump would do. I am sure Trump's Mar-A-Largo wingman Epstein would have had something to say about Trump's predilections, but dead men tell no tales.


BTW....

07/09/2019....Trump dossier author Steele gets 16-hour DOJ grilling

Christopher Steele, the former British spy behind the infamous “dossier” on President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, was interviewed for 16 hours in June by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The interview is part of an ongoing investigation that the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has been conducting for the past year. Specifically, Horowitz has been examining the FBI’s efforts to surveil a one-time Trump campaign adviser based in part on information from Steele, an ex-British MI6 agent who had worked with the bureau as a confidential source since 2010.

Horowitz’s team has been intensely focused on gauging Steele’s credibility as a source for the bureau. But Steele was initially reluctant to speak with the American investigators because of the potential impropriety of his involvement in an internal DOJ probe as a foreign national and retired British intelligence agent.

Steele’s allies have also repeatedly noted that the dossier was not the original basis for the FBI’s probe into Trump and Russia.

The extensive, two-day interview took place in London while Trump was in Britain for a state visit, the sources said, and delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. The FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance warrant against Page — a warrant they applied for and obtained after Page had already left the campaign — is the chief focus of the probe by Horowitz.

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising.

www.politico.com...

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Cite the 15 most damaging Russian posts on the internet that got the most votes swung ....

taps foot waiting ....

well ?

well?

😃

I have an easier one for you. In the 448 page Special Council report, cite the page where they exonerated the President.

I have an even easier one. On what page do they list what crime he committed ?

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Cite the 15 most damaging Russian posts on the internet that got the most votes swung ....

taps foot waiting ....

well ?

well?

😃

I have an easier one for you. In the 448 page Special Council report, cite the page where they exonerated the President.

Not this # again. Please enlighten us. How about you cite where they said he’s guilty.

Do you understand how this works in America or do you make up your own rules as you see necessary?

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Cite the 15 most damaging Russian posts on the internet that got the most votes swung ....

taps foot waiting ....

well ?

well?

😃

I have an easier one for you. In the 448 page Special Council report, cite the page where they exonerated the President.

Do you understand how this works in America or do you make up your own rules as you see necessary?

I understand how it works. A sitting President can not be indicted under DOJ Policy, guilty or not guilty...the Special Counsel loudly and publicly made it clear that "not guilty" was NOT the conclusion.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Cite the 15 most damaging Russian posts on the internet that got the most votes swung ....

taps foot waiting ....

well ?

well?

😃

I have an easier one for you. In the 448 page Special Council report, cite the page where they exonerated the President.

Do you understand how this works in America or do you make up your own rules as you see necessary?

I understand how it works. A sitting President can not be indicted under DOJ Policy, guilty or not guilty...the Special Counsel loudly and publicly made it clear that "not guilty" was NOT the conclusion.

What crime did they state he emphaticly committed then?

a reply to: Extorris

He said he couldn’t exonerate trump on obstruction

Why didn’t he say that in conspiracy with Russia?

In fact why didn’t he charge anyone with conspiracy on Russia? Anyone but trump could be charged

Or is it your position trump alone without any of his team illegally conspired with Russia?

a reply to: Extorris

There is no department of exoneration. The special council does not have the ability to exonerate, it is not their job.

They investigated, and found nothing.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: pianopraze

Any links to the ig saying this?

I agree, I want to see the IG saying it. My question is if the IG says it, what will be your thoughts on the situation?

Obviously depends on the report.

Too many times have right-wing politicians, officials, and pundits shouted before reports come out to set the narrative only to be wrong come report time.

Hannity alone can provide dozens of examples of this.

originally posted by: charolais

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: pianopraze

Any links to the ig saying this?

I agree, I want to see the IG saying it. My question is if the IG says it, what will be your thoughts on the situation?

Obviously depends on the report.

Too many times have right-wing politicians, officials, and pundits shouted before reports come out to set the narrative only to be wrong come report time.

Hannity alone can provide dozens of examples of this.

We should all wait for info to come out, that is true

Though it’s hilarious listening to the same crowd that pushed the Russia hoax for three years tell us that

Why doesn't this post get flagged by mods due to no source? Since when are interviews from right wing radio considered sources for "breaking political news"?

Prior to 2016, before ATS got almost entirely political, this would never fly.

a reply to: charolais

Curious do you say posts from cnn or the New York Times should get flagged for no source?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: charolais

Curious do you say posts from cnn or the New York Times should get flagged for no source?

Whataboutism, nice.

But to answer your question probably not, it depends on the specifics.

If this is a little right vs left identity politics jab (as most whataboutisms are), you can check my thread history... I criticize both sides equally

a reply to: charolais

People who cry whataboutism, are usually trying to hide a hypocritical stance

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Cite the 15 most damaging Russian posts on the internet that got the most votes swung ....

taps foot waiting ....

well ?

well?

😃

I have an easier one for you. In the 448 page Special Council report, cite the page where they exonerated the President.

I have an even easier one for you: in the entire history of law, when has a prosecutor exonerated anyone?