DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[commando]

5 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

DOJ Lawyer pleads guilty.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/us/politics/kevin-clinesmith-durham-investigation.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

I believe the question posed was why would an innocent man plead guilty?

i don't know.  why did flynn plead guilty

[funhusker]

9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

DOJ Lawyer pleads guilty.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/us/politics/kevin-clinesmith-durham-investigation.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

I believe the question posed was why would an innocent man plead guilty?

Do they normally?

[ZRod]

Seems like he was acting in good faith all along

 

Quote

Mr. Clinesmith incorrectly said that Mr. Page was “never a source” and sent the C.I.A.’s information to the supervisor. He altered the original email to say that Mr. Page had not been a source — a material change to a document used in a federal investigation.

 

The agent relied on the altered email to submit the application seeking further court permission to wiretap Mr. Page, the inspector general wrote. By changing the email and then forwarding it, Mr. Clinesmith misrepresented the original content of the document, which prosecutors said was a crime.

 

Mr. Clinesmith’s argued that he did not change the document in an attempt to cover up the F.B.I.’s mistake. His lawyers argued that he had made the change in good faith because he did not think that Mr. Page had been an actual source for the C.I.A.

 

Mr. Clinesmith’s lawyers also argued that their client did not try to hide the C.I.A. email from other law enforcement officials as they sought the final renewal of the Page wiretap. Mr. Clinesmith had provided the unchanged C.I.A. email to Crossfire Hurricane agents and the Justice Department lawyer drafting the original wiretap application.

 

Mr. Clinesmith had also urged investigators to send any information about an informant’s meeting in October 2016 with Mr. Page, including any exculpatory statements, to the Justice Department lawyer drafting the wiretap application. Mr. Clinesmith said this was “probably the most important” information to provide to the lawyer drafting the wiretap application.

 

Mr. Clinesmith was among the F.B.I. officials whom Mr. Mueller removed from the Russia investigation after Mr. Horowitz found messages they had exchanged expressing political animus against Mr. Trump. Shortly after Mr. Trump’s election victory, Mr. Clinesmith texted another official: “I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost.”

In another text, he wrote, “viva le resistance.”

Mr. Clinesmith told the inspector general that he was expressing his personal views but did not let them affect his work.

 

Mr. Clinesmith also argued against the prospect of wiretapping another former Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, who served two weeks in jail on a charge of lying to the F.B.I., according to the Horowitz report. The inspector general said the bureau never sought to surveil him.

 

[commando]

3 hours ago, ZRod said:

Mr. Clinesmith incorrectly said that Mr. Page was “never a source” and sent the C.I.A.’s information to the supervisor. He altered the original email to say that Mr. Page had not been a source — a material change to a document used in a federal investigation.

 

 

good lord....that is the crime?   Billy is sure working hard to come up with a crime there.  that isn't much more then a typo.   wait till he sees the word hamberder or cofefe.   trump might bet shot for being a repeat offender if billys rules applied to donnie

[funhusker]

10 hours ago, commando said:

good lord....that is the crime?   Billy is sure working hard to come up with a crime there.  that isn't much more then a typo.   wait till he sees the word hamberder or cofefe.   trump might bet shot for being a repeat offender if billys rules applied to donnie

But that doesn't change the fact that he will plead guilty.  That makes the man guilty of whatever crime, no matter how ridiculous some see it, he was accused of.

 

I really think this is all a play to make people seem like hypocrites in how this was handled in cases like Flynn and the Mueller investigation. I mean it has been referenced on this very page.  If a person is innocent of a crime, they shouldn't plead guilty if they want to be able to tell the public that they are "not guilty".  

 

Plead it and own it!  Flynn has a criminal record and Trump's campaign is full of felons.  Whether they like it or not.

[Notre Dame Joe]

On 8/15/2020 at 3:36 PM, ZRod said:

Seems like he was acting in good faith all along

 

 

 

Well ALL is forgiven for Mr Clownsmith.

 

Andrew Weissman (conservatives say the Mueller team was actually led by Weissman) is disputing that Carter Page was a CIA 'source.'  How can that still be a controversy 3 years later?

 

 

[funhusker]

20 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Well ALL is forgiven for Mr Clownsmith.

 

Andrew Weissman (conservatives say the Mueller team was actually led by Weissman) is disputing that Carter Page was a CIA 'source.'  How can that still be a controversy 3 years later?

 

 

Who's making it a controversy?

[Notre Dame Joe]

4 hours ago, funhusker said:

Who's making it a controversy?

Whether Carter Page was a source for the CIA is 100% material, so I don't think A.W. is disputing materiality.  Weissman seems to be using a double negative to suggest Page was not a source.

 

Modifying a favorite line around here; would an innocent man plead guilty to false statements when he actually corrected a false statement?

[funhusker]

7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Whether Carter Page was a source for the CIA is 100% material, so I don't think A.W. is disputing materiality.  Weissman seems to be using a double negative to suggest Page was not a source.

 

Modifying a favorite line around here; would an innocent man plead guilty to false statements when he actually corrected a false statement?

I’m not really interested enough to go look up all the information.

 

If a person pleaded guilty of a crime, they are, by definition, guilty of that crime.

 

But by looking only at the things posted here, he changed “was never a source” to “had not been a source”.  I’m probably missing a really important detail.

 

I was legitimately asking, who’s making it a controversy?

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

I’m not really interested enough to go look up all the information.

 

If a person pleaded guilty of a crime, they are, by definition, guilty of that crime.

 

But by looking only at the things posted here, he changed “was never a source” to “had not been a source”.  I’m probably missing a really important detail.

 

I was legitimately asking, who’s making it a controversy?

The only other thing you're missing is that supposedly Page was a CIA source, but the CIA never really confirmed that to the FBI, so how we're they supposed to know?

[knapplc]

 

[ZRod]

And no one will bat an eye 

[DevoHusker]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Here is the crappy part about the entire fiasco:

 

The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as the other reports did, about whether there is enough evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated or colluded with Russia to sway the election to him and away from Democrat Hillary Clinton, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.

[Born N Bled Red]

12 minutes ago, ZRod said:

And no one will bat an eye 

 

Because everyone paying attention already knows, and everyone else doesn't care. 

[FrantzHardySwag]

5 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Here is the crappy part about the entire fiasco:

 

The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as the other reports did, about whether there is enough evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated or colluded with Russia to sway the election to him and away from Democrat Hillary Clinton, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.

Thats like reading the box score to the 1996 fiesta bowl and following it up with, there is not enough evidence that Nebraska won this game despite scoring 38 more points across 4 quarters. 

 

I guess the republicans in the committee are hoping people don't read the report they put together? Maybe they'll just read the section at the end and call it a day?