Just In! AG Barr Doesn't Accept Inspector General's Key Finding About FBI's Russia Investigation

Try reading the actual article. The people complaining about the "religious scholar" quote are lying to you about what the article says. It says that he was an "austere religious scholar" who wasn't known for violence when he first took over ISIS, but that he later turned it into, well, the biggest terrorist group in the world. Then a bunch of people on the fringe right ran with it, either out of fake outrage or functional illiteracy.

 

It sounds like you don't know the story behind the mockery.

The Post, at one point, headlined the obituary in that way.

As we all (should) know, an article contains the words of the writer, but the headline are the words of an official of the organization.

https://web.archive.org/web/2019102...004abc-663d-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html

 

I do know the story. And I read it. Which is why what you just quoted from me matches the story you just linked to.

"When Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took the reins of the Islamic State of Iraq in 2010, few had heard of the organization or its new leader, an austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing.

But just four years later, Mr. Baghdadi had helped transform his failing movement into one of the most notorious and successful terrorist groups of modern times. Under his guidance it would burst into the public consciousness as the Islamic State, an organization that would seize control of entire cities in Iraq and Syria and become a byword for shocking brutality."

 

You seem intent on missing the point.

The point is the headline, which is the official position of The Post..

The body of article isn't relevant to the official position of the newspaper.

What vested interest do you have that causes you to try to rewrite history?

 

If you think the headline matters more than the actual article, I can't help you. You have your own agenda. I learned a long time ago to actually read articles instead of basing all opinion on the headline. Pretty sure I learned that before high school.

Your strange belief that headlines = official positions of newspapers and the actual articles are immaterial is not a superstition that I share.

My vested interest is in literacy. How is it "rewriting history" to read and quote history? What vested interest do you have that causes you to prioritize functional illiteracy in the name of a lazy swipe at a newspaper and then pretend that anyone who actually read the damn thing is "rewriting history" despite not being able to actually point to any rewritten history.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...on-origin-of-trump-investigation/#more-177562

CTH has been principally reviewing the matter, far before WAPO ever got its dirty little hands on it(for propaganda purposes, to be sure.) And as pointed out in this article by CTH, WAPO is caught lying as the NYT did a few days ago, by conflating the Horowitz review, with the ongoing criminal probe by AG Durham.

This is simply another example that we Americans have been lied to by the principle players, several of whom were confirmed to have SLEPT with media reporters.

Draining the swamp isn't possible until we acknowledge that we have one.

 

Again.

The article is not the point*.

The point* is the official position of the news organization. That position is conveyed by the headline.

What we don't know is: why they took that position. We can only guess. My guess is that they feared a leftist backlash. It must have come as a surprise to them that even leftists mocked them.

*Point: the main or most important idea in something that is said or done.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/point_1

 

Well the part he disagrees with vvv

is a part I disagree with too, there was no justification for the investigation... never mind two years that dat bullshit

 

Well ... let’s see what the person who had access to all the facts says. The person whose job it is to investigate those facts and reach a conclusion. The IG.
Your post is a perfect example of confirmation bias. If facts are presented that are inconsistent with your preconceived notions, you dismiss those facts rather than reconsider your position.

 

Regardless of what the IG says, or doesn't say these corrupt activities were corrupt. If by the happenstance that they are not illegal, fine. But that doesn't mean we'll stop pushing for reform. When it was said that this shouldn't happen to anyone ever again, those weren't catch phrases or slogans. Those were commitments by Americans who believe NO ONE, not even Trump should be able to abuse the system.

 

But if the system wasn’t abused, what need is there for reform? A presidential candidate should not be immune from investigation, if there are reasonable grounds to start the investigation.

If the IG looks at all the evidence and says everything was done by the book and this investigation was started just like any other, then what is there to complain about?

 

He's an Obamaite, fire him immediately!

 

Trump's behavior? He was exonerated of colluding with the Russians. Unless the FISA Court was told that the dossier was not verified and bought by the Democratic Party, to get the warrant to investigate Trump, than they committed fraud on the court. They had to sign that the dossier was verified and the FBI knew it wasn't.

 

It only takes half a brain to come up with that.

BTW, the IG had a narrow investigation and the IG does not have subpoena power. The IG did not go into the start of all this, just the FBI and CIA process and will suggest fixes.

Barr has to write a section on the IG report and the media is claiming he doesn't agree with it which is hype and not fact.

Durham's criminal investigation looks into the beginning of all of this back to 2015.

BTW, poor little Lisa Page is out saying she did nothing wrong and the media is hyping that yet the previous IG report said she did great damage to the FBI so either listen to the fawning media or actually read the report when it comes out.

 

How would you know?

 

Everything we know, knows that not everything or even most things were done by the book. Most likely, you'll hear about some technicality, some little way that makes this legal, even if immoral. It's up to you to decide if you want immorality to be the prevailing feature of the Department of Justice.

Or, to put it more simply: If we are to believe the DOJ(or specifically Comey and other FBI agents), US Person Carter Page is a spy espionage. Why hasn't he been charged yet? Is the DOJ just going to let this Russian Agent walk around?

A part of a convincing lie is to be believable. The problem for them as it relates to me, is not a single lie of theirs is remotely believable. Remember the whole "We have to say that in a classified setting" nonsense. Now imagine saying that during a WW2 vote. And this was BELIEVED to be of a similar urgency.

 

You have already decided that there was wrongdoing - immorality, as you call it - in the opening of the investigation. I will wait and see, as I did for the Mueller report.

Before the Mueller report came out, I said I would accept what it said. And I do. I accept the finding that Trump did not conspire with the Russians.

Are you prepared to say the same about the Horowitz and Durham investigations / reports? Or will you only accept findings that correspond with your preconceived notions?

Everything I have seen so far says that the investigation was started and conducted by the book. Maybe some mistakes along the way, but not substantive mistakes. I know that you and other Trump supporters think he can do no wrong, but objectively there was enough smoke to investigate whether there was a fire. If Horowitz and Durham reach the same conclusion, so be it. If they reach a different conclusion, I'll accept it.

Will you do the same?

 

If by smoke you mean that blown up people’s behinds by the still unverified dossier, oppo research from a political opponent then it is sad some folks still see no problem with this.

 

The first part of an investigation is to be able to interview willing persons(Carter Page), not resort to a warrant to get...what information exactly? That's the other thing that's not been touched on, once they got the FISA warrant, what did they do with it? Warrants from a federal court usually are stipulated to an item/area of search. But as far as we know, the FISA warrant and its renewals did not have this stipulation(another reason to get rid of the FISA court.)

Any legitimacy that they might've had into an investigation is invalidated by illegal(if not immoral) investigative methods. Including withholding the tape of exculpatory evidence on George Papadoupolis(He of the 'Crossfire Hurricane' fame.)

This isn't about Donald Trump, this is about these appointees violating an area of trust, one that depends on the livelihood of millions and the sanctity of the justice system. It might not be 'fair' to expect perfection of them, but that's what their job demands.

Maybe they were 'grossly negligent' as Comey once called Clinton, but their positions made it so that that is untenable.

Do you want negligent FBI agents who falsify documents that are attempted to be used in a court case(US VS Flynn)? Yeah, I don't either.

This thing stinks like a rotten fish, and the NYT/WP propaganda circus equally is disturbing. We ARE Ukraine 2.0 With all the same problems.

 

How does this square with Biden should not be investigated because he is a political candidate?

 

So let me get this straight. You want us all to wait for the report. And yet after many reports that indicate your statement that Russian interference was real and not a hoax, you already know it's a hoax perpetuated by people you disagree with and if those same people you imply respect for were involved you want them thrown in a hole. Wow, I've never laughed so hard in my life. You are, on the internet as if any of us care what your feelings actually are, preparing to defend your own call for hole throwing against people you are claiming to respect that you already indicate you don't respect. Because when they did their work, you didn't respect it. You realize your reaction doesn't matter one bit in life, right? Especially when it's so out of tune with reality it's laughable? Like your last sentence of your post? You don't want "hard facts," you want someone to support what you already believe. And that's OK, but just be honest about it at least when you post because when you do that, your words leave your head where you can safely lie to yourself.

Here's what is coming. Horowitz didn't find what Barr and Trump wanted him to. So Barr is going to write a letter indicating that as part of the report. In other words, Barr was appointed AG not because thinks Trump is a great man/president, but rather his theory on executive power, that's it's pretty much unlimited and supreme despite what the founders of this country concluded about executive power, happens to align with what Trump needs. That's the only real story here rooted in fact. And I know that's what you want to hear because as a Trump diehard partisan you want to be dismally shaking your head as you bury Trump's "enemies" (the intelligence community, federal law enforcement, anyone who disagrees and points out his many many lies) but that's just not going to happen as a result of this report is all. Sorry.

 

These people have materially lied, slept with media reporters and are now using the same reporters to concoct a story. Yes, I'll wait to read the report. I mean, do you like being lied to on a daily basis? You were told that there was nothing there, that they did nothing wrong. Yet these officials got fired and there's the upcoming report and a criminal investigation.

Sounds to me like they did a lot wrong.

 

Well, for example, the OP is a narrative devoid of fact and denied by the DOJ.

Yes, wait for the report. Try to stay inquisitive when the media starts spinning it.

 

Does anyone say that? I certainly don't. I just say that it should not be up to the president to order an investigation into a political opponent.

If the DoJ thinks there is sufficient information to warrant an investigation into Joe Biden (or Hunter Biden, or Elizabeth Warren, or Donald Trump, or Kushner - or anyone else) then the DoJ can start that investigation. Completely free of political influence.