Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    (although it is established that Don Jr. did meet with Russias with the intent of getting dirt on Hillary from Russians).

    What was this "dirt" the "Russians" had?
    The only thing I have read/heard from "Russian dirt" amounted to actual, confidential DNC emails. Generally, all I hear is that the "Russians interfered", not what the actual interference was.

    Assuming what they did was release the truth (confidential though it was), is it fair to call it dirt?

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,086
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What was this "dirt" the "Russians" had?
    The only thing I have read/heard from "Russian dirt" amounted to actual, confidential DNC emails. Generally, all I hear is that the "Russians interfered", not what the actual interference was.

    Assuming what they did was release the truth (confidential though it was), is it fair to call it dirt?
    Yes. If it's something that is negative about someone, it qualifies as "dirt", even if it's true.

    And my point isn't about what was given but the fact that Don Jr. intentionally met with the Russians in an attempt to get information on Hillary in order to help Trump get elected. That is indisputable.

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What do we know of the FISA warrants?
    They were used to target an American citizen - Donald Trump.

    What do we know of the DOJ and FBI?
    They are stonewalling the Republican's requests for documents. When Congress does receive the documents they are heavily redacted.
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    So?
    So,

    First, the Clinton team targeted a smear campaign on Trump using a phony dossier with the aid of the top dogs in the FBI and DOJ. The dossier was the bulk of the evidence we know of that was used to target Trump.

    Second, we discover through the Lisa Page/Peter Strzok emails that they also had an agenda and an insurance policy that implicates many others in the DOJ and FBI to stop Trump from becoming president. If he succeeds the insurance policy would tie his hands and foreshadow his whole term of office with the alleged Russian collusion conspiracy.

    The testimonies between the two is said to be contradictory, so someone is lying. Trying to get the documentation from these two and from others by the Republicans has continually been stonewalled.

    House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said on "Fox News Sunday" that House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., had warned that “there’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if FBI and DOJ do not comply with our subpoena request.”
    GOP WILL HIT FBI, DOJ WITH 'FULL ARSENAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL WEAPONS' IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA, GOWDY WARNS
    The House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee had requested more than a million documents from the FBI and DOJ related to the Clinton investigation and surveillance of members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential campaign. While some documents had been produced, the committees have been pushing the DOJ for months to fully comply with the subpoenas...
    Republicans have targeted the circumstances as to how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant was obtained to monitor Trump aide Carter Page and the possible use of an informant who spoke to members of Trump’s campaign.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...na-threat.html

    Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that there were "significant differences" in Page's testimony compared to the testimony given by Strzok and that she gave congressional investigators new information they did not previously have. "In many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say, as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks that we've all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative," Ratcliff told reporters on Monday, according to ABC News.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/33186...-ryan-saavedra


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What do we know about the leaders of the investigation?
    Many have been exposed in the Congressional hearings as having lied.
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Again, so?
    Support please.
    Lisa Page or Peter Strzok, or both have inconsistent testimony when testifying before the House Judicial Committee (per quote above).

    A recent finding that former FBI Director James Comey began drafting a letter to exonerate Hillary Clinton of charges before she was interviewed by the FBI runs counter to statements Comey made under oath in September 2016.
    Comey claimed that he made his decision to not recommend charges against Clinton only after she had been interviewed by the FBI in July 2016, but new evidence released by the Senate judiciary committee suggests otherwise.
    “Comey began drafting a statement to announce the conclusion of the Clinton email investigation in April or May of 2016, before the FBI interviewed up to 17 key witnesses including former Secretary Clinton and several of her closest aides,” states an Aug. 31 press release announcing the finding by committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.
    Contrary to the recent finding, Comey told the House judiciary committee under oath on Sept. 28, 2016, that it was only after Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July 2, 2016, that he made his decision to not recommend charges.
    He was pressed on this issue by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), who asked specifically whether Comey made his decision to not recommend charges before or after the Clinton interview.
    Comey replied, “After.”
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/comey-...w_2290401.html


    So who’s lying? Comey or McCabe?
    The brilliant Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley weighed in on the conflict and deepening trouble for fired former Director of the FBI James Comey: “This could easily spin further out of control. There was one line in the case statement last night that I immediately flagged. Because he said that he had authority to do this and he conferred with the director—the director at the time was James Comey. Now, the problem there is that James Comey said under oath that he never leaked information and never approved a leak. So, if the Inspector General believes this was a leak to the media, it raises serious questions about Comey’s previous testimony and could get him into serious trouble.”
    https://100percentfedup.com/comey-li...ty-leak-video/

    Either McCabe or Comey lied.

    James Comey just buried himself on national TV, yet we are still waiting for the mainstream media to get the news out.

    While making an appearance on “The View” to tout his new book, Comey flat out admitted that both he and Andrew McCabe, his second in command, lied.
    Did He Really Say That?
    Comey was sitting down with the liberal-slanted panel on “The View” discussing his new book.
    The one conservative voice, Meghan McCain, then hit him with a question about the lying that took place in the FBI.

    She specifically brought up the fact that McCabe was fired for lying several times.
    Comey tried to defend McCabe, but actually buried both of them.
    Trying to protect McCabe’s reputation, Comey stated, “The McCabe case illustrates what an organization that’s committed to the truth looks like.”

    A great start, but then he dropped the bomb…
    “Good people lie. I lay out in the book – I think I’m a good person – where I’ve lied.”
    “I still believe Andrew McCabe is a good person, but the Inspector General found that he lied.”
    https://www.patriotnewsalerts.com/comey-admits-he-lied/

    So Comey admits both McCabe and he lied. In an oversight hearing Rep. Jim Jordon stated that McCabe lied four times. That is why he was fired - for lying.

    Andrew McCabe lied four times to the Department of Justice and the FBI - including two times while under oath with Inspector General Michael Horowitz, according to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) appearing on Fox News.
    This is the first time the public has heard more detail of the circumstances behind the decision to fire McCabe just over one day before he qualified for his full pension.
    JORDAN: “McCabe didn’t lie just once, he lied four times. He lied to James Comey. He lied to the Office of Professional Responsibility and he lied twice under oath to the Inspector General. Remember, this is Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI. This is Andrew McCabe, the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about Andy’s office, the meeting where they talk about the insurance policy in case Donald Trump is actually President of the United States… Four times he lied about leaking information to the Wall Street Journal.”
    Also recall that McCabe's team, under Director Comey, heavily altered the language of the FBI's official opinion concerning Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information - effectively "decriminalizing" her conduct. Comey's original draft - using the term "grossly negligent" would have legally required that the FBI recommended charges against Clinton. Instead, McCabe's team changed it to "extremely careless," - a legally meaningless term.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ile-under-oath

    There is also good reason to believe a big cover-up in which many others from the Obama administration have lied. I would not be surprised if the whole investigation into Donald Trump is traced back to Obama himself.

    There is a cleaning going on in both departments:

    Strzok now joins the ranks of more than 25 FBI and DOJ officials who have been forced out—largely in disgrace. Here is a list of the notable Trump-era firings, demotions, and departures:
    FBI Departures:
    James Comey, director (fired)
    Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
    Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
    Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
    James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
    James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
    Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
    Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
    James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
    Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs (resigned)
    Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
    John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
    DOJ Departures:
    Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
    Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
    David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
    Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
    Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
    John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
    Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
    Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
    Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
    Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
    Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
    Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
    Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
    Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)
    *Status Unclear
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok...d_2624607.html

    Peter

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since I listen to NPR and you listen to Fox, I almost certainly use a superior source of attaining accurate information.
    You use a source that many have identified as a more liberal think tank and reporting machine. Again, all I see you doing here is promoting another liberal website that slants your ideology to the one side.

    A conservative think-tank, states:

    National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."
    The only ones who seem not to know that the left has a massive, taxpayer-funded radio network of 700 affiliates are the liberals trying to sell investors on their own private-sector talk-radio network. A recent PBS "NewsHour" story on talk radio turned ridiculous when reporter Terence Smith allowed liberal-network booster Jon Sinton to proclaim: "Every day in America on the 45 top-rated talk radio stations, there are 310 hours of conservative talk. There is a total of five hours of talk that comes from the other side of the aisle."
    Don't buy that for a minute. The key word in that sentence is "top-rated" stations. Sinton's upset that conservatives apparently dominate "top-rated" talk. That doesn't mean NPR doesn't have hundreds of hours of liberal talk shows, not to mention liberal "news" shows. It's just not "top-rated."
    https://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/n...s-liberal-bias

    I don't want to go to a liberal leftist website to get my news. I see what happens in countless societies that push such agendas.

    The Wahington Post site ranks news outlets according to their views as to that of liberal or conservative, here:

    Pew has basically taken the average viewer/consumer of all of these media outlets and plotted them on a continuum, trying to ascertain which outlets are favored by which side of the political spectrum.
    1) The most-preferred media outlets of liberals, according to Pew's study, are the New Yorker and Slate.
    2) Fox News's viewership is pretty moderate compared to the Hannitys, Limbaughs, Becks and Breitbarts. This is probably because Fox's audience is just so large that it couldn't be relegated to an extreme end of the chart. But even liberals watch Fox.

    3) The broadcast stations (NBC, CBS, ABC) and online news sites like Yahoo and Google have a more middle-of-the-road audience than other mainstream media outlets. People who read BuzzFeed, Politico, The Washington Post and The New York Times all tend to be more liberal.
    4) MSNBC, despite its reputation as the most liberal cable news network, has a more moderate audience than the four publications mentioned above -- and only a slightly more liberal audience than CNN.
    5) About half of the 32 outlets have an audience that pretty clearly leans to the left, while seven have audiences that lean conservative. The rest (including all the broadcast networks) are somewhere near the middle.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.478d10a31325

    NPR is a number of things—some people might be thinking of "Fresh Air" or "This American Life" when they answer that question. But chances are most are thinking of the two flagship shows, "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered," which have by far the network's biggest audiences. These shows are among the most assiduously even-handed presentations anywhere in the American media, but there's a reason why they are so appealing to liberals. They may not have aggressively ideological content, but they do reflect a liberal sensibility. They're careful, reasoned, polite, cosmopolitan, serious with the occasional touch of whimsy—in short, everything liberals either are or imagine themselves to be. And everyone at NPR seems so nice—how could you not trust them? So liberals do, and most of them listen.
    http://prospect.org/article/why-libe...-and-trust-npr

    Even before the Trump phenominum NPR was identified as liberal, in 2011:

    Bob Garfield: … you and I both know that if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and at all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd, not uniformly, but overwhelmingly.
    Ira Glass: Journalism, in general, reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole, sure. But that doesn't change what is going out over the air. And I feel like, well, let's measure the product.
    Sorry, Ira, but you’re wrong. It does change what’s going out over the air. You stuff a newsroom with a bunch of progressives and nary a conservative and you will definitely get a product that at least tilts left. Liberals will not understand, they just won’t “get” at a gut level, what offends conservatives, not just in news selection and reporting but even in cultural programming.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...llars-npr.html

    How is that for big government pushing an agenda; government funds a liberal leaning leftist talk radio syndicate.

    Hitler understood about how to influence a culture - by the use of mass media.

    Liberals complain about conservative dominance of radio, but rarely acknowledge NPR balancing the scales. What galls conservatives is that NPR does this while rarely admitting its liberal bias -- and relying on government subsidy to fund its operations.

    "National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public," Media Research Center president Brent Bozell wrote at Townhall.com in 2003.
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...radio-competes

    May 30, 2005
    IN DEFENDING NPR against well-deserved charges of liberal bias, Tom Ashbrook has succeeded only in demonstrating his own political slant. I am generally a great fan of NPR, which is often the only place on the radio for in-depth discussion of contemporary events. But its clear liberal bias, far from promoting ''vigorous journalism," prevents it from seeing both sides of many important social issues.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    If there is a Soviet-era outlook at NPR, it exists in the entrenched liberal mind-set of its own commentators. Why is the attempt to broaden NPR's viewpoint derided as ''meddling politics" and compared to the Kremlin? And why pointedly label Tucker Carlson and the Wall Street Journal ''conservative" while avoiding any such label for the liberal Bill Moyers? I agree that we need more reporting, not more music, and that NPR should be ''journalistically critical to all." Apparently it hasn't occurred to Ashbrook that this critical eye should be extended to NPR as well.
    JAY DAVIDSON
    http://archive.boston.com/news/globe.../30/nprs_bias/

    So, I can find as much distaste for what you listen to as you do for what I listen to.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There's even a study that support this.

    "A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

    People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo.../#1f79db434fd8

    And there have been studies on the accuracy and bias of news outlets and Fox is rated low for accuracy and high for bias. NPR was rated quite good for both.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...art-2018-02-28

    While it is true that no news outlet is perfect, "not perfect" does not mean that they are all the same. Some are indeed worse than others.
    Let's be clear here, you use a poll from 2011.

    Again, a poll can be used to slant a view because much of the time it does not represent the greater truth or its use of stats is not representational, as the author of the following link states about THAT poll:

    I've been following your "False Equivalence" series and have generally enjoyed and agreed with your insights, but I fear you may have jumped to a possibly unfounded conclusion on this one. I'm a statistician by trade and have worked with various US government statistics departments the past and current work for an international organization. Though I find these results entertaining from a media frenzy point of view, a number of alarm bells go off right away when I see this survey. In ascending order of what bothered me most (with the relevant survey disclaimer quotes in italics)
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...vs-fox/257620/

    He goes on to list the problems:

    1) It was conducted as a telephone survey. "Survey results are also subject to non-sampling error. This kind of error, which cannot be measured, arises from a number of factors including, but not limited to, non-response (eligible individuals refusing to be interviewed)....."
    2) Only 8 questions were asked. "Survey results are also subject to non-sampling error. This kind of error, which cannot be measured, arises from a number of factors including, but not limited to, ..... question wording, the order in which questions are asked, and variations among interviewers." This is a structural bias issue.
    3) The deep breakdown of data in the survey. 1,185 people sounds like a lot, but when it is broken down to such a low level the sample size dwindles. The graph that you use in your post shows the average number of questions answered correctly by respondents who reported getting their news from just this source in the past week. So of the 1,185, how many watched Fox News and not any of the other sources listed? MSNBC?
    4) Lack of standard errors on the correct answers statistic. "The margin of error for a sample of 1185 randomly selected respondents is +/- 3 percentage points. The margin of error for subgroups is larger and varies by the size of that subgroup." The size of the subgroups on which the graph is based are not mentioned. Also +/- 3 percentage points does not apply to the number of questions answered correctly.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...vs-fox/257620/

    When you consider that much of your American higher educational system has a liberal bias it is not surprising to me that such a poll is available (from seven years ago).

    Peter

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes. If it's something that is negative about someone, it qualifies as "dirt", even if it's true.

    And my point isn't about what was given but the fact that Don Jr. intentionally met with the Russians in an attempt to get information on Hillary in order to help Trump get elected. That is indisputable.
    I haven't fallowed close enough on Don jr to comment if it is "indisputable", but if he is looking for "truth", and/or if the "truth" gets exposed, how were the American people hurt?

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So,

    First, the Clinton team targeted a smear campaign on Trump using a phony dossier with the aid of the top dogs in the FBI and DOJ.
    Support your assertion that the dossier is "phony". {challenge thingy} (This has been gone over in the dossier thread)

    ---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post


    Lisa Page or Peter Strzok, or both have inconsistent testimony when testifying before the House Judicial Committee (per quote above).
    Appeal to authority. Support please.

    ---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

    Ok, finally got the transcipt from the Maddow piece in the OP. I'll look for the Hannity one next.


    "But the other important thing going on here is that the president, of
    course, isn`t alone in his crusade to try dismantle or roadblock the Russia
    investigation and all of its component parts by going after key personnel
    and officials who have connections to different parts of the investigation.

    This is from an almost lyrical portrait more than 20 years ago. It was
    written in 1996. It was published in the “New York Times” about the head
    of a drug gang in the Bronx, in the criminal organization that he ran in
    the Bronx.

    Quote: When the history is written of the drug gangs of New York in the
    1980s and the mid-1990s, the kind that wrecked a city`s nerves, helped
    create record high murder rates and made gunfire a common sound in many
    neighborhoods, the author of that history might want to spend a chapter on
    Jose Reyes or as he was known El Feo.

    Calm, charismatic and predatory Joes Reyes rose to become both dealer and
    supplier, building an empire, operating in a neighborhood doused in drug
    money, Mr. Reyes was a general in an army. He also devoured books on the
    mafia. He read Machiavelli. He argued Gibran`s philosophy and he killed,
    managing a hit team that left a trail of rivals dead in Manhattan and the
    Bronx.

    He was so well insulated that it took law enforcement authorities several
    years to even hear of his existence. When they did, they were often amazed
    of his race. Two months ago, Mr. Reyes was convicted of running a drug
    organization and of killing seven men.

    This guy`s name was Jose Reyes. They called him El Feo, which means the
    ugly one. And it was one of the legendary gang prosecutions of that whole
    era. His whole organization but also he himself indicted in 1994. They
    tried El Feo, they tried Jose Reyes in federal court in New York City.

    The judge deliberated for eight days. When they came back they ruled that
    he was guilty of seven murders which meant, of course, life in prison.

    The prosecution was led in part by assistant attorney in the Southern
    District of New York who was thought of as a bit of a brainiac. Before law
    school, he had graduated from Harvard with a degree in physics. After he
    helped bring the successful landmark El Feo prosecution in New York, that
    assistant U.S. attorney got a big promotion. He was named chief of the
    violent gangs unit for the whole Southern District of New York.

    It would not be long, though, before main justice, the Main Justice
    Department in D.C. hired him away from the U.S. attorney`s office in New
    York and at Main Justice in D.C., he rose to lead the organized crime and
    racketeering section for the whole Department of Justice. His specialty
    was international organized crime.

    To run that section, he became known as an intricate manager. He liaised
    the Justice Department not just with the FBI, but with other law
    enforcement and intelligence agencies all around the world. He built and
    maintained those contacts for the benefit of the Justice Department.

    And that makes sense. He was leading a team that was prosecuting
    international organized crime, so you need those intel and international
    law enforcement connections. In 2003, he oversaw the team that indicted
    the boss of all bosses in the Russian mafia. And that made big news at the
    time.

    I have to admit, the big news made at the time when the Justice Department
    indicted the godfather of the Russian mafia, it was somewhat limited by the
    fact nobody could pronounce the name of the guy they just indicted.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    FEMALE TV ANCHOR: Today, we have some of the FBI`s most wanted for you.
    This is Semion Mogilevich. He is wanted for racketeering, securities
    fraud, wire and mail fraud and money laundering. We are told he has
    pockmarks on his face and smokes heavily and uses a Russian passport. He
    is considered armed and dangerous.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    MADDOW: I am no better at pronouncing Russian names than the next guy. I
    think it`s Simeon Mogilevich. I`ve been practicing. That`s probably still
    wrong.

    Simeon Mogilevich is considered to be the godfather of the Russian mob. He
    is one of the most wanted men in the world. He has been for years. He is
    a fugitive from justice. He is under indictment in the United States. He
    is on the most wanted list for the FBI, but they haven`t been able to get
    him.

    Very few pictures of him even exist. Mogilevich`s name has turned up,
    though, in a couple ways, in the Russia investigation involving President
    Trump. A Russian born ex-con who worked for a while at the Trump
    Organization, who worked with Michael Cohen in the plan to try to build a
    Trump Tower in Moscow during presidential campaign.

    That effort that then candidate Donald Trump inexplicably lied about, and
    publicly denied during the campaign, he has been described as having links
    to Semion Mogilevich and his organized crime network, although he denies
    any such link. Simeon Mogilevich also turns up in Paul Manafort`s business
    history, because at one point, Paul Manafort pursued what would have been a
    gigantic real estate deal in New York City with some Russian linked
    Ukrainian business partners.

    That real estate deal never came to pass, but it was the subject of
    litigation in the U.S. and great controversy in Ukraine because that would
    be real estate deal was suspected of essentially being a way for Paul
    Manafort to help launder some of Simeon Mogilevich`s money that he had
    earned as head of the Russian mob.

    So, Semion Mogilevich, this top figure in the Russian mafia, starring role
    on the FBI`s ten most wanted international fugitives list, a guy who
    periodically leads to headlines like this one, whenever the FBI starts
    talking about him again, FBI, mobster more powerful than Gotti. The
    Justice Department official who actually led the effort to indict Simeon
    Mogilevich, led the effort to bring him to justice in the U.S. courts,
    that`s the same Harvard brainiac who had come up from gang duty in New York
    after prosecuting the drug gangs and El Feo, right?

    Soon after he got to the Justice Department, he indicted the head of the
    Russian mafia. He also played another key role in the case of another bold
    phased name who has ended up having a starring role in the Russia scandal
    and the legal trouble surrounding this president and his campaign.

    I mentioned those 1,500 pieces of evidence that the special counsel`s
    office says they`re going to use every single one of in their trial for
    Paul Manafort in Washington, D.C. – well, at least a couple of those
    pieces of evidence appear to explicitly reference a Russian oligarch linked
    to Vladimir Putin whose name is Oleg Deripaska. He is apparently going to
    play a role in the Manafort trial coming up in D.C.

    You will also remember that Oleg Deripaska`s name surfaced in reporting
    earlier this year when “The Atlantic” magazine and “Washington Post” turned
    up e-mails that indicated add while Manafort`s was running Trump`s
    presidential campaign he was simultaneously offering private briefings on
    the election and the campaign to this Russian oligarch to Oleg Deripaska.

    Last year, last spring, the “Associated Press” reported that Manafort had
    entered into a $10 million contract a year contract with Oleg Deripaska to
    promote the interests of Vladimir Putin`s government around the world.
    Well, in 2006, that same Justice Department official, the one who had
    started as the gang prosecutor, taking apart those drug gangs in the Bronx,
    the guy who had worked his way to becoming an expert on transnational
    organized crime, the guy who led the team that brought the prosecution of
    the head of the Russian mafia, that same official, quote, was part of a
    group of government officials who revoked the visa of Oleg Deripaska, a
    Russian billionaire and aluminum magnate. Officials were concerned that
    Mr. Deripaska might try to come to the United States to launder illicit
    profits through real estate.

    The Russia scandal around this president and particularly the part of it
    that has led to these two federal criminal trials against the president`s
    campaign chairman, it has an organized crime element to it. It has a
    Russian organized crime element to it. And now, as the president mulls
    pardoning Paul Manafort and he mulls replacing his White House counsel if
    the White House counsel won`t let him pardon Paul Manafort, as the
    president openly mulls firing the attorney general of the United States in
    the midst of the Manafort prosecution as a way to try to make the Russia
    investigation all go away, today, Republicans in Congress spent the entire
    day going after that Justice Department official I`ve been talking about.

    That specific official who started with the El Feo case and the drug gangs
    in the Bronx, who rose to become the head of organized crime and
    racketeering at the Justice Department, who became the Justice Department`s
    expert on Russian organized crime, the guy who indicted the head of the
    Russian mafia, the guy who became the Justice Department`s lead counsel for
    transnational organized crime and international affairs. The guy who had
    been part of the team that banned Paul Manafort`s patron and business
    partner Oleg Deripaska from doing business or visiting the United States on
    the basis of his alleged ties to organized crime in Russia, that Justice
    Department official, that guy is named Bruce Ohr.

    And he is the object of conspiracy theories and condemnation on right wing
    media on a 24-hour loop. And today, pro-Trump Republican members of
    Congress summoned Bruce Ohr to testify behind closed doors before two
    separate Republican-led committees and then the despite the closed door
    nature of his testimony, those Republicans immediately went out to the
    cameras to talk to reporters about how Bruce Ohr was a liar and to
    basically accuse him of being the rot at the heart of the Mueller
    investigation and the Russia scandal more broadly.

    “The New York Times” this weekend profiled Bruce Ohr`s long history in
    leading American law enforcement efforts against Russian organized crime.
    There is a Russian organized crime element to the Trump/Russia scandal.
    Today, House Republicans literally came back from their summer vacation
    early to spend the day trying to destroy Bruce Ohr.

    From Politico.com today, House Republicans have fixated on a handful of
    career Justice Department and FBI officials over the past year as they
    sought to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the investigators who launched
    the Russia probe. First, the spotlight was on Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe,
    then Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Now, Republicans intent on proving that
    political bias is behind the sprawling investigation of President Trump`s
    ties to Russia. Now, Republicans are elevating a new bureaucratic target:
    Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.

    You know, they went after Peter Strzok, they were going after the top
    counterintelligence official at the FBI, with experience in breaking up
    Russian intelligence operations on U.S. soil, and going after Bruce Ohr
    today, they are trying to take out one of American law enforcement`s top
    experts on Russian organized crime. And I don`t know exactly what these
    targeted attacks by the White House and congressional Republicans will
    ultimately do to the capabilities of the Justice Department and the FBI
    when it comes to fighting things like Russian intelligence operations in
    the United States and Russian organized crime and Russian money laundering
    through American real estate, right?

    But you can imagine how satisfying a day like today must have been for
    Semion Mogilevich, to see Bruce Ohr get his turn in the barrel like this,
    right? You can imagine how delightful that was for the Russian mafia. You
    can imagine what a nice turn of events today must have been when viewed
    from the perspective of the Kremlin.


    We`ll be right back." emphasis mine.

    ---------- Post added at 11:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 PM ----------

    "FBI Departures:
    James Comey, director (fired)
    Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
    Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
    Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
    James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
    James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
    Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
    Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
    James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
    Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs (resigned)
    Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
    John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
    DOJ Departures:
    Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
    Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
    David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
    Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
    Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
    John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
    Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
    Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
    Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
    Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
    Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
    Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
    Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
    Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)"

    Right, I think that goes to Maddow's points. But this thread is about Ohr, specifically, so let's keep focus on him.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So,

    First, the Clinton team targeted a smear campaign on Trump using a phony dossier with the aid of the top dogs in the FBI and DOJ.
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Support your assertion that the dossier is "phony". {challenge thingy} (This has been gone over in the dossier thread)
    1) So far there has been no public information about collusion/coordination between Trump and the Russians. If you know of any, then please inform me.

    2)
    Michael D. Cohen, produced his passport to rebut the dossier’s claim that he had secret meetings in Prague with a Russian official last year.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/u...-expained.html

    3) The FBI used an unsubstantiated dossier as an excuse to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page, and thus create the witchhunt.

    4) The dossier was used as an excuse to spy on the Trump campaign via FISA. To date, that has been the only source of information used to get a FISA warrant that has been confirmed, to my knowledge. If you know of more, please list them.

    Devin Nunes four-page GOP document for the House Intelligence Committee
    "claims that then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told the committee in December that without the information from the Steele dossier, no surveillance warrant for Page would have been sought."
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ses-nunes-memo

    5) The Nunes GOP document also list a bias by Steele obtained by the FBI:

    The document also claims that although the FBI had "clear evidence" that the author of the dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele, was biased against then-candidate Trump, it did not convey this to the surveillance court when making its warrant applications.
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ses-nunes-memo
    According to the document, Steele told then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president."
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ses-nunes-memo

    Bruce Ohr confirms the bias by Steele during his deposition:
    Senior Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr testified Tuesday that prior to obtaining the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on short-term Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page, the FBI was aware that former British spy and anti-Trump dossier author, Christopher Steele was biased against then-candidate Trump. He also stated that the FBI knew that his wife, Nellie Ohr was working for Fusion GPS, the now-embattled research firm which was hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC to compile the dossier with Steele.
    Ohr stated during his hours-long testimony that the FBI failed to disclose this pertinent information to the nation’s secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) when it sought an application to spy on Page. The FBI also failed to disclose that when it sought the application, it was using senior Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr as a cut-out for a source the bureau had terminated.
    https://saraacarter.com/bruce-ohr-fb...n-carter-page/

    The DOJ failed to disclose biased information to the FISA court, according to Sara Carter.

    Another congressional source, involved in the investigation of Bruce Ohr, tells SaraACarter.com, “The DOJ refused to disclose all kinds of biases to the FISA court. The fact that they didn’t tell the court that Fusion GPS was paying the wife of a top DOJ official to work on the Steele dossier, parts of which the DOJ cited to get a warrant to spy on an American citizen, is another stunning and inexcusable failure.”
    https://saraacarter.com/bruce-ohr-fb...n-carter-page/

    The FBI on the FISA request did not note that the dossier was part of Clintons opposition research to smear Trump, yet that there was political motive here:
    Nevertheless, defenders of the FBI's actions in this case argued that even if the FBI did not specifically include the words "Clinton campaign" or "DNC," the bureau fully informed the court that the people involved with the dossier had a political motive against candidate Donald Trump. To support their position, defenders pointed to a multi-paragraph footnote in the FISA application that contained this sentence: "The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...er-steele-bias

    The dossier was a political hit piece.

    Possible bias was listed by the FBI on the FISA application:
    "The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele's credibility," former Justice Department official David Kris wrote on Lawfare. "The footnote disclosing Steele's possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA court could have missed it."
    (Ibid for link)

    The later applications did inform the court of problems with Steele. The FBI expected that Steele, as a trusted (and paid) source, would not share his findings with the press. Yet that is what Steele did in September and October before the election, when he discussed his work with reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, New Yorker, Yahoo, and Mother Jones — and then falsely denied that he had.

    In subsequent renewal applications, the FBI informed the court that it had suspended, and then ended, its relationship with Steele. But the bureau argued that Steele was still a reliable source, because he broke his agreement and lied after he gave the FBI the information included in the warrant application.
    http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/20...eles-bias.html

    6) The Steele Dossier was based on third party heresay:
    Steele was in the position of an investigative agent relaying information. He was not a source (or informant) who saw or heard relevant facts. Even if we assume for argument’s sake that Steele is honest and reliable, that would tell us nothing about who his sources are, whether they were really in a position to see or hear the things they report, and whether they have a history of providing accurate information. Those are the questions the FBI must answer in order to vet and confirm factual allegations before presenting them to the FISA court. That was not done; the FBI relied on Steele’s reputation to vouch for his source’s claims...
    Moreover, the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, told Congress that the bureau tried very hard to verify Steele’s information but could provide no points of verification beyond the fact that Page did travel to Russia in July 2016 — a fact that required no effort to corroborate since the trip was unconcealed and widely known...
    Furthermore, in British legal proceedings, Steele himself has described the information he provided to the FBI as “raw intelligence” that was “unverified.”
    ...When the government seeks a warrant, it is supposed to show the court that the actual sources of information are reliable — i.e., they were in a position to see or hear the relevant facts, and they are worthy of belief. It is not sufficient to show that the agent who assembles the source information is credible..
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...teele-dossier/

    (A very interesting article)

    7) The pee tapes have not been verified to my knowledge. In my mind, that would be easy to do. Questioning the alleged prostitutes and confirming with the hotel that the bed had been urinated on would give credence to this claim. Do you know of this verification? If not, then how can this information be truted as anything but heresay?

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Lisa Page or Peter Strzok, or both have inconsistent testimony when testifying before the House Judicial Committee (per quote above).
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Appeal to authority. Support, please.
    Strzok said that his language on particular issues was meant to be taken figuratively, yet Page said it was literal which contradicted his testimony.

    Ratcliffe said. “On many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say as opposed to agent Strzok, who thinks all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative.”
    Rep. John Ratcliffe: Lisa Page admitted her text messages “mean exactly what they say,” contrary to Peter Strzok’s testimony.
    9:21 AM - Jul 17, 2018
    https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...radict-strzok/

    Congressional leaders have praised the testimony of former FBI agent Lisa Page in recent days and have said that they found her testimony to be very credible as some of them claim she gave a very different account of events than her former lover, disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok...
    "In many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say, as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks that we've all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative," Ratcliff told reporters on Monday, according to ABC News.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/33186...-ryan-saavedra

    Peter

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "But the other important thing going on here is that the president, of course, isn`t alone in his crusade to try dismantle or roadblock the Russia investigation
    and all of its component parts by going after key personnel and officials who have connections to different parts of the investigation...
    If I was innocent and I saw someone get away with destroying mountains of evidence against them that would convict them, yet I was charged with the crime, I would be upset about the injustice of it all too. Then, if they came against me with fallacious charges I would wonder where the justice was, especially with all that was known about the evidence against the other person. I'm hopeful that the truth will come out in the end.

    Then, if I witnessed a media circus against me that tried to frame me I would fight back against the media and its bias and unfair reporting.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The Russia scandal around this president and particularly the part of it that has led to these two federal criminal trials against the president`s campaign chairman, it has an organized crime element to it. It has a Russian organized crime element to it. And now, as the president mulls
    pardoning Paul Manafort and he mulls replacing his White House counsel if the White House counsel won`t let him pardon Paul Manafort, as the president openly mulls firing the attorney general of the United States in the midst of the Manafort prosecution as a way to try to make the Russia investigation all go away, today, Republicans in Congress spent the entire day going after that Justice Department official I`ve been talking about.

    That specific official who started with the El Feo case,...that guy is named Bruce Ohr.
    Yet the dossier has nothing (that we know of) to back up its claims - it is all salacious and third party heresay.

    We have been told that Steele had a bias against Trump. Others in the FBI and DOJ wanted Hillary as president.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    And he is the object of conspiracy theories and condemnation on right wing media on a 24-hour loop. And today, pro-Trump Republican members of Congress summoned Bruce Ohr to testify behind closed doors before two separate Republican-led committees and then the despite the closed door nature of his testimony, those Republicans immediately went out to the cameras to talk to reporters about how Bruce Ohr was a liar and to basically accuse him of being the rot at the heart of the Mueller investigation and the Russia scandal more broadly...
    To me I can't understand why Obama rigging the 16 agencies just before he left office. That made it easier to share information and caused all kinds of leaks of information and problems for the Trump presidency:

    It's Official: Sixteen Government Agencies Now Have Access To Unminimized Domestic NSA Collections
    from the Security-Thru-Advanced-Situational-Intelligence dept
    The NSA can now be used for second-hand domestic surveillance, thanks to new rules approved by President Obama that went into effect on January 3rd...
    As the New York Times reports...
    The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...lections.shtml

    Why would he do it just before he left office??? I think he was creating a trap for the incoming president.

    Why would the Democrats frame an incoming president? I believe because it is all a power game. They want socialism and CONTROL over you and everything you do.

    Furthermore, I feel Obama is behind the whole Muller investigation (just a feeling). He knew about the Russians influencing the election and he did NOTHING. He mocked Trump for stating that the Russians could influence the election, but he knew they were trying and he did NOTHING.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    From Politico.com today, House Republicans have fixated on a handful of career Justice Department and FBI officials over the past year as they sought to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the investigators who launched the Russia probe. First, the spotlight was on Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe,
    then Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Now, Republicans intent on proving that political bias is behind the sprawling investigation of President Trump`s
    ties to Russia. Now, Republicans are elevating a new bureaucratic target: Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.
    That's because these people were incompetent and complicite in a cover-up. They WANTED crooked Hillary Clinton as president.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You know, they went after Peter Strzok, they were going after the top counterintelligence official at the FBI, with experience in breaking up Russian intelligence operations on U.S. soil, and going after Bruce Ohr today, they are trying to take out one of American law enforcement`s top experts on Russian organized crime. And I don`t know exactly what these targeted attacks by the White House and congressional Republicans will ultimately do to the capabilities of the Justice Department and the FBI when it comes to fighting things like Russian intelligence operations in the United States and Russian organized crime and Russian money laundering through American real estate, right?
    They went after Strzok because he was involved in a big cover-up, along with Comey and others. He sloughed of the Hillary investigation, called it a "matter."

    Former FBI Director James Comey said former Attorney General Loretta Lynch directed him to refer to the Hillary Clinton email probe as a "matter," not an investigation.
    He said the request "confused and concerned" him and led him to the decision to make his independent announcement last July about the case.
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/0...igation-matter

    “At one point, [Ms. Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Mr. Comey said of Ms. Lynch. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”
    Mr. Comey said the language suggested by Ms. Lynch was troublesome because it closely mirrored what the Clinton campaign was using.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...l-clinton-pro/

    Peter Strzok, who served as a counterintelligence expert at the bureau, changed the description of Clinton's actions in Comey's statement, CNN reported Monday, citing U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
    One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
    Strzok, who served as the No. 2 official leading the probe into the Clinton email server, has been thrust into the center of controversy after news of his dismissal from Comey's team.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...n-email-use-to

    Not only do they show incredible political bias against Trump and in favor of Democrats, but one clearly proves that Strzok and Page conspired to ensure Hillary Clinton was never going to be indicted, no matter how many times she compromised the security of 320 million Americans.
    https://newstarget.com/2018-01-26-st...stigation.html

    These people are all in a conspiracy to elect Clinton, and when that doesn't happen their insurance policy is to frame Trump, all to regain power and make your country a socialist state controlled by big government. It is sickening. What is at stake in the 2018 election is the future of your country. If the Dem's win, and impeach Trump I don't think your country will ever recover (just my personal opinion).

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    But you can imagine how satisfying a day like today must have been for Semion Mogilevich, to see Bruce Ohr get his turn in the barrel like this, right? You can imagine how delightful that was for the Russian mafia. You can imagine what a nice turn of events today must have been when viewed
    from the perspective of the Kremlin.
    All innuendo and smoking mirrors to put the Dem's back in power. What do all these political pundits all have in common - the hate Trump and they support liberal leftist ideology that has been ingrained in them from their university and college educations.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    "FBI Departures:
    James Comey, director (fired)
    Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
    Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
    Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
    James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
    James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
    Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
    Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
    James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
    Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs (resigned)
    Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
    John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
    DOJ Departures:
    Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
    Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
    David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
    Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
    Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
    John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
    Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
    Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
    Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
    Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
    Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
    Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
    Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
    Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)"
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, I think that goes to Maddow's points. But this thread is about Ohr, specifically, so let's keep focus on him.
    It shows the corruption of these agencies, of which Ohr is a part.

    Peter

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    1) So far there has been no public information about collusion/coordination between Trump and the Russians. If you know of any, then please inform me.
    Non sequitur, even if the dossier is never verified that still doesn't mean it is "phony"

    ---------- Post added at 02:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 AM ----------

    "But investigators have traced evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic through Germany, apparently during August or early September of 2016 as the ex-spy reported, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is confidential. He wouldn’t have needed a passport for such a trip, because both countries are in the so-called Schengen Area in which 26 nations operate with open borders."

    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...208870264.html

    ---------- Post added at 02:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    3) The FBI used an unsubstantiated dossier as an excuse to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page, and thus create the witchhunt.
    Not the only evidence used and allowable according to the law. (see The Steele Dossier Thread)

    ---------- Post added at 02:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    4) The dossier was used as an excuse to spy on the Trump campaign via FISA. To date, that has been the only source of information used to get a FISA warrant that has been confirmed, to my knowledge. If you know of more, please list them.
    Both untrue. The first part is mere conspiracy theory. The second has been covered in The Steele Dossier Thread - link to the warrant applications is over there.

    ---------- Post added at 02:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    Devin Nunes four-page GOP document for the House Intelligence Committee
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ses-nunes-memo
    Appeal to authority[COLOR="Silver"]



    "claims that then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told the committee in December that without the information from the Steele dossier, no surveillance warrant for Page would have been sought." quote from PGA2

    Yes, it is a valuable human intelligence work.

    ---------- Post added at 03:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 AM ----------

    "According to the document, Steele told then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president."" quote from PGA2

    "One of the contacts that has conservatives riled up was reported in March by the New Yorker, which described Steele becoming more and more alarmed in 2016 about possible connections he’d discovered between Trump and Russia. He “confided in a longtime friend” Bruce Ohr his concern that no one in American law enforcement was going public with them, the New Yorker reported. In a memo cited by the New Yorker, Ohr said that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being President,” but, according to anonymous sources, “Ohr and other officials urged Steele not to be so upset about the F.B.I.’s secrecy, assuring him that, in the U.S., potentially prejudicial investigations of political figures were always kept quiet, especially when an election was imminent.”"https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/trump-im-going-to-pull-bruce-ohrs-security-clearance-because-of-the-dossier.html

    It seems you've been flim-flammed by something taken out of context. Steele was alarmed at what he had found when compiling the dossier and was concerned nothing was being done about it.

    Not that he had any prejudice before compiling the dossier.

    "The document also claims that although the FBI had "clear evidence" that the author of the dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele, was biased against then-candidate Trump, it did not convey this to the surveillance court when making its warrant applications." quote from PGA2

    See my previous reply about. It follows that it wouldn't be conveyed since it had nothing to do with the dossier's compilation itself.

    (It was presented in The Steele Dossier Thread that the FBI testified that Steele didn't know who the dossier was form though he may have guessed)

    ---------- Post added at 03:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 AM ----------

    "The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele's credibility," former Justice Department official David Kris wrote on Lawfare. "The footnote disclosing Steele's possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA court could have missed it." PGA2 quote

    "But the footnote did not, in fact, disclose Steele's possible bias. It disclosed Simpson's possible bias. The FBI's disclosure of bias — "The FBI speculates" — referred specifically to the "identified U.S. person" who might have wanted to discredit the Trump campaign. That was Simpson, not Steele."

    Your own source! lol

    ---------- Post added at 03:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    6) The Steele Dossier was based on third party heresay:
    Irrelevant, hearsay is admissible for warrants. (This was covereed in The Steele Dossier thread)

    ---------- Post added at 03:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    7) The pee tapes have not been verified to my knowledge. In my mind, that would be easy to do. Questioning the alleged prostitutes and confirming with the hotel that the bed had been urinated on would give credence to this claim. Do you know of this verification? If not, then how can this information be truted as anything but heresay?
    Again, that its is hearsay is irrelevant to the validity of the warrant applications. Hilarious if true, yes.

    ---------- Post added at 03:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 AM ----------

    I am going to ask that any further discussion of the Steele Dossier (except when relevant to this thread) be handled over in its own thread.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    Strzok said that his language on particular issues was meant to be taken figuratively, yet Page said it was literal which contradicted his testimony.
    Which is true? Does it matter...

    "Republicans have suggested that Strzok and Page's private views may have affected their handling of both investigations, though Horowitz has emphasized he's discovered no evidence suggesting they acted upon their sentiments."

    ---------- Post added at 03:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If I was innocent and I saw someone get away with destroying mountains of evidence against them that would convict them
    Support please.

    ---------- Post added at 03:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If I was innocent and I saw someone get away with destroying mountains of evidence against them that would convict them, yet I was charged with the crime, I would be upset about the injustice of it all too. Then, if they came against me with fallacious charges I would wonder where the justice was, especially with all that was known about the evidence against the other person. I'm hopeful that the truth will come out in the end.

    Then, if I witnessed a media circus against me that tried to frame me I would fight back against the media and its bias and unfair reporting.
    You might also use all of the awesome powers as the President to obstruct or stop an investigation you didn't like.

    ---------- Post added at 04:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post


    To me I can't understand why Obama rigging the 16 agencies just before he left office. That made it easier to share information and caused all kinds of leaks of information and problems for the Trump presidency:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...lections.shtml

    Why would he do it just before he left office??? I think he was creating a trap for the incoming president.
    This is off topic, but do you have any evidence of that?

    ---------- Post added at 04:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    He knew about the Russians influencing the election and he did NOTHING. He mocked Trump for stating that the Russians could influence the election, but he knew they were trying and he did NOTHING.
    Untrue:

    "MARTIN: The assumption in what President Trump is saying is that President Obama took no action after learning that the Russians were interfering in the election. Is that the case?

    EWING: No, that's not quite correct. The Obama administration had a great deal of internal debate in real time in 2016 about how to respond - whether they should do so publicly or privately. Ultimately, President Obama did so privately with the Russian president Vladimir Putin. He took him aside at an international summit and said, please stop interfering in our election - to no effect.

    And the Obama administration also tried to ask leaders in Congress of both parties to sign a statement condemning these foreign efforts. The Democratic leaders agreed to do so. The Republican speaker, Paul Ryan, apparently thought that he could get there, but the majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, did not agree to do that. And so, ultimately, there was no public statement until October of 2016, by which time, with the view of history, it may have been too late to do anything about it.

    MARTIN: Did the Obama administration take any steps other than jawboning?

    EWING: Ultimately, President Obama's administration did take some action against the Russians. So in December of 2016 and January of 2017, there were some punitive measures the United States imposed. The Russian "diplomats," quote-unquote, were ejected from the United States. Their facilities in the United States were closed that they used to spy from New York and Maryland. And there were economic measures that the United States has taken, both under Obama and Trump, in retaliation for this election interference."https://www.npr.org/2018/07/15/629281975/fact-check-did-the-obama-administration-respond-to-election-interference-by-russ

    ---------- Post added at 04:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    These people are all in a conspiracy to elect Clinton, and when that doesn't happen their insurance policy is to frame Trump, all to regain power and make your country a socialist state controlled by big government. It is sickening. What is at stake in the 2018 election is the future of your country. If the Dem's win, and impeach Trump I don't think your country will ever recover (just my personal opinion).
    More like conspiracy theories being floated to deflect from an actual, on-going investigation instead of one that had been completed long ago.

    ---------- Post added at 04:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It shows the corruption of these agencies, of which Ohr is a part.
    The conspiracy you're fixated on - with that many people (not to mention the multitudes more) - is just not possible.

    Much more likely that these are dedicated law enforcement officers that are doing their jobs diligently and that the president and his lackeys (Republicans in congress, Fox News) are trying to stop him. It explains his fixation on the attorney general who might have the reach to quelch crucial parts of the investigations. Nothing you have posted suggests otherwise and the vast majority of what you said I've shown to be wrong.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Much of this has been discussed in this thread:


    Trump expected to declassify Carter Page and Bruce Ohr documents


    "President Trump is expected to declassify, as early as this week, documents covering the U.S. government's surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the investigative activities of senior Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr, according to allies of the president.

    The big picture: Republicans on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees believe the declassification will permanently taint the Trump-Russia investigation by showing the investigation was illegitimate to begin with. Trump has been hammering the same theme for months.

    They allege that Bruce Ohr played an improper intermediary role between the Justice Department, British spy Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS — the opposition research firm that produced the Trump-Russia dossier, funded by Democrats. (Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS on Russia-related matters during the presidential election — a fact that Ohr did not disclose on federal forms.)
    And they further allege that the Obama administration improperly spied on Carter Page — all to take down Trump.

    House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, who is close to Trump, told Axios earlier today: "After two years of investigations and accusations from both sides of the aisle about what documents indicate, it is past time for documents to be declassified and let the American people decide for themselves if DoJ and FBI acted properly."

    The bottom line: President Trump has been hyping, and congressional Republicans have been calling for, the declassification of these documents. It's now put up or shut up time. We should find out very soon whether these documents are as explosive as advertised."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
  12. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    I find it curious that Trump has broad powers to daylight all kinds of material related to these matters and yet he doesn't do so. I can imagine a host of reasons, some simply technical, others reasonable, and some damnable.

    Whatever the case is, if they really want the truth to be known, Trump is the one that has the most power to expose it, yet he's done absolutely nothing to do so.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    and some damnable.
    I'd argue it is this.

    ---------- Post added at 06:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    if they really want the truth to be known,
    I doubt they do. Fantasies and conspiracy theories work better on that base. I don't think its true (at least to the same extent) with the other side.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,787
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I find it curious that Trump has broad powers to daylight all kinds of material related to these matters and yet he doesn't do so. I can imagine a host of reasons, some simply technical, others reasonable, and some damnable.

    Whatever the case is, if they really want the truth to be known, Trump is the one that has the most power to expose it, yet he's done absolutely nothing to do so.
    You should prophesy more often.

    --- Trump decliassifies a bunch of stuff/ text and the fisa warrant.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...sia-probe.html

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/polit...nts/index.html

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I'd argue it is this.
    And now what would you argue?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I doubt they do. Fantasies and conspiracy theories work better on that base. I don't think its true (at least to the same extent) with the other side.
    As this comment was pretty hard, I would say that you have egg on your face now.

    ----
    Now that they are going to be released, and we don't yet know the extent. I want to throw a speculation out there.
    Maybe... Just maybe, Trump was trying to protect the FBI's credibility. What I mean is, if assumption that releasing it would be damaging to trump is false... then who else could it possibly damage?
    If, by chance, this is like a nail in the coffin for the investigation, the so called "silver bullet" that just turns everyone against it, and exonerates trump, (I'm going for the opposite extreme here). Then wouldn't that be super damaging to the FBI's credibility?

    Now, I hope it isn't that, I hope it is a little more grey, but it seems to me that we should consider the opposite extreme from this hangs trump... and that appears to be that it hangs the FBI. .. .. which isn't good for the country any way we slice it.

    If that is the case, then I think that would be a huge feather in Trumps cap, that he was so restrained in not releasing it.. and maybe the FBI miscalculated and didn't think he would do it?? Why would they think that or make that calculation?
    -Edit--
    Quote Originally Posted by CNN LINK
    "With respect to some of these materials, I have been previously informed by the FBI and Justice Department that they would consider their release a red line that must not be crossed as they may compromise sources and methods."

    ---
    More probably it doesn't out right damn anyone, but the FBI comes off looking kinda bad, and this is all over in a few weeks or so.
    To serve man.

  15. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You should prophesy more often.

    --- Trump decliassifies a bunch of stuff/ text and the fisa warrant.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...sia-probe.html

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/polit...nts/index.html
    Ya, I just saw that and was going to come mention it. I wish he'd have done the whole doc when you just do part I suspect cherry picking. Still, some is better than none, and the text messages should be a gold mine of crap to talk about. Especially considering texts are by their nature a bit cryptic.

    None the less, the more that gets out in the open and unredacted, the happier I am.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,086
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I haven't fallowed close enough on Don jr to comment if it is "indisputable", but if he is looking for "truth", and/or if the "truth" gets exposed, how were the American people hurt?
    I didn't say exposing truth is harmful.

    But intentionally acquiring illegally obtained dirt on one's political opponent and receiving it from a foreign source is harmful to US democracy and is illegal as well.

  17. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  18. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    And now what would you argue?
    That he wouldn't have declassified anything that didn't shed a favorable light on him.

    Looks like I was right:

    "A footnote also disclosed a political motivation behind the Steele dossier and said the person behind it was likely looking for information to discredit Trump's campaign, but Trump did not order the vast majority of that portion of the October 2016 FISA declassified Monday." CNN source.
    Last edited by CowboyX; September 18th, 2018 at 08:56 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,787
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    @sig.. have you seen the Simpsons play on the old twilight zone episode "to serve man". I the twilight zone aliens came and offered man everything prosperous as well as trips to outerspace. It turned out the book they gave humans was translated to be a cook book. "To serve man". The Simpsons played on this as aliens offered everything and a character blows off dust from the book to reveal that it was a cook book, then the aliens say that isn't right and blow off more dust, and it reveals a more benevolent title.. this went back and forth to humourous effect. ..
    Point is.. that is what this feels like. We get redacted copies, then Trump reveals more.. I am just waiting for the next leak to cast it all in a negative light again.

    ---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

    @sig.. have you seen the Simpsons play on the old twilight zone episode "to serve man". I the twilight zone aliens came and offered man everything prosperous as well as trips to outerspace. It turned out the book they gave humans was translated to be a cook book. "To serve man". The Simpsons played on this as aliens offered everything and a character blows off dust from the book to reveal that it was a cook book, then the aliens say that isn't right and blow off more dust, and it reveals a more benevolent title.. this went back and forth to humourous effect. ..
    Point is.. that is what this feels like. We get redacted copies, then Trump reveals more.. I am just waiting for the next leak to cast it all in a negative light again.

    ---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

    @ cowboy, are we to accept the partial document as only damning to Trump? But now that we have more we should reject any that validate is position?
    To serve man.

  20. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    [/COLOR]@ cowboy, are we to accept the partial document as only damning to Trump? But now that we have more we should reject any that validate is position?
    I'm with Sig in that more information is better and since I'm not a hack I can simultaneously consider the political motivation into selectively declassifying, which is indicated and has been supported by your own source and is most likely probable in this case.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,787
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I'm with Sig in that more information is better and since I'm not a hack I can simultaneously consider the political motivation into selectively declassifying, which is indicated and has been supported by your own source and is most likely probable in this case.
    While I am still waiting on the news cycle that digests what has been declassified, I'm just not sure I see the negative spin on pointing out the obvious motivation of a desire to clear ones self.
    A less obvious motive that is interesting is the FBI expected that trump would not declassify the documents and saw that as some kind of red line.

    This seems to apply in several interesting ways.
    1) Did trump abuse his power, as some dems are now claiming?
    2) If there was an effort to harm trump politically by some in the FBI, then this expectation seems very relevant.
    3) If there was an effort to harm trump politically by some in the FBI, then they seem really stupid to think he would be constrained by any "norms".

    unfortunately, I can't rule out stupid in Washington.. even in the FBI. And while you had a presumption of nefarious causes for trump to not release the documents at all, that should carry over to a presumption that what he released is probably damaging to the FBI.
    Which, IMO if they were all unbiased and not politically motivated, shouldn't be even possible. But I'm betting those text include some damaging material of personal bias against trump to those investigating him. We have already seen some of it, and it's the only reason I see for trump to think it helps his case.

    .... but we shall see.
    To serve man.

  22. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,787
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who is Bruce Ohr?

    Well this story disappeared as soon as this happened.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.
    By evensaul in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: March 27th, 2017, 06:52 PM
  2. Bruce Willis
    By Turtleflipper in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: June 29th, 2007, 09:00 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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