you have said much more than just what you quoted. you have made mostly false or narrated facts. everything else, is just misinformed opinion because you refuse to read the facts and just ask twitter what they think.
i.e. of narrated: you put a lot of emphasis on "Obama DoJ" running Clinton investigation. but, seemingly they play no role in the Trump campaign investigation. (although Clinton had her investigations buried by McCabe and Comey)

once again... the OIG's report says different about Page. it's your media twisting the first part of this paragraph, ignoring the second half.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf


let's read this again too..






inconvenient facts: the Steele Dossier was the central piece of evidence used to open Crossfire-Hurricane. Comey and his FBI teams knew the evidence to be false, verified the evidence to be false, and continued using it as the essential supporting piece of evidence needed to keep the investigation open.

Carter Page was a source for the CIA from 2009-2013(maybe longer, maybe still...) in which he was investigating Russian Nationals. We didn't and wouldn't have known about this, until the FBI's alteration of an e-mail the CIA sent the FBI, when gathering evidence to open a FISC application.
the CIA's email said Carter Page "was" a source at that time. the FBI changed it too, "not" a source.

So, unless the FBI pulled out something that you know of in 2014 that is criminalizing to Page, i doubt it ever was. (even if.. everything above remains true)

I can't wait for the Bush administration to go to jail over this.

Reading your news seems this conspiracy theory got destroyed Monday 23th
"The start of FBI Russia probe, called Crossfire Hurricane, was legally justified and unbiased."
Ofc Truth does not fit with the need of cultists. After this i guess some of them will pickup some 4cham pseudo analysis and jerk circling around it for hours, days... Nothing new.

You might see some heads roll, ranging from Bush to Obama.

that quote is false.
if we are just quoting what things mean though... it means..

"the OIG never found documentary or testimonial evidence from Bill Priestap when he signed the paper"
"nothing more, nothing less"

Not an argument.

I haven't even brought up the Clinton investigation. No idea what you're talking about. Kind of funny to see you post the section that says CHS's weren't put into the Trump campaign... something you called out the NYT as being wrong about in the Russiagate thread.

My mistake. The Page FISA wasn't approved until after he left the campaign, but Halper talked to him while he was still an adviser to the campaign. Still noteworthy that the FISA came through after he left. The FBI clearly wasn't investigating the campaign as a whole, but the four individuals with suspicious Russian contacts.



Some of your statements aren't entirely true. Just because some exculpatory evidence was found doesn't mean the FBI throws everything away. There's this weird Trump cult desperation to pretend that because Page and Papadopolous denied being part of a conspiracy, that means the FBI was supposed to just take their word for it and drop the case. It's retarded thinking.

Page was an operational contact... based on what the IG says about this, it doesn't appear that Page was part of some investigation. He was a Russophile who kept going to Russia and kept having suspicious contacts with Russian spies in the US. The CIA and FBI interviewed him for years about these contacts, but it's not clear they were communicating this information to each other about him prior to 2016. And... this just helps my argument that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation wasn't some coup attempt. Page was friendly with Russian spies and the CIA/FBI had been keeping tabs on him for years because of it. Then Trump hired him.

to bold: ok...





to finish with your statements on Page.
the CIA stated Page was a "source" for the CIA for the instance requested. that includes people and time requested. the CIA already answered the question. the FBI altered it to the exact opposite.
i'll link that part later, i'm already a bit late for work.

Discussions usually have a certain sequence... I respond to the points in your post and you respond to mine. We weren't discussing the Clinton investigation in the recent posts. You're quoting me from a couple weeks ago.

The language used in the IG report is "operational contact", so why are you quibbling with the IG's language? Also from the language in the report, it just looks like the CIA spoke to him about his prior contacts with Russian officials(who were spies). Nothing in there about him working for the CIA as part of an investigation.

Yes, the FBI agent altered the email. It's one of the many examples of FBI misconduct and sloppiness that Comey and Obama DOJ were unaware of. Which fits neatly into my "no evidence of top-down conspiracy from Comey and DOJ" argument.

yes, i was pointing out 1 of your prior narrations(as i said i was doing in post).
that it's somehow important to you that the "Obama DoJ" ran 2 Clinton investigations, but somehow not at all important that they ran the investigations against Trump. (you've only mentioned it like 4-5 times in this thread)
and once again... they buried the Clinton investigations. both of them. they then fabricated/altered/omitted evidence to the FISC to obtain a warrant to spy on Page and open the Crossfire-Hurricane investigation.


Why do you believe Comey didn't know about any of this though? that's really the most confusing part to me.
it says quite the opposite in the IG's report. (much of which i've already listed prior. that's why i said to note the titles "leadership", "management", "supervisory". in most cases these words are used, it includes, or is "only" Comey.)

adding this in cause you are seemingly unable to read it when i give you both paragraphs. (just like MSM)


This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Dec 27 2019 04:16pm

i saw this on duckduckgo search results a few times while trying to find something, so i finally gave it a watch.
for what it is... i thought it pulled the key points it was making rather well. (title is a little misleading though)


i'm also adding this in as an update. it's a bit old, but it flew over my radar this month.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-court-rejects-fbi-effort-to-keep-secret-records-about-fbi-clinton-lawyer-meeting-on-russia/

idk if anyone would even be interested in this.

Baker's name comes up "a lot" throughout the OIG's midyear report and this FISC report. i'm not counting any chickens before they hatch, but i'm curious what comes out here.