1st "Guilty" Plea in the Russia Collusion Delusion (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's here

A snip from Herridge, she of the highlighting.

Here's the indictment.

Specifically, on or about June 19, 2017, the defendant altered the OGA Liaison’s June 15, 2017 email by adding that Individual #1 “was not a source” and then forwarded the email to the SSA, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, the original June 15, 2017 email from the OGA Liaison did not contain the words “not a source.”

That's in paragraph 13 of the Indictment, Count One, and there's just the 1 count.

********

One thing I'll add is that it is interesting that Durham is pointing to a FARA investigation as the start of the case, as far as I can recall that's not correct, it was started as a counterintelligence investigation, and you can see that in Horowitz and Mueller both. But it doesn't matter here as far as Clinesmith is concerned. Because all he is charged with is changing the text in a supporting document in June 2017.

 

[Opie]

In June of 2017?

Entirety

Paragraph 13 reads: "On or about Jun 19, 2017, ....Kevin Clinesmith did willfully and knowingly make and use a false writing and document knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement......"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Entirety

Paragraph 13 reads: "On or about Jun 19, 2017, ....Kevin Clinesmith did willfully and knowingly make and use a false writing and document knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement......"

Yes thank you that's my point. June 19, 2017, Trump administration.

 

[Opie]

Yes thank you that's my point. June 19, 2017, Trump administration.

You're kidding...right? 
Six months after President Trump took office?

June 19, 2017....during the implantation of Crossfire Hurricane...."Plan B"?
...while gathering information for an impeachment?

....no "resistance" after the time President Trump took office?

"Viva la Resistance" - Kevin Clinesmith

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You're kidding...right? ....no "resistance" after the time President Trump took office?

I see your point, you're saying there were people, I guess like Clinesmith, who were against the President in the FBI, and that was before the administration started, and after, right? - But also, this text does not form any part of the charge, right? Trump supporters have been banging the table about these texts. Clinesmith isn't charged with bias, or corruption or conspiracy, or anything like that. Durham makes no claim about Clinesmith's motive. Go ahead and read it. If he did have a claim for an improper motive he would have charged him with a different crime.

 

[[scooter]]

Yes thank you that's my point. June 19, 2017, Trump administration.

You're kidding...right? 
Six months after President Trump took office?

June 19, 2017....during the implantation of Crossfire Hurricane...."Plan B"?

Crossfire Hurricane was implanted in 2016, not 2017. Your timing is off by 11 months.

I think that's Saints' point: Clinesmith was charged with altering an email well after the fact. He wasn't charged with committing a crime during the 2016 investigation itself.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Entirety

Thanks for posting the full piece on this. I'm going to try to explain why Durham did not actually charge Clinesmith with lying:

• Look at para. 5 - the source document Clinesmith was looking at said that Page had only been an "operational contact," not a "source." That's one thing.
  
• Also in para. 5 - it's noted that Page was an operational contact in 2008-2013 - so arguably when Clinesmith was asked Page was no longer a source.
  
• In para. 10 it's pointed out that Clinesmith clarified that he viewed Page as having been a subsource, not a "source." 
  

One other thing, Opie - in Para. 5, it's noted that Page had had prior contacts with "Russian intelligence officers." - All this handwringing over Page and here the CIA is stating that Page had been in contact with Russian intelligence. Our government had learned that someone in the Trump campaign had advanced knowledge of the release of stolen private data from a presidential campaign and they wanted to know who else knew about it. Would you seriously not personally have this guy at the top of your surveillance list?

 

[Opie]

So, you tell me...

What is the sole purpose of taking evidence, purposely altering it 180 degrees from its original conclusion and then submitting that altered evidence to support a claim?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So, you tell me...

What is the sole purpose of taking evidence, altering it 180 degrees from its original conclusion and then submitting that altered evidence to support a claim?

This is what Clinesmith said:

he had made the change in good faith because he did not think that Mr. Page had been an actual source for the C.I.A.

NYT

- Read the points I made above and please see if you agree if any of that is reasonable. You can be sure that if Barr and Durham thought they could nail Clinesmith on motive and actual lying to investigators or in the application they would have. This is strictly a charge about alteration. I'd think at this point you trust Durham, even if you've passed on Mueller, Huber and Horowitz.

What is not reasonable IMO is altering a document that ends up in a warrant of any kind, whether it's a presidential campaign advisor, a drug dealer, or anyone. That's just stupid, sloppy, lazy and unprofessional. Even someone with decent or good motives should not be allowed to do things that way.

 

[dkp993]

Pointing out the hypocrisy.of the faux rage that goes on here.

It’s not “faux” if people really feel that way whether you agree with it or not. 

 

[[scooter]]

So, you tell me...

What is the sole purpose of taking evidence, purposely altering it 180 degrees from its original conclusion and then submitting that altered evidence to support a claim?

He didn't alter evidence. He altered an email after the fact. You are conflating two different investigations (the investigation of Russian meddling vs. the investigation of the investigators).

I can't speak to Clinesmith's mentality, but I can only imagine the amount of pressure being put on a law enforcement worker who was told that the state was launching a Soviet-style investigation into their investigations, knowing that they could now be potentially arrested for failing to dot i's or cross t's.

It's similar to one of the common complaints that Trump supporters have made about Black Lives Matter: when you overly scrutinize every little decision that a cop makes, you make it more difficult for them to do their job. Trump's administration is doing exactly what his supporters supposedly oppose.

 

[dkp993]

(well, until Schiff shows us all what he has claimed to have all these years

Considering your quest to call out hypocrisy your repeated mentioning of this is quite odd.  Assuming Schiff lied here, and you obviously take umbrage with him lying, I look forward to you not being a hypocrite about lying and post the lies Trump has told the American people.  I’ll give you a couple topics to get you started, The 3+ year promised heath care plan or the promised post Mid-Term elections middle class tax cut.  I eagerly await your many future posts quoting these Trump lies.   

 

[ren hoek]

June 2017.

Why downplay the date.  That's when all this stuff was going on, when the uncritical masses were being spoonfed garbage conspiracy theories about Donald Trump and Russia.  Yet the public didn't find out about it until years after the fact.  That's why we're talking about it now and not then. 

Like the Shawn Henry testimony where he said they didn't have any proof that the emails 'left' the DNC server.  We didn't find that out until May of this year I believe.  Yet you could downplay that one as 2017 etc.  

This stuff was hidden and withheld from public scrutiny for years.  That's the problem.  

 

[sho nuff]

Why downplay the date.  That's when all this stuff was going on, when the uncritical masses were being spoonfed garbage conspiracy theories about Donald Trump and Russia.  Yet the public didn't find out about it until years after the fact.  That's why we're talking about it now and not then. 

Like the Shawn Henry testimony where he said they didn't have any proof that the emails 'left' the DNC server.  We didn't find that out until May of this year I believe.  Yet you could downplay that one as 2017 etc.  

This stuff was hidden and withheld from public scrutiny for years.  That's the problem.  

I see you are again not telling the full story of the Henry testimony.  How many more times will that have to be pointed out to you?  Doni need to again quote the entire thing?

 

[ren hoek]

I see you are again not telling the full story of the Henry testimony.  How many more times will that have to be pointed out to you?  Doni need to again quote the entire thing?

Yes, please cite the relevant portions that you think disagree with what Henry said himself during the same testimony.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why downplay the date.  That's when all this stuff was going on, when the uncritical masses were being spoonfed garbage conspiracy theories about Donald Trump and Russia.  Yet the public didn't find out about it until years after the fact.  That's why we're talking about it now and not then. 

Like the Shawn Henry testimony where he said they didn't have any proof that the emails 'left' the DNC server.  We didn't find that out until May of this year I believe.  Yet you could downplay that one as 2017 etc.  

This stuff was hidden and withheld from public scrutiny for years.  That's the problem.  

Sorry, I thought I was highlighting the date. Feel free to proceed with any claims of course, I'm just pointing out Clinesmith was charged with one thing that happened one time - under Trump - and - per Durham - was completely unconnected to the rest of the investigation.

As for the hidden from scrutiny piece - this was uncovered before Horowitz because the FBI itself asked questions. Then Mueller uncovered it again (he fired Clinesmith), then Horowitz reported on it, and the FISC has been informed of it. The FBI & FISC then undertook a review of every case Clinesmith was an affiant for for a Fisa.

 

[ren hoek]

Sorry, I thought I was highlighting the date. Feel free to proceed with any claims of course, I'm just pointing out Clinesmith was charged with one thing that happened one time - under Trump - and - per Durham - was completely unconnected to the rest of the investigation.

As for the hidden from scrutiny piece - this was uncovered before Horowitz because the FBI itself asked questions. Then Mueller uncovered it again (he fired Clinesmith), then Horowitz reported on it, and the FISC has been informed of it. The FBI & FISC then undertook a review of every case Clinesmith was an affiant for for a Fisa.

Ok Saints, fair enough, it just seems like you run damage control for the intelligence services 24/7 when it's clear they deceived the public on a massive scale w/r/t the Trump/Russia conspiracy theories.  It was incredibly damaging to this country and I wish more people would just be honest about it.  That's no defense of Trump either, but Trump being awful is no excuse for them to mislead the public the way they did.  

I think it's incredible that people still act like this was just some goodfaith accident and they didn't know any better when they were engaged in criminal leaks to advance a false narrative, hiding exculpatory evidence from the courts, omitting details that undercut their narrative etc.  We didn't find out for example that the Steele dossier was funded by Hillary operatives until like a year after it was leaked to and reported on by several news outlets.  

This happens over and over again in a manner that is impossible to attribute to just honest mistakes on their part.  

 

[sho nuff]

Yes, please cite the relevant portions that you think disagree with what Henry said himself during the same testimony.  

I will link you to where i did it last time to refute your posting of what Henry said rather than read through the testimony and linking his statements in full...but you also know I have done this already.

After im back off mobile later today I will.

 

[The Big Donkey]

I will look u where i dod it last tole to refute your posting of what Henry said rather than read through the testimony and linking his statements in full...but you also know I have done this already.

After im back off mobile later today I will.

is this english?

 

[ren hoek]

I will look u where i dod it last tole to refute your posting of what Henry said rather than read through the testimony and linking his statements in full...but you also know I have done this already.

After im back off mobile later today I will.

You can't just say "I refuted you" and that makes it true.  Henry testified that they "did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC".  That's a fact.  Which was concealed from public view from his testimony in Dec. 2017 until May of 2020.  If there is a citation you care to provide that conflicts with that, hopefully in legible english, I invite you to please post it.  

How might this information have impacted public perception at the time, rather than having been accepted as gospel for three years?  People might have been more critical of unproven allegations by the intelligence apparatus.  Instead, we were lead to believe it was unassailable fact that Russia hacked the DNC and away it went.  

 

[sho nuff]

You can't just say "I refuted you" and that makes it true.  Henry testified that they "did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC".  That's a fact.  Which was concealed from public view from his testimony in Dec. 2017 until May of 2020.  If there is a citation you care to provide that conflicts with that, hopefully in legible english, I invite you to please post it.  

How might this information have impacted public perception at the time, rather than having been accepted as gospel for three years?  People might have been more critical of unproven allegations by the intelligence apparatus.  Instead, we were lead to believe it was unassailable fact that Russia hacked the DNC and away it went.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/753528-the-russia-investigation-trump-commutes-stones-sentence/?do=findComment&comment=22716647

What makes it true is the full testimony and not little clips...what makes it true that I refuted it was the extra information contained in the testimony as discussed in that thread.

 

[ren hoek]

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/753528-the-russia-investigation-trump-commutes-stones-sentence/?do=findComment&comment=22716647

What makes it true is the full testimony and not little clips...what makes it true that I refuted it was the extra information contained in the testimony as discussed in that thread.

Not going to respond to all that- I don't have the time and your claims depend on a misreading of what was actually said.

But even in the bolded section, it reaffirms what I've been saying the whole time:

MR.HENRY:Yes,sir.Sothat,again,stagedfor,which,lmean,there,s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. 

There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left.

They have evidence it was Russia that hacked them...that it was set to be removed...but don't have the evidence of removal...Read the bolded...it appears they wouldn't always be able to see such things.

The sentence reads (emphasis mine) "But in this case, IT APPEARS IT WAS SET UP TO BE EXFILTRATED, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT SAYS IT ACTUALLY LEFT."  In other words, they did not have proof that the emails left the server.  That's it, period.  This is not a debate anymore. 

He even suggests they could have screenshotted the emails.  Meaning that they could possibly screenshot tens of thousands of emails from beginning of the chain to the end, somehow contrive the email attachments from the screenshots, and do this many thousands of times over.  That's incredibly thin grounds for such a consequential allegation. 

Also...bringing up one instance where they were incorrect in analysis is hardly evidence of much of anything about their reputation as a contractor.

Yes it is.  That's what a company's reputation is, the times they get it right versus the times they get it wrong.  And they got it absolutely 100% dead wrong in their attribution to Russia with the Ukrainian systems hack.  There were also conflicts of interest between Alperovitch's relationship to the Atlantic Council and Shawn Henry's former relationship with the FBI.  

Again, there is no reading of the sections you quote that conflict with what I've posted, no magical context that disputes his overarching admission that they did not have proof the emails left the server.  You didn't refute anything 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok Saints, fair enough, it just seems like you run damage control for the intelligence services 24/7 when it's clear they deceived the public on a massive scale w/r/t the Trump/Russia conspiracy theories.  It was incredibly damaging to this country and I wish more people would just be honest about it.  That's no defense of Trump either, but Trump being awful is no excuse for them to mislead the public the way they did.  

I think it's incredible that people still act like this was just some goodfaith accident and they didn't know any better when they were engaged in criminal leaks to advance a false narrative, hiding exculpatory evidence from the courts, omitting details that undercut their narrative etc.  We didn't find out for example that the Steele dossier was funded by Hillary operatives until like a year after it was leaked to and reported on by several news outlets.  

This happens over and over again in a manner that is impossible to attribute to just honest mistakes on their part.  

That's fine, I'm just looking at what actually happens in terms of prosecutions. I hear you - and if you want to talk about Bad Things done between Tonkin, Iran, Chile, Palestine, etc, fine - but when it comes to this investigation no one ever seems to manage to bring these claims out in open court in such a way that a judge or jury would believe them, now do they.

I mean you say this, and I'd think you and I'd agree that Barr and Durham would have loved nothing better to nail Clinesmith fetlocks to the wall on lying, conspiracy, framing Trump what have you, but he didn't. That's not me, that's Durham. He didn't do it because (like the Jewell example above) he didn't have anything.

 

[Opie]

Well, if you're keeping score, at this point in time, more FBI employees have been indicted over the "Russian Collusion Delusion" than have Trump family members.

 

[The Z Machine]

Well, if you're keeping score, at this point in time, more FBI employees have been indicted over the "Russian Collusion Delusion" than have Trump family members.

And this matters why?

 

[sho nuff]

And this matters why?

Just another move of the goalposts...or, as usual, a post simply to get a reaction.

 

[kface]

Just another move of the goalposts...or, as usual, a post simply to get a reaction.

Mostly the latter...I have learned, even more so now that we are going into an election, that mostly it's about sticking fingers in people's eyes.

 

[dkp993]

Well, if you're keeping score, at this point in time, more FBI employees have been indicted over the "Russian Collusion Delusion" than have Trump family members.

Or members of Putin’s family....  Or members of Obama’s family....   or members of ...... etc etc etc

More Americans have been convicted of terrorism then members of Osama Bin Laden’s family.  This is a fun game. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, if you're keeping score, at this point in time, more FBI employees have been indicted over the "Russian Collusion Delusion" than have Trump family members.

LOL, well yeah, Junior pleaded the 5th, and Don the don lied in his answers and avoided a live interviewer and multiple questions. There are indictable cases there. In other words, more FBI and DOJ personnel have been cleared than Trump family members.

 

[-jb-]

Well, this thread didn't age well...

 

[Joe Summer]

Well, this thread didn't age well...

JUST STAND BY!!!!!!

 

[Tactical Turtleneck]

JUST STAND BY!!!!!!

Excuse machine is being fired up right now....

 

[zoonation]

JUST STAND BY!!!!!!

Need to wait for tonight’s Hannity and co to create the spin.