The conspiracy to harm Marie Yovanovitch

[Watermelon]

Here's a bleeding Fox News article then. And it's not anonymous! It's from the Justice Department's inspector general .

The Justice Department’s inspector general, in a long-awaited review concerning the origins of the Russia investigation, determined that the FBI complied with policies in launching the politically explosive probe -- but also flagged "significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised."

Specifically, the report concluded that investigators found no intentional misconduct or political bias surrounding the probe's launch and efforts to seek a controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the early months of the investigation.

Have you read the texts and come to this conclusion? Why would you need to track her movements in order just to fire her? Why would you need someone inside her security service in order to fire her? Why would you need to say "They are willing to help if we/you would like a price." in order to just fire her?

Come on man.

What are they even doing or attempting to do to get her fired?

[Mountain Man]

Then answer these questions

1) What legitimate reason is there for Lev to keep tabs on her location?

2) What benign explanation is there for saying "She's not a simple fool, trust me. But she's not getting away."

3) What benign reason is there to "have a person inside." her security team.

Already answered. I see no reason to suspect anything sinister based on those communications. I think, at worse, they're talking about espionage. The Trump administration already didn't trust her, and they wanted to know what she was up to. Whether or not that was justified is another discussion, but I see nothing there that can only be interpreted as saying her safety was compromised.

[Mountain Man]

What are they even doing or attempting to do to get her fired?

Perhaps something to do with her conduct during the 2016 election.

Jordan started his question by going to Yovanovitch’s opening statement. He asks her, “Ambassador, should ambassadors ever try to influence host country elections?” It takes 11 seconds for Yovanovitch to come up with an answer. He then leads her through all of her statements as to why bipartisan support of Ukraine was so vital. And then he returns back to 2016, when she was ambassador, and when the Ukraine government put on a full-court press to assist Hillary Clinton. Not only did the Ukraine president make statements in her favor, the Ukraine ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed in The Hill in which he directly criticized candidate Trump:

Even if Trump’s comments are only speculative, and do not really reflect a future foreign policy, they call for appeasement of an aggressor and support the violation of a sovereign country’s territorial integrity and another’s breach of international law. In the eyes of the world, such comments seem alien to a country seen by partners as a strong defender of democracy and international order. The United States was among the 100 nations which supported the U.N. resolution “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine” not recognizing Russia’s attempt to annex Crimea.

A candidate for the presidency in any country ought to realize the challenges he or she will face to ensure consistency in foreign policy and uphold his or her country’s international commitments. Ukraine — a strategic partner of the United States — entered the 1994 Budapest multilateral commitment, giving away the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in return for security assurances to its territorial integrity from three nuclear powers: the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia.

He documents the instances of meddling in detail, then Jordan then asks her if she ever told the Ukraine government to butt out of the 2016 election. She says she didn’t. Jordan is never able to get her to explain why she refused to tell the Ukrainian government to back off. But we know that answer. She wanted Clinton to win, she thought Clinton was going to win, and she didn’t see anything wrong with this particular foreign country meddling in our elections because it favored her desired outcome.

Finally, Jordan runs out of time as Yovanovitch refuses to even acknowledge questions and Schiff comes to her rescue.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...chiff-process/

[DivineOb]

Already answered. I see no reason to suspect anything sinister based on those communications. I think, at worse, they're talking about espionage. The Trump administration already didn't trust her, and they wanted to know what she was up to. Whether or not that was justified is another discussion, but I see nothing there that can only be interpreted as saying her safety was compromised.

Like I said, it's pointless to discuss things with you. If I wanted to say "Nuh uh" over and over I'd just do that.

[seanD]

Here's a bleeding Fox News article then. And it's not anonymous! It's from the Justice Department's inspector general .

The Justice Department’s inspector general, in a long-awaited review concerning the origins of the Russia investigation, determined that the FBI complied with policies in launching the politically explosive probe -- but also flagged "significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised."

Specifically, the report concluded that investigators found no intentional misconduct or political bias surrounding the probe's launch and efforts to seek a controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the early months of the investigation.

Have you read the texts and come to this conclusion? Why would you need to track her movements in order just to fire her? Why would you need someone inside her security service in order to fire her? Why would you need to say "They are willing to help if we/you would like a price." in order to just fire her?

Come on man.

You disproved the article you linked to in post #9 (claiming the FBI wasn't spying on Trump) with this article that confirms they were spying on Trump. Whether they did it nefariously or not (following the proper rules and protocol) is what Horowitz was investigating and that's what's up for debate.

[One Bad Pig]

Here's a bleeding Fox News article then. And it's not anonymous! It's from the Justice Department's inspector general .

The Justice Department’s inspector general, in a long-awaited review concerning the origins of the Russia investigation, determined that the FBI complied with policies in launching the politically explosive probe -- but also flagged "significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised."

Specifically, the report concluded that investigators found no intentional misconduct or political bias surrounding the probe's launch and efforts to seek a controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the early months of the investigation.

Did you even read the link? It in no way supports the allegations from your initial link.

Have you read the texts and come to this conclusion? Why would you need to track her movements in order just to fire her? Why would you need someone inside her security service in order to fire her? Why would you need to say "They are willing to help if we/you would like a price." in order to just fire her?

Come on man.

Yes, I read the texts. You track her movements and insert an insider to catch her doing or saying something which can be used to justify firing her.

[oxmixmudd]

That kinda sounds like the FBI keeping tabs on Trump.

No - it doesn't. Donald Trump gave significant cause to be looked in on. While his associations do not necessarily mean he is himself corrupted, the FBI would have been seriously remiss in not investigating his connections to nefarious persons with with strong Russian connections, many of whom are now serving time. He was, after all, running for president.

What we are talking about here as it relates to Yavanovitch has no justification of any sort, and has no direct association with any lawful agency. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to equate them.

[Mountain Man]

Like I said, it's pointless to discuss things with you. If I wanted to say "Nuh uh" over and over I'd just do that.

You only think it's "pointless" because you don't have a rebuttal.

[rogue06]

No - it doesn't. Donald Trump gave significant cause to be looked in on. While his associations do not necessarily mean he is himself corrupted, the FBI would have been seriously remiss in not investigating his connections to nefarious persons with with strong Russian connections, many of whom are now serving time. He was, after all, running for president.

What we are talking about here as it relates to Yavanovitch has no justification of any sort, and has no direct association with any lawful agency. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to equate them.

So much "significant cause" that the FBI had to lie through their teeth to the FISA court.

[DivineOb]

Did you even read the link? It in no way supports the allegations from your initial link.

I'm totally lost. Which claims are you saying are unsupported?

Yes, I read the texts. You track her movements and insert an insider to catch her doing or saying something which can be used to justify firing her.

Trump can recall and ambassador without cause. And as far as I know she was recalled without cause. Are you going to defend investigating an Ambassador using your personal attorney rather than a government entity with access to all of her devices and communications? Does that really seem like the most appropriate way to accomplish the goal of removing someone Trump viewed with suspicion?

[DivineOb]

So much "significant cause" that the FBI had to lie through their teeth to the FISA court.

Why did the inspector general come to the conclusion that the FISA application for Page was appropriate and justified? That's the conclusion coming out of Barr's Justice Department!

[rogue06]

Why did the inspector general come to the conclusion that the FISA application for Page was appropriate and justified? That's the conclusion coming out of Barr's Justice Department!

Um...

Rosemary Collyer, the presiding judge of the secret FISA court that granted the FBI surveillance warrants on Trump's former campaign aide Carter Page, has issued an unprecedented public rebuke of the FBI for their serial abuses in the surveillance of him. She declared that the bureau deliberately misled the court when it sought permission to wiretap Page.

Collyer said the FBI's handling of the case "was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor" required by the law that established the FISA court and that their actions "calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."

"The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable," Collyer wrote in her 4 page statement.

In her assessment the derelictions in the Page surveillance warrants were so serious, that the FISA court can no longer be confident that any warrant applications the FBI has submitted to them are accurate and complete, that even if their assertions are true that they aren't misleading because of the omission of relevant information.

As a result Collyer has called for major reforms of the FBI and ordered them to provide a written explanation by January 10th how it intends to fix the problem.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said that he was "very pleased to see the FISA court condemn the FISA warrant application and process against Carter Page" and said that he hopes that Republicans and Democrats can unite in order "to make changes to better protect civil liberties while maintaining our ability to monitor foreign surveillance directed against our economic and national security interests."

Personally, I think that this is a far bigger story than the impeachment circus. If you say that you don't care about the intentional abuses which included providing deliberately doctored documents to the court because it was a Trumper they were after then you really know nothing whatsoever about justice, nor care a whit about it. You are a fraud. A fake. A pretender.

That the FBI would willingly lie and doctor documents in order to go after someone ought to send a chill down your spine for if it can happen to those you dislike it can also happen to those you like -- and can even happen to you.

• NBC: Secret FISA court issues highly unusual public rebuke of FBI for mistakes
  
• The Hill: FISA court's rebuke of the FBI: It broke or ignored the rules and our rights
  
• USA Today: Judge says the FBI misled FISA court when seeking permission to wiretap a former Trump campaign aide

I wonder if they made the January 10th deadline.

[seanD]

Why did the inspector general come to the conclusion that the FISA application for Page was appropriate and justified? That's the conclusion coming out of Barr's Justice Department!

Man, you are terribly uninformed about this issue.

[oxmixmudd]

Confirmed: FBI Was Spying on the Trump Campaign

investigating the connections to people with nefarious connections to the Russian government is NOT spying. In fact, ANY person gaining access to secret clearance or above must willingly submit to and disclose freely and willingly ALL such associations, and can be, and likely any normal person would be, denied clearance for the kinds of associations that raised the red flag with Trump.

I'll say this without mincing any words. Only fools would believe it would make sense not to investigate such associations. It would be extreme negligence and a compromise of national security not to do so. Period.

And yes, I am calling ALL of you that have mocked and slammed the FBI or whoever for investigating Trumps associations with these people Fools. Because you are.

ANYONE with associations like Donald Trump had that is going to be given privileged access to information affecting the National Security of this country must be cleared and shown NOT to be involved in a way that threatens national security.

If it were up to me, If I were in the congress or senate, this issue with Donald Trump has exposed a serious problem with our electoral process. And I would be pushing for legislation that would make it impossible for anyone to run for public office that would be rejected for TS/SCI or above. The people running this country must be at least as trustworthy as those that do the national security groundwork.

I recognize that could be abused, so I'm not going to debate it in terms of a practical solution, but I put it out there to highlight the reckless and irresponsible thinking and comments that fill these threads on this issue.

[Cow Poke]

And yes, I am calling ALL of you that have mocked and slammed the FBI or whoever for investigating Trumps associations with these people Fools. Because you are.

Thank you, dear Christian brother, for these encouraging and inspiring words. May God restore unto you the Joy of your Salvation, and free you from the anger that holds your soul captive.