BraniacX:

Did you just really type all these? just say you're an opinionated idi0t without saying so, you are so stupid you want to make it out tha[b]t i implied it is all about charges when my assertion is that it is all about facts and charges are synonymous to the strength of your and your confidence in your facts[/b], you think that if you take semantics and make it about charges then everyone will forget you are yet to provide a single fact in your allegations that the the FBI conspired with and censored a story on two SM coys, nice try but fail! You've only verified your excellence in stupidity!

BraniacX:
establishing legally provable facts in civil and/or criminal allegations naturally lead to prosecutions or charges in court, the absence of a single charge against the FBI and/or Facebook and Twitter concerning conspiracy and censorship even after a Republican led congressional hearing under a Republican president and DOJ naturally and logically concludes that "there was no fact attached to these allegations" or there was no meat on this bone! so dimwitted dolt that you are, regret though I do the necessity of having to explain everything to you like I would a retard, charge in this case is linked to establishing for a fact the allegations of conspiracy and censorship against the FBI and SM coys!. Case in comparison, criminal trump and his trump organisation are facing many charges in court because prosecutors believe they have "FACTS" that will corroborate their accusations in court so yes, no charges no conspiracy or censorship you simple minded dolt! Even civil charges zilch so therefore zilch conspiracies and censorships

BraniacX:
good, good, you're learning, you're taking a smarter tack than the self opinionated dolt called benalvino3 and quoting directly from the report. Now my question for you is this, all the excerpts you quoted, singly or combined together, do they validate a charge of either conspiracy and/or censorship against the FBI and both Facebook and Twitter? Mind you I am asking of "charge" not "allegation", one is legally actionable the other not so much.
Also forgive me this one foray into whattaboutism, if I concede to you the allegations part from a conservative perspective, in what terms will you then describe the actions of fox entertainment network over the years of refusing to carry news items like the January 6 hearings, anchors and hosts advising and conversing with the then President Trump on policy issues and framing of news items? Will same conspiracy and fraud accurately cover these same allegations/charges? Or do your standards apply only to one spectrum of the news outlets?

IjeBos:

Honestly, you don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about and it sounds like incoherent rambling. And I'm not taking my time to go through it with you.
My suggestion. Research, Read and Think. Read not only articles of those you agree with but those you don't, esp. with a discerning mind. It'll help you sharpen you arguments. I gave you an article to read and I'm sure you know how to use google. Read up on the US legal system. Sentencing and how intent plays a role. How Jury Trial works and unanimous verdicts work. If you are interested in really learning more, will point you to some good places for unbiased info. But not following you down the rabbit hole

This isn't a disagreement about subjective matters yet. Your FACTS are just wrong.

Edit: This is important/ You have to understand Trump is a masterful marketer/propogandist. He said "there was no way he can get Justice in deep blue Washington DC, New York and California", so when he did get in trouble people like you would defend him. He primed your brain to disbelief anyone but him. And it worked. That's what serial abusers do. In the US, trials are by unanimous verdict. And both prosecutors and defense attorneys get to shape the jury and can even dismiss certain jurors they dislike. So, your argument has to be that in any of these places there were 0 Trump Supporters who made it on the jury? Because even 1 person not agreeing that he was guilty would lead to a "hung jury".

BraniacX:
you braindead dodo! FBI attorney, not FBI agent! Not at the instigation of the FBI as an institution! I already saw this as the lame raft you will cling on to to save your brainless argument, even special counsel Durham knows the distinction that you the chairidi0t of association of headline readers does not and that is why his three year investigation is a colossal failure like you

According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian government. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as “Individual #1.”

benalvino3:


Fool, who told you I was referring to the article?
you said he was a minor player and I responded to you and the excerpt you presented.

Do you have any counterpoint or you are gonna pretend to have said something here

stay your corner Mr. "Look at me, I live in the US"

IjeBos:


Background, I followed Mr. Durham's case extensively, even reading the briefs that were submitted in both cases that went to trail. Clinesmith is a minor player. What he did was illegal, but his intent was just to save himself time. That's why he only got 1 year probation (I'll assume you know what probation means). Basically, his lie wouldn't have changed the direction of the investigation.

In fact both Durham trials were nonsense and will be probably thought in Law schools as Prosecutorial OVERREACH . In one trial the judge had to dismiss a count. Durham tried to charge the defendant with lying about saying he talked to someone. The judge Trenga said “the standard definition of talk means spoken speech,” and it is “literally true” that sending an email does not meet the definition of talking, and so “criminal liability” cannot apply here." Think about that, Durham dragged someone to court and charged them with something the PLAIN definition of the word disagrees with. Lol.

Now all the Durham trials had to have unanimous verdicts. So, jurors from the general population are randomly sent jury notices to show up to court. Both the defense and prosecution whittle these people down to 12 (and alternates). They do that by asking questions to try to figure out if they have biases and ultimately figure out if the juror would favor their side. So say a city voted 70-30 for Biden and that city is where the trial is. Then by probability, there would be maybe 2 or 3 Trump voters on that jury. In both of Durham's trials, the jury unanimously came back as not-guilty. Now it would have taken just 1 juror to prevent that by voting Guilty. Then it would have been a mistrial. Not only that both juries came to their decisions quickly. After trial one of the jurors in one of the cases basically said it was a waste of time and the Durham should have focused on something better.
Just to some background, DOJ (Durham was appointed from) usually wins 90% of the cases it brings. Durham lost both and is taking 2 plus years. The only guilt was Clinesmith and his 1 year probation, which the Inspector General found and forwarded to Durham. Contrast that to what Mueller did in the Russia investigation. Mueller convicted 34 people and 3 companies in less time. So, all the biased NY, DC talk would matter if 1.) The pool of juries isn't a random representation of the populace, they are 2.)the juries didn't have to make unanimous Guilty/Not Guilty decisions. They do. 3) If even 1 juror had decided differently and caused a mistrial, They didn't. It's really really really hard for the DOJ to lose a case it brings. The fact it did in the manner it did should tell you how BS it all was.

Read the Republican Report on Russia.

benalvino3:

take SBF for example, he did not do any fraud if he is not charged right

tamudabu:


You'd likely understand how stupid the above sounds when you change it to "dump did not do anything wrong if he is not charged".

I'm sure you know we libbys disagree and are still investigating how much of what book to throw at his criminal ass.

IjeBos:


Is that what you got from that article? Holy Shit. It's like you read the English words on the page and your mind translated them to something else.

benalvino3:


I was talking to directly to someone else. How you make this about TDS and you, I don't know. 247 trump is in your head.

tamudabu:


Dump is the reason for this thread since like 6-7 years now Ben, in case you thought we never noticed. We've only recently been able to remove your mouth from his behind.

benalvino3:


They would not have gotten the FISA Warrant if he did not lie. So it changes everything.

benalvino3:

Mueller does not even know the genesis of what he was investigating, what fusion GPS is.

IjeBos:


Where did you get this from? Point to your source?
Here is my source; a Federal judge who looked at all the evidence.

Boasberg agreed on that point as well, saying he wasn’t convinced that fully disclosing Page’s relationship with the CIA would have led to the surveillance of him being denied or ended.
“It is not at all clear to me the FISA warrant….would not have been signed but for this error,” the judge said.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/29/fbi-lawyer-trump-russia-probe-email-463750

Oh yeah, Boasberg must be a Deep State Asset.



Let's assume you are 100% right in this in this nonsense. What was Durham's(who had all the same power Mueller did) reason for not finding anything? Oh yeah, he must be a "Deep State" Asset as well. Or all the Judges he faced were "Deep State" assets as well. Maybe the "Deep State" rigged the jury process. Or maybe the "Deep State" just paid off everyone involved.

You see how lazy your logic is. Instead of actually justifying you're position with a coherent argument, you just yell "DEEP STATE". You are in Nigeria talking about "deep state" conspiracies in another country. Mental illness is real. Get yourself checked.

benalvino3:


or you are just an addicted crap. lol
American politics is the reason for this thread, not trump. you don't even know why you are here.

after you will cry you can't keep a McDonald's job because of the white man

tamudabu:


Last 6 - 7 years, Ben, dump is all you and your cohorts have been going on about. Some of you still believe he's the president, or don't you anymore?

adamusuleiman1:
US government scientists have made a breakthrough in the pursuit of limitless, zero-carbon power by achieving a net energy gain in a fusion reaction for the first time, according to three people with knowledge of preliminary results from a recent experiment.

Physicists have since the 1950s sought to harness the fusion reaction that powers the sun, but no group had been able to produce more energy from the reaction than it consumes — a milestone known as net energy gain or target gain, which would help prove the process could provide a reliable, abundant alternative to fossil fuels and conventional nuclear energy.

benalvino3:


The Judge is not in the FISA Court, what he corruptly thinks does not matter. If what he is saying is true, then what is the point of Lying to the FISA court?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fisa-court-slams-fbi-conduct/index.html
What this corrupt DC judge say is in his own head.

benalvino3:

where is your evidence that Durham did not find anything? do you have dementia? This FBI FISA court lie was Durhams Finding... try and keep up

IjeBos:


And in your own words, please explain to me what the FISA court slamming the FBI has to do with the Boasberg belief that the Clinesmith's conduct wouldn't have changed anything?

IjeBos:

You know both can be true. The FISA court which relies on the truth in FISA documents can be upset that FBI submitted a non FULLY factual application but that even if the APPLICATION was submitted without the offending part it would have still been approved. See; Adults CAN REASON.

This order responds to reports that personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
provided false information to the National Security Division (NSD) of the Department of Justice,
and withheld material information from NSD which was detrimental to the FBI's case, in
connection with four applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for
authority to conduct electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen named Carter W. Page.
1 When FBI personnel mislead NSD in the ways described above, they equally mislead the FISC.

1 The government reported to the FISC certain misstatements and omissions in July 2018, see Department
of Justice Office of Inspector General, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's
Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (Dec. 9, 2019), at 167-68, 230-31 (OIG Report); however, the FISC
first learned ofthe misstatements and omissions discussed herein on December 9, 2019, or, in the case of
the conduct of the FBI attorney discussed below, from submissions made by the government on October
25, 2019, and November 27, 2019.
· An electronic surveillance application must "be made by a Federal officer in writing upon
oath or affirmation." § 1804(a). 2 When it is the FBI that seeks to conduct the surveillance, the
Federal officer who makes the application is an FBI agent, who swears to the facts in the
application. The FISC judge makes the required probable cause determination "on the basis of
the facts submitted by the applicant." § 1805(a)(2) (emphasis added); see also§ 1804(c) (a FISC
· judge "may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be_ necessary to make
the determinations required by" Section 1805) (emphasis added). Those statutory provisions
reflect the reality that, in the first instance, it is the applicant agency that possesses information
relevant to the probable cause determination, as well as the means to potentially acquire
additional information.

1.) I don't prove negatives. The 2 Not Guilty Jury Verdicts I've already talked about above would be sufficient for a rational person.

benalvino3:


Because he was not the one that was deceived, he is not a body of the FISA court, he cannot make assertions for the Court that was deceived. if he would have changed anything, why did the FISA court said the FBI abused the court?


You are not part of the FISA court, you cannot make assertions based on anything. If it will be approved, why did they alter the and omit key information?

From FISC


Do you see that they were misled? who are you or that partisan judge to say nothing would have changed?



an irrational person cannot be rational. the fact that you said you don't prove negative shows are stupid you are.

IjeBos:


It's like explaining Us government to you. You spin like a top.
1.) You don't seem to understand what the FISA court is.
The FISA court just consists of individual Judges who are picked by the chief Justice to rule on FISA applications. Because of the secrecy of the matters before each Judge, the Judges have to trust the things the FBI tells them when seeking applications. There is no adversarial system, no defense council, just the FBI asking the court to allow them to invade our rights. So, lies or omissions in the applications are serious, BECAUSE THE JUDGES HAVE TO TRUST THEM . That is what they were speaking to. But you can prove me wrong, by just posting the part where they say "they wouldn't have approved the application based on the omission". Again, you are inferring things the statement does not say.
How the court works:
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf

2.)Now Boasberg is a federal judge. He may be appointed to be on the Fisa Court next. Who knows. But when a matter comes before a Federal Judge, he gets to see everything no matter how classified. So, this Judge, who saw everything, then decided that he believes, it wouldn't have changed anything. What is the difference between him and the Judge who initially ruled on it? They both had the same information. None.. just you deciding to call him Partisan because he doesn't believe what you want him to believe.

3.) Example: A kid tells his mom his friend said their teacher says they need $20 for a field trip tomm in school. The mom asks the son if he asked the teacher directly. The son, not wanting to take the time to ask the teacher says yes. The mom gives him the money. The mom later finds out that the son lied about directly asking his teacher. But the Mom also does know for a fact the teacher did say they needed the money.

Does the boy lying about asking the teacher mean that Mom wouldn't have given him the money knowing the teacher said it was needed? That situation is akin to this one. Which you are making like there was some coup on the US. Without the omission, the underlying facts supported the application. PERIOD

adamusuleiman1:
Average U.S. gasoline prices are now the lowest since October 2021.

tamudabu:


Dump is the reason for this thread since like 6-7 years now Ben, in case you thought we never noticed. We've only recently been able to remove your mouth from his behind.

benalvino3:


I was talking to directly to someone else. How you make this about TDS and you, I don't know. 247 trump is in your head.

tamudabu:


You'd likely understand how stupid the above sounds when you change it to "dump did not do anything wrong if he is not charged".

I'm sure you know we libbys disagree and are still investigating how much of what book to throw at his criminal ass.

IjeBos:


It's like explaining Us government to you. You spin like a top.
1.) You don't seem to understand what the FISA court is.
The FISA court just consists of individual Judges who are picked by the chief Justice to rule on FISA applications. Because of the secrecy of the matters before each Judge, the Judges have to trust the things the FBI tells them when seeking applications. There is no adversarial system, no defense council, just the FBI asking the court to allow them to invade our rights. So, lies or omissions in the applications are serious, BECAUSE THE JUDGES HAVE TO TRUST THEM . That is what they were speaking to. But you can prove me wrong, by just posting the part where they say "they wouldn't have approved the application based on the omission". Again, you are inferring things the statement does not say.
How the court works:
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf

2.)Now Boasberg is a federal judge. He may be appointed to be on the Fisa Court next. Who knows. But when a matter comes before a Federal Judge, he gets to see everything no matter how classified. So, this Judge, who saw everything, then decided that he believes, it wouldn't have changed anything. What is the difference between him and the Judge who initially ruled on it? They both had the same information. None.. just you deciding to call him Partisan because he doesn't believe what you want him to believe.

3.) Example: A kid tells his mom his friend said their teacher says they need $20 for a field trip tomm in school. The mom asks the son if he asked the teacher directly. The son, not wanting to take the time to ask the teacher says yes. The mom gives him the money. The mom later finds out that the son lied about directly asking his teacher. But the Mom also does know for a fact the teacher did say they needed the money.

Does the boy lying about asking the teacher mean that Mom wouldn't have given him the money knowing the teacher said it was needed? That situation is akin to this one. Which you are making like there was some coup on the US. Without the omission, the underlying facts supported the application. PERIOD

Weregonnalose:



kikikiki ya isa slowpoke. kikikikiki

benalvino3:


You mention trump way more than trump supporters here. You are addicted. Everything is trump for you. This thread is about politics, people try to discuss other things but poor you suffering from TDS sees trump in every word people type. Seek help asap