- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,305
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony
In other words his job was to evaluate the procedural aspects of the investigation."Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation"
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
I form my opinions off the facts in the report and the explainations Horowitz gives to explain his conclusions.This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony
The FBI had reason to begin doing surveillance, not 'spy' on the Trump campaign. The FBI conducted counterintelligence operations just like they are supposed to. The FBI took what they had to the FISA court, and showed it to the judges there who reviewed everything. Based on that, they granted the FBI a FISA Warrant to obtain more information legally.
In May 2016, George Papadopolous made comments to a diplomat which found their way back to the FBI. That was what first kicked off the investigation into the Trump campaign, not the Steele dossier. The attempt by an undercover agent to find out more information occurred several months after that. Then they found others in the campaign with close associations to Russian oligarchs. Through the monitoring of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates they ultimately revealed a slew of inappropriate contacts and potential information brokering that fell short of the legal benchmark of cooperative conspiracy.
A long-awaited report into the origins of the Russia probe found no evidence of a political conspiracy against President Trump.
But the Justice Department’s inspector general criticized the FBI’s handling of wiretap applications used in the early stages of the investigation.
William Brangham reports and Judy Woodruff talks to John Carlin, former assistant attorney general for national security.
it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.
THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.
they accomplished their goal and the rubes eat it up.
it's pretty genius really. just lie like crazy, be crooks, play the victim and claim God is directing Trump/Republicans.
it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.
THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.
they accomplished their goal and the rubes eat it up.
it's pretty genius really. just lie like crazy, be crooks, play the victim and claim God is directing Trump/Republicans.
Trumpsterism is replete with victim hood. It is a core value of lower class white resentment.
This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony
This seems to be a three sides to the reports when it comes to Trump's assertion that his campaign was "spied on" by the FBI. The first is the DOJ IG, the second Durham and then Barr. Now I look at the three and who do I believe?
First there is the IG who is a nonpartisan. His report says no spying but some mistakes made by the FBI in one of their FISA warrants. Ever been inspected by an IG, I can tell you they always find something wrong, but this seems like a minor detail when the IG is saying that the investigation was based on the facts and was above board.
Then we have Barr, a Trump supporter extraordinaire. He is certainly not by any standards nonpartisan. And he could also be in trouble for stating there was spying when testifying before congress. He says that the IG's report is false, even though he really knows nothing but his wish to protect Trump.
Finally we come to Durham. Even though there was an appropriate DOJ IG investigation into the matter, Barr could not rely on that report to say as he and Trump wanted, so he hand picked Durham. Durham again can not be considered as nonpartisan as he was Barr's choice and Barr would not pick anyone who would not give him the answers he wanted. Of course to no one's surprise the hand picked choice of Barr again does not agree with the IG and You can be assured his report will say there was "spying".
So who should I believe, the one person who is nonpartisan and does this for a living, the hand picked partisan investagator, or the Barr, both partisan and acting as Trump's lawyer rather than the AG? I think I will stick to the DOJ IG, but of course all of the Trumpsters will believe Barr and his hand picked crony
It is amazing how Barr is more concerned about the President’s feelings than the facts. It has abundantly clear Barr does not have the people’s best interest in mind whatsoever.
The IG report did not conclude the FBI actions were above board.
You don't know the mission and scope of the review
For those interested in knowing:
"Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation, or specific judgment calls made during the course of an investigation, where those decisions complied with or were authorized by Department rules, policies, or procedures."
What are you talking about?
it doesn't matter. the three giant liars (Trump, Limbaugh and Hannity) got the lie out there that Trump was illegally spied on.
THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.
Yep
The deplorables news source. Tell them what they want to believe is true.
Barr is appeasing Trump with his ridiculous statements.
Do you understand the Department’s rules, policies and procedures are written to coincide within the federal laws they are sworn to enforce?
In order for someone to be charged criminally Durham will have to show intent. Intent matters.
Stay tuned. I appears you worst fears will be realized.
What are the statements that you consider to be ridiculous?
Please link to the quotes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?