Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He explained how he corroborated many of his conclusions. Most of which were by reviewing the actions of the decision makers and all who were involved in each process to determine whether bias existed and if it effected the outcome. He concluded it didn’tHow did he address it?no, you are making that up too. He address it during the hearing today which you clearly didn’t watch. Keep talking though. It’s entertainingread the report. It doesn’t say they spied on trump. It said the investigation was valid and not started out of political bias. The FISA renewal for Carter page involved a doctored email trying to dismiss a witness, there there are issues around thatNo, I didn't make it up. What is their legitimate justification for spying on the Trump campaign?not according to this report. You’re just making that up. Time to update those broken record talking points
Get your facts straight and stop making things up.
Meaningless. Horowitz just accepts what the people questions tells him about their motives.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/william-barr-has-suddenly-become-chatty-and-hes-provided-quite-an-information-dump_3171471.html?irclickid=Q82zYPS4lxyJR3k0MdV3iVCmUknyFvzxxx:xWE0&irgwc=1
11. The Inspector General operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he cannot find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.
12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz did not rule out improper motive; he did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.
Your preferences are irrelevant bullshit. Horowitz is a career bureaucrat who is protecting his hide, as they all do. Making enemies in the just department isn't going to be good for his career.Barr is a political player in my book. He has not proven to be objective in the least. I respect Horowitz... go ahead and point to anytime he said Obama spied on Trump... you can’t cause it didn’t happenQuit pretending that you have read the report. We all know you haven't read a 500 page report in two days.read the report. It doesn’t say they spied on trump. It said the investigation was valid and not started out of political bias. The FISA renewal for Carter page involved a doctored email trying to dismiss a witness, there there are issues around thatNo, I didn't make it up. What is their legitimate justification for spying on the Trump campaign?not according to this report. You’re just making that up. Time to update those broken record talking pointsOnly because douchebags like Comey, Brennan and Strozk are utterly corrupt. Their "suspicions" were just an excuse for spying on Trump.
Get your facts straight and stop making things up.
William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty— and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump.
2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.
6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”
Their actions indicate massive bias. Every "error" these deep state douchebag made was in the favor of Hillary and against Trump. How is that not bias?He explained how he corroborated many of his conclusions. Most of which were by reviewing the actions of the decision makers and all who were involved in each process to determine whether bias existed and if it effected the outcome. He concluded it didn’tHow did he address it?no, you are making that up too. He address it during the hearing today which you clearly didn’t watch. Keep talking though. It’s entertainingread the report. It doesn’t say they spied on trump. It said the investigation was valid and not started out of political bias. The FISA renewal for Carter page involved a doctored email trying to dismiss a witness, there there are issues around thatNo, I didn't make it up. What is their legitimate justification for spying on the Trump campaign?
Get your facts straight and stop making things up.
Meaningless. Horowitz just accepts what the people questions tells him about their motives.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/william-barr-has-suddenly-become-chatty-and-hes-provided-quite-an-information-dump_3171471.html?irclickid=Q82zYPS4lxyJR3k0MdV3iVCmUknyFvzxxx:xWE0&irgwc=1
11. The Inspector General operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he cannot find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.
12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz did not rule out improper motive; he did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.
well it’s your preference to make basis accusations but I’m not going to respect that. Horowitz conducted a detailed investigation and has a 400 page report backing up his conclusions. He isn’t a solo actor he had a team around him and is subject to congressional oversite. Dismiss that all you want but don’t expect to be taken seriouslyYour preferences are irrelevant bullshit. Horowitz is a career bureaucrat who is protecting his hide, as they all do. Making enemies in the just department isn't going to be good for his career.Barr is a political player in my book. He has not proven to be objective in the least. I respect Horowitz... go ahead and point to anytime he said Obama spied on Trump... you can’t cause it didn’t happenQuit pretending that you have read the report. We all know you haven't read a 500 page report in two days.read the report. It doesn’t say they spied on trump. It said the investigation was valid and not started out of political bias. The FISA renewal for Carter page involved a doctored email trying to dismiss a witness, there there are issues around thatNo, I didn't make it up. What is their legitimate justification for spying on the Trump campaign?not according to this report. You’re just making that up. Time to update those broken record talking points
Get your facts straight and stop making things up.
William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty— and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump.
2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.
6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”
i doubt Hillary had much of anything to do with this. That’s all presumptions on your part. Typically investigators want to catch the bad guys. Unfortunately some skirt around the rules to get things done and others fully abuse their power and break the law. Apparently one guy did that in regards to Pages warrant.Their actions indicate massive bias. Every "error" these deep state douchebag made was in the favor of Hillary and against Trump. How is that not bias?He explained how he corroborated many of his conclusions. Most of which were by reviewing the actions of the decision makers and all who were involved in each process to determine whether bias existed and if it effected the outcome. He concluded it didn’tHow did he address it?no, you are making that up too. He address it during the hearing today which you clearly didn’t watch. Keep talking though. It’s entertainingread the report. It doesn’t say they spied on trump. It said the investigation was valid and not started out of political bias. The FISA renewal for Carter page involved a doctored email trying to dismiss a witness, there there are issues around that
Get your facts straight and stop making things up.
Meaningless. Horowitz just accepts what the people questions tells him about their motives.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/william-barr-has-suddenly-become-chatty-and-hes-provided-quite-an-information-dump_3171471.html?irclickid=Q82zYPS4lxyJR3k0MdV3iVCmUknyFvzxxx:xWE0&irgwc=1
11. The Inspector General operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he cannot find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.
12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz did not rule out improper motive; he did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.
You just accused Barr of being a "political player." What's the basis for that?well it’s your preference to make basis accusations but I’m not going to respect that. Horowitz conducted a detailed investigation and has a 400 page report backing up his conclusions. He isn’t a solo actor he had a team around him and is subject to congressional oversite. Dismiss that all you want but don’t expect to be taken seriouslyYour preferences are irrelevant bullshit. Horowitz is a career bureaucrat who is protecting his hide, as they all do. Making enemies in the just department isn't going to be good for his career.Barr is a political player in my book. He has not proven to be objective in the least. I respect Horowitz... go ahead and point to anytime he said Obama spied on Trump... you can’t cause it didn’t happenQuit pretending that you have read the report. We all know you haven't read a 500 page report in two days.read the report. It doesn’t say they spied on trump. It said the investigation was valid and not started out of political bias. The FISA renewal for Carter page involved a doctored email trying to dismiss a witness, there there are issues around thatNo, I didn't make it up. What is their legitimate justification for spying on the Trump campaign?
Get your facts straight and stop making things up.
William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty— and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump.
2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.
6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”
Hillary paid for dossier, dumbass.i doubt Hillary had much of anything to do with this. That’s all presumptions on your part. Typically investigators want to catch the bad guys. Unfortunately some skirt around the rules to get things done and others fully abuse their power and break the law. Apparently one guy did that in regards to Pages warrant.Their actions indicate massive bias. Every "error" these deep state douchebag made was in the favor of Hillary and against Trump. How is that not bias?He explained how he corroborated many of his conclusions. Most of which were by reviewing the actions of the decision makers and all who were involved in each process to determine whether bias existed and if it effected the outcome. He concluded it didn’tHow did he address it?no, you are making that up too. He address it during the hearing today which you clearly didn’t watch. Keep talking though. It’s entertainingMeaningless. Horowitz just accepts what the people questions tells him about their motives.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/william-barr-has-suddenly-become-chatty-and-hes-provided-quite-an-information-dump_3171471.html?irclickid=Q82zYPS4lxyJR3k0MdV3iVCmUknyFvzxxx:xWE0&irgwc=1
11. The Inspector General operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he cannot find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.
12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz did not rule out improper motive; he did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.
I say that about Barr because twice now he has released inaccurate and politically spun summaries of two reports that were easily contrasted when compared to the actual reports.You just accused Barr of being a "political player." What's the basis for that?well it’s your preference to make basis accusations but I’m not going to respect that. Horowitz conducted a detailed investigation and has a 400 page report backing up his conclusions. He isn’t a solo actor he had a team around him and is subject to congressional oversite. Dismiss that all you want but don’t expect to be taken seriouslyYour preferences are irrelevant bullshit. Horowitz is a career bureaucrat who is protecting his hide, as they all do. Making enemies in the just department isn't going to be good for his career.Barr is a political player in my book. He has not proven to be objective in the least. I respect Horowitz... go ahead and point to anytime he said Obama spied on Trump... you can’t cause it didn’t happenQuit pretending that you have read the report. We all know you haven't read a 500 page report in two days.read the report. It doesn’t say they spied on trump. It said the investigation was valid and not started out of political bias. The FISA renewal for Carter page involved a doctored email trying to dismiss a witness, there there are issues around that
Get your facts straight and stop making things up.
William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty— and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump.
2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.
6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”
Barr had been investigating this issue for months. He is also subject to Congressional oversight. You simply prefer what Horowitz says because it's easier to spin. However, it doesn't really support you narrative.
So?Hillary paid for dossier, dumbass.i doubt Hillary had much of anything to do with this. That’s all presumptions on your part. Typically investigators want to catch the bad guys. Unfortunately some skirt around the rules to get things done and others fully abuse their power and break the law. Apparently one guy did that in regards to Pages warrant.Their actions indicate massive bias. Every "error" these deep state douchebag made was in the favor of Hillary and against Trump. How is that not bias?He explained how he corroborated many of his conclusions. Most of which were by reviewing the actions of the decision makers and all who were involved in each process to determine whether bias existed and if it effected the outcome. He concluded it didn’tHow did he address it?no, you are making that up too. He address it during the hearing today which you clearly didn’t watch. Keep talking though. It’s entertaining
Wrong, douchebag, they were 100% accurate.I say that about Barr because twice now he has released inaccurate and politically spun summaries of two reports that were easily contrasted when compared to the actual reports.You just accused Barr of being a "political player." What's the basis for that?well it’s your preference to make basis accusations but I’m not going to respect that. Horowitz conducted a detailed investigation and has a 400 page report backing up his conclusions. He isn’t a solo actor he had a team around him and is subject to congressional oversite. Dismiss that all you want but don’t expect to be taken seriouslyYour preferences are irrelevant bullshit. Horowitz is a career bureaucrat who is protecting his hide, as they all do. Making enemies in the just department isn't going to be good for his career.Barr is a political player in my book. He has not proven to be objective in the least. I respect Horowitz... go ahead and point to anytime he said Obama spied on Trump... you can’t cause it didn’t happenQuit pretending that you have read the report. We all know you haven't read a 500 page report in two days.
William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty— and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump.
2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.
6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”
Barr had been investigating this issue for months. He is also subject to Congressional oversight. You simply prefer what Horowitz says because it's easier to spin. However, it doesn't really support you narrative.
You just said "i doubt Hillary had much of anything to do with this." Horowitz's report was all about FISA abuse.So?Hillary paid for dossier, dumbass.i doubt Hillary had much of anything to do with this. That’s all presumptions on your part. Typically investigators want to catch the bad guys. Unfortunately some skirt around the rules to get things done and others fully abuse their power and break the law. Apparently one guy did that in regards to Pages warrant.Their actions indicate massive bias. Every "error" these deep state douchebag made was in the favor of Hillary and against Trump. How is that not bias?He explained how he corroborated many of his conclusions. Most of which were by reviewing the actions of the decision makers and all who were involved in each process to determine whether bias existed and if it effected the outcome. He concluded it didn’tHow did he address it?
not even closeWrong, douchebag, they were 100% accurate.I say that about Barr because twice now he has released inaccurate and politically spun summaries of two reports that were easily contrasted when compared to the actual reports.You just accused Barr of being a "political player." What's the basis for that?well it’s your preference to make basis accusations but I’m not going to respect that. Horowitz conducted a detailed investigation and has a 400 page report backing up his conclusions. He isn’t a solo actor he had a team around him and is subject to congressional oversite. Dismiss that all you want but don’t expect to be taken seriouslyYour preferences are irrelevant bullshit. Horowitz is a career bureaucrat who is protecting his hide, as they all do. Making enemies in the just department isn't going to be good for his career.Barr is a political player in my book. He has not proven to be objective in the least. I respect Horowitz... go ahead and point to anytime he said Obama spied on Trump... you can’t cause it didn’t happen
Barr had been investigating this issue for months. He is also subject to Congressional oversight. You simply prefer what Horowitz says because it's easier to spin. However, it doesn't really support you narrative.
so what? You said these infractions were done to favor Hillary and I called bullshitYou just said "i doubt Hillary had much of anything to do with this." Horowitz's report was all about FISA abuse.So?Hillary paid for dossier, dumbass.i doubt Hillary had much of anything to do with this. That’s all presumptions on your part. Typically investigators want to catch the bad guys. Unfortunately some skirt around the rules to get things done and others fully abuse their power and break the law. Apparently one guy did that in regards to Pages warrant.Their actions indicate massive bias. Every "error" these deep state douchebag made was in the favor of Hillary and against Trump. How is that not bias?He explained how he corroborated many of his conclusions. Most of which were by reviewing the actions of the decision makers and all who were involved in each process to determine whether bias existed and if it effected the outcome. He concluded it didn’t
No.7. It was “wrong” for the FBI to presume the Trump campaign was part of a plot. They should have gone to the campaign and discussed their suspicions.
Is that the standard operating procedures?
Do they normally go to suspects and talk about it with them?
Apparently you didn't read this one.I read the Reich Minister's 24 Points, and I don't see anything in there about the imminent arrest of Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, James Comey, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice as promised.
Huh!
24. Why haven’t you already thrown people in prison? “These things take time.” The government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we indict; it’s a substantial hurdle. Nobody is going to be indicted and go to jail unless that standard is met.
and Kilimnik, Gates, Cohen, Papadopoulos, van der Zwaan, Pinedo, Patten, Kian, and Alptekin. Plus the 13 Russian nationals.Apparently you didn't read this one.I read the Reich Minister's 24 Points, and I don't see anything in there about the imminent arrest of Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, James Comey, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice as promised.
Huh!
24. Why haven’t you already thrown people in prison? “These things take time.” The government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we indict; it’s a substantial hurdle. Nobody is going to be indicted and go to jail unless that standard is met.
see Flynn, Stone and Manafort for proof
ROFL!No.7. It was “wrong” for the FBI to presume the Trump campaign was part of a plot. They should have gone to the campaign and discussed their suspicions.
Is that the standard operating procedures?
Do they normally go to suspects and talk about it with them?
given the numerous convictions and guilty pleas from the blob’s campaign staff, the FBI actions were proper.
Who are Kilimnik, re van der Zwaan, Pinedo, Patten, Kian, and Alptekin?and Kilimnik, Gates, Cohen, Papadopoulos, van der Zwaan, Pinedo, Patten, Kian, and Alptekin. Plus the 13 Russian nationals.Apparently you didn't read this one.I read the Reich Minister's 24 Points, and I don't see anything in there about the imminent arrest of Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, James Comey, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice as promised.
Huh!
24. Why haven’t you already thrown people in prison? “These things take time.” The government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we indict; it’s a substantial hurdle. Nobody is going to be indicted and go to jail unless that standard is met.
see Flynn, Stone and Manafort for proof
Mueller's Russia hoax investigation sure found a lot of witches!
Which were convicted of colluding with Russians?No.7. It was “wrong” for the FBI to presume the Trump campaign was part of a plot. They should have gone to the campaign and discussed their suspicions.
Is that the standard operating procedures?
Do they normally go to suspects and talk about it with them?
given the numerous convictions and guilty pleas from the blob’s campaign staff, the FBI actions were proper.
