Repubs haven't just crossed the Rubicon, they've built a bridge over it.

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JGalt]

There was a lack of evidence of political bias because nobody the IG questioned would admit to it.

Just because you can't find the body and the suspect won't admit to the crime, doesn't mean that the murder wasn't committed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There is no evidence to match anything. Just hearsay, hate for trump, and emotional rants. No substance or evidence.

 

[Oddball]

Good morning and happy Groundhog Day!

 

[berg80]

During his congressional testimony yesterday IG Horowitz said he had a conversation with renown sock puppet John Dunham during which the predicate for the FBI investigation in to Trump's campaign was discussed. Dunham's position was that while a "full" investigation by the FBI was not, in his opinion, warranted a "preliminary" investigation was warranted.
But when Billy the Bagman instructed Dunham to undercut the IG report with unprecedented commentary on Monday (timed with Billy's own statement for maximum media impact) he made no mention of the subtle distinction between a full and preliminary investigation. He simply said he disagreed with some of the IG report's conclusions. Why? Because the intent of issuing the statement was to do Barr's (and therefore Trump's) bidding by sprinkling some doublethink on the IG report.

 

[berg80]

There is no evidence to match anything. Just hearsay, hate for trump, and emotional rants. No substance or evidence.

That's the ticket! Overwhelming evidence is no evidence. You catch on fast.

 

[OldLady]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

We all need to take what Barr says on the matter with a grain of salt. When the A.G. himself consistently uses the word "spy" to describe the surveillance by his own law enforcement professionals, you know there is strong bias involved.
If it weren't for "spy," I might consider that he is just a real stickler for detail. But no, it's pretty clear he is hunting for whatever he can to discredit the FBI's look into what in hell was going on in the Trump campaign as it related to Russian contacts.
Barr is not a reputable spokesman. He is one of the hacks.

 

[Oddball]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

I get it....You're bucking for a job writing teleprompter copy for Fredo Cuomo and Don LeMon.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Civil War: How do civil wars happen? - Towns

Democrats are leaving themselves no choice in their headlong rush to communism.

 

[G.T.]

During his congressional testimony yesterday IG Horowitz said he had a conversation with renown sock puppet John Dunham during which the predicate for the FBI investigation in to Trump's campaign was discussed. Dunham's position was that while a "full" investigation by the FBI was not, in his opinion, warranted a "preliminary" investigation was warranted.
But when Billy the Bagman instructed Dunham to undercut the IG report with unprecedented commentary on Monday (timed with Billy's own statement for maximum media impact) he made no mention of the subtle distinction between a full and preliminary investigation. He simply said he disagreed with some of the IG report's conclusions. Why? Because the intent of issuing the statement was to do Barr's (and therefore Trump's) bidding by sprinkling some doublethink on the IG report.

I saw that testimony.

It's very subtle ways like this that Politicians use to deceive their gullible wingtards.

There was also a subtle distinction not being made - that the FISA warrant was just one small aspect of the investigation, not the whole investigation. We nevermind this distinction if we're attached to an Orange Ballsac, like a true Cultist would be.

 

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

We all need to take what Barr says on the matter with a grain of salt. When the A.G. himself consistently uses the word "spy" to describe the surveillance by his own law enforcement professionals, you know there is strong bias involved.
If it weren't for "spy," I might consider that he is just a real stickler for detail. But no, it's pretty clear he is hunting for whatever he can to discredit the FBI's look into what in hell was going on in the Trump campaign as it related to Russian contacts.
Barr is not a reputable spokesman. He is one of the hacks.

Yup. The example you give illustrates how insidious his use of language has been to advance the cause of doublethink. "Spying" is a loaded term he has used for the legally justifiable surveillance the FBI engaged in once they correctly determined it was warranted. Billy also went to great lengths to wordsmith the Mueller report prior to its public release so he could set in the public's mind the report "exonerated" Trump when it did nothing of the kind.
Barr is entitled to his advocacy of an imperial presidency.........it's why he was hired. But when he goes so far as to purposely mislead the public in carrying out what is a deceitful PR campaign for Trump he loses all credibility as the chief law enforcement officer for the people. He isn't working for us and hasn't been since day one. He's in the AG's office because Sessions would not go to the extremes Barr has in defending The Don.

 

[berg80]

During his congressional testimony yesterday IG Horowitz said he had a conversation with renown sock puppet John Dunham during which the predicate for the FBI investigation in to Trump's campaign was discussed. Dunham's position was that while a "full" investigation by the FBI was not, in his opinion, warranted a "preliminary" investigation was warranted.
But when Billy the Bagman instructed Dunham to undercut the IG report with unprecedented commentary on Monday (timed with Billy's own statement for maximum media impact) he made no mention of the subtle distinction between a full and preliminary investigation. He simply said he disagreed with some of the IG report's conclusions. Why? Because the intent of issuing the statement was to do Barr's (and therefore Trump's) bidding by sprinkling some doublethink on the IG report.

I saw that testimony.

It's very subtle ways like this that Politicians use to deceive their gullible wingtards.

There was also a subtle distinction not being made - that the FISA warrant was just one small aspect of the investigation, not the whole investigation. We nevermind this distinction if we're attached to an Orange Ballsac, like a true Cultist would be.

Right. Almost all of the misconduct pertained to the aspect of the investigation centering on Carter Page. But if you believe Lindsey Graham's disingenuous screed as he waves his arms and cries wolf you'd think the entire work product is tainted. And that is doublethink.

 

[captkaos]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

We all need to take what Barr says on the matter with a grain of salt. When the A.G. himself consistently uses the word "spy" to describe the surveillance by his own law enforcement professionals, you know there is strong bias involved.
If it weren't for "spy," I might consider that he is just a real stickler for detail. But no, it's pretty clear he is hunting for whatever he can to discredit the FBI's look into what in hell was going on in the Trump campaign as it related to Russian contacts.
Barr is not a reputable spokesman. He is one of the hacks.

Maybe his bias is toward insuring that the law is followed. If my boss doesn't promote me because he doesn't like me that is bias it has nothing to do with Job performance. If the FBI makes a decision to seek FISA warrants based on False, manufactured evidence and lies, then Bias against the subject of the Made up complaint is the only reasonable conclusion. Just because I don't say I'm acting on my personal Political Agenda doesn't mean I am not. Everybody knows I am so they don't need me to say it. And they fall in line or pack their bags!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

During his congressional testimony yesterday IG Horowitz said he had a conversation with renown sock puppet John Dunham during which the predicate for the FBI investigation in to Trump's campaign was discussed. Dunham's position was that while a "full" investigation by the FBI was not, in his opinion, warranted a "preliminary" investigation was warranted.
But when Billy the Bagman instructed Dunham to undercut the IG report with unprecedented commentary on Monday (timed with Billy's own statement for maximum media impact) he made no mention of the subtle distinction between a full and preliminary investigation. He simply said he disagreed with some of the IG report's conclusions. Why? Because the intent of issuing the statement was to do Barr's (and therefore Trump's) bidding by sprinkling some doublethink on the IG report.

There is no help for your mental delusion

 

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

We all need to take what Barr says on the matter with a grain of salt. When the A.G. himself consistently uses the word "spy" to describe the surveillance by his own law enforcement professionals, you know there is strong bias involved.
If it weren't for "spy," I might consider that he is just a real stickler for detail. But no, it's pretty clear he is hunting for whatever he can to discredit the FBI's look into what in hell was going on in the Trump campaign as it related to Russian contacts.
Barr is not a reputable spokesman. He is one of the hacks.

Maybe his bias is toward insuring that the law is followed. If my boss doesn't promote me because he doesn't like me that is bias it has nothing to do with Job performance. If the FBI makes a decision to seek FISA warrants based on False, manufactured evidence and lies, then Bias against the subject of the Made up complaint is the only reasonable conclusion. Just because I don't say I'm acting on my personal Political Agenda doesn't mean I am not. Everybody knows I am so they don't need me to say it. And they fall in line or pack their bags!

Well, he bias appears to be ensuring his boss not be held accountable when he doesn't follow the law. Why else would he ignore the criminal referral made by the CIA's top lawyer over the Zelensky call when solicitation of election help from a foreign entity is illegal?

 

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

We all need to take what Barr says on the matter with a grain of salt. When the A.G. himself consistently uses the word "spy" to describe the surveillance by his own law enforcement professionals, you know there is strong bias involved.
If it weren't for "spy," I might consider that he is just a real stickler for detail. But no, it's pretty clear he is hunting for whatever he can to discredit the FBI's look into what in hell was going on in the Trump campaign as it related to Russian contacts.
Barr is not a reputable spokesman. He is one of the hacks.

Maybe his bias is toward insuring that the law is followed. If my boss doesn't promote me because he doesn't like me that is bias it has nothing to do with Job performance. If the FBI makes a decision to seek FISA warrants based on False, manufactured evidence and lies, then Bias against the subject of the Made up complaint is the only reasonable conclusion. Just because I don't say I'm acting on my personal Political Agenda doesn't mean I am not. Everybody knows I am so they don't need me to say it. And they fall in line or pack their bags!

Well, he bias appears to be ensuring his boss not be held accountable when he doesn't follow the law. Why else would he ignore the criminal referral made by the CIA's top lawyer over the Zelensky call when solicitation of election help from a foreign entity is illegal?

A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine
But the DOJ didn’t pick it up because the CIA’s referral came from a call, not in writing.
A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine

"The CIA’s top lawyer sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on the now-famous whistleblower’s complaint about President Donald Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine. And no, that lawyer isn’t some deep-state conspiracist out to thwart the president: She’s a Trump appointee.

According to NBC News on Friday, CIA general counsel Courtney Simmons Elwood and another top official called the Justice Department on August 14 to make a criminal referral — weeks before the whistleblower complaint had become public.

“On that call, Elwood and John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser to the White House National Security Council, told the top Justice Department national security lawyer, John Demers, that the allegations merited examination by the DOJ, officials said,” NBC News reports.

The DOJ, however, reportedly didn’t consider that to be an official referral because it came in a call, not in writing. (This is important, as you’ll see in just a minute.) As such, the DOJ didn’t look any further into the allegations that Elwood was so concerned about.

In other words, they dropped it."

 

[JGalt]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

We all need to take what Barr says on the matter with a grain of salt. When the A.G. himself consistently uses the word "spy" to describe the surveillance by his own law enforcement professionals, you know there is strong bias involved.
If it weren't for "spy," I might consider that he is just a real stickler for detail. But no, it's pretty clear he is hunting for whatever he can to discredit the FBI's look into what in hell was going on in the Trump campaign as it related to Russian contacts.
Barr is not a reputable spokesman. He is one of the hacks.

Maybe his bias is toward insuring that the law is followed. If my boss doesn't promote me because he doesn't like me that is bias it has nothing to do with Job performance. If the FBI makes a decision to seek FISA warrants based on False, manufactured evidence and lies, then Bias against the subject of the Made up complaint is the only reasonable conclusion. Just because I don't say I'm acting on my personal Political Agenda doesn't mean I am not. Everybody knows I am so they don't need me to say it. And they fall in line or pack their bags!

Well, he bias appears to be ensuring his boss not be held accountable when he doesn't follow the law. Why else would he ignore the criminal referral made by the CIA's top lawyer over the Zelensky call when solicitation of election help from a foreign entity is illegal?

A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine
But the DOJ didn’t pick it up because the CIA’s referral came from a call, not in writing.
A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine

"The CIA’s top lawyer sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on the now-famous whistleblower’s complaint about President Donald Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine. And no, that lawyer isn’t some deep-state conspiracist out to thwart the president: She’s a Trump appointee.

According to NBC News on Friday, CIA general counsel Courtney Simmons Elwood and another top official called the Justice Department on August 14 to make a criminal referral — weeks before the whistleblower complaint had become public.

“On that call, Elwood and John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser to the White House National Security Council, told the top Justice Department national security lawyer, John Demers, that the allegations merited examination by the DOJ, officials said,” NBC News reports.

The DOJ, however, reportedly didn’t consider that to be an official referral because it came in a call, not in writing. (This is important, as you’ll see in just a minute.) As such, the DOJ didn’t look any further into the allegations that Elwood was so concerned about.

In other words, they dropped it."

Keep trying, Bunky. Maybe you'll come up with something to impeach Trump over, during his second term.

 

[berg80]

They've gone full tilt Orwell in their declaration a lack of evidence in the IG report regarding political bias proves there was political bias.

Basically, they are contending that since the evidence didn't match what they wanted the evidence to be...................wait for it..............the evidence is unacceptable. How do you justify not believing the evidence? You claim the person who gathered it is himself politically biased. Therefore, the established criteria for factual evidence is it's awesome if you like it and it's crap if you don't.

Then you trot out the AG, who has already transparently displayed HIS bias, to issue some dubious "yeah buts," followed by his hand picked sock puppet to say, "yeah, what he said."

All of which fits seamlessly in to the fatuous construct Trump has been working on since day one. Namely, all truths are subjective. There's a word from literature for that, it's doublethink.

What do you do about a phone call during which you solicit a foreign leader to help your future political campaign (illegal) while withholding military aid appropriated by Congress (illegal)? You smear some doublethink on it. After trying to hide the transcript in a secure server intended for highly classified material..........you call it "perfect." Make sense? No. Perfect!!!

The goal here is to confuse and deflect. To get people to not recognize the objective truths. Those truths are.....

Trump both solicited and welcomed Russia's help in the 2016 election. Uh oh, time for some doublethink. So he denied he got the help, while obstructing the investigation in to the help he got, while calling the investigators names, and falsely claiming the investigation exonerated him (it didn't). Perfect!!!!!

He illegally solicited the help of Ukraine for his personal political purposes while illegally withholding military aid as leverage. Then he claimed he did nothing wrong while telling everyone involved not to cooperate with the investigation cuz......well.........it's inexplicable as to why witnesses with direct knowledge of his innocence would be prevented from testifying. Time for some doublethink. "I could prove this sham impeachment thing is a sham if I wanted to but I won't cuz it's a sham." Perfect!!!!!!!!!

Confused???? For President Gantry, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

We all need to take what Barr says on the matter with a grain of salt. When the A.G. himself consistently uses the word "spy" to describe the surveillance by his own law enforcement professionals, you know there is strong bias involved.
If it weren't for "spy," I might consider that he is just a real stickler for detail. But no, it's pretty clear he is hunting for whatever he can to discredit the FBI's look into what in hell was going on in the Trump campaign as it related to Russian contacts.
Barr is not a reputable spokesman. He is one of the hacks.

Maybe his bias is toward insuring that the law is followed. If my boss doesn't promote me because he doesn't like me that is bias it has nothing to do with Job performance. If the FBI makes a decision to seek FISA warrants based on False, manufactured evidence and lies, then Bias against the subject of the Made up complaint is the only reasonable conclusion. Just because I don't say I'm acting on my personal Political Agenda doesn't mean I am not. Everybody knows I am so they don't need me to say it. And they fall in line or pack their bags!

Well, he bias appears to be ensuring his boss not be held accountable when he doesn't follow the law. Why else would he ignore the criminal referral made by the CIA's top lawyer over the Zelensky call when solicitation of election help from a foreign entity is illegal?

A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine
But the DOJ didn’t pick it up because the CIA’s referral came from a call, not in writing.
A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine

"The CIA’s top lawyer sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on the now-famous whistleblower’s complaint about President Donald Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine. And no, that lawyer isn’t some deep-state conspiracist out to thwart the president: She’s a Trump appointee.

According to NBC News on Friday, CIA general counsel Courtney Simmons Elwood and another top official called the Justice Department on August 14 to make a criminal referral — weeks before the whistleblower complaint had become public.

“On that call, Elwood and John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser to the White House National Security Council, told the top Justice Department national security lawyer, John Demers, that the allegations merited examination by the DOJ, officials said,” NBC News reports.

The DOJ, however, reportedly didn’t consider that to be an official referral because it came in a call, not in writing. (This is important, as you’ll see in just a minute.) As such, the DOJ didn’t look any further into the allegations that Elwood was so concerned about.

In other words, they dropped it."

Keep trying, Bunky. Maybe you'll come up with something to impeach Trump over, during his second term.

Any comment?

A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine
But the DOJ didn’t pick it up because the CIA’s referral came from a call, not in writing.
A Trump appointee at the CIA urged the Justice Department to investigate Trump on Ukraine

"The CIA’s top lawyer sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on the now-famous whistleblower’s complaint about President Donald Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine. And no, that lawyer isn’t some deep-state conspiracist out to thwart the president: She’s a Trump appointee.

According to NBC News on Friday, CIA general counsel Courtney Simmons Elwood and another top official called the Justice Department on August 14 to make a criminal referral — weeks before the whistleblower complaint had become public.

“On that call, Elwood and John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser to the White House National Security Council, told the top Justice Department national security lawyer, John Demers, that the allegations merited examination by the DOJ, officials said,” NBC News reports.

The DOJ, however, reportedly didn’t consider that to be an official referral because it came in a call, not in writing. (This is important, as you’ll see in just a minute.) As such, the DOJ didn’t look any further into the allegations that Elwood was so concerned about.

In other words, they dropped it."

 

[blackhawk]

The far left really needs to learn the meaning of the word irony.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

During his congressional testimony yesterday IG Horowitz said he had a conversation with renown sock puppet John Dunham during which the predicate for the FBI investigation in to Trump's campaign was discussed. Dunham's position was that while a "full" investigation by the FBI was not, in his opinion, warranted a "preliminary" investigation was warranted.
But when Billy the Bagman instructed Dunham to undercut the IG report with unprecedented commentary on Monday (timed with Billy's own statement for maximum media impact) he made no mention of the subtle distinction between a full and preliminary investigation. He simply said he disagreed with some of the IG report's conclusions. Why? Because the intent of issuing the statement was to do Barr's (and therefore Trump's) bidding by sprinkling some doublethink on the IG report.

I saw that testimony.

It's very subtle ways like this that Politicians use to deceive their gullible wingtards.

There was also a subtle distinction not being made - that the FISA warrant was just one small aspect of the investigation, not the whole investigation. We nevermind this distinction if we're attached to an Orange Ballsac, like a true Cultist would be.

Right. Almost all of the misconduct pertained to the aspect of the investigation centering on Carter Page. But if you believe Lindsey Graham's disingenuous screed as he waves his arms and cries wolf you'd think the entire work product is tainted. And that is doublethink.

The puzzling part is the laws against outing an active CIA agent. Remember Valerie Plame? And she wasn't even active. Carter Page was a deep cover CIA asset and had been for years. The FBI agent filling out the FISA application lied. He's being prosecuted and should get the death penalty.