- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In-Game Thread- Justice Department IG Testifies on FISA Abuse Allegations
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:13 am to SuperSaint
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:13 am to SuperSaint
quote:
Yak hates freedom
How are term limits anti-freedom?
1
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:14 am to roadGator
Can we please shut Leahy the hell up. Dude sounds like he smoked 8,000 packs of cigarettes before this hearing, is half comatose and knocking on deaths door
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:14 am to BugAC
once you get to 108 you should be termed.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:17 am to Bourre
The decorum in a Senate IG hearing is pretty different than the house.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:17 am to babymaker
quote:
Basically, he asked and they said no and there wasnt documents attesting to bias. It's pretty obvious there was, but cannot prove it.
WTH are the damn text messages then!?!
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:17 am to TigerCoon
Recess until 1PM Eastern.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:18 am to Centinel
quote:Yep, I am guessing as soon as the DU talking points get posted our proggies posters will appear from there caves.
Recess until 1PM Eastern.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:18 am to Cali 4 LSU
quote:
I do not trust this man one bit, but he's doing a pretty good job so far.
for the opening of the counter intelligence investigate there was no documented bias found. FOR THE OPENING...
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:19 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Who says that the opening of the investigation wasn't legitimate. They set Pap up but based on what he said there was a legitimate reason to start the investigation. There was no legitimate reason to continue it.
This is likely why Durham/Barr disagreed with Hororwitz & his report and came out with a statement. Because they "know things Horowitz doesn't know".
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:21 am to Centinel
This is very simple:
Horowitz: The FBI had a proper predicate because of the cited conversations between Misfud/Halper/Downer/Papa.
What he's not saying: I take that predicate at face value. We did not conduct an investigation (nor could we have) into whether or not that entire episode was a set-up.
Durham: I disagree with the notion that there was nothing wrong with the predicate.
What he's not (yet) saying: I actually had the ability to investigate (and, in fact, have investigated) whether not not that entire episode was a set-up.
Horowitz: The FBI had a proper predicate because of the cited conversations between Misfud/Halper/Downer/Papa.
What he's not saying: I take that predicate at face value. We did not conduct an investigation (nor could we have) into whether or not that entire episode was a set-up.
Durham: I disagree with the notion that there was nothing wrong with the predicate.
What he's not (yet) saying: I actually had the ability to investigate (and, in fact, have investigated) whether not not that entire episode was a set-up.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:22 am to Ex-Popcorn
Ding Ding Ding. Winner
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:23 am to Cali 4 LSU
quote:
This is likely why Durham/Barr disagreed with Hororwitz & his report and came out with a statement. Because they "know things Horowitz doesn't know".
You don't buy that, right? Horowitz is protecting the DOJ at the expense of the FBI fall guys, but not FBI leadership or Deep State. That's my take.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:23 am to Cali 4 LSU
quote:
This is likely why Durham/Barr disagreed with Hororwitz & his report and came out with a statement. Because they "know things Horowitz doesn't know".
Horowitz reviewed only the FBI investigation which, according to the FBI, began with the Pap meeting. Horowitz didn't look at what happened leading up to the Pap meeting. Barr's and Durham's trips to Italy and wherever else I believe will show that the Pap meeting was a set up to trap him to give them something to use as a reason to start the investigation. Why in the world would the Australian Ambassador to the UK ever agree to have drinks with a low-level person like Pap? (And I swear I read somewhere that the person with the ambassador at the meeting was an FBI agent but I can't find that now so I'm not going to say that as a fact)
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:24 am to Ex-Popcorn
It's mystifying to think that while Horowitz is using a euphemism like illegal surveillance, we all know that that means spying, and even then Democrats will say that nothing was done wrong.
Illegal surveillance means laws were broken. They have proof the surveillance was illegal, therefore criminal activity will be prosecuted. It's not that difficult.
Illegal surveillance means laws were broken. They have proof the surveillance was illegal, therefore criminal activity will be prosecuted. It's not that difficult.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:29 am to VoxDawg
quote:
It's mystifying to think that while Horowitz is using a euphemism like illegal surveillance
I think its more mystifying that he thinks its necessary to use a euphemism at all.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:29 am to Jbird
CNN isn’t going all that easy on them either.
Even when they were screaming “NO BIAS” they would point out that it was just pertaining to the opening of the investigation.
Then they’d quickly start talking about how damning the rest of the hearing has been for Dems.
Even when they were screaming “NO BIAS” they would point out that it was just pertaining to the opening of the investigation.
Then they’d quickly start talking about how damning the rest of the hearing has been for Dems.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:32 am to Cali 4 LSU
quote:
WTH are the damn text messages then!?!
this is an important distinction that allows him to claim no evidence of bias opening the investigation. those heavily biased agents werent the authority that signed off on the investigation. Priestrap, a superior to them, went forward with it. to me this means little to nothing because how abhorrent it was handled after opening the investigation.
The standards for opening such an investigation are so low, so the bias wasnt a significant factor for opening it. After opening it that was unbelievably improper and biased.
This should shatter public faith in our institutions, they operate with unreasonable lack of oversight, and are able to circumvent the oversight that does exist.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:34 am to AMS
quote:
this is an important distinction that allows him to claim no evidence of bias opening the investigation. those heavily biased agents werent the authority that signed off on the investigation. Priestrap, a superior to them, went forward with it. to me this means little to nothing because how abhorrent it was handled after opening the investigation.
This. It's like starting an investigation in to someone being raped, then later down the line the investigators start raping the victim.
The reason the investigation was started was legit. What happened later...not so legit.
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:35 am to Centinel
quote:The rapes began with altered emails and altered 302s.
This. It's like starting an investigation in to someone being raped, then later down the line the investigators start raping the victim.
Page 14 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News