Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can one summarize and draw a conclusion from a developing investigation?
One cannot.
One can, however, articulate clearly the crime or crimes that were committed. Blowing a lot of smoke about corruption in general won't fly with a Grand Jury. You have to be specific.
Same as GOP-Gate in 2009, where GOP decided to oppose Obama across the board no matter what.
Its too bad if the GOP doesn't like the taste of their own medicine, but it is not a 'gate' of any kind, it's just how US politics is played, and the GOP has become the party which sees itself as the perpetual victim of 'unfairness' and 'meanness'. All we every hear is whining about being victims of conspiracies.
Same as GOP-Gate in 2009, where GOP decided to oppose Obama across the board no matter what.
Its too bad if the GOP doesn't like the taste of their own medicine, but it is not a 'gate' of any kind, it's just how US politics is played, and the GOP has become the party which sees itself as the perpetual victim of 'unfairness' and 'meanness'. All we every hear is whining about being victims of conspiracies.
Yeah, nothing to see here. Good ol' Finnster knows it all.
This treasonous scam has been well known for YEARS!
Yeah, nothing to see here. Good ol' Finnster knows it all.
This treasonous scam has been well known for YEARS!
Time to PAY THE BARR TAB!!!!
What ? That is all about as clear as Obamagate itself.
Another made up conspiracy designed to distract the simple minded from the virus, the economy, and most of all the gross incompetence of our POTUS in dealing with anything requiring planning, organization, or actual leadership skills.
Page left the Trump campaign before the election and according to Trump he was never part of the campaign.
It doesn't matter what Page's actual attachment was with the campaign; he had contact with people in the campaign and those people had contact with the campaign and probably Trump's inner circle, perhaps Trump himself. With the FISA they were able to legalize the vacuuming of the communications of everyone Page talked to and everyone those people talked to, going back to May of 2015 (18 month lookback). If Page only talked to Corey Lewandowski the FBI would be able to suck up the communications of everyone Lewandowski talked to . . . See how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
So list all the other names that were also part of this spying,
They [illegally] spied on everyone. 3.1 million 702 queries of the NSA database in FY 2017.
What ? That is all about as clear as Obamagate itself.
Another made up conspiracy designed to distract the simple minded from the virus, the economy, and most of all the gross incompetence of our POTUS in dealing with anything requiring planning, organization, or actual leadership skills.
why wasn't this brought up by the IG at the congressional hearing last year or are you just guessing.
VERY good question!
First, the IG's charge wasn't to uncover criminal acts, it was only an examination of process -- adherence to established policy and procedure.
IF Horowitz uncovered actual criminal action he could not put that in his report because Horowitz's investigation was subordinate to the concurrent Durham criminal investigation. Horowitz was required to turn over any evidence of crimes committed to Durham (maybe as a criminal referral but even that was beyond his charge).
Even if he suspected a person committed a crime and/or knew they were under grand jury subpoena or if he knew the particulars of incriminating documents that he turned over to Durham, he could not put that in his report -- perhaps that explains the very conspicuous absence in the Horowitz report of many "interesting" things discovered by Judicial Watch and others (like the infamous Strzok/Page "insurance policy" text).
Second, Horowitz was handicapped by the inherent limitations placed on IG's. Horowitz couldn't look outside the DOJ or effectively question anyone not currently working in the DOJ -- simply because many did not maintain their security clearance -- they could not have their memories refreshed (or confronted) with any classified material.
So, essentially, Horowitz couldn't question most of the people thought to be at the core of the malfeasance. Horowitz notes he wasn't able to directly interview Comey, confront him with any classified material or have him review meeting minutes, see page x of the Executive Summary (excuse the formatting, it's a straight C&P from the pdf and I'm not bothering to make it look nice):
"Although we also found no
evidence that Comey had been made aware of these
issues at the time he certified the application, as
discussed in our analysis in Chapter Eleven, multiple
factors made it difficult for us to precisely determine the
extent of FBI leadership's knowledge as to each fact
that was not shared with OI and not included, or
inaccurately stated, in the FISA applications. These
factors included, among other things, limited
recollections, the inability to question Comey or refresh
his recollection with relevant, classified documentation
because of his lack of a security clearance, and the
absence of meeting minutes that would show the
specific details shared with Comey and McCabe during
briefings they received, beyond the more general
investigative updates that we know they were provided. "
But, even if he could question Comey and others, he had no hammer, no subpoena power, no grand jury powers, no indictments to threaten, no way at all to compel him to answer. For current DoJ employees they can be compelled to submit to an interview and of course should tell the truth, or face disciplinary action including removal.
All Horowitz could really do was ask them about the discharge of their duties (such as, did you have political bias?) and accept and record their answer as truthful if there wasn't any contravening statements or documentary evidence disputing their answer. This is where the oft repeated and heralded by liberals everywhere "no documentary or physical evidence showing political bias" came from . . . Horowitz wasn't definitively saying there wasn't any political bias, just that he didn't find any evvidence of it.
That "summary" identified two sets of what she deems to have been illegal, and neither one of them have anything to do with the monitoring of the Kislyak call or the unmasking of Flynn. She identified the press leak of the existence of the call (which may or may not have been criminal, dependent on the information that as actually divulged) and then pivoted to allegedly testimonial "crimes" that have nothing to do with Flynn and could have been prosecuted by the DOJ for years. So much for "Obamagate."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
