Get it out of the silo.
Out of the report? It’s not there.
Good Lord. Have a nice day.
Whenever you are ready to show me in the Horo report where “political bias” was the reason for investigating the Trump campaign, I’ll be here!
Or any other motivations.
But there were motivations…unless the FBI just messes up completely on every case.
Horowitz just didn’t determine what those motivations were.
Not My Job
Whenever you are ready to add 2 + 2, I’ll be here!
Oh presumptions? Goodie!
2 + 2 = 4?
Well until you show me in the report (2) you can connect with some other evidence (2) that there was political motivations with the investigation into the Trump campaign, you will never get to 4.
Right now it’s 0 + 0 = 0
Every investigation has a “motivation”. You stated it was political. I said show me in the report.
The text messages. You do realize Strzok did all of this right?
That is my opinion. Just as it is your opinion that Barr was influenced by Trump to make his recommendations (with which the Judge concurred)
What happened when Strzok was investigated? Was it determined that he used his political bias to wrongly pursue the Trump campaign?
They covered for the agency. But you’re getting close. The first report said there was bias, but it didn’t affect the process. The 2nd report says the process was violated.
2+2=?
This is when Horowitz testified at senate.
PAUL: “I would say that when we look at bias, I guess the first question would be a short question just to reiterate and make sure it’s very clear, you did find evidence of biased individuals who were involved with the — involved with the investigation?”
HOROWITZ: “That’s correct.”
PAUL: “OK. I think that’s very clear. And is it difficult to determine what people’s motives are or whether they’re biased or not biased.”
HOROWITZ: “It’s very difficult.”
PAUL: “All right. And so just by saying you didn’t find it, it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, it doesn’t mean you couldn’t have had 15 people very biased who influenced every one of their decisions, you just can’t prove it.”
HOROWITZ: “We — we couldn’t prove it, we lay out here what we can prove.”
PAUL: “OK. One specific instance I’d like to ask you about though. The OGC attorney is the one I think you’ve referred for criminal evaluation, correct?”
HOROWITZ: “I’ll just say we’ve referred to the attorney general and the FBI.”
PAUL: “OK. Right, for possible — and that’s the — possible criminal evaluation. He also had text messages that said viva la resistance. Did you interpreted those to be — or what was your opinion? Does that show that he might have had some bias against the Trump administration?”
HOROWITZ: “Well, he was one of the individuals last — in last year’s report precisely for those text messages that we were referred to the FBI, precisely for that concern.”
PAUL: “But you interpreted that as an evidence of bias. But I guess my question would be if you saw that he was biased, he’s obviously made errors that you think actually may have been intentional. Why in that instance would you not be free to say that there’s documentary evidence of not only bias but then malfeasance?”
HOROWITZ: “That’s precisely why we don’t say that, as to the errors and the failures in the FISA process.”
PAUL: “Right. But could you then specifically say the opposite, that actually in this instant there actually was evidence of political bias and evidence of record changing that looks like malfeasance?”
HOROWITZ: “There is evidence of both, I agree with you.”
PAUL: “OK.”
HOROWITZ: “But we will do — let — I want to make sure there’s a fair process.” [crosstalk]
PAUL: “That’s fine. And I — and I think the chairman is very correct that the media has misinterpreted what you’ve said and drawn conclusions that I don’t think are accurate as to what you’re saying and people should read the report. And the report is very damning as to the process, whether it’s bias or not there are problems.”
2 Likes
You killed the freakin’ thread!
Sorry…
2 Likes
Well it seems Graham Asked Barr to make Gabriel Sanz-Rexach available to testify Judiciary Committee over FISA abuse.
Who is Gabriel Sanz-Rexach you might ask? He was the FISA gatekeeper at DOJ during the period of alleged abuse during Obama administration.
1 Like
Uh oh. This can’t be good. Or are they just playing kabuki again?
Not sure.
Did catch this on the Hill about reauthorization of certain elements of FISA…some saying it didn’t go far enough.
Good. Like many other things this shouldn’t be a partisan issue particularly since democrats have largely opposed FISA until it served their purposes in smearing Trump.
Unfortunately they can’t help it.
1 Like
Personally they afraid Trump might do it to them.
Judging from jokers on last night debate…I’m not sure that even necessary. 
