the Horowitz hearing concern you whatsoever? Can you with a straight face defend what occurred throughout the ranks at the FBI? I know you all are not fans of Ted Cruz, but listen to his line of questioning to Horowitz with an open mind and listen to the Horowitz response.
(no message)
(no message)
them. IMHO all warrants are too easy to get by all LE and the standard is incredibly low. Make it higher for these types of warrants, except then more perps can arguably get by without being caught. That’s the trade off. Point is though that none of this was found to be politically motivated here and there was PC for the Page warrant.
I would also love to have seen the basis for the 2013 warrant on him. Bet you would say that was thin as well.
In any event, how did this impact the investigation? What was the fruit of this poisonous tree? It had zero impact.
Having read hundreds of search warrants over 30 years, it is commonplace that agents and cops are less than fully candid in search warrant/FISA applications -- generally by failing to include any and all exculpatory information in the warrant.
It does not mean the underlying investigation is without merit. It does not mean that the warrant/application, in totality, does not pass constitutional/statutory muster. It does not mean that the evidence should be suppressed -- which only happens if the cops/agents intentionally lied or recklessly disregarded the truth --- to the point where no reasonable judge/magistrate would have approved the warrant/application had the truthful information been included.
Google state and federal court appeals dealing with "Franks motions." See how difficult it is to overturn convictions based upon search warrant defects.
For the record, I do not defend any dishonest actions by Government officials who serve the public trust, including most notably the Attorney General and the President.
The FBI decision to run down the information/intelligence re Trump's ties to Russia was 100% righteous. Horowitz confirmed that.
(no message)
(no message)
Because I don't know anything about it and can't give you a serious answer. Haven't read the report. Haven't watched TV in a week other than re-watching a couple of episodes of The War by Ken Burns and some hockey games. Haven't read anything substantial on-line. I am completely ill-informed on this one.
Is it bad? Is there something I should be worried about?
(no message)
(no message)
The Democrat line is - we have to Impeach him because we can't beat him. Multiple Democrats have spewed this line. Remember, Orange man is bad and needs to go. Like all the talking heads at CNN, they are hanging on the one line of the report - No political bias. Which is total bullshit. Jakers rhetorical question is still the best I have seen - how many of the 17 "minor mistakes" benefited Trump? That alone should tell you it was political as hell.
And now Jim Comey has decided to give an interview to Chris Wallace on Sunday. Chris will make sure to not push him or give him tough questions. He will pander to Mr. Comey to make sure he doesn't insult the Super Patriot.
And I can’t believe the CIA and FBI were not communicating about him. That’s pre-9/11 stuff. The DNI is supposed to stop that shit. That seems to be what the doctored email was about.
And it is crazy to think that such a high-level FISA case was handled in a sloppy manner. The system is obviously in need of overhaul - it is too rubber-stampy, which does not provide incentive for careful work.
So yeah, the IG found some stuff in need of attention.
Nothing changes the basic facts, though. There was no improper “spying,” and opening an investigation of the Trump campaign was legit & proper.
(no message)
That's one reason by Trump won. The Swamp thinks it can do what it wants, constitution shmonstitution.
Funny how you can list a dozen things that are wrong, and then say everything is ok.
I'm sure you would give the benefit of the doubt to Trump if he pulled this shit, right?
The FBI ignored the communication when it could be ignored, and criminally altered the documentation when it couldn't be ignored.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
To me that is pretty serious crap to say the least. I understand the whole valid predicate piece, but once it was determined that the whole thing was a farce, the investigation continued.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Let's try to assemble the most mindless, troll-like posts in one stream.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)