Predicate?
We don't need no stinkin' predicate!
Posted on 04/10/2019 9:12:02 AM PDT by Mariner
WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - Attorney General William Barr said on Wednesday U.S. intelligence agencies engaged in spying directed at the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump and that he would look at whether the surveillance was undertaken legally.
"I think spying did occur," Barr told a Senate hearing. "But the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I am not suggesting that it wasn't adequately predicated. ... I am not suggesting those rules were violated, but I think it is important to look at that. And I am not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.
"I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal - it's a big deal."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.trust.org ...
well it’s more than Mr Magoo ever said.
Predicate?
We don't need no stinkin' predicate!
Barr is still not saying anything illegal happened.
He’s allowing for there to still be good reasons for the spying.
No way!!!!! Seriously?
Lol
This should have been done two years ago. In hindsight, a sharp adviser for Trump would have seen that Sessions was involved with his campaign, and therefore would have had a potential conflict to investigate, and would have advised him to select someone else for AG.
Exactly correct.
The corrupt FBI used the Dossier as the “fig leaf” to provide a “legal” reason for spying on an opposition candidate. They either knew the Dossier was garbage or they are admitting they are so incompetent as an investigative agency that they could not figure out the source of the Dossier was the Clinton campaign.
Either answer for the FBI is bad. And either answer warrants an overhaul of the agency.
Of course he's not saying that. Why would he say that in a hearing? We know it happened, but since an official investigation hasn't yet occurred, he can't make any statement like that, especially in a committee hearing where the Democrats are in control. If he did, it would jeopardize any future investigation, and cases brought against the perps.
“He’s allowing for there to still be good reasons for the spying.”
The legal threshold for spying (and the full extent is not public) on an opposition campaign, using the government intel apparatus is very, very high.
What we know so far says that threshold was not met. Not even close.
There would have to be reasonable cause to believe a capital crime was being committed, at least.
Hillary and Obongo just uttered a collective “Rut-Roh!”
This is an earthquake.
Barr’s most telling comment, for someone who tends to be very understated, was his “open question”:
Why wasn’t the Trump campaign advised, as FBI guidelines require, that the campaign was being surveilled?
Especially WHY, when former federal prosecutors Giuliani and Christie, were working for the Trump campaign????
Comey, ya gotta problem. Obama, this happened on your watch.
Elections have consequences.
Progress.
Or a modified limited hangout.
Guess time will tell.
Yep, Barr is playing them like a fiddle. He’s starting to give them all the rope he’ll need.
Barr is still not saying anything illegal happened.
He’s allowing for there to still be good reasons for the spying.
I’m sure all the DemocRATS are assured by that fact!///
His job is to remain objective and to deal in fact.
If he does his job properly it will be difficult for anyone to call this investigation a "witch hunt."
That's the process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.