Posted on 12/11/2019 5:41:08 AM PST by janetjanet998
10 am at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: “Examining the Inspector General’s Report on Alleged Abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”
durbin blaming Comey for Clinton losing
Durbin sounds somewhat sane today. Sure it won’t last.
Durham has the power to coerce those that are not current Justice Department employees. He has a Grand Jury. Let's wait and see what they come up with.
Thank you for the clear thinking post.
I’ve always felt Ed Rendell didn’t have enough ballot boxes stuffed in Rust Belt States... And his underestimation caused Hillary to lose. But I have ZERO evidence - pure ‘feeling’...
Logical - thanks smogger.
As distressing as this may sound, Tom Fitton has serious doubts as to whether Durham is doing ANYTHING! His whole interview is worth a listen, but here is where he says that:
And we know that Barry was being briefed on everything Strzok/Page and others were finding, while that crew purposely kept that info from Trump. If there were simply a concern about foreign infiltrators, Trump would have been kept in the loop. IOW, the took actions against PJDT without proper predicate!
They had no evidence that Trump was involved (let alone legitmate evidence that Carter Page was a foreign agent (He was the FBI and CIA's informant, doing multiple things at their behest and reporting back to them without apparent complaint about his work product, assignments ostensibly against Russians. Proof that Carter Page was a foreign agent was a requirement for FISA! Evidence for that was lied about.)) as confirmed by Mueller, so withholding info from the President-elect and wiretapping him without probable cause (which is required for a Special Counsel) must be illegal! Meaning, it must have been a Barry directive.
Rosenstein tried to schmooze right over that requirement by assigning Mueller the on-going counter-intelligence investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, without proper predicate for it.
Well said, Smogger.
They’re not unknown or faceless.
And with allies like these, who needs enemies.
Thanks for that link... I'll listen to it as soon as I can.
Horowitz did find direct evidence that bias existed (the anti-Trump texts), but he did not find direct evidence that this bias was the motive for decisions influencing the investigation.
That is because without a confession, there can BE no evidence, and nobody in their right mind would confess to such a thing.
So, you’ll notice whenever Horowitz is asked if he found evidence of bias, he says “yes”, but whenever he is asked if the bias influenced the investigation, he says “no”.
We saw the same thing in the Mueller report. It’s all about how you ask the question:
The Democrats are better off asking if Horowitz found evidence that bias that influenced the investigation, so that they can extract a “no” response, (because of course, absent a confession, there could be no evidence of motive).
The Republicans are better off asking if Horowitz found evidence that bias existed, so they can extract a “yes” response, because of course he found such evidence (the anti-Trump texts).
I wish the Republicans would follow every “no” answer extracted by the Democrats with the following cross-examination:
“Mr Horowitz, you just testified that you found no direct evidence that the bias affected decisions in the investigation. What would constitute such evidence? Is it not impossible to find such evidence, and if so, isn’t lack of evidence completely meaningless and non exculpatory?”
(Haha! While I was typing that, Senator Lee just asked that - almost word for word!)
The FISA court was NOT suckered.
The court was PACKED.
How do you spell out a multitude of biases by Strok and Page and then come to the conclusion that there were no biases.
Hello, old FRiend.
I know... Obvious bias!
HEY...YOU’RE RATIONAL!
lol.
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.