What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Senate Judiciary Hearing on IG report (1 Viewer)

IG Michael Horowitz on opening Crossfire Hurricane:

"We reviewed Department and FBI policies and concluded that Assistant Director Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with those policies."

 
Isn't Lindsay Graham the person who told John McCain to take the dossier to the FBI?  Or am I misremembering that?

 
Dianne Feinstein (in her opening remarks):

"This was not a politically motivated investigation. There is no deep state. Simply put, the FBI's investigation was motivated by facts, no bias."

 
Horowitz:

"We also reviewed ... the emails, text messages, and other documents of those involved in that decision, particularly Mr. Priestap's, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that indicated political bias or improper motivation influencing his decision."

 
Why does Graham always have a look on his face like he just smelled a fart?

Also Graham, “You know the old adage, ‘If you walk outside and everything is wet you can assume it rained’”. Then some word salad about bias against Trump with no sense of irony in regards to his rhetoric about the impeachment inquiry. 

 
Graham -  “after your report, I have serious concerns about whether the FISA court can continue unless there is fundamental reform. After your report, I think we need to rewrite the rules of how you start a counter-intelligence investigation and the checks & balances that we need”

---

I mean ... welcome, Lindsey? I guess. 

Seems weird that one of the strongest FISA supporters would now suddenly be against it, but ok. Better late than never, I guess.

 
FEINSTEIN:

You didn't find a deep state conspiracy against candidate or President Trump?

HOROWITZ:

As to the opening, we found no bias, no testimonial, documentary evidence on that.

 
whoknew said:
Graham -  “after your report, I have serious concerns about whether the FISA court can continue unless there is fundamental reform. After your report, I think we need to rewrite the rules of how you start a counter-intelligence investigation and the checks & balances that we need”

---

I mean ... welcome, Lindsey? I guess. 

Seems weird that one of the strongest FISA supporters would now suddenly be against it, but ok. Better late than never, I guess.
Click to expand...
Right? How dare our IC do what republicans have been advocating them to do for the last time two decades!!! 

 
squistion said:
FEINSTEIN:

You didn't find a deep state conspiracy against candidate or President Trump?

HOROWITZ:

As to the opening, we found no bias, no testimonial, documentary evidence on that.
Click to expand...
I’m glad Horowitz didn’t stoop to answering “there was no deep state against Trump”

 
GRAHAM: The FBI used a defensive counterintelligence briefing to spy on Trump. The FBI even wrote up 302s on the meeting. The Senate is being defensively briefed tomorrow. Is the FBI going to be spying on us and writing up our conversation?

HOROWITZ: I'm concerned about that.
Click to expand...

 
"The Crosssfire Hurricane team obtained info from Steele's primary sub-source in Jan. 2017 that raised serious questions about Steele's reporting....FBI did not share this info and it was omitted from FISA apps.." -IG Horowitz
Click to expand...

 
For the third time if you are told that you, or in this case, your campaign, is under surveillance (because of concerns of Russian interference) it ISN'T SPYING. 

spy

/spī/

verb

gerund or present participle: spying

work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.

"he agreed to spy for the West"
Click to expand...

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Since squistion is only sharing one side of this I'll try and complete the picture..
Click to expand...
I just posted this exact quote from Horowitz several posts above yours.

And I don't have time to quote verbatim everything at this hearing, but you or anyone else are welcome to do this. 

 
Sheriff Bart said:
For the third time if you are told that you, or in this case, your campaign, is under surveillance (because of concerns of Russian interference) it ISN'T SPYING. 
Click to expand...
I'm just posting direct quotes, not sharing my thoughts or opinions much like squistion does. Do you take issue to that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous said:
I'm just posting direct quotes, not sharing my thoughts or opinions like squistion does. Do you take issue to that?
Click to expand...
I haven't posed any thoughts or personal opinions in this thread. 

Although I don't see a problem with you, me or anyone else fact checking what is said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous said:
That's what I'm saying. I'm posting in the same manner as you without added opinion yet someone is taking exception as though they are my thoughts.
Click to expand...
And people in the other Judiciary Thread took exception  to my live posting quotes of what was said during those hearings.   :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FEINSTEIN:

You found no evidence that the decision to use confidential human sources was motivated by political bias, is that correct?

HOROWITZ:

Correct.

 
I feel like I've made my point about these "play by play" threads. You're simply not getting the full story. And I gotta say, I'm not really sure why the other side of the coin is omitted. People are going to latch on to the things that confirm their bias anyway. Posting a quote from the hearing that supports the Reps claim of abuse is not going to do anything other than paint a more complete picture.

 
zoonation said:
Mistakes were clearly made.  There is no evidence of any conspiracy to take Trump down.  
Click to expand...
There seems like a thing where a consultant comes in and finds gaps in a corporation’s compliance policies. Which is good. They found the existing policies might not be great. But no let’s go with the deep state thing.

 
McBokonon said:
Horowitz seems pretty credible so far. I have no idea how people like him manage to get through these things without committing arson.
Click to expand...
I agree. And it's because he's not connecting dots or drawing conclusions. He's trying to stick to facts despite the urging of those questioning him. I know Dems won't like this but if the impeachment hearings were conducted in the same way, they would've lasted 5 minutes.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
I feel like I've made my point about these "play by play" threads. You're simply not getting the full story. And I gotta say, I'm not really sure why the other side of the coin is omitted.
Click to expand...
This reads like you think there’s an entity or person that’s preventing the other side from posting here. But, I can still see your posts, so I guess they’re not being deleted.

 
McBokonon said:
This reads like you think there’s an entity or person that’s preventing the other side from posting here. But, I can still see your posts, so I guess they’re not being deleted.
Click to expand...
squistion does a fine job telling one side of the story. Conservatives need someone to take up that mantle for their side. It's not going to be me though.

Or squistion could simply provide an equal dose of both viewpoints. After all, Reps and Dems are given equal time in these hearings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous said:
Since squistion is only sharing one side of this I'll try and complete the picture..
Click to expand...
I take that as being all sides.  Comey isn't vindicated because there were some mistakes that shouldn't have happened, and those mistake came under his watch.  Evidence supports process/internal control improvements needed, or some aspects showed failure.  trump is also not vindicated that it was "deep state, hoax, which hunt" and the FBI investigation into Russian meddling with the 2016 election is legit.  No conspiracies or political bias, and although some failures were found, the investigation was correct.       

 
Mr Anonymous said:
People are going to latch on to the things that confirm their bias anyway.
Click to expand...
I think this is interesting. Partly that's the point. Sorry liberals want to explain their POV and conservatives theirs? That's actually not a bad system. - I think the bigger problem is when we see a handle and we just assume a quote or link means one thing or another based on who's posting it. I've been looking at links by Bluto and Tony recently and actually they've been pretty interesting and occasionally informative. Also, to me, how Side XYZ views a thing is as important as what they are claiming. Part of the reason I enjoy this place.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
Let's Talk Peaceful USA Realignment
2 3 4
Replies
181
Views
3K
AAABatteries
AAABatteries
Stealthycat
treatment of Whoopi Goldberg vs Roseanne Barre
2 3
Replies
126
Views
2K
Stealthycat
Stealthycat
GordonGekko
Biden Violates Own "Disrespect" Edict By Refusing To Fire WHPS Psaki (4/18/22 18:29PST)
Replies
14
Views
597
JIslander
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top