Louise Mensch?? November 7, 2016.RoscoePColtrane said:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1012651540153237504.html
lol.
Louise Mensch?? November 7, 2016.RoscoePColtrane said:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1012651540153237504.html
Yeah I found that a bit curious since she's a 100% blue blood Trump haterdrcrinum said:Louise Mensch?? November 7, 2016.RoscoePColtrane said:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1012651540153237504.html
lol.
RoscoePColtrane said:Quote:
I confess to being more weary than dizzy from the Dr. Gowdy and Mr. Trey routine. Just three weeks ago, Representative Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee, assured us that everything was peachy with the FBI no way, no how did the bureau "spy" on the Trump campaign when it deployed an "informant" to pry information from Trump-campaign officials. As Mollie Hemingway pointed out at the time, Gowdy had not seen relevant documents the FBI and Justice Department have been withholding from Congress in fact, his spokeswoman said he did not even know what documents and records have been subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee (on which Gowdy also sits).
This week, Gowdy did a 180: back on the warpath, slamming the politically biased Feebs over "prejudging" the outcomes of the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia investigations and delivering a chest-beating vow that the House would "use its full arsenal of constitutional weapons to get compliance" with its subpoenas a threat that includes holding recalcitrant FBI and DOJ officials in contempt.
Whatever. ~ Andrew McCarthy
So, if Page's anti-Trump texts to McCabe and Strozk were not documentary evidence ... at what point does ALL the available evidence reach the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Isn't this really the core criminal law legal question?Quote:
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,"
Quote:
AGENTS PROVOCATEUR: Did Comey's Informants Fabricate Russian Collusion Evidence?
...
The "Russian collusion" inquiry began in December 2015 (not, as claimed, on July 31, 2016), with a tip from GCHQ to Brennan that Putin wished to financially support a Donald Trump presidential candidacy. Nothing has yet emerged, in subsequent FISA warrant applications or elsewhere in leaks, to suggest that the tip was anything but phony. But on December 28, 2015, after Brennan had hurriedly formed a special "inter-agency" group, one of Comey's top aides Peter Strzok was attempting to get approval for "LUREs," Fedspeak for spies, inferentially to penetrate the Trump campaign. All of this would have been well and good if there had been a solid basis to suspect criminal activity by the Trump campaign. But, it now appears, rather than dismiss the inaccurate tip as disinformation, the FBI tried to manufacture evidence where none had existed, hoping real wrongdoing would eventually be found. Thus started an investigation without a crime, long a Comey specialty....
Quote:
PLAMEGATE REDUX: James Comey's Pursuit Of Crimeless Cases Against Trump Is Eerily Familiar
benchmark said:So, if Page's anti-Trump texts to McCabe and Strozk were not documentary evidence ... at what point does ALL the available evidence reach the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Isn't this really the core criminal law legal question?Quote:
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,"
Matt GaetzDeats said:
Who is guy on the left?
And if he did inform someone, is anyone actually doing anything about it? Huber?drcrinum said:
Going back to the issue which bugs me: Rosenstein's statement: "I can tell you that the information that's public about that [FISA warrant] doesn't match with my understanding of the one that I signed." If the FISC application for Carter Page differs from the DOJ copy presented to Rosenstein, then a much bigger question arises: Was Rosenstein ever aware of this fact, and if he was, when did he learn about it? If he was aware there were different copies, did he inform Sessions and when? Did he inform Mueller and when? Did he inform Trump and when?
Comey acted much the same during his appearances on the hill.Quote:
What I cannot get over is how Rosey would smile, giggle, and act like he was totally above this. Admittedly I only had the ability to watch small clips and not the wntire proceeding, but its almost as if he has a get out of jail card in his pocket.
Or he didn't sign a FISA warrant on "Carter Page" at all....drcrinum said:
Going back to the issue which bugs me: Rosenstein's statement: "I can tell you that the information that's public about that [FISA warrant] doesn't match with my understanding of the one that I signed." If the FISC application for Carter Page differs from the DOJ copy presented to Rosenstein, then a much bigger question arises: Was Rosenstein ever aware of this fact, and if he was, when did he learn about it? If he was aware there were different copies, did he inform Sessions and when? Did he inform Mueller and when? Did he inform Trump and when?
THISRoscoePColtrane said:
Or he didn't sign a FISA warrant on "Carter Page" at all....
There has been mountains of speculation on everything surrounding FISA, everyone has been scope locked on Carter Page, when there has been hints of evidense that there are multiple FISA warrants in play.
You noticed the lack of specificity, too? Want to read the transcript to confirm they were talking about the same thing but it seems to me Rosenstein was answering a question other than the one that was asked.Quote:
Or he didn't sign a FISA warrant on "Carter Page" at all....
Fraternity Brothers?RoscoePColtrane said:
This is an interesting picture, especially after yesterday. Grip noted
jjeffers1 said:Fraternity Brothers?RoscoePColtrane said:
This is an interesting picture, especially after yesterday. Grip noted
None of the texts said, "don't check Hillary's server because I want her to be President". That's pretty much the plain meaning of the quoted statement from the report.coyote68 said:benchmark said:So, if Page's anti-Trump texts to McCabe and Strozk were not documentary evidence ... at what point does ALL the available evidence reach the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Isn't this really the core criminal law legal question?Quote:
C"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,"
I suspect you are an attorney and are much better than me at analyzing words and sentences.
The words "directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed" appear to leave much wiggle room.
Exactly, short of a written confession, the IG had no other conclusion to come to. His job was to gather the evidense, and he did. Where it goes from there is up to prosecutors. Horowitz is an "Inspector" not a "Prosecutor".Michael Barnhart said:None of the texts said, "don't check Hillary's server because I want her to be President". That's pretty much the plain meaning of the quoted statement from the report.coyote68 said:benchmark said:So, if Page's anti-Trump texts to McCabe and Strozk were not documentary evidence ... at what point does ALL the available evidence reach the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Isn't this really the core criminal law legal question?Quote:
C"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,"
I suspect you are an attorney and are much better than me at analyzing words and sentences.
The words "directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed" appear to leave much wiggle room.
RoscoePColtrane said:Exactly, short of a written confession, the IG had no other conclusion to come to. His job was to gather the evidense, and he did. Where it goes from there is up to prosecutors. Horowitz is an "Inspector" not a "Prosecutor".Michael Barnhart said:None of the texts said, "don't check Hillary's server because I want her to be President". That's pretty much the plain meaning of the quoted statement from the report.coyote68 said:benchmark said:So, if Page's anti-Trump texts to McCabe and Strozk were not documentary evidence ... at what point does ALL the available evidence reach the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Isn't this really the core criminal law legal question?Quote:
C"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,"
I suspect you are an attorney and are much better than me at analyzing words and sentences.
The words "directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed" appear to leave much wiggle room.
It's also a Boy Scout secret handshake thing. Probably not in this case, though.jjeffers1 said:Fraternity Brothers?RoscoePColtrane said:
This is an interesting picture, especially after yesterday. Grip noted
That was covered in one of the IG hearings. I believe the question was asked similar to that and Horowitz agreed.ccatag said:
There was no proof that bias directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.
But likewise, there was no proof that bias did not directly affect the specific investigative actions we reviewed.
Would that be true?
Horowitz stated plainly there was definitely bias and alarming behavior, but no "documented" proof it affect the outcome by the "Prosecutors" He worded that very deliberately. Most of the bad texts and nefarious planning was dome by the FBI not the "prosecutors" so he had no "documented proof the latter was affected. He was certain to point that out. Common sense tells you one thing, but it's not what you know it's what you can prove.ccatag said:RoscoePColtrane said:Exactly, short of a written confession, the IG had no other conclusion to come to. His job was to gather the evidense, and he did. Where it goes from there is up to prosecutors. Horowitz is an "Inspector" not a "Prosecutor".Michael Barnhart said:None of the texts said, "don't check Hillary's server because I want her to be President". That's pretty much the plain meaning of the quoted statement from the report.coyote68 said:benchmark said:So, if Page's anti-Trump texts to McCabe and Strozk were not documentary evidence ... at what point does ALL the available evidence reach the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Isn't this really the core criminal law legal question?Quote:
C"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,"
I suspect you are an attorney and are much better than me at analyzing words and sentences.
The words "directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed" appear to leave much wiggle room.
There was no proof that bias directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.
But likewise, there was no proof that bias did not directly affect the specific investigative actions we reviewed.
Would that be true?