House to impeach President Trump

**ravenmaniac4life** · 12-11-2019, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Vlad the lad

Because he has to keep repeating the phrase “ We find no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias.”

That means no one admitted to being bias.

But then you have Cruz ask a direct question about people altering emails and he says yes. That happened. So what was the point of the investigation? He found irregularities, but didn’t want to dig into why??? 17 irregularities??? That all leaned towards bias. Every one of them.

He explained why. He said that it could be bias, or it could be gross incompetence.

I know that's a complete bullshit answer, but...I totally get it. How does fabrication of evidence and gross misconduct get approved over and over and over again and it not be bias? Well, these people could be fucking idiots too. THAT is the argument Horowitz is making. Makes sense.

Does it matter though? Everyone with a brain knows what went down. You'd have to be a complete dumbass to not acknowledge what happened here. This hearing pretty much proves everything most of us have been saying for the last few years.

Something we've all got to remember here. This IG Report proves that the work Nunes' team did last year was aligned w/what Horowitz' team uncovered. So, it was corroborated. It also shows that Schiff and his team were lying in their report. Shocking, right?

**blueridgemtnman** · 12-11-2019, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

I wonder if Chris Wallace will ask him why the FBI kept getting judicial FISA approval to spy on the Trump campaign even though the evidence to support it was a complete fabrication by the FBI.

If he doesn't ask that question, Chris Wallace isn't doing his job and is a total fraud.

I pretty much have that opinion of him already, so would not be surprised at all.

**blueridgemtnman** · 12-11-2019, 05:22 PM

Saw this headline earlier and wasn't surprised. Then, a little bit ago, when Graham was closing it all down, just for curiosity, switched to CNN to see if they were doing it again. Sure enough, they were at commercials while he spoke. Media bias? Where?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-sk...ning-statement

**ravenmaniac4life** · 12-11-2019, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

I pretty much have that opinion of him already, so would not be surprised at all.

Same

**blueridgemtnman** · 12-11-2019, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

Same

Nothing like his Dad.

**JAB1985** · 12-12-2019, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Vlad the lad

Because he has to keep repeating the phrase “ We find no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias.”

That means no one admitted to being bias.

But then you have Cruz ask a direct question about people altering emails and he says yes. That happened. So what was the point of the investigation? He found irregularities, but didn’t want to dig into why??? 17 irregularities??? That all leaned towards bias. Every one of them.

I dont think he didnt look into them, he clearly did look into them he just couldnt support it based on what he did find. when this whole thing started i was told by Trump and republicans it was top down corruption. Horowitz didnt find anything to support that. What he did find was bottom up incompetence, but he couldnt determine motive. hes saying as much in his report. Even at one point being asked if these were intelligent people, which he paused to answer, before clarifying that they are educated people, but he wouldnt go as far to speak to their intelligence. I find that humorous but also supportive of the incompetence. I think Durham will be more willing to say it was nefarious than Horowitz, but whether he can prove what Horowitz says he wasnt, is yet to be seen.

Incompetence is not at all hard to believe when it comes to government.

EDIT: I think both sides are dead wrong in this. As much as Trump and the Republicans said this was a clear case of top down corruption, the Democrats were saying nothing was done wrong and everything was by the book. I think this report says both were wrong.

**NCRAVEN** · 12-12-2019, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

I dont think he didnt look into them, he clearly did look into them he just couldnt support it based on what he did find. when this whole thing started i was told by Trump and republicans it was top down corruption. Horowitz didnt find anything to support that. What he did find was bottom up incompetence, but he couldnt determine motive. hes saying as much in his report. Even at one point being asked if these were intelligent people, which he paused to answer, before clarifying that they are educated people, but he wouldnt go as far to speak to their intelligence. I find that humorous but also supportive of the incompetence. I think Durham will be more willing to say it was nefarious than Horowitz, but whether he can prove what Horowitz says he wasnt, is yet to be seen.

Incompetence is not at all hard to believe when it comes to government.

EDIT: I think both sides are dead wrong in this. As much as Trump and the Republicans said this was a clear case of top down corruption, the Democrats were saying nothing was done wrong and everything was by the book. I think this report says both were wrong.

Determining motive can be subjective. That said I have no idea what Horowitz concluded the reasons where all the seemingly willful multiple violations took place.

**wickedsolo** · 12-12-2019, 09:49 AM

With the Horowitz report, I think it's important to understand that his job was just to identify and report on facts. Things that happened.

His job was not to accuse anyone of anything in particular. Just that "things" happened.

Also, IG's have no teeth. What's Horowitz going to do?

**blah3** · 12-12-2019, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

I dont think he didnt look into them, he clearly did look into them he just couldnt support it based on what he did find. when this whole thing started i was told by Trump and republicans it was top down corruption. Horowitz didnt find anything to support that. What he did find was bottom up incompetence, but he couldnt determine motive. hes saying as much in his report. Even at one point being asked if these were intelligent people, which he paused to answer, before clarifying that they are educated people, but he wouldnt go as far to speak to their intelligence. I find that humorous but also supportive of the incompetence. I think Durham will be more willing to say it was nefarious than Horowitz, but whether he can prove what Horowitz says he wasnt, is yet to be seen.

Incompetence is not at all hard to believe when it comes to government.

EDIT: I think both sides are dead wrong in this. As much as Trump and the Republicans said this was a clear case of top down corruption, the Democrats were saying nothing was done wrong and everything was by the book. I think this report says both were wrong.

SO wait, your saying that the lower level fbi ‘grunts’ were incompetent. But then how does a top dog like comey sign off multiple times for the fisa court warrant???

**JAB1985** · 12-12-2019, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

SO wait, your saying that the lower level fbi ‘grunts’ were incompetent. But then how does a top dog like comet sign off multiple times for the fisa court warrant???

If the information provided was BS, its pretty easy to sign off on it assuming it wasnt. Thats where Horowitz has said its not vindication for Comey, he should have looked into it more. Its like saying the FISA court did something wrong by believing what was presented to them. Its unrealistic to believe that somebody high up the chain is going to look into every bit of information provided by lower tier people. thats how delegation works.

**DitkasSausage** · 12-12-2019, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

With the Horowitz report, I think it's important to understand that his job was just to identify and report on facts. Things that happened.

His job was not to accuse anyone of anything in particular. Just that "things" happened.

Also, IG's have no teeth. What's Horowitz going to do?

Also, I think it is important that in the middle of the questioning by Cruz, Horowitz admitted that he found no political bias in what STARTED the investigation. That the repeated renewals he came to no conclusive determination on if there was or was not. So basically, he is saying that the original looking into this wasn't political bias... but almost everything afterwards could have been but he didn't have documented evidence of someone saying, "I changed this exculpatory evidence document so that we can continue to frame Trump". That is basically the benchmark of what he would need in order to prove political bias. Also... if this report was so awesome for the DNC (and they are running around spiking the football on this) then why did the entire committee only have ONE question for him about it, which came from Fienstein, and the rest used their time to talk about Russia? The hearing was HOURS long... the only question the DNC reps raised was, "So you concluded no political bias on the onset of the investigation?" to which the answer was yes. Hell... even Comey is running around bragging about the fact that his department, under his direct supervision, is getting totally blasted as incompetent and borderline criminal because he did 1 thing correct. I think he is behaving in the most horrible fashion bragging about this report, because this report was THE MOST FAVORABLE document being released in the next few months about the FBI, and a lot of people are going to be fired over it.

**wickedsolo** · 12-12-2019, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by DitkasSausage

Also, I think it is important that in the middle of the questioning by Cruz, Horowitz admitted that he found no political bias in what STARTED the investigation. That the repeated renewals he came to no conclusive determination on if there was or was not. So basically, he is saying that the original looking into this wasn't political bias... but almost everything afterwards could have been but he didn't have documented evidence of someone saying, "I changed this exculpatory evidence document so that we can continue to frame Trump". That is basically the benchmark of what he would need in order to prove political bias. Also... if this report was so awesome for the DNC (and they are running around spiking the football on this) then why did the entire committee only have ONE question for him about it, which came from Fienstein, and the rest used their time to talk about Russia? The hearing was HOURS long... the only question the DNC reps raised was, "So you concluded no political bias on the onset of the investigation?" to which the answer was yes. Hell... even Comey is running around bragging about the fact that his department, under his direct supervision, is getting totally blasted as incompetent and borderline criminal because he did 1 thing correct. I think he is behaving in the most horrible fashion bragging about this report, because this report was THE MOST FAVORABLE document being released in the next few months about the FBI, and a lot of people are going to be fired over it.

Comey is a huge POS.