Donald John Trump is no longer president: what does it mean for you?

orange man always bad.
here's a summary of the summary, because everyone has an opinion but can't be bothered to read 19 pages to know what they're talking about.
the report finds NO documentary or testimonial evidence that there is a political motivation.
the report finds that the source of everything is a single spy (Steele) who is politically motivated. nobody bothered to check whether he knows what he's talking about. the investigation was on Page, who was collaborating with the CIA. the FBI changed an email enabling them to ignore the CIA evidence, dismissed Steele for leaking information to the press, but continued to take unsubstantiated information from Steele through some other informant named Ohr. They ignored some more evidence from steele's sub informations that contradicted the FBI theory and at each renewal of the FISA they left stuff out, whether intentionally or through incompetence. The main issue is that this is a sensitive case with high visibility so this case went to the highest levels of the FBI. everyone knew about it, but they were fed wrong information from the bottom and nobody thought to check on anything. Report recommends disciplinary action from top to bottom and review of procedures which were in some cases respected, but in other cases ignored. In one case the FBI sent an agent to a party gathering to inform them of possible dangers (both parties) but in fact his mission was to check on Manafort when he met with the GOP.

In one sentence, the FBI has ignored signs left and right that should have put an early end to this. This makes them either incompetent or malevolent. Either way this corrodes the trust everyone has in the FBI and that's probably the worst possible outcome. the FBI has to be extremely transparent with how they will handle this going forward or their authority is gone down the drain.
 
Before reading anything that comes out of Horowitz' report, I am trying to figure out on my own how biased the "Office of the Inspector General" could be (because biaised sources goes both ways, right?), considering it's technically a government official under the POTUS lol...

They talk about "independent" investigations yet the individual is appointed by the POTUS and reports to the Attorney General, which reports to the POTUS lol

And reading the criticism part does not give me confidence either

Inspectors General have also been criticized for being, rather than guardians of whistleblowers, instead, ineffective, inactive, or at worst, instruments by which whistleblowers are persecuted. One example is from the Securities and Exchange Commission OIG. In a 2011 article by Matt Taibbi, SEC whistleblowers said that complaining to the SEC OIG was "well-known to be a career-killer."[90] Another example is from whistleblower Jesselyn Radack's book Canary in the Coalmine, in which she describes her experience complaining to the Department of Justice OIG; instead of helping her, the IG office helped the DOJ get her fired and restricted from practicing as a lawyer.[91] Another example is from the Thomas Andrews Drake case, in which several complainants to the Department of Defense OIG over NSA's Trailblazer Project were later raided by the FBI and some threatened with criminal prosecution.[92]

Oh well
 
^^

Wtf lol all I see is Collins interrupting non-stop as soon as the provided answer doesn't go the way he wants it's quite awfull to watch actually...

Gotta love when he looses control and decides to stop the conversation with his own conclusion he makes on behalf of the witness "THATS IT! IM DONE!"

This is such a circus absolutely no one gets massacred there lmao...
 
Last edited:
4:53

- Collins : "Some of the subpeonas were not publicly reported until the hypsi issued its majority correct?"

- Goldman : "Most of the subpeonas were...[interrupted]"

- Collins : "ANSWER THE QUESTION, EITHER ANSWER THE QUESTION OR ELABORATE, ONE OR THE OTHER"

- Goldman : "Sir I'm trying to answer the question..."


lmao what an idiot...

What this hearing sounds like :


A : How can you explain this mister B?

B : Well it's simply because...[INTERUPTED]

A : ANSWER THE QUESTION MISTER B, YOU EITHER ELABORATE OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG

B : Like I said it's because...[INTERUPTED]

A : OK I GOT ENOUGH YOU OBVIOUSLY DID XXXXXX BECAUSE YOU WON'T ANSWER THANKS IM DONE WITH YOU

:laugh: :laugh:
 
He did answer the question 100% but the idiot questioning him kept interrupting him asking him to answer the question with HIS choices of answers instead, how fucking stupid is this lmao?

The guy clearly answered that the match occurred while cross investigating the different documents, at some point obviously you fall on things like phone numbers and cross matching them with the subpeonas you previously got is just natural lmao is this serious?

But no, the idiot wanted an answer within HIS choice of answers : Is it YOU or HIM, answer the question! This kind of question would get objected and burned within seconds in any real justice hearing and any competent lawyer understands this, but in this case the speakers sounds like a total idiot.

You dont win an argument by having someone not answering the only two options you conviniently provided on your own, what kind of amateur is this lol?

A : Answer the question Mister B, did YOU or your WIFE kill him?

B : What? My neighboor killed him wtf does this have to do with my wife? [INTERRUPTED]

A : THE QUESTION WAS SIMPLE, IS IT YOU OR YOUR WIFE, THAT’S RIGHT YOUR NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION. IM DONE WITH YOU THANKS

:laugh:
 
Last edited:
Donald John Trump is now president: what does it mean for you?

so you say the report is 476 pages long (i.e. unreadable), I tell you that the summary is 19 pages (i.e. readable) and you find this is a random fact. if it is, you started the random fact list by saying it's 476 pages long.

read the 19 pages then we'll discuss. if you don't want to read them, stay out of the discussion.



from your source:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us

start the spin machine I guess.

You misunderstood. I said they can’t agree on a single sentence and will go back and forth disputing EVERYTHING within the 476 pages.

Ie they won’t agree on anything and this will go on for a long time ( or until the public loses interest)
 



The slight of hand you have to look out for. They constantly say that the FISA spying was started appropriately. That I can agree with because the requirements are very lax. They deflect all of your attention to this fact when the "trick" is really that they kept FISA going illegally by lying, omitting and/or misrepresenting facts to the court that would have prevented them from continuing if they told the truth.

Also, rewind to last year: Lefty media defending their side's utter BS. https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/24/17048936/democrat-rebuttal-nunes-schiff-memo

Time + IG report = Proof he really is full of Schitt https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/10/michael-horowitz-ig-report-debunks-media-trump-foe/
 
If the 2nd amendment is the law of the land, why can't the average person just go up and buy an Abrams Main Battle Tank to go and play militia with?

Because even the die hards realize it makes no sense. Using a strict interpretation of a 225+ something year old piece of paper as a reason why things can never change is ridiculous.

The founding fathers likely couldn't even envision high capacity drum magazines on a compact semi-automatic rifles. If the idea is to keep the government in check, how exactly is a "militia" with rifles and pistols supposed to stand a chance against missiles, jets, tanks and armored vehicles of modern day government?

Both positions in this case are sort of flawed. "Oh noes, pistol grips on a rifle! Danger, Danger! Telescoping stock! Think of the children! Those are simply modern features of modern sporting rifles.

They need better training / licencing requirements before they go nuts on "feel good" bans of popular sporting rifles that don't address the underlying issues.
 
If the 2nd amendment is the law of the land, why can't the average person just go up and buy an Abrams Main Battle Tank to go and play militia with?

Because even the die hards realize it makes no sense. Using a strict interpretation of a 225+ something year old piece of paper as a reason why things can never change is ridiculous.

The founding fathers likely couldn't even envision high capacity drum magazines on a compact semi-automatic rifles. If the idea is to keep the government in check, how exactly is a "militia" with rifles and pistols supposed to stand a chance against missiles, jets, tanks and armored vehicles of modern day government?

Both positions in this case are sort of flawed. "Oh noes, pistol grips on a rifle! Danger, Danger! Telescoping stock! Think of the children! Those are simply modern features of modern sporting rifles.

They need better training / licencing requirements before they go nuts on "feel good" bans of popular sporting rifles that don't address the underlying issues.

Republicans back the 2nd because they think the people will never turn on the ones who gave them their guns. They also feel they will always have bigger and better guns than civilians, so they don't feel threatened.
 
If the 2nd amendment is the law of the land, why can't the average person just go up and buy an Abrams Main Battle Tank to go and play militia with?

Because politicians passed laws that prevent companies from selling "military equipment" to civilian. Heck Arnold back in the day had a hell of a time getting a Humvee. They basically had to create a civilian version of it to be able to sell one to him and where talking about an unarmed transport vehicle. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hummers-now-history-----h_b_316269. You don't think these companies would want to make a few extra sales to millionaires and billionaire who want to have some fun. Other more important factor is reverse engineering. You can bet China would be duplicating whatever it was within hours if they could buy it. Lastly I don't think Demarcus and Leshawn could afford it anyway so you could rest assured it probably would get into the hands of many and those who could afford it have too much to lose to screw around with it.

Because even the die hards realize it makes no sense. Using a strict interpretation of a 225+ something year old piece of paper as a reason why things can never change is ridiculous.

Some things don't change, not even after 225+ years. Government tyranny is one of them. Just ask the people of Venezuela who voted in their oppressors and are now subjugated to whatever stupidities the government imposes because they have no way to fight back.

The founding fathers likely couldn't even envision high capacity drum magazines on a compact semi-automatic rifles. If the idea is to keep the government in check,(it is) how exactly is a "militia" with rifles and pistols supposed to stand a chance against missiles, jets, tanks and armored vehicles of modern day government?

Numbers and tactics. With all their bombs, jets, tanks and technology how is it that they had so much trouble in the middle east? You're also forgetting to factor in the human component where I'd be willing to guarantee at least a quarter of the army would outright refuse to engage fellow Americans. Lastly you think they only have hunting/AR rifles? See this video as one example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7WrUEpJAFQ



Both positions in this case are sort of flawed. "Oh noes, pistol grips on a rifle! Danger, Danger! Telescoping stock! Think of the children! Those are simply modern features of modern sporting rifles.

They need better training / licencing requirements before they go nuts on "feel good" bans of popular sporting rifles that don't address the underlying issues.

One position is much more delusional than the other. Even with a theoretically perfect licensing system, we still live in a profoundly sick society where too big a percentage of the population is lazy and self-centered to the point they'd sooner kill the next guy to get what they want than to take the harder road to achieve the goal a legal way. Fix that and yeah, you'd still have an occasion murder but you'd be able to give people a fully auto machine gun with almost no probability of repercussion because they'd have no motivation to use it against their fellow man.


Anyway, back to the IG report. Another serial liar, Comey, had his lies catch up to him now that the report is out.

 
ROFL, the Barr memes always get me. It's almost like he makes a face knowing it will be thug life'd.

For those on the fence, why do you think Holder is badmouthing him? MSM will say it's because he's partisan, but the reality is that he's finally doing the job and not turning a blind eye to all the shit Democrats pulled. They are in the process of being exposed and they're slandering anybody who's exposing them. Want a clear cut case, just ask Justice Kavanaugh.
 
Barr is Trump's dog. he barks at everything that moves. kind of like Schiff but on the other side of the fence.
he reminds me of bill burr's dog.
 
all the anti Brexiters just lost the mother of all slap bets. right now they are still wondering which muscles they need to use to get up from the floor.
 
Back
Top