snafu

I’m through the Executive Summary. I’m getting old. That small font and double column was making my eyes blurry. I think Horowitz, in a most polite fashion, blasted the FBI for the way they handled the Page FISA from even the initial application. 17 errors and omissions. That’s a *****-ton. Ohr is screwed. Comey doesn’t come out smelling like an efficient FBI Director. I agree that that the headline “No Political Motivation” was probably true in August, 2016. And to be fair, Horowitz should also say: “but they so obviously hated Trump that personal motivation clouded their judgment in how they handled the investigation from day one”. And he could have said, politics probably crept in after we was elected. Seems to me that they could have shut down the investigation a lot earlier than they did. Seems to me that they bent and broke a lot of their own guidelines (a) before the election because it was important, and (b) later on — just because they didn’t like the November, 2016 election results. And they didn’t ever find any collusion, but they let this tumor of an investigation fester and grow. ?

It is still autumn, 2019. Call him wrong later this month if it turns out he is wrong.

The problems -- to me -- are in the renewals. Once the warrant needed to be renewed, they were already aware that the Steele report was worse than useless.

Saw that one coming.

No -- like I said, I didn't see it. I DON'T know that it leads with its conclusion. Should I stop reading it at that point? Isn't it, uh, 500 pages or so? Should I just wait for the NYT oped tomorrow?

I'm at work. Won't begin to read it until tonite.

I haven't had the chance to review the report yet. How many minutes ago was it released? Seems like you got to the nub of the conclusion pretty quickly.

What, actually, is your objection to people posting tweets? Many times they contain links to either news articles or to source documents. Very often, tweets contain information that NOT being reported by the media. Other times (like with memes), when they don't they're just reflective of a point or opinion that someone wants to make.

You got that right... If the White House flips in 2020 I am going to go on ebay and buy up all the Resistance paraphernalia because then it will be my turn. Here -- this is from 2017... https://www.bustle.com/p/9-literary-holiday-gifts-that-are-perfect-for-the-resistance-reader-on-your-list-7530025

Democrats all. She’s okay with them.

Humongous game now.

Oh that was SO CLOSE!!!

Yeah. Looks like Allen is holding the ball a lot.

Allen got hammered

Google that. Keep the results to yourself, please.

Am I the only Ted Cruz fan on this board?

What Schiff did is a variation on a theme. The defense of what many consider to be indefensible actions by “investigators” is always: “but Trump”.

Are these autographs current players? Or are you going to get a Jiri Dudacek?

You've got to wonder how many times Trump said “I’ve gotta free wang” in Oval Office meetings. Now he can’t explain it away so easily.

Bloomberg should have said “who explained to Booker what ‘trope’ means?”

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall correctly, this is the letter that set Horowitz off on his quest. It is from Grassley and Graham back in February, 2018. There are 36 questions (and questions within questions) that they wanted Horowitz to answer. Some doozies in this letter! And, the letter makes it pretty clear that the Committee already had some answers via classified material. I’m hoping that Horowitz lays out his report answer by answer — but I highly doubt he will. The letter is fascinating almost 2 years later. At a minimum, Ohr and Comey (and anyone else who laid their hands on the Page FISA renewals) should be cooked gooses. SHOULD and WILL is my main question. I still lean toward SHOULD, but WON’T. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/2018-02-28 CEG LG to DOJ OIG (referral).pdf

The bad precedents being set in this investigation are shameful.

They could have swapped out that language AND added "...and a fourth scholar thinks that based upon the evidence presented, there's no case for impeachment." But they didn't do that. by re-wording the three and deleting the one, that's not really an accurate edit. Edit: not only that, but if reporting really wanted to be unbiased (some have done this -- most haven't), they would make sure people know that Democrats chose the three professors, and republicans only got to select one to show up. Not reporting this leads to a false conclusion that 3 out of 4 law professors agree. That might not be true.

Why did that article take out any reference to anyone who has an opposing opinion? Why did that article take out any nuance? This is what you're asking?

I forgot about the “heart attack”! ? Bruce was a monster.