Spygate is unravelling

[Joe]

Why do you think you didn't find this...
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... stigation/

On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked Horowitz to clarify the point:

Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.

Hawley: Because I could have sworn — in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. But that’s not your conclusion?

Horowitz: We have been very careful, in connection with the FISAs, for the reasons you mentioned, to not reach that conclusion, in part — as we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand what — to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.

Because I already knew about it, and it's not useful for determining the truth of Trump's claim. It doesn't change the bottom line that fact the report does not conclude the FBI investigation was influenced by political bias.

If you disagree, show me where in the report it does conclude bias affected the investigation.

Of course you'll have to read it.

[Cunt]

The alteration of the email, the text messages associated...

No need to check it out again. Horowitz was pretty clear in the interview.

Sounds like Hawley and you were both mis-led.

It's ok though. You read it again, and again. It still doesn't say exactly what it seems, so after reading it a few times, maybe read that interview with Horowitz again, where he is asked directly.

[Cunt]

(spoilered to hide highlited C_A documents from them.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Joe]

The alteration of the email, the text messages associated...

No need to check it out again. Horowitz was pretty clear in the interview.

Sounds like Hawley and you were both mis-led.

It's ok though. You read it again, and again. It still doesn't say exactly what it seems, so after reading it a few times, maybe read that interview with Horowitz again, where he is asked directly.

No need to be informed, eh Cunt? Hermit is right, you have nothing to contribute except bald assertions and name calling.

That's okay you're still amusing.

[Cunt]

The alteration of the email, the text messages associated...

No need to check it out again. Horowitz was pretty clear in the interview.

Sounds like Hawley and you were both mis-led.

It's ok though. You read it again, and again. It still doesn't say exactly what it seems, so after reading it a few times, maybe read that interview with Horowitz again, where he is asked directly.

No need to be informed, eh Cunt?

Can you read what I wrote more carefully? You seemed to miss some.

I wrote 'no need to check it out again'.

The interview you are ignoring took place after the report. I understand what Horowitz was asked, and what his answer says about the way Hawley had been misled.

You aren't being all that convincing, so you must be just having fun. It boils down to what you said anyway - we'll see.

Likely with the Durham conclusion, if it ends in public view, that is.

Hermit is right, you have nothing to contribute except bald assertions and name calling.

That's okay you're still amusing.

I wish you could get a better run than me today. (tall order, I had a fucking beautiful one)

[Joe]

The alteration of the email, the text messages associated...

No need to check it out again. Horowitz was pretty clear in the interview.

Sounds like Hawley and you were both mis-led.

It's ok though. You read it again, and again. It still doesn't say exactly what it seems, so after reading it a few times, maybe read that interview with Horowitz again, where he is asked directly.

No need to be informed, eh Cunt?

Can you read what I wrote more carefully? You seemed to miss some.

I wrote 'no need to check it out again'.

The interview you are ignoring took place after the report. I understand what Horowitz was asked, and what his answer says about the way Hawley had been misled.

You aren't being all that convincing, so you must be just having fun. It boils down to what you said anyway - we'll see.

Likely with the Durham conclusion, if it ends in public view, that is.

Hermit is right, you have nothing to contribute except bald assertions and name calling.

That's okay you're still amusing.

I wish you could get a better run than me today. (tall order, I had a fucking beautiful one)

Since you say it boils down to what I said, I guess I was more convincing than you claim

But what "interview" am I ignoring?

[Cunt]

But what "interview" am I ignoring?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... stigation/

On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked Horowitz to clarify the point:

Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.

Hawley: Because I could have sworn — in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. But that’s not your conclusion?

Horowitz: We have been very careful, in connection with the FISAs, for the reasons you mentioned, to not reach that conclusion, in part — as we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand what — to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.

So I'll take Horowitz's word for it.

[Joe]

But what "interview" am I ignoring?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... stigation/

On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked Horowitz to clarify the point:

Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.

Hawley: Because I could have sworn — in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. But that’s not your conclusion?

Horowitz: We have been very careful, in connection with the FISAs, for the reasons you mentioned, to not reach that conclusion, in part — as we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand what — to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.

So I'll take Horowitz's word for it.

Well Cunt, you should go back and read that article more closely. That wasn't an interview.

I guess you missed that Breitbart was quoting from Horowitz's testimony to the Senate, which i watched a fair amount of before Christmas, including Hawley's complete questioning, so unlike you I heard this exchange in context. Plus, far from ignoring it, I watched it again and unlike your inattentive reliance on a cherry-picked quote from a biased and questionable source, I based my conclusions on the full exchange.

Now let me show you what else you missed.

So what if Horowitz says he didn't conclude "that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?"

Where did he say that it did?

It's simple, he didn't. If you'd paid attention to more than one Breitbart column, and been more diligent in seeking the truth, you'd know he wasn't able to draw any conclusion about what Hawley asked, and said so in his testimony. Funny that Breitbart left that part out.

So, take Horowitz's word for it. This IS what he concluded.

We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.

[Cunt]

It Is what he said.
'didn't find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation...'

It doesn't look like it conflicts with his quoted answer about what he didn't say.

Can you zoom out a little and tell me your overall view on spygate?

[pErvinalia]

How's the unravelling going?

[Cunt]

I think some threads were 'raveled' by various confidentiality/secret classifications. As these investigations complete, those restrictions are cleared, and we'll know more.

At the end, I think we find out if the investigation of the Trump campaign was started in good faith, or if it was a partisan attack.

How is it going from your perspective?

[pErvinalia]

A giant nothing burger.

[Brian Peacock]

Aye, lots of FUD going on here - but you can't really contribute to this discussion until we can confirm how many push-ups you did this morning.

[Tero]

I think some threads were 'raveled' by various confidentiality/secret classifications. As these investigations complete, those restrictions are cleared, and we'll know more.

At the end, I think we find out if the investigation of the Trump campaign was started in good faith, or if it was a partisan attack.

How is it going from your perspective?

It wasn't partisan, it was personal. Everyone in DC hated the man's guts, regardless of party. So it's fine, it wasn't even racist cause Trump is white.

[Cunt]

I think some threads were 'raveled' by various confidentiality/secret classifications. As these investigations complete, those restrictions are cleared, and we'll know more.

At the end, I think we find out if the investigation of the Trump campaign was started in good faith, or if it was a partisan attack.

How is it going from your perspective?

It wasn't partisan, it was personal. Everyone in DC hated the man's guts, regardless of party. So it's fine, it wasn't even racist cause Trump is white.

If partisan or personal, then the villain isn't Trump, but the leaders and agreeable bureaucrats.