Barr Disputes IG Horowitz Findings

Horowitz is reporting the facts of the investigation.

Barr is a political appointee who is anti-Constitution and favors blatant non-Constitutional powers for the President, which is a very DANGEROUS precedent if anyone bothered to think it through.

Dems will control the White House again and will control Congress again.

Let’s move the Presidency back toward Constitutional limits, instead of supporting a man like Barr that thinks the President has no legal limits in regard to the other Branches.

Horowitz does not have all of the facts, this much is clear.

Barr on the other hand has evidence that points to
criminal actions committed by the FBI. John Durham
is still investigating; he has the authority to subpoena
those who no longer work in a government position.

So I am putting my money on Barr and Durham for the facts.

originally posted by: burntheships
Barr on the other hand has evidence that points to criminal actions committed by the FBI.

Criminal actions committed by the FBI does not negate criminal actions by anyone else.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Horowitz is reporting the facts of the investigation.

Barr is a political appointee who is anti-Constitution and favors blatant non-Constitutional powers for the President, which is a very DANGEROUS precedent if anyone bothered to think it through.

Dems will control the White House again and will control Congress again.

Let’s move the Presidency back toward Constitutional limits, instead of supporting a man like Barr that thinks the President has no legal limits in regard to the other Branches.

What non-constitutional powers is Barr in favor of? Barr knows exactly what Trumps limits are, why would you think he doesn’t? Barr’s no dummy.

I am not impressed with Barr. You got to understand he is a political appointee and that his view on things are colored at best and completely prejudiced at worst.

A good example that has already been brought up is his slant on the Muller report where he claimed it exonerated Trump. That IMO was a flat out lie. It was a well-timed lie that got in front of the issue before the report was made public which IMO is completely political. It was a lie none the less.

Barr is compromised IMO so I won't believe what he claims without hard evidence to back it up.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Durham is helping Barr correct Horowitz. Hence the 2 month delay.

Horowitz is Dem friendly.

exactly, I don't know why Horowitz is the one responsible for IG reports, his findings on the last one were clearly passive.

The Mueller report was null and void, because when asked about Crowdstrike, Mueller pretended he'd never heard of them. That immediately makes the entire Mueller Report false as it indicates a deliberate effort to ignore natural avenues of investigation not supporting the Russia Trump narrative.

I think Horowitz will put our a report that does detail specific activities proving the Trump Russia investigation was orchestrated on fabricated evidence. However, it will claim it was ignorance not a deliberate effort to sabotage and the people should be dismissed and that is all.

I read that the IG Report cannot pass judgement on anyone not employed by the government. All the people involved, except a couple, have been fired or resigned.

Durham however is running a criminal investigation.... Durham is Barr's guy.. that makes my arm hairs stand on end

a reply to: Agit8dChop

The Mueller report was null and void, because when asked about Crowdstrike, Mueller pretended he'd never heard of them.

On March 20, 2017, during testimony before Congress, Comey stated "CrowdStrike, Mandiant, and ThreatConnect reviewed the evidence of the hack and concluded with high certainty that it was the work of APT 28 and APT 29 who are known to be Russian intelligence services. Mueller testified before the U.S. Congress siting those companies which partialy led to the 12 members of Russia’s military intelligence agency that were indicted.

Trump's obsession with crowdstrike is crazy. Supposedly he got the idea that crowd strike was involved or did the hack from the Russians. Trump made accusations that crowdstrike was owned by a very rich Ukrainian. In fact the company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a Russian-born U.S. citizen who immigrated as a child and graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

a reply to: mtnshredder

I listed those specifically in the thread regarding Barr’s speech to the Federalist Society (which is the primary basis of my comments). Basically though, Barr’s position that the Executive is not subject to our laws and the system of checks-and-balances are the primary issues I have with Barr’s position.

The Presidency has grown WAY BEYOND constitutional limits; we need to push all branches of the Federal Government back to their CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS (including the bloated bureaucracy).

It does if the FBI falsified information, like changing emails and FD-302's.

We'll see soon enough.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: burntheships
Barr on the other hand has evidence that points to criminal actions committed by the FBI.

Criminal actions committed by the FBI does not negate criminal actions by anyone else.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Robert Muller wrote 2 letters to William Barr stating that he had problems with the way Barr had characterized and misrepresented his team's findings.

Actually he complained about how the MSM, like CNN and WaPo was characterizing things.

Mueller clarified that "not being able to indict a sitting president" did not factor into his report or findings.

When a criminal investigation or special counsel decides they have not found enough evidence to indict or press charges then you have been cleared or exonerated by default.


a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Since Trump,and Bill Barr, claimed that the report exonerated him. "No collusion, No obstruction".

Also, since the report clearly stated that the report did not exonerate Trump, only that DOJ policy forbid Mueller of indicting a sitting president, which is why Mueller clearly tossed the ball to Congress, in his report.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

For Christs sake, this is the second report that came to the same conclusion.

Hey maybe trump was lying to you?

Nah, he'd never do that.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

He was sent all over the place making a big show thats all.

trumps a big believer in how things should "look". and he needed it to look like there was a possibility that Obama did something wrong.

It's the same reason they changed it to a "criminal" investigation. Even though no one has been found to have done anything.
He is making a joke of the entire justice department.
Most people are not amused by the bs.

Can you remind me of the conclusion you referenced, thanks.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

For Christs sake, this is the second report that came to the same conclusion.

Hey maybe trump was lying to you?

Nah, he'd never do that.

a reply to: carewemust

barr is trying to lead the narrative on this you mean.

I would not hold too much hope if I were you especially since none of these reports seem to go the way you think they will.

a reply to: Lumenari

Seems he did actually agree with it.

No evidence of Trump/Russian collusion...

That was not him agreeing with it.
That was him trying to tell us all what it didn 't say.

but I love how the right seems to have discarded the Mueller report.
When he is no longer president lets see how important those findings suddenly become.

New York state says HI!

You may be right.

I would say that this "leak" or report of Barr disputing the conclusion/findings of Horowitz is a positive sign for those of us that believe there was spying and malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration and the intelligence community.

Thankfully we should get the Durham report soon and have lots to discuss.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

barr is trying to lead the narrative on this you mean.

I would not hold too much hope if I were you especially since none of these reports seem to go the way you think they will.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

OR

Someone will realize that nothing was done to trump. That the FISA on Carter Page was legally and lawfully obtained and no one spied on the trump campaign.

Because trump makes stuff up and he made all of that nonsense up to try and cover his dealings with Russia.


If the man wasn't always trying to cover up things he wouldn't look so GD guilty.

a reply to: carewemust

DOJ I.G. Horowitz "whitewashed" his 2018 IG Report on FBI Behavior. He concluded that Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey did NOT let their political views influence the quality/accuracy of their work

Apparently truth is only what you want to believe CWM. If he tells you there was no bias in their performance you don't believe it.
But if he said there was bias I bet you'd believe that in a heartbeat.

a reply to: carewemust

I think the one in for a shock is closer than you think.