AG Barr says spying did occur and will be investigated

a reply to: UKTruth

Bet it burns them up that trump outlasted them.
Not only did he beat "her", he beat them as well.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

Bet it burns them up that trump outlasted them.
Not only did he beat "her", he beat them as well.

Steady now.

It's early days yet.

The ruling party spied on their political opponents. This is bigger than Watergate.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

Bet it burns them up that trump outlasted them.
Not only did he beat "her", he beat them as well.

She is still whining about it as of yesterday...
Trying to paint all those who voted for Trump
as "White Nationalists". Good grief, helll has no
fury like a Hillary scorned.

I actually believe she hates half of America's voters now.

originally posted by: Tartuffe
The ruling party spied on their political opponents. This is bigger than Watergate.

I believe you could find that sentiment in posts here as early as 2016.
Lots were on the ball here early.

That was fairly obvious to anyone without political blinders.

Add that to the fact that Hildogs email fiasco, that included destroying evidence in the face of congressional subpoena, was swept under the rug, and there are enough treasonous acts to prosecute, literally hundreds of individuals.

It will likely never happen though. We will just have to be happy if it all gets exposed.

originally posted by: JHumm
Of course CNN says there is no proof because nobody leaked anything to them , not even their unnamed sources.

All those unnamed sources are going to get NAMED eventually.

An IG report and further investigation will out them 😎

originally posted by: LordAhriman
My prediction:

Same outcome as Hilary's emails.

Nothing.

Depends heavily on the "Immunities" 😎

originally posted by: Tartuffe
The ruling party spied on their political opponents. This is bigger than Watergate.

New operation CodeName:

"Operation OpenFloodGates" 😎

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: matafuchs

I believe he said spying occurred, it's a question as to whether is was legal or not.

That's it -- the spying happened. The question now is whether or not it actually meant the bar for justification which would be a very high bar given the circumstances.

I think though this is the first overt admission that spying occurred.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: matafuchs

I believe he said spying occurred, it's a question as to whether is was legal or not.

That's correct...he has a need to assess each item to determine it's legality, in fact, if it is, that's no bad thing thing if there was a valid purpose, and more so...unlike our OP with big gub, Barr ain't saying anything approaching hearsay as yet..

a reply to: carewemust

I understand but I wanted a forum where the 'poop' can fly from those who shall not be named but know who they are...

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

Bet it burns them up that trump outlasted them.
Not only did he beat "her", he beat them as well.

Steady now.

It's early days yet.

yes but having a sitting ag state that the former admin was spying on its political rivals is humongous
legal or otherwise.
when else in history has this been acknowledged by the highest leo in the land?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: matafuchs

I believe he said spying occurred, it's a question as to whether is was legal or not.

That's correct...he has a need to assess each item to determine it's legality, in fact, if it is, that's no bad thing thing if there was a valid purpose, and more so...unlike our OP with big gub, Barr ain't saying anything approaching hearsay as yet..

You understand though that for a president to allow his intel agencies to knowingly spy on the opposition party candidate during an election to determine his successor the bar has to be very, very high? Otherwise, it looks like political shenanigans designed to interfere with the electoral process.

a reply to: burntheships

I know using Make America Great Again as the reason...not like any other president ever said that...

Which is it Bill? This one...



or this one...



The hypocrisy is strong with them...

a reply to: ketsuko

Otherwise, it looks like political shenanigans designed to interfere with the electoral process.

boob or shill
has to be one or the other
either way his legacy is destroyed

Unlike Russian Collusion, spying has been confirmed and it was confirmed it seems by the Mueller Report. Legal or not is not the judgement of the AG or the FBI director as it was handled by Comey and Lynch.

Barr is doing the right thing. He is not passing judgement but he is slowly confirming what we have all known.

(side note) funny how Wiki and Assange are out of the news cycle again...I wonder why....could it be...spying?

Link

My guess is the backpedaling is just beginning....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: ketsuko

Otherwise, it looks like political shenanigans designed to interfere with the electoral process.

boob or shill
has to be one or the other
either way his legacy is destroyed

Their problem is that while they came up with a justification that would work -- agent of an enemy power. Their lie unraveled and worst of all, Trump won and then had the gall to show a spine and not resign as they kept trying to hammer him. So none of it got swept under the rug properly.

Had Hillary won or a weaker person taken office after a Trump resignation ... none of this would have gotten out.

And, of course, we still have zero assurances that anyone will pay any price for all of this. We only have confirmation that the theories that have been pieced together for a long time now were the truth.

a reply to: matafuchs

You read my mind, yep that Bill.

I guess Hillary is still counting on half the voters
being "stupid" as Bill called them.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: matafuchs

I believe he said spying occurred, it's a question as to whether is was legal or not.

That's correct...he has a need to assess each item to determine it's legality, in fact, if it is, that's no bad thing thing if there was a valid purpose, and more so...unlike our OP with big gub, Barr ain't saying anything approaching hearsay as yet..

You understand though that for a president to allow his intel agencies to knowingly spy on the opposition party candidate during an election to determine his successor the bar has to be very, very high? Otherwise, it looks like political shenanigans designed to interfere with the electoral process.

Get away.......! You am making up situations and putting names to them, not even Barr has done that.
He then does know the law.