Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Release the FULL story
RaceBannon
Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,125 
in Tug Tavern
https://foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-will-probe-alleged-fisa-abuses-at-fbi-calls-on-barr-to-appoint-new-special-counsel
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said Monday that he will probe alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) at the start of the Russia investigation, while calling on Attorney General Bill Barr to appoint a new special counsel to investigate the “other side of the story.”
Graham, R-S.C., made the comments during a press conference on Capitol Hill following the release of the findings in the Robert Mueller investigation, which did not uncover evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in 2016. Graham and other Trump allies cited the findings to renew scrutiny of the probe's origins at the FBI. The chairman said he'll look into any alleged misconduct related to the Russia investigation on the part of the Justice Department, the FBI and the Democrats, but added that due to “the emotional nature of this” he believes a new appointment is necessary.
“I’d like to find somebody, like a Mr. Mueller, that can look into what happened with the FISA warrants, the counterintelligence investigation. Am I right to be concerned? It seems pretty bad on its face—but there are some people that are never going to accept the Mueller report, but by any reasonable standard, Mueller thoroughly investigated the Trump campaign. You cannot say that about the other side of the story,” Graham told reporters Monday.
“I hope Mr. Barr will appoint somebody outside the current system to look into these allegations, somebody we all trust, and let them do what Mueller did,” he continued, adding that he has been calling for the appointment of a second special counsel since 2017 to investigate “whether or not a counterintelligence investigation was opened as a back door to spy on the Trump campaign.”
“A counterintelligence investigation is designed to protect the entity being targeted by a foreign power…I still am at a loss as to why nobody went to President Trump to tell him,” Graham said Monday.
Imagine anyone being against this
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said Monday that he will probe alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) at the start of the Russia investigation, while calling on Attorney General Bill Barr to appoint a new special counsel to investigate the “other side of the story.”
Graham, R-S.C., made the comments during a press conference on Capitol Hill following the release of the findings in the Robert Mueller investigation, which did not uncover evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in 2016. Graham and other Trump allies cited the findings to renew scrutiny of the probe's origins at the FBI. The chairman said he'll look into any alleged misconduct related to the Russia investigation on the part of the Justice Department, the FBI and the Democrats, but added that due to “the emotional nature of this” he believes a new appointment is necessary.
“I’d like to find somebody, like a Mr. Mueller, that can look into what happened with the FISA warrants, the counterintelligence investigation. Am I right to be concerned? It seems pretty bad on its face—but there are some people that are never going to accept the Mueller report, but by any reasonable standard, Mueller thoroughly investigated the Trump campaign. You cannot say that about the other side of the story,” Graham told reporters Monday.
“I hope Mr. Barr will appoint somebody outside the current system to look into these allegations, somebody we all trust, and let them do what Mueller did,” he continued, adding that he has been calling for the appointment of a second special counsel since 2017 to investigate “whether or not a counterintelligence investigation was opened as a back door to spy on the Trump campaign.”
“A counterintelligence investigation is designed to protect the entity being targeted by a foreign power…I still am at a loss as to why nobody went to President Trump to tell him,” Graham said Monday.
Imagine anyone being against this
Comments
-
Quite honestly, Race, I've got special counsel fatigue at this poont. It's a very important issue, no doubt. I also have no doubt it will be 81% driven by partisanship.
-
I'd settle for the media giving it the coverage it deserves and the guilty to admit it and go away in shameGrundleStiltzkin said:Quite honestly, Race, I've got special counsel fatigue at this poont. It's a very important issue, no doubt. I also have no doubt it will be 81% driven by partisanship.
It can't be ignored. -
If that's Graham's aim here, I'm good with thatRaceBannon said:
I'd settle for the media giving it the coverage it deserves and the guilty to admit it and go away in shameGrundleStiltzkin said:Quite honestly, Race, I've got special counsel fatigue at this poont. It's a very important issue, no doubt. I also have no doubt it will be 81% driven by partisanship.
It can't be ignored. -
We witnessed a failed coup attempt.
Justice must be served.
The reckoning needs to begin. -
Is gitmo ready? When do the arrests start? None too soon! Amirite?Dude61 said:We witnessed a failed coup attempt.
Justice must be served.
The reckoning needs to begin. -
Really need to get to the bottom of the abuse of the FISA court and the politicialization of the FBI and DOJ by the Obama White House. How does a guy like Strzok find himself at the center of the Hillary email investigation, the Trump Russian collusion investigation, and the Mike Flynn investigation? His superiors knew he was a partisan hack and he was assigned to each of the investigations precisely because he was a partisan hack who would do what they wanted.
-
Investigate. Indict. Arrest. Incarcerate.SFGbob said:Really need to get to the bottom of the abuse of the FISA court and the politicialization of the FBI and DOJ by the Obama White House. How does a guy like Strzok find himself at the center of the Hillary email investigation, the Trump Russian collusion investigation, and the Mike Flynn investigation? His superiors knew he was a partisan hack and he was assigned to each of the investigations precisely because he was a partisan hack who would do what they wanted.
Let’s go! -
Does this fucking Kunt ever offer anything of even remotely interesting? Do me a favor, quit responding to my posts you offer nothing of value other than acting as cautionary tale on how to be a fucking dipshit.CirrhosisDawg said:
Investigate. Indict. Arrest. Incarcerate.SFGbob said:Really need to get to the bottom of the abuse of the FISA court and the politicialization of the FBI and DOJ by the Obama White House. How does a guy like Strzok find himself at the center of the Hillary email investigation, the Trump Russian collusion investigation, and the Mike Flynn investigation? His superiors knew he was a partisan hack and he was assigned to each of the investigations precisely because he was a partisan hack who would do what they wanted.
Let’s go!
Go tongue your buddy Hondo's ass. -
Sure thing GayBob!SFGbob said:
Does this fucking Kunt ever offer anything of even remotely interesting? Do me a favor, quit responding to my posts you offer nothing of value other than acting as cautionary tale on how to be a fucking dipshit.CirrhosisDawg said:
Investigate. Indict. Arrest. Incarcerate.SFGbob said:Really need to get to the bottom of the abuse of the FISA court and the politicialization of the FBI and DOJ by the Obama White House. How does a guy like Strzok find himself at the center of the Hillary email investigation, the Trump Russian collusion investigation, and the Mike Flynn investigation? His superiors knew he was a partisan hack and he was assigned to each of the investigations precisely because he was a partisan hack who would do what they wanted.
Let’s go!
Go tongue your buddy Hondo's ass. -
Full story? Yes please.
-
I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
Then I hope you agree we should see what it says.Pitchfork51 said:
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
We will and then you'll still deny the facts. Just like after the Obama Admin said there was no conspiracy cover up the facts in the Mike Brown shooting, you ignored there response and latched onto another line of bullshit. The one thing we know with certainty is that you'll never admit you were wrong O'Keefed. Your fragile ego won't allow for it.HHusky said:
Then I hope you agree we should see what it says.Pitchfork51 said:
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
Well yeah. Absolutely. But we already do know.HHusky said:
Then I hope you agree we should see what it says.Pitchfork51 said:
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible. -
Graham set the bar to high so it will never happen - "someone we all trust" Bwahaha
-
asstootcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible.
-
Right. That's the one thing probably everyone can agree on: is there really a Atticus Finch in DC somewhere?LebamDawg said:Graham set the bar to high so it will never happen - "someone we all trust" Bwahaha
-
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible. -
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.Pitchfork51 said:
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible. -
blob:
“We will and then you'll still deny the facts. Just like after the Obama Admin said there was no conspiracy cover up the facts in the Mike Brown shooting, you ignored there response and latched onto another line of bullshit. The one thing we know with certainty is that you'll never admit you were wrong O'Keefed. Your fragile ego won't allow for it.”
You just made something up in order to display your sturdy ego, I guess. -
Being a Dem politician would suck.creepycoug said:
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.Pitchfork51 said:
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible.
Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more. -
What did I make up? You’re lying O’KeefedHHusky said:blob:
“We will and then you'll still deny the facts. Just like after the Obama Admin said there was no conspiracy cover up the facts in the Mike Brown shooting, you ignored there response and latched onto another line of bullshit. The one thing we know with certainty is that you'll never admit you were wrong O'Keefed. Your fragile ego won't allow for it.”
You just made something up in order to display your sturdy ego, I guess. -
Some truth to that. When you really boil it down, we need four parties. The Rs could easily be split in 2, and I firmly (hi @PurpleThrobber ) believe that the D party is hopelessly divided as well. Speaking to that rabid side is what lost Hillary the election. I wonder if she still doesn't get it.Pitchfork51 said:
Being a Dem politician would suck.creepycoug said:
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.Pitchfork51 said:
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible.
Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more. -
The full story includes the origin story
No way in hell Democrats join Graham on that
They're dirty as hell on it
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court -
I'm guessing that, if the report includes evidence or information of those things to which you allude, then Barr will release it.RaceBannon said:The full story includes the origin story
No way in hell Democrats join Graham on that
They're dirty as hell on it
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court -
Mueller wont have that in his reportcreepycoug said:
I'm guessing that, if the report includes evidence or information of those things to which you allude, then Barr will release it.RaceBannon said:The full story includes the origin story
No way in hell Democrats join Graham on that
They're dirty as hell on it
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court
That wasn't his investigation -
The information on things I allude to is already out there thanks to Congress and so far is widely ignored because the Democrats wont vote 420 to 0 to see that
