swordfish

So she didn't say that? Got a link disputing it? It was in the same presser where she claims since she is Catholic, she doesn't hate the President........Try and look one up.....

That's exactly what they (Peter Stzrok, Lisa Page) TOLD (not testified under oath) him (Horowitz) so it had to be true........Wink Wink.....

https://www.wishtv.com/news/local-news/companies-offer-jobs-rides-home-for-former-celadon-employees/ INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — A day after Indianapolis-based Celadon trucking filed bankruptcy and closed its doors, some of thousands of former employees are getting help in the form of job offers and even rides home from other companies. Drivers are needed everyday - there was already a shortage in this sector.......

So you are opining if that bill had been passed, the former administration's FBI (led by Comey) couldn't have fooled the FISA court with tthe tampered and falsified documents Horowitz found?

https://www.analyzingamerica.org/bombshell-pelosi-admits-they-have-been-planning-impeachment-for-years/?fbclid=IwAR17Sy2GNK5mmm5KpFsEV2GA0QyiHC5m1apw7310JAKRA9ZPwYS7Q4zfafg Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment of President Trump has been years in the making. Speaker Pelosi: “All I hear from the press is that we’re moving so swiftly, that it’s like a blur going by. This has been a couple of years—two and a half—since the initial investigation.” Yet the Articles of Impeachment are for a phone call that happened in April of 2019.........SF isn't great at math, but 2 1/2 years ago would have been early 2017......

To avoid confusion for those of lesser mental capabilities........A new thread for you separate from the impeachment inquiry thread..... https://thegreggjarrett.com/ig-horowitz-hearing-exposes-deliberate-fbi-misconduct-in-investigating-trump-campaign/?fbclid=IwAR0p1L-3bfaIVyiRGv_aG0QACcmDgH1aXrDFV5RLSdRzDM_s2BUdauK2CKg When the FBI discovered that the anti-Trump Steele dossier was garbage, the bureau concealed that vital evidence. Instead of promptly terminating its surveillance of Donald Trump’s former campaign adviser Carter Page, the FBI persisted in its quest to prove a Trump-Russia “collusion” conspiracy that officials knew was unsupported by credible evidence. This was the most significant result of Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee questioning of Michael Horowitz, the inspector general (IG) at the Department of Justice, in the aftermath of his damning 476-page report on the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign that was released this week. The dossier, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was assembled by maladroit ex-British spy Christopher Steele. His collection of memos was, according to the IG, “central and essential” to the FBI’s application to the court hearing cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to surveil Page through four successive warrants. Horowitz found 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” made by fired FBI Director James Comey’s team to the FISA judges. However, there is more to the story. If you turn to “Appendix 1” on pages 418 to 423 of the IG report, there were a total of 51 false representations made to the court. That is a breathtaking number. It is not remotely plausible to dismiss this appalling conduct as sloppy or careless work. It cannot be minimized (or trivialized) as just a case of “performance failures,” as Horowitz would have us believe. No, the sheer volume and magnitude of this shameful misconduct leaves little doubt that it was willful and deliberate. The lies perpetrated on the FISA Court constituted premeditated fraud. It is evidence of unremitting malice. Comey was at the helm of it all and signed off on three of the four warrants to spy. He now claims “vindication.” This is a delusion. Comey has cemented his legacy of disgrace. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., focused like a laser Wednesday on the most egregious of the FBI’s deceptions identified on pages 187 to 188 of the IG report. It described how, in early 2017, the FBI belatedly interviewed the person who secretly fed Steele much of the dossier’s contents. The still-unidentified “primary sub-source” later repudiated the information, telling the FBI that “Steele misstated or exaggerated” what the sub-source had told him. For example, it turns out that Steele’s incendiary accusation of Trump’s alleged sexual activities in a Moscow hotel was nothing more than unconfirmed “rumor and speculation.” The sub-source said they were comments “made in jest.” Some joke. As for Steele’s ludicrous claim that Page was offered what amounted to an $11 billion bribe – yes, $11 billion – by a Russian energy conglomerate in exchange for the lifting of sanctions during a Trump presidency, the sub-source provided text messages to the FBI that proved it was completely untrue. The sub-source insisted that he “never expected Steele to put the statements in his reports or present them as facts.” Indeed, he said he specifically warned Steele there was no proof whatsoever because “it was just talk.” The sub-source further explained that he was passing along “word of mouth and hearsay” and “conversations that he had with friends over beers.” It was described as “multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay.” After Trump was elected, both the FBI and Steele were desperate to verify anything in the dossier because the bureau had falsely sworn to the FISA Court in October 2016 that its application information was already verified. The IG report details how Steele pleaded with his sub-source to “find corroboration.” The person tried, but “could find none … zero.” In other words, Steele’s dossier that was so “central and essential” to the FBI’s surveillance warrant was rubbish that should have been fed into the nearest shredder. Armed with this evidence that the dossier was phony, the FBI was duty-bound to rush immediately to the FISA Court to alert it of all the fabrications. Comey and his confederates did not do so. Instead, the bureau purposefully covered it up, continued its surveillance of Page, and pursued even more renewals of the warrants that were signed by Comey, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. “If you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?” Sen. Graham asked Horowitz. “Absolutely,” replied Horowitz, adding that “it’s illegal surveillance.” Beyond Steele’s fictitious document, the FBI hid from the FISA Court exculpatory evidence that Page was not a Russian spy, which is how the initial warrant application boldly described him. Official: Durham’s reaction to IG report means ‘he’s got the goods on somebody’ According to the IG, a top FBI attorney (identified by Graham during the hearing as Kevin Clinesmith) doctored an email that falsely portrayed Page as a Russian spy when, in fact, the original email confirmed that he had worked for a U.S. intelligence agency. Page had also helped to prosecute an espionage case against Russian agents. Comey knew this before the first warrant was ever sought. As I explained in my book “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History,” Page had sent a letter to the director in September 2016 advising that he had assisted the FBI and CIA for many years, acting as a valuable source. Instead of responding to Page or having the bureau interview him, Comey prepared and executed a warrant application to have him wiretapped and to secretly access all of his electronic communications going forward and backward. Much like FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and his paramour FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Clinesmith was an anti-Trump activist who once texted “Viva la Resistance!” and was fired from the team of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Horowitz has recently referred Clinesmith to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution. It is impossible to view the actions of those who lied to the FISA Court as not driven by a virulent bias against Trump. It is true that the IG investigation “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” of bias. But in his testimony Wednesday, Horowitz conceded that he could not rule it out. Graham was more candid. “They had bias that reeked,” he said. Common sense tells us that bias animated both the warrants to spy on Carter Page and the FBI’s dilating investigation of Donald Trump. If you harbor any doubt, take a few moments to read through the multitude of ugly and profane text messages exchanged between Strzok and his lover. You’ll be reminded of how the very people who were investigating Trump were disparaging him with profanity-laced invective. Horowitz rebuked Comey’s “vindication” claim when the IG said: “The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this.” IG report reveals FBI misconduct and abuses in anti-Trump probe of Russia collusion hoax Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, ridiculed Comey’s other assertion in a Washington Post op-ed that “the FBI fulfilled its mission.” Lee responded: “I don’t understand that. I find it absolutely stunning that he would reach that conclusion. This is nonsense.” Lee correctly observed that Comey’s FBI had weaponized the FISA process. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Horowitz that his findings “should be deeply chilling to anyone.” He is right. And so was Attorney General William Barr, who remarked on Tuesday that he found the conduct of the FBI “appalling” because the bureau committed “gross abuses and inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the FBI.” Apparently, Comey tolerates abuse of power and dysfunction quite well. If Americans have lost faith in the FBI, their sad disillusionment is justified. They can at least take solace in knowing that people like Comey, McCabe, Strzok and other malefactors at the FBI have been banished from the bureau they diminished. The FBI under Comey's direction was crucial in executing the genesis of this hoax started under the previous administration....... AG Barr: ‘First Time in History’ That Incumbent Gov’t Spying ‘Has Been Done to a Presidential Campaign’

Sexist much? SF thought that was against liberal norms.......

Oh no.......It wasn't....... The first signs of evidence that "The first time in history incumbent government spying has been done to a Presidential campaign"

What we learned today from Horowitz.......

Then don't look at the meme thread if you get triggered so easy........

I would rather have it go there than here.....

Seriously, all we heard was "Horowitz did not find "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions" to launch the investigation." That's the main headline. OF COURSE he wouldn't find any documents or get anyone involved to admit to bias. For him to state he found no evidence of bias with Peter Strzok or Lisa Page is silly. Tomorrow's testimony by Horowitz in Lindsay Graham's Senate Judiciary Committee will be very telling.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/07/house-judiciary-committee-report-president-can-be-impeached-for-motives-without-breaking-law/ The House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.” The 52-page report, written by 20 members of the staff for the Democratic majority, attempts to provide a legal and constitutional basis for the Democrats’ ongoing effort to impeach the President. The report states: “The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.” That novel theory is only one of several questionable features of the report. 1. The report ignores all of the “expert” legal scholars who testified three days before. The report does not bother to cite any of the testimony from Wednesday’s lengthy hearing, with three witnesses called by Democrats and one called by Republicans. That suggests the report was written well in advance of the hearing. The report does cite published works by one of the witnesses, Micharl Gerhardt, but ignores those of his writings unhelpful to their case. 2. The report uses the same misquote used in the hearing, and by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The Democrat staff cite President Donald Trump as saying Article II of the Constitution means can do whatever I want as president.” As Breitbart News explained Friday, that is a misquote (backed by deceptively-edited video in the hearing), because Trump was talking specifically about his power to fire the Special Counsel (which he did not). 3. The report invents an absurdly broad standard for “bribery.” The report, backed by selective and misleading claims about the Framers’ intent, declares: “Impeachable bribery occurs when the President offers, solicits, or accepts something of personal value to influence his own official actions.” That standard would implicate every elected official in the United States, all of whom accept campaign contributions in return for policy promises. 4. The report cites radical left-wing activists committed to impeaching Trump. The report cites “scholars” such as Zephyr Teachout, who is on the advisory board of a group called “Impeach Trump Now.” It also cites Harvard’s Laurence Tribe, who declared in December 2016 that Trump’s impeachment should “begin on Inauguration Day.” It ignores contrary views, even by left-wing sources like Cass Sunstein, whom it quotes selectively (see below). 5. The report invents an absurdly broad “abuse of power” standard. Sunstein wrote in 2017 that “abuse of power” was, by itself, too vague: “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do.” (They cite his book on impeachment, but ignore that point.) Notably, “abuse of power” is not in the Constitution. 6. The report actually defends the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and cites it as precedent. The Johnson impeachment is almost universally regarded as an error. Yet the report, after conceding that a president “cannot be removed” simply because of “unpopular policies,” argues that Johnson should have been removed for exactly that, because he had “illegitimate motives.” This astonishing claim, citing Tribe, is worth quoting in full: 7. The report bends over backwards to justify impeachment without any crime being committed. The report spends a great deal of space arguing that a president does not have to commit an actual crime to be impeached — a claim hotly debated among scholars. It notes that previous impeachments have included charges of “non-criminal” acts, but ignores the fact that no presidential impeachment has ever proceeded without any criminal acts alleged. 8. After saying crimes are not necessary, the report cites the criminal grand jury process. Immediately after arguing that impeachment is not a criminal process (see above), the report cites the criminal grand jury, in which the accused has few legal rights or protections, in an attempt to justify the House’s bizarre impeachment process, in which President Trump — unlike Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — has been denied basic legal rights. 9. The report claims that Trump has more rights than Nixon and Clinton did. That false claim ignores the fact that unlike his predecessors, Trump has not been allowed legal representation in the key fact-finding stage of the process, which Democrats — for the first time — moved to the secretive Intelligence Committee. Moreover, it ignores that Republicans have been denied the ability to object to witnesses called by the Democrat majority. 10. The report claims that hearsay evidence is sufficient to impeach the president. After noting that the usual rules of evidence do not apply in the House, the report ignores that the only witnesses with direct knowledge of the president’s intentions testified that there was no “quid pro quo” regarding aid to Ukraine. One, Gordon Sondland, said he believed Trump wanted a “quid pro quo” for a White House meeting but had no direct knowledge to show it. 11. The report claims the president is “obstructing” Congress by appealing to the courts. The report claims that Trump can be impeached for denying requests for witnesses and documents, ignoring the fact that the president is raising constitutionally permissible defenses that await adjudication by the courts. Notably, the House itself has decided not to pursue key witnesses, apparently because it wants to rush to impeachment before election season. The report states its conclusions “do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee on the Judiciary or any of its members.” The committee will hold its first evidentiary hearing toward articles of impeachment on Monday. 12. The report suggests that President Trump committed “treason.” The report expands the definition of “treason” beyond the constitutional definition, arguing: “At the very heart of “Treason” is deliberate betrayal of the nation and its security.” Democrats have repeatedly alleged that Trump “betrayed our national security” in his dealings with Ukraine. The report echoes that language to make it possible to charge Trump with the ultimate crime. 13. The report says impeachment is a “last and most extraordinary resort,” but does not treat it that way. The report correctly cites a standard for impeachment but fails to show that the impeachment effort against Trump meets that standard in any way. It ignores the fact that many Democrats — including some of the scholars cited in the report — have pushed for impeachment since before Trump took office — as a first resort, not a last resort. So the Congressional Democrats want the American people to believe they are mind readers? Maybe that's why Schiff wouldn't allow the defense to call witnesses. What is sad, is that even though Schiff's committee AND Nadler's committee overtly rigged the rules to benefit their side unilaterally, they will not get the final act of removal from office they so desire. So these clowns in the House will have just wasted their time for naught......

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/07/house-judiciary-committee-report-president-can-be-impeached-for-motives-without-breaking-law/ The House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.” The 52-page report, written by 20 members of the staff for the Democratic majority, attempts to provide a legal and constitutional basis for the Democrats’ ongoing effort to impeach the President. The report states: “The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.” That novel theory is only one of several questionable features of the report. 1. The report ignores all of the “expert” legal scholars who testified three days before. The report does not bother to cite any of the testimony from Wednesday’s lengthy hearing, with three witnesses called by Democrats and one called by Republicans. That suggests the report was written well in advance of the hearing. The report does cite published works by one of the witnesses, Micharl Gerhardt, but ignores those of his writings unhelpful to their case. 2. The report uses the same misquote used in the hearing, and by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The Democrat staff cite President Donald Trump as saying Article II of the Constitution means can do whatever I want as president.” As Breitbart News explained Friday, that is a misquote (backed by deceptively-edited video in the hearing), because Trump was talking specifically about his power to fire the Special Counsel (which he did not). 3. The report invents an absurdly broad standard for “bribery.” The report, backed by selective and misleading claims about the Framers’ intent, declares: “Impeachable bribery occurs when the President offers, solicits, or accepts something of personal value to influence his own official actions.” That standard would implicate every elected official in the United States, all of whom accept campaign contributions in return for policy promises. 4. The report cites radical left-wing activists committed to impeaching Trump. The report cites “scholars” such as Zephyr Teachout, who is on the advisory board of a group called “Impeach Trump Now.” It also cites Harvard’s Laurence Tribe, who declared in December 2016 that Trump’s impeachment should “begin on Inauguration Day.” It ignores contrary views, even by left-wing sources like Cass Sunstein, whom it quotes selectively (see below). 5. The report invents an absurdly broad “abuse of power” standard. Sunstein wrote in 2017 that “abuse of power” was, by itself, too vague: “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do.” (They cite his book on impeachment, but ignore that point.) Notably, “abuse of power” is not in the Constitution. 6. The report actually defends the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and cites it as precedent. The Johnson impeachment is almost universally regarded as an error. Yet the report, after conceding that a president “cannot be removed” simply because of “unpopular policies,” argues that Johnson should have been removed for exactly that, because he had “illegitimate motives.” This astonishing claim, citing Tribe, is worth quoting in full: 7. The report bends over backwards to justify impeachment without any crime being committed. The report spends a great deal of space arguing that a president does not have to commit an actual crime to be impeached — a claim hotly debated among scholars. It notes that previous impeachments have included charges of “non-criminal” acts, but ignores the fact that no presidential impeachment has ever proceeded without any criminal acts alleged. 8. After saying crimes are not necessary, the report cites the criminal grand jury process. Immediately after arguing that impeachment is not a criminal process (see above), the report cites the criminal grand jury, in which the accused has few legal rights or protections, in an attempt to justify the House’s bizarre impeachment process, in which President Trump — unlike Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — has been denied basic legal rights. 9. The report claims that Trump has more rights than Nixon and Clinton did. That false claim ignores the fact that unlike his predecessors, Trump has not been allowed legal representation in the key fact-finding stage of the process, which Democrats — for the first time — moved to the secretive Intelligence Committee. Moreover, it ignores that Republicans have been denied the ability to object to witnesses called by the Democrat majority. 10. The report claims that hearsay evidence is sufficient to impeach the president. After noting that the usual rules of evidence do not apply in the House, the report ignores that the only witnesses with direct knowledge of the president’s intentions testified that there was no “quid pro quo” regarding aid to Ukraine. One, Gordon Sondland, said he believed Trump wanted a “quid pro quo” for a White House meeting but had no direct knowledge to show it. 11. The report claims the president is “obstructing” Congress by appealing to the courts. The report claims that Trump can be impeached for denying requests for witnesses and documents, ignoring the fact that the president is raising constitutionally permissible defenses that await adjudication by the courts. Notably, the House itself has decided not to pursue key witnesses, apparently because it wants to rush to impeachment before election season. The report states its conclusions “do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee on the Judiciary or any of its members.” The committee will hold its first evidentiary hearing toward articles of impeachment on Monday. 12. The report suggests that President Trump committed “treason.” The report expands the definition of “treason” beyond the constitutional definition, arguing: “At the very heart of “Treason” is deliberate betrayal of the nation and its security.” Democrats have repeatedly alleged that Trump “betrayed our national security” in his dealings with Ukraine. The report echoes that language to make it possible to charge Trump with the ultimate crime. 13. The report says impeachment is a “last and most extraordinary resort,” but does not treat it that way. The report correctly cites a standard for impeachment but fails to show that the impeachment effort against Trump meets that standard in any way. It ignores the fact that many Democrats — including some of the scholars cited in the report — have pushed for impeachment since before Trump took office — as a first resort, not a last resort. So the Congressional Democrats want the American people to believe they are mind readers? Maybe that's why Schiff wouldn't allow the defense to call witnesses. What is sad, is that even though Schiff's committee AND Nadler's committee overtly rigged the rules to benefit their side unilaterally, they will not get the final act of removal from office they so desire. So these clowns in the House will have just wasted their time for naught......

T.E.R.M. L.I.M.I.T.S.

SOUNDS horrible....... Where's the evidence? Oh, that's right........There is no "there" there........ Just a headline is all this will ever be.........

FIFY - (referring to congress.......)

How is it that the witness for the Democrats on Monday then gets to cross-examine the witness for the Republicans? What a Circus! https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/09/judiciary-democrats-witness-berke-impeachment-gohmert/?fbclid=IwAR1m-S_Gdw-Th-jVgcWCZCfuHDiCfQMrWirQWIq-VHVgWfWfoIk8ydN5U3o