Barr THINKS Spying Occurred

Dec 2015
15,899
14,797
Arizona
#41
Yea that is not true.
It sounds good but not true.
At no time does a warrant trump reasonable suspicion. It is a crime for anyone to not report a crime.

Exactly and thank you for pointing that out.
Police may only search the particular area and seize the specific items called for in the search warrant. Police may search outside the scope of the warrant only if they are protecting their safety or the safety of others, or if they are acting to prevent the destruction of evidence. Police may seize objects not specified in the warrant only if they are in plain view during the course of the search.

So if law enforcement is looking for drugs and finds evidence of other crimes--in plain view (which is basically anywhere)--they can seize said objects.
Police are not required to obtain a search warrant if they reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or others may be placed in danger in the time it would take to secure the warrant.

The DOJ was looking at Carter Page/Russia in 2013. According to the FBI, a Russian spy is secretly recorded in April 2013 talking with another accused spy about efforts to “recruit” Page “as an intelligence source.”
*In June of 2015. Carter Page goes to work for Trump.
*Michael Flynn worked with Russia and TRUMP.
*George Papadopolous worked with Russia and Trump.
*Paul Manafort worked with Russia and Trump.
*Trump Jr worked with Russia and Daddy Trump.
*Roger Stone worked with Julian Assange (who worked with Russia) and for Trump.

Does this sound complicated to you, Dick? Where do all roads lead? If you said Trump---you win a stuffed giraffe.
Anyone who doesn't get the connection is a moron.
 
Dec 2018
2,367
742
New England
#42
The man who holds the highest office in the land--the Intelligence Community--the Attorney General of the United States "thinks" there was spying. Thinks. A major assertion by the AG of the US. With no evidence. He thinks.

CNN)Attorney General William Barr told lawmakers Wednesday that he will be looking into the "genesis" of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation that began in 2016 of potential ties between members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government.
"I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal," Barr said, echoing some of the more inflammatory claims lobbed by the President for months, but declining to elaborate on his concerns.
The news will likely be viewed as a welcome development to the President, who has regularly called for an investigation and, as recently as last week, told reporters more should be done to examine the origins of the Russia probe.
These comments directly contradict what DOJ previously told us," tweeted House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, who authorized the subpoena for the Mueller report. "I've asked DOJ to brief us immediately."
Yet, according to a source familiar with his thinking, when Barr spoke of "spying" on the Trump campaign, he meant it in the "classic sense" of intelligence collection. He doesn't view term as "pejorative," the source said.

Bill Barr is supposed to represent the people of this country. He is supposed to believe in facts, evidence, proof but he THINKS......WTH?? Barr stutters and stammers when called on his statement.

There goes his credibility. A man who was highly regarded--going to be a professional??
Absolutely stunning and WHY? WHY would Barr make such an assertion?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/barr-doj-investiation-fbi-russia/index.html

Watch his statement: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...k-spying-did-occur-trump-campaign-sot-vpx.cnn
Whether Barr is biased remains to be seen, but I see no problems looking into the FBI's investigation. As a reminder, from 2016 one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Trump/Russia case, Peter Strzok, is on the record responding to the question "Trump won't really win, will he?" as saying "No, we'll stop him." Doesn't sound terribly objective either, does it?
 
Likes: Sabcat
Oct 2010
66,908
26,989
Colorado
#43
Exactly and thank you for pointing that out.
Police may only search the particular area and seize the specific items called for in the search warrant. Police may search outside the scope of the warrant only if they are protecting their safety or the safety of others, or if they are acting to prevent the destruction of evidence. Police may seize objects not specified in the warrant only if they are in plain view during the course of the search.

So if law enforcement is looking for drugs and finds evidence of other crimes--in plain view (which is basically anywhere)--they can seize said objects.
Police are not required to obtain a search warrant if they reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or others may be placed in danger in the time it would take to secure the warrant.

The DOJ was looking at Carter Page/Russia in 2013. According to the FBI, a Russian spy is secretly recorded in April 2013 talking with another accused spy about efforts to “recruit” Page “as an intelligence source.”
*In June of 2015. Carter Page goes to work for Trump.
*Michael Flynn worked with Russia and TRUMP.
*George Papadopolous worked with Russia and Trump.
*Paul Manafort worked with Russia and Trump.
*Trump Jr worked with Russia and Daddy Trump.
*Roger Stone worked with Julian Assange (who worked with Russia) and for Trump.

Does this sound complicated to you, Dick? Where do all roads lead? If you said Trump---you win a stuffed giraffe.
Anyone who doesn't get the connection is a moron.
You liberals won't accept the truth. No matter what you say, you can't justify a witch hunt.













**sarcasm**
 
Mar 2019
2,574
574
Texas
#44
Exactly and thank you for pointing that out.
Police may only search the particular area and seize the specific items called for in the search warrant. Police may search outside the scope of the warrant only if they are protecting their safety or the safety of others, or if they are acting to prevent the destruction of evidence. Police may seize objects not specified in the warrant only if they are in plain view during the course of the search.

So if law enforcement is looking for drugs and finds evidence of other crimes--in plain view (which is basically anywhere)--they can seize said objects.
Police are not required to obtain a search warrant if they reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or others may be placed in danger in the time it would take to secure the warrant.

The DOJ was looking at Carter Page/Russia in 2013. According to the FBI, a Russian spy is secretly recorded in April 2013 talking with another accused spy about efforts to “recruit” Page “as an intelligence source.”
*In June of 2015. Carter Page goes to work for Trump.
*Michael Flynn worked with Russia and TRUMP.
*George Papadopolous worked with Russia and Trump.
*Paul Manafort worked with Russia and Trump.
*Trump Jr worked with Russia and Daddy Trump.
*Roger Stone worked with Julian Assange (who worked with Russia) and for Trump.

Does this sound complicated to you, Dick? Where do all roads lead? If you said Trump---you win a stuffed giraffe.
Anyone who doesn't get the connection is a moron.
If in the upcoming election we were to see a candidate that has similar ties to foreign governments as potus did then potus right now has every right to get doj to look into that candidate for national security purposes. Even if there are no ongoing investigations already happening on the candidate.

You owe me a stuffed giraffe. I will decide on the stuffing choice later if that is ok. I am looking forward to meeting ann coulter.
 
Likes: Clara007
Jul 2018
3,954
1,797
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#46
OH. So you know MORE than Bill Barr?? WOW--you are really amazing, TN. You always seem to know more than "all the generals". You and Trump. AND now you know more than the United States Attorney General.

IF spying was done why did Barr say this:
“I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now,” Barr later said. “I do have questions about it.”
When pressed by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) about his use of the word “spying,” Barr clarified: “I want to make sure there was no unauthorized surveillance.”
“I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I am saying I am concerned about it and looking into it,” Barr added. “I believe there is a basis for my concern. But I’m not going to discuss the basis.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Barr’s remarks “directly contradict what DOJ previously told us,” adding that he has asked the Justice Department for an immediate briefing.

I do not understand why people "play" with Trump trolls.

He knows all this. He just chooses to be part of the problem. Spread the Trump propaganda.
 
Likes: Clara007
Dec 2015
15,899
14,797
Arizona
#47
Whether Barr is biased remains to be seen, but I see no problems looking into the FBI's investigation. As a reminder, from 2016 one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Trump/Russia case, Peter Strzok, is on the record responding to the question "Trump won't really win, will he?" as saying "No, we'll stop him." Doesn't sound terribly objective either, does it?
I admit it was a dumb thing to say and do---but from what I've read Strzok's call/text was personal. Was it proven that Strzok let his personal opinion of Trump color his professional responsibilities? Or was this just two friends trading quips?
There were hundreds, possibly thousands of calls on Strzoks's phone. How many viscerated Trump? Should we fire all the Trump supporters at the bureau, because obviously if someone shows their bias verbally (personally) their professionalism should be questioned? No?
 
Likes: imaginethat
Dec 2015
15,899
14,797
Arizona
#48
If in the upcoming election we were to see a candidate that has similar ties to foreign governments as potus did then potus right now has every right to get doj to look into that candidate for national security purposes. Even if there are no ongoing investigations already happening on the candidate.

You owe me a stuffed giraffe. I will decide on the stuffing choice later if that is ok. I am looking forward to meeting ann coulter.
:D
 
Dec 2018
2,367
742
New England
#50
Was it proven that Strzok let his personal opinion of Trump color his professional responsibilities? Or was this just two friends trading quips?
Big difference between saying “I hope the hell he doesn’t win” and “we will stop him.” The latter implies action.

Look at is this way. Imagine the texts were between Trump and and Barr. Trump asks “Will Mueller causes us problems?” and Barr replies “No, we will stop him.” What would you infer from that?


An investigation of the FBI is warranted here.
 
Likes: Sabcat