[RalliartRsX]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

You obviously didn’t follow the hearing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/u...aring.amp.html

“Let’s assume that there was a lawful predicate to open up a counterintelligence investigation,” Mr. Graham said. “What’s been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy over time to defraud the FISA court, to illegally surveil an American citizen and to keep an operation open against a sitting president of the United States, violating every norm known to the rule of law.”

He focused on Mr. Horowitz’s finding that a lower-level F.B.I. lawyer had doctored an email from the C.I.A. used in preparing to seek a renewal of a wiretap order targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide, in a way that kept the court from learning potentially exculpatory information about Mr. Page.

He also slammed the F.B.I. for using a dossier of opposition research about Mr. Trump compiled by a British former spy, Christopher Steele, for Democrats in the Page wiretap applications — and for continuing to use it to seek renewals even after they interviewed Mr. Steele’s primary source and he contradicted what the dossier said.

And Mr. Graham read at length text messages between F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation who expressed personal views in opposition to Mr. Trump’s election, saying that people with such views should never have been in charge of investigating the Trump campaign.

Confirmation bias indeed. Yeah, nothing to see here.

Why assume when the reports states that there was a lawful precident when the report was opened up?? Didn't Graham not read the report??

And here let me help you since you seem to cherry pick your statements from your article vs reading and quoting the entire article.

In a lengthy opening statement, Mr. Graham did not quarrel with the finding by the inspector general that the F.B.I.’s basis for opening the Russia investigation met the standard. But Mr. Graham slammed the F.B.I. for how that inquiry unfolded.

So Graham is or isn't arguing about the legal precedence?? Which is it??

So let me get this straight; you are quoting Graham, not the report correct??

Are you really arguing that Graham has authority over Horowithz in a report the IG/Horowitz developed??

How does that work??

As I said YOU DIDNT READ THE REPORT!

Below is also from your excerpt.

One of Mr. Horowitz’s biggest findings dealt with whether any Justice Department or F.B.I. official let their political views affect the opening of Crossfire Hurricane or any investigative steps they took. The inspector general found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions” to open the investigation.

Republicans immediately attacked this conclusion. “There is no planet on which I think that this report indicates that things were O.K. within the F.B.I.,” said Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah.

And Mr. Graham pointed to texts among F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation — uncovered by the inspector general — that indicated anti-Trump sentiments as evidence that the officials acted with bias. Though Mr. Horowitz disagreed, he has said the texts demonstrated bad judgment and cast a cloud over the F.B.I.


Mr. Graham vilified Peter Strzok, a former F.B.I. top counterintelligence agent, and Lisa Page, a former bureau lawyer, the officials who assailed Mr. Trump in text messages. In his report, Mr. Horowitz noted that the decision to start the Russia investigation did not rest with Mr. Strzok. Mr. Horowitz also reaffirmed those texts did not influence the decision by Bill Priestap, head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, to open the Russia investigation. The report said that Ms. Page played no role in opening the Russia investigation or the F.B.I.’s scrutiny of four Trump campaign associates, including Mr. Page.