PDA

View Full Version : Inspector General Michael Horowitz Testifies - REKT by Gowdy



Ephedra
06-20-2018, 01:34 AM
Strzok/Page's bias so obviously altered the Hillary and Russian investigations not even 300 beowulf cope paragraphs can change an objective person's mind.

Fantastic breakdown and timeline by Gowdy.

xA0tX3Oe4wc

DeshaunWatson
06-20-2018, 02:08 AM
This won’t get national attention. So sad. Watching Msnbc cry fake tears over the illegal immigrants.

JediRN
06-20-2018, 02:13 AM
There still isn't any evidence that the final product was affected.

N0rds
06-20-2018, 02:21 AM
REKT.


I really wish Trey was more than just bark :/




There still isn't any evidence that the final product was affected.


C O P E
O
P
E




They could show footage of Obama/FBI/DOJ/Soros/Cabal literally conspiring to take out Trump, and you would gymnastics your way to saying "no, thats not proof of a coup, they are just meeting legally!"

Ephedra
06-20-2018, 02:28 AM
There still isn't any evidence that the final product was affected.

Yawn.

Did you watch?

SYKO227
06-20-2018, 02:50 AM
How much do shills get paid to defend this chit?

StoliFun
06-20-2018, 03:11 AM
Gowdy didn't rekt Horowitz. Horowitz agreed he wanted to go after Strzok harder but that it was not within the scope of this particular investigation.

JediRN
06-20-2018, 04:45 AM
How much do shills get paid to defend this chit?

less than you russians I'm sure.

SYKO227
06-20-2018, 05:27 AM
less than you russians I'm sure.

сука блять

Retoaded
06-20-2018, 05:31 AM
Gowdy didn't rekt Horowitz. Horowitz agreed he wanted to go after Strzok harder but that it was not within the scope of this particular investigation.

That is where they screwed up. They should have given themselves an unlimited scope like Mueller.

Apparently Strzok was physically removed from the FBI building on Friday afternoon as a part of some agency disciplinary process...so...maybe they are taking care of it internally.

Cleveland33
06-20-2018, 05:56 AM
Gowdy didn't rekt Horowitz. Horowitz agreed he wanted to go after Strzok harder but that it was not within the scope of this particular investigation.


Wait...investigations have particular scopes?

N0rds
06-20-2018, 06:50 AM
Wait...investigations have particular scopes?


They need to start unlimited scope investigations into obama and hillary. you know, to be fair, and see if any laws were broken...

right libs?....

knightofday
06-20-2018, 07:37 AM
There still isn't any evidence that the final product was affected.

You and people like you a fukking rediculous. Go back to reddit and stay in your bubble/ echo chamber smh

rampagefc77
06-20-2018, 07:56 AM
There still isn't any evidence that the final product was affected.

Didn’t Horowitz conclude that the findings question the outcome of the investigation?

Retoaded
06-20-2018, 08:00 AM
Didn’t Horowitz conclude that the findings question the outcome of the investigation?

Yes he concluded he could not be sure that bias did not play a role in Strzok's decision making.

Ephedra
06-20-2018, 11:44 AM
Yes he concluded he could not be sure that bias did not play a role in Strzok's decision making.

Which Gowdy made him look like a fool reviewing the findings in the OP video.

StongEverything
06-20-2018, 11:49 AM
How much do shills get paid to defend this chit?

Pretty sure they actually believe the sh!t they spew

icetrauma
06-20-2018, 11:55 AM
Wasn’t 3 others found to be anti-Trump and 2 were FBI Agents and 1 was an attorney?

risingstarl96a1
06-20-2018, 11:59 AM
I honestly like Mr. Gowdy because of his prior investigations.

XterraRob
06-20-2018, 12:00 PM
I honestly like Mr. Gowdy because of his prior investigations.

All bark, no bite.

Stizzel
06-20-2018, 12:04 PM
Wasn’t 3 others found to be anti-Trump and 2 were FBI Agents and 1 was an attorney?

Yes, and they're still working with mueller. The attorney is a transplant from the clinton foundation

JediRN
06-20-2018, 08:53 PM
Didn’t Horowitz conclude that the findings question the outcome of the investigation?

No


Yes he concluded he could not be sure that bias did not play a role in Strzok's decision making.

Which doesn't mean yes. Further more the final product wasn't affected. NO COLLUSSION!!!!


You and people like you a fukking rediculous. Go back to reddit and stay in your bubble/ echo chamber smh

compare join dates?

SYKO227
06-21-2018, 04:27 AM
Pretty sure they actually believe the sh!t they spew

Even worse. SAD!

DeshaunWatson
06-21-2018, 04:36 AM
All bark, no bite.

This. Used to like Gowdy.


And can someone get him to shave plz? Guy looks like a washed up rock band member

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 05:08 AM
Didn’t Horowitz conclude that the findings question the outcome of the investigation?

I don’t think he said this or wrote this. Please provide evidence to back up this claim.


Yes he concluded he could not be sure that bias did not play a role in Strzok's decision making.

That line was in reference only to the decision to prioritize the Russian investigation over Weiner’s laptop.

You know this. I know you know this because of another thread you participated in. Why are you disengenously broadening the scope of what Horowitz said to include things he wasn’t referring to by answering Rampage’s question in the affirmative and not correcting him? The less polite term for that is called lying.

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 05:32 AM
Yes, and they're still working with mueller. The attorney is a transplant from the clinton foundation

I can find evidence only one more individual texting politically-charged anti-Trump texts worked for Mueller’s investigation, and that individual was removed from the investigation in February of 2018. What evidence do you have of the other two? Please share.

I can find nothing about these people related to the Clinton Foundation. Please share where you’re getting this information from.

JUSA
06-21-2018, 05:34 AM
Gowdy is all bark, no bite. Name one person he took to task after one of his many tough talk grillings.

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 05:34 AM
All bark, no bite.


Gowdy is all bark, no bite. Name one person he took to task after one of his many tough talk grillings.

What do you imagine Gowdy should be biting on?

Which particular actions should he be taking you think?


This. Used to like Gowdy.

Why? Is it because he’s not demanding Mueller be immediately fired like senile Giuliani, or that crank conspiracy peddler Nunes who is doing Trump’s bidding at every turn?

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 05:42 AM
They could show footage of Obama/FBI/DOJ/Soros/Cabal literally conspiring to take out Trump, and you would gymnastics your way to saying "no, thats not proof of a coup, they are just meeting legally!"

They could show video footage of Trump colluding with Russian government agents and verbally agreeing to drop sanctions in return for help in the election, shaking hands, and then signing a document memorializing the agreement, signed by a notary, and held up to the camera like in those executive order ceremonies and Trump supporters would be like, “Well, hrmmm, you’re taking him out of context he really meant something else. And if he did sign it so what! Clinton. Emails. Benghazi!”

And then seeing that wasn’t enough God would come down from the sky wearing a MAGA hat and whisper in your ear, “He’s totally guilty.” and you’d still scream, “Fake News!” at the top of your lungs becaus Trump has basically become a cult leader at this point.

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 06:05 AM
Yawn.

Did you watch?

The FBI agents and the prosecutors have to document and justify what they do. If they open a formal and official investigation there has to be a reason for it. If they go down a particular line of inquiry there has to be a reason for it. In order to question a witness there has to be a reason for it. If they ask a judge for a warrant there has to be a reason for it. If they charge someone there has to be reasons for it. If they intend on bringing a case to trial and convincing a jury of the merits of their case then have to develop a compelling, persuasive argument. They can’t just make sh*t up, or fake evidence, or harass people. Eventually they will get caught if they do stuff like that.

That’s why I’m not worried about any of this. If there are no facts which indicate wrongdoing by Trump which justify Trump’s impeachment he simply won’t be impeached.

But the reason why all his supporters are worried is that in their heart of hearts they know Trump is lying POS who probably did something wrong. Trump’s extreme reluctance to testify is a big clue.

Cleveland33
06-21-2018, 06:11 AM
They could show video footage of Trump colluding with Russian government agents and verbally agreeing to drop sanctions in return for help in the election, shaking hands, and then signing a document memorializing the agreement, signed by a notary, and held up to the camera like in those executive order ceremonies and Trump supporters would be like, “Well, hrmmm, you’re taking him out of context he really meant something else. And if he did sign it so what! Clinton. Emails. Benghazi!”

And then seeing that wasn’t enough God would come down from the sky wearing a MAGA hat and whisper in your ear, “He’s totally guilty.” and you’d still scream, “Fake News!” at the top of your lungs becaus Trump has basically become a cult leader at this point.

Yea except just about every Trump supporter on this forum has been critical of at least one of his actions since his election.

Nice try though.

Cleveland33
06-21-2018, 06:13 AM
The FBI agents and the prosecutors have to document and justify what they do. If they open a formal and official investigation there has to be a reason for it. If they go down a particular line of inquiry there has to be a reason for it. In order to question a witness there has to be a reason for it. If they ask a judge for a warrant there has to be a reason for it. If they charge someone there has to be reasons for it. If they intent on convincing a jury then have to develop a compelling, persuasive argument. They can’t just make sh*t up, or fake evidence, or harass people. Eventually they will get caught if they do stuff like that.

Like the FISA warrants

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 06:22 AM
They need to start unlimited scope investigations into obama and hillary. you know, to be fair, and see if any laws were broken...

right libs?....

Every President since Nixon has had some sort of independent counsel or special counsel investigation, most of them lasting years. The only President who wasn’t subject to such a thing was Obama.

Cleveland33
06-21-2018, 06:24 AM
The only President who wasn’t subject to such a thing was Obama.

Considering the actions of the DOJ and FBI it's no surprise

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 06:28 AM
Considering the actions of the DOJ and FBI it's no surprise

You mean the actions Horowitz confirmed as being valid, well reasoned, and in accordance with past practices? Have you not been paying attention?

beowulf10
06-21-2018, 06:29 AM
Like the FISA warrants

And it looks like you didn’t read the Schiff memo either.

Cleveland33
06-21-2018, 06:42 AM
You mean the actions Horowitz confirmed as being valid, well reasoned, and in accordance with past practices? Have you not been paying attention?

Only in certain areas, they need to open an investigation into the Fast and Furious investigation.

Cleveland33
06-21-2018, 06:43 AM
And it looks like you didn’t read the Schiff memo either.

I did, you are reading what you want to believe out of it. Similar to your idea that Comey doesn't misrepresent the truth

Audioslave
06-21-2018, 06:52 AM
They need to start unlimited scope investigations into obama and hillary. you know, to be fair, and see if any laws were broken...

right libs?....

Wasn't Trump going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary? If anyone needs oversight and investigations it is politicians.