Horowitz says the FBI screwed up the page investigation

[bluesmoke]

Now there's a top quality explanation! "We ****ed up all the warrant applications, not just his!"

Not all of them. Don't be silly. Enough to draw critical conclusion and make recommendation of remedy. The claims remains refuted as you've provided nor pertinent evidence to counter my refutation, w/o which the claim is unfounded and need not be debated further by me. Unless you can come up significant evidence to counter my refutation, do not expect further reply from me.

 

[Lutherf]

Not all of them. Don't be silly. Enough to draw critical conclusion and make recommendation of remedy. The claims remains refuted as you've provided nor pertinent evidence to counter my refutation, w/o which the claim is unfounded and need not be debated further by me. Unless you can come up significant evidence to counter my refutation, do not expect further reply from me.

Horowitz reviewed 29 warrants and all 29 were defective.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf

 

[ludin]

Horowitz reviewed 29 warrants and all 29 were defective.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf

you are talking to people that hate facts.
just look at the OP denying facts.

that is all they have.
denial fallacies are their main source of arguments.

in which all of those are individual perjury charges for each mistake on the report.

 

[bluesmoke]

Horowitz reviewed 29 warrants and all 29 were defective.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf

I'm not going to be spammed by you. Post and/or direct to where in the document is the pertinent information. Understand that Horowitz DID NOT review "all the warrant applications" but only the ones he reviewed, which was not all warrant applications. If what I say is factual, then you need not bother provide what I asked of you because the evidence is not there to proof such a broad claim as was made.

 

[ludin]

I'm not going to be spammed by you. Post and/or direct to where in the document is the pertinent information. Understand that Horowitz DID NOT review "all the warrant applications" but only the ones he reviewed, which was not all warrant applications. If what I say is factual, then you need not bother provide what I asked of you because the evidence is not there to proof such a broad claim as was made.

Yes because you hate facts.
I guess you have never heard of quality control tests.

so if someone does a 100 line run of something they don't test all 100 items. they will take 10 of them and test them.
as long as the failure rate is < what is acceptable then they will pass the whole thing.

He doesn't have to review all of them. there is no time to review all 10k or however many requests.
he reviewed a sample of them all 29 of them had major issues and the FBI couldn't even produce 4 of them.
which means they didn't exist.

that is called a catastrophe. it is a bigger issue than you think it is because it is showing the the FBI is lying to a federal court.
that is a federal felony.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes because you hate facts.
I guess you have never heard of quality control tests.

so if someone does a 100 line run of something they don't test all 100 items. they will take 10 of them and test them.
as long as the failure rate is < what is acceptable then they will pass the whole thing.

He doesn't have to review all of them. there is no time to review all 10k or however many requests.
he reviewed a sample of them all 29 of them had major issues and the FBI couldn't even produce 4 of them.
which means they didn't exist.

that is called a catastrophe. it is a bigger issue than you think it is because it is showing the the FBI is lying to a federal court.
that is a federal felony.

You didn't answer my question as to where in your spam is the information pertinent to your "all the warrant applications" claim. However, it may not be needed because you admit that not ALL warrant applications were reviewed, by which you refute your own claim. That info might give more detail as to how the 29 were selected out of how many reviewed by what criteria, which is telling. FYI, 29 out of 10,000 is by no means a statistically valid sample number due to the low sample number compared to the total number in the population of warrant apps as opposed to your misleading example of 10 out of 100.

 

[ludin]

You didn't answer my question as to where in your spam is the information pertinent to your "all the warrant applications" claim. However, it may not be needed because you admit that not ALL warrant applications were reviewed, by which you refute your own claim. That info might give more detail as to how the 29 were selected out of how many reviewed by what criteria, which is telling. FYI, 29 out of 10,000 is by no means a statistically valid sample number due to the low sample number compared to the total number in the population of warrant apps as opposed to your misleading example of 10 out of 100.

I did answer your question. why do you lie?
you don't nee facts that's right you have your opinion lmao.
but sorry facts don't care about your feelings.

I didn't refute my claim in any way you are the one that argued that all of them needed to be checked.
Horowitz was not doing a full scale investigation that is not his job as IG. Given the materials being reviewed i would
expect a fail rate of less than 1%. given that most errors would be misspellings. i would not expect a failure rate of 100%
which is what we have in this case.

you obviously don't know what examples our. however thanks to horowitz we do know that there is a systemic issue of lying going on at the FBI
to the FISA court. that is a federal felony.

here i thought you hated corruption? so you should be against this and want to know why the FBI is not only lying to a court of law but violating the civil rights of american people.
i guess those things are not important to you.

go figure another leftist that hates our constitutional protections against the things the FBI is doing.
you guys will stoop to no level won't you?

 

[j brown's body]

~ Don't expect any indictments or criminal charges for these DOJ/FBI hacks. They all protect each other. Horowitz was just a show. Barr & Durham will also be a dud.

We live in a country now where our leader is allowed to extort foreign leaders for political gain, use a shadow government to advance a shadow foreign policy and be utterly unresponsive to congressional oversight. With lawlessness at the top level, I wouldn't expect to see it elsewhere.

 

[j brown's body]

YOu didn't read your own article did you?
it basically says everything that we said was happening.

The only way to fix it is to fire and hold those that committed crimes responsible.
will it happen no because the state protects itself which is why the FBI is in the mess that it is in.

People should be disgusted that our nations supposed top law enforcement agency is behaving in this matter.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[bluesmoke]

I did answer your question. why do you lie?
you don't nee facts that's right you have your opinion lmao.
but sorry facts don't care about your feelings.

I didn't refute my claim in any way you are the one that argued that all of them needed to be checked.
Horowitz was not doing a full scale investigation that is not his job as IG. Given the materials being reviewed i would
expect a fail rate of less than 1%. given that most errors would be misspellings. i would not expect a failure rate of 100%
which is what we have in this case.

you obviously don't know what examples our. however thanks to horowitz we do know that there is a systemic issue of lying going on at the FBI
to the FISA court. that is a federal felony.

here i thought you hated corruption? so you should be against this and want to know why the FBI is not only lying to a court of law but violating the civil rights of american people.
i guess those things are not important to you.

go figure another leftist that hates our constitutional protections against the things the FBI is doing.
you guys will stoop to no level won't you?

My question was "You didn't answer my question as to where in your spam is the information pertinent to your "all the warrant applications" claim.", which you did not answer. That's a fact. For you to say I'm lying that you did not answer the question is, in itself, an obvious lie. Or, direct me to the post which states where in the document you provided is what you say is there. I'm not going to read an entire doc, just as I won't listen to an entire video, to have to root-out what you say is in there that supports your claim. Which, as I said, you cannot prove. Your claim "all the warrant applications" is false. You cowardly avoid giving me any guidance to what in your spam attempt is what you say. I could give you the dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica should you ask for evidence of what I say, is my analogy to your spamming me. You can't prove your claim. You've not shown the supporting facts. All you've done is allude to what is somewhere in the doc you present. That's because you don't want me to have that info because that would be honest and forthright debate, which is to your obvious disadvantage.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Horowitz is a Barr hack appointment.

Barr is a Trump hack appointment.

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

We live in a country now where our leader is allowed to extort foreign leaders for political gain, use a shadow government to advance a shadow foreign policy and be utterly unresponsive to congressional oversight. With lawlessness at the top level, I wouldn't expect to see it elsewhere.

~ The Obama administration is no longer - but the residual effects linger. This is why Trump won the presidency. Be glad ...

 

[Rogue Valley]

~ The Obama administration is no longer - but the residual effects linger. This is why Trump won the presidency. Be glad ...

I highly doubt the same six states that flipped in 2016 will all remain Red.