Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Now he claims that the intelligence community "spied" on the campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Barr: "For the same reason we're worried about foreign influence in elections, we want to make sure that — I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. ... There were a lot of rules put in place to make sure that there's an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. I'm not suggesting those rules were violated, but I think it's important to look at that."

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.): "But you're not suggesting that spying occurred?"

Barr: "I don't ... well ... I guess you could — I think spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting that it wasn't adequately predicated. But I need to explore that."

When pressed by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) whether he has any evidence of wrongdoing by the FBI or Mueller in the Russia investigation, Barr said: "I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now. I do have questions about it." Barr said he plans on reviewing "both the genesis and conduct" of the Russia investigation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Speaking of lying sacks of shit: SLOPPYSECONDS is a lying sack of shit. Barr DID NOT walk back his statement. Here is the transcript (from SLOPPYSECONDS' own link):

---

Quote:

---

Speaking of lying sacks of shit: SLOPPYSECONDS is a lying sack of shit. Barr DID NOT walk back his statement. Here is the transcript (from SLOPPYSECONDS' own link) - SIGNY

Signym, you are one fucking dimwit: "I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I am saying that I am concerned about it and I’m looking into it." -- Barr

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Jeez, it would be a full-time job, just correcting all of your lies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No. What Barr is talking about is SURVEILLANCE. In your terms, spying.

The Trump campaign was SURVEILLED. That's what the (multiple) FISA warrants were all about. That SURVEILLANCE began well before Mueller's INVESTIGATION.

I capitalized those terms so that maybe they'll stick in your mind as separate entities. I hope you can manage to keep it straight this time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Translation = "Anybody who I don't agree with is a lying sack of shit."

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Translation = "Anybody who I don't agree with is a lying sack of shit."

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

No, you mental midget. Anybody who's lying is a lying sack of shit.

Figure it out, wet brain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No. What Barr is talking about is SURVEILLANCE. In your terms, spying.

The Trump campaign was SURVEILLED. That's what the (multiple) FISA warrants were all about. That SURVEILLANCE began well before Mueller's INVESTIGATION.

I capitalized those terms so that maybe they'll stick in your mind as separate entities. I hope you can manage to keep it straight this time.

---

What a Russian troll. You're going to make a fool of yourself in this thread, too, I see. I will enjoy laughing at your idiocy, yet again.

William Barr Gives Trump What He Wants, Forms Team to Investigate the F.B.I
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-gives-trump-what-
he-wants-forms-team-to-investigate-the-fbi

Barr is a lifelong shill, liar and traitor, paid to cover for fascist criminals. Period. He's never been anything else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
When facts fail them they toss out insults. It's the last resort of little minds.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, GSTRING, ya got me. How's this for a deal: I stop calling you GSTRING and you stop lying? Care to try?

Let's see how long you last.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, GSTRING, ya got me. How's this for a deal: I stop calling you GSTRING and you stop lying? Care to try?

Let's see how long you last.

---

Gee - thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.

How's this for a deal: you only call people liars when they actually lie, and not just when they make you look bad?

I'll even give you a mulligan on your last post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

How's this for a deal: you only call people liars when they actually lie, and not just when they make you look bad?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, I have demonstrated over and over again when you lie...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

How's this for a deal: you only call people liars when they actually lie, and not just when they make you look bad?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, I have demonstrated over and over again when you lie...

---

That didn't take long!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Translation = "Anybody who I don't agree with is a lying sack of shit."

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Everyone here knows that's exactly what SIGs' thread here is. A hate thread. It isn't the first, and it's far from the last. Hey SIG, it's OK if they only kill Jews isn't it?

Hey I know, why don't you get a one stop shopping migrant thread going as well. We've read some of your thoughts on that subject as well. They fit right in with your bigoted agenda here.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mreply.aspx?q=y&mid=1029252

^ You are one well practiced, compulsive liar. What was the name of that guy that wrote about his drug addiction and he went on Oprah and spilled his guts and he was all over media coverage about his amazing story? It was gripping stuff. And then we found out he lied about it all.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62736


Weird and uncomfortable: Signym and Auraptor holding hands and singing Kumbaya together... -
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61769


You've even started down the path of first saying, "there was zero collusion, none, nada." to "there's no law against collusion! It's okay to collude with another super power. Hillary did!"
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61769


I also wonder what Siggy's Mexican servants feel about her wanting to send millions of Mexicans back to Mexico.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62169

---

Quote:

---

No, you're a lying sack of shit when you deliberately lie to put one over on people. Generally reserved for politicians, but currently the market is being cornered by the Trump Administration and the rest of his lackeys.

Barr lied when he had the balls to say that the Trump campaign was "spied"
on. WTF!?

The main thing that got me: When he was asked what proof he had.

He didn't have a shred of evidence. He just thought he would say it, ya' know
because Trump says it all the time.
Proof!? We don't need proof. We are Republicans. WE are Lying Sacks of Shit!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Translation = "Anybody who I don't agree with is a lying sack of shit."

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

QUICK!
Who was it that said "pusillanimous pussyfooters" and "supercilious sophisticates"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
What crimes?

Flying pallets of cash , in the dead of night, on unmarked cargo planes, to Tehran ?

Running guns to help ISIS in Syria ?

Targeting US citizens w/the IRS , illegally, for purely political purposes ?

Putting journalists in jail ?

Oh, wait... that was the LAST administration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

The AG is proving to be a FUCKING Shill and a lying Sack o' Shit.


SGG

---

Yep, so far that appears to be the case.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Why are you such a liar? Why are you so completely full of shit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

No, you're a lying sack of shit when you deliberately lie to put one over on people. Generally reserved for politicians, but currently the market is being cornered by the Trump Administration and the rest of his lackeys.

Barr lied when he had the balls to say that the Trump campaign was "spied"
on. WTF!?

The main thing that got me: When he was asked what proof he had.

He didn't have a shred of evidence. He just thought he would say it, ya' know
because Trump says it all the time.
Proof!? We don't need proof. We are Republicans. WE are Lying Sacks of Shit!

---

DULLBADKID. Apparently you missed THE important point: Barr didn't back off of the "spying" accusation (the Trump campaign WAS spied on) but whether the spying was "predicated" ... in other words, was it legally justified?

So, spying? YES.
Illegal spying? MAYBE.

Jeez, get it straight this time willya? This is the SECOND time I posted about that.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"SHINY", I listened to the videos, and it was just like the transcript which was posted. There was nothing new there, and I think Barr was EXTREMELY clear about what he was doing and why. I don't know why you have a problem with his statement - it seems straighforward to me. Maybe you haven't been following that particular concern, but it seems as if the FBI used unverified information (the "dossier") to justify getting multiple FISA (Foreign Intelligence SURVEILLANCE Act) warrants without letting the judge know how sketchy the information was. If the judge had full information, he (or she) might not have even granted the warrant. That's what barr mean when he said "predicated" ... legally justified.

If that's the case, then there was underhandedness going on, and that's what Barr is going to look into. Are you saying that he shouldn't?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"SHINY", I listened to the videos, and it was just like the transcript which was posted. There was nothing new there, and I think Barr was EXTREMELY clear about what he was doing and why. I don't know why you have a problem with his statement - it seems straighforward to me. Maybe you haven't been following that particular concern, but it seems as if the FBI used unverified information (the "dossier") to justify getting multiple FISA (Foreign Intelligence SURVEILLANCE Act) warrants without letting the judge know how sketchy the information was. If the judge had full information, he (or she) might not have even granted the warrant. That's what barr mean when he said "predicated" ... legally justified.

If that's the case, then there was underhandedness going on, and that's what Barr is going to look into. Are you saying that he shouldn't?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Why are you such a liar? Why are you so completely full of shit?

---

Where have I lied ?

And why can't you answer a simple question ?

I see you can name call just fine, but your posts have no substance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So. lacking any actual evidence, and ignoring the fact that Mueller would also have to be in on the ' cover up ', you instead reach back 30 years and draw your own contrived conclusions as PROOF ?

---

Quote:

---

"SHINY", I listened to the videos, and it was just like the transcript which was posted. There was nothing new there, and I think Barr was EXTREMELY clear about what he was doing and why. I don't know why you have a problem with his statement - it seems straighforward to me. Maybe you haven't been following that particular concern, but it seems as if the FBI used unverified information (the "dossier") to justify getting multiple FISA (Foreign Intelligence SURVEILLANCE Act) warrants without letting the judge know how sketchy the information was. If the judge had full information, he (or she) might not have even granted the warrant. That's what barr mean when he said "predicated" ... legally justified.

If that's the case, then there was underhandedness going on, and that's what Barr is going to look into. Are you saying that he shouldn't? -SIGNY

SIG's usual dose of condescension - always a winner. -

---

Quote:

---

FISA - It was fine when GOP candidates employed someone for the info, but now it's not?- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

What was wrong with it again, exactly? Cites and links thanks. No one seems to want to answer that, rather just make assumptions or unfounded accusations.

---

Quote:

---

Most objective people want to know what Trump's connections to Russia are.

---

Quote:

---

What his liabilities are.

---

Quote:

---

He's our president - any even marginally concerned citizen would want to know ... blah blah blah

---

Quote:

---

“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.” Remember that, Signym, while using "reason". Reason is in air quotes because what Signym does with so little effort has nothing to do with truth. It's always only about winning an argument and not getting caught and having your teeth punched in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

"SHINY", I listened to the videos, and it was just like the transcript which was posted. There was nothing new there, and I think Barr was EXTREMELY clear about what he was doing and why. I don't know why you have a problem with his statement - it seems straighforward to me. Maybe you haven't been following that particular concern, but it seems as if the FBI used unverified information (the "dossier") to justify getting multiple FISA (Foreign Intelligence SURVEILLANCE Act) warrants without letting the judge know how sketchy the information was. If the judge had full information, he (or she) might not have even granted the warrant. That's what barr mean when he said "predicated" ... legally justified.

If that's the case, then there was underhandedness going on, and that's what Barr is going to look into. Are you saying that he shouldn't? -SIGNY

SIG's usual dose of condescension - always a winner. -

---

GSTRING's usual attacks- always a winner!

Quote:

---

FISA - It was fine when GOP candidates employed someone for the info, but now it's not?- GSTRING

---

Who is this "someone" and when did the GOP employ them? When did the GOP request a FISA warrant on political rivals? In other words: what are you talking about? Details, cites and links please.

Quote:

---

What was wrong with it again, exactly? Cites and links thanks. No one seems to want to answer that, rather just make assumptions or unfounded accusations.

---

First of all, Barr was EXTREMELY clear that he was not "accusing" "the FBI" of anything ... he had a question about the legality of the spying, which is what he is attempting to answer. FISA warrants are beyond TOP SECRET. Duh! It's not like you or I are are about to get a link to them.

So, are you saying that Barr should not look into the FISA warrants and the process that obtained them?

Quote:

---

Most objective people want to know what Trump's connections to Russia are.

---

That was the subject of the Mueller investigation.

Quote:

---

What his liabilities are.

---

That was ALSO the subject of the Mueller investigation.

Perhaps you haven't heard? IT'S OVER.

Even tho the Trump campaign was being SURVEILLED IN REAL TIME, they didn't find anything then.

And even tho Mueller did an anal probe of the Trump campaign after-the-fact, he didn't find anything indictable there either.

Despite all of the "golden showers" and "Trump hotel" hysteria in the M$M ... which btw they should really apologize for that never-ending blizzard of fake news... there was nothing there.

Quote:

---

He's our president - any even marginally concerned citizen would want to know ... blah blah blah

---

Done to death, dood. IT'S OVER. A big nothing-burger. Put a cap on your "concerned citizen" justifications for your endless baseless breatheles hand-wringing. There are a lot of things to be concerned about as far as Trump is concerned, but RUSSIA!!! isn't one of them.

*****

Now, if you want to know what I think the origins of Trump's "make nice with Russia" policy were ... Trump has a number of sincere but disconnected reactions. That's why he can want to reset our relationship with Russia but also want to regime change in Iran and Venezuela, and tolerate Israel's incursions into Syria, all of which are Russia's partners. It's not as if he's globally "for" Russian interests.

I think the source of Trump's response to Russia is his uncle who worked in "nuclear". Somewhere along the way, Trump got the idea that nuclear Armageddon wasn't a good idea - go figure! He took that to heart, and knowing that Russia is our biggest nuclear rival and that between us we could destroy the world several times over, that is a fate he wanted to avoid. To the extent that your collective RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! hysteria has derailed Trump from that goal ... that's a bad thing, not a good thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.” Remember that, Signym, while using "reason". Reason is in air quotes because what Signym does with so little effort has nothing to do with truth. It's always only about winning an argument and not getting caught and having your teeth punched in.

---

Do you always resort to punching someone's teeth in when reason fails you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GSTRING
... largest, steamiest pile of sh*t ... pure farce ... more name-calling .... "they want you to call it" and more insinuations of "Russian troll" ... Benghazi and more distraction and subject-changing

---

Quote:

---

Yes, the Mueller report is over - have you read it? Do you know of anyone who has? Barr? And we should trust him... why?

---

Quote:

---

FISA - It was fine when GOP candidates employed someone for the info, but now it's not?- GSTRING

Who is this "someone" and when did the GOP employ them? When did the GOP request a FISA warrant on political rivals? In other words: what are you talking about? Details, cites and links please- SIGNY

---