0
4

[–] ideologicidal 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

In my read, surveillance actions require a predicate; that is, evidence or probable cause justifying the breach of Constitutionally guaranteed privacy (4A). Barr is saying spying occurred, and it might have been legit if it were predicated/based/supported by evidence, and that evidence might exist, but he (Barr) hasn't seen it.

But a lawfag, I am not

0
2

[–] docksofthebay [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Excellent, Ideologicidal!

Plain English does not seem to be a strong suit for BARR. His words were addressed to members of Congress, but they need to be understood by the average citizen to be effective.

These Hearings clearly have two audiences. The important audience is the voting public. BARR needs to make sure he is clearly understood if he is supporting POTUS efforts to educate the public as a lead in to taking judicial action on the Coup participants.

0
1

[–] ChaosFrog 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Barr made the point that he wasn’t just talking about the FBI. Any spying by the CIA on home soil would be illegal. My question is, if FISA and other warrants require solid evidence of a crime like they keep telling us (predicated), how in the hell are there zero arrests for what the warrants were for? The only answer is there were false pretenses in the start of the investigation. I guarantee that the spying was started overseas using 5 eyes “allies” to spy on Trump (like Q has told us) along with the CIA setting all these plans in motion. Barr has caught a whiff of the spy games that were being played without any warrants (predicated) and he is laying to ground work for coming exposure by putting the word “spying” in the public dialogue.

0
1

[–] Slimpickens1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

What was the reason for spying based on.

0
0

[–] tjliberty69 ago 

Simple the predicate reason for the treason was the deep state had to stop Trump at all cost, yes even the cost of getting hung by the neck until dead.

0
0

[–] 4KingandCountry ago 

Exactly. Barr is saying if it was justified (which he knows it was not, and the DS knows it was not). They are sooo screwed

0
0

[–] Thataintbutter ago 

To me, was he framed or not, only thing is missing predicate, so yes a frame job, say it ain't so.

1
0

[–] Stretchmac 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Here you go lazy ass. There is this thing called Google or Duckduckgo to look shit up....... https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/predicate-act/

0
0

[–] docksofthebay [S] ago  (edited ago)

Hey SHILL, F... U ... you don't even know what you are talking about with your Deep State Radical Left Democrat education. So in plain English what did BARR mean or are you so ignorant you just have to point to a google link? Some people are so stupid they don't even know they are stupid, like SHILLS. -- look it up in the dictionary... "Stupid"... there is the picture of a SHILL.

0
1

[–] Stretchmac 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You're questioning my education when you don't understand a simple definition? Fuuuuck you. Predicate: evidence that a crime may have been committed. Plain enough dumb ass??

1
0

[–] MingDynasty 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Q will tell you in a year or two.

Or 20.