"I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated — adequately predicated," Barr testified. "I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated, but I need to explore that. I think it's my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane."
What the hell is "predicated". Its become the word of the hour.
If an action or event is predicated on a belief or situation, it is based on it or depends on it; ... so Barr is saying SPYING is based on (predicated) on investigative proof to be determined - i.e. on going investigation.
In essence, BARR says he thinks there is proof of Trump the Candidate and Trump the President being SPIED on by the government agencies because there is evidence the agencies did not follow proper SURVEILLANCE procedures.
Any help on otherwise understanding the use/meaning of "predicated' would be appreciated.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] ChaosFrog 0 points 1 point 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.