Anonymous ID: f34316 Dec. 10, 2019, 10:45 a.m. No.7473760   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>7473363 lb

There's a significant error on this otherwise-excellent chart.

Pic 1 your chart.

Pic 2 chart corrected.

 

Last step was incorrectly specified. It's not 2/3 of entire 100 Senators, but 2/3 of members then present.

"he United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3)."

 

This has been discussed a couple of times already.

Anonymous ID: f34316 Dec. 10, 2019, 10:53 a.m. No.7473835   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3867

>>7473686

Yeah, I said so yesterday.

Political bias wasn't found re: Priestap so Horowitz exonerated the whole Crossfire Hurricane of political bias, despite known documented biases of those (Strzok...) who participated in the meetings to decide on opening the case.

 

Quoting:

---------------------

 

>>7464874 (OFF BREAD) at 2019-12-09 19:42:43 (UTC+1)

Q Research General #9547:IG just the beginning! Edition

 

One of the ways IG Horowitz soft-pedals the info, p. iii Exec Summary.

 

Although he found Strzok and Page were biased against Trump in favor of Hillary, Page wasn't involved in deciding to open Crossfire Hurricane. Although Strzok WAS involved in the meetings that led up to that decision, IG doesn't blame political bias b/c it was Strzok's supervisor Priestap who signed off on the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane.

 

IG's weasel-wording and weasel-thinking is reprehensible IMO. Doesn't he understand that a subordinate employee (Strzok) can influence his boss by tailoring the info and recommendations provided to the boss?

It's called "managing your manager" and is well-known in hierarchical organizations. Also it gives the mgr plausible deniability and political cover.

Sucks to be you, IG Horowitz.

Anonymous ID: f34316 Dec. 10, 2019, 11 a.m. No.7473878   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3904 >>3923 >>3933 >>3942

>>7473734

How do we explain "Corney", "Comey" in 2013 Atlantic article?

Did Google index the article from a print copy using OCR?

Most articles get published digitally on the web with no OCR step to convert scanned text into characters.

 

Reconcile.

I can't.