• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Absolutely Shocked and Amazed!

bubbabgone said:
The irony is superseded by you thinking you know what your talking about.
Click to expand...

lol...you don't even see what you did. Do ya?

It's pretty bad when you miss it even after having it highlighted for ya.
 
Mycroft said:
Here she is talking about what the Obama administration corruption is ACTUALLY all about. Mark my words...she will turn out to be absolutely correct.

Click to expand...


I got just over 2 minutes into this video and the moment I heard her say "postulate = suggest, assume..." and I almost...almost stopped listening. It was at that point, however, when she began to lose credibility with me because she began to provider her opinion of what US intelligence agencies were conducting surveillance activity on her and members of the Trump campaign but she never provides any proof.

For example: She speaks of her computer at CBS being hacked and malware installed on it to monitor her keystrokes and upload websites and classified material, but she never says what malware was used nor does she provide a list of the questionable websites or even provide the title of the classified document. Why not? If she's an objective journalist, why doesn't she provide the evidence to support her claims instead of speaking in generalities? What's crazy is the same people who claim they don't trust anonymous sources are the same people who are quick to believe this woman's 1st Amendment/government corruption/lame stream media :bs:.

I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that she was a guest on Mike Huckabee's show (knowing his far-right, conservative lean along with his anti-mainstream media and anti-Obama sentiments), but in the end all I did was plug my earholes full of more deep-state, pro-Trump, anti-government, hate the media blustering.
 
calamity said:
lol...you don't even see what you did. Do ya?

It's pretty bad when you miss it even after having it highlighted for ya.
Click to expand...

I saw what you think I did. It wasn't difficult.
 
Objective Voice said:
I got just over 2 minutes into this video and the moment I heard her say "postulate = suggest, assume..." and I almost...almost stopped listening. It was at that point, however, when she began to lose credibility with me because she began to provider her opinion of what US intelligence agencies were conducting surveillance activity on her and members of the Trump campaign but she never provides any proof.

For example: She speaks of her computer at CBS being hacked and malware installed on it to monitor her keystrokes and upload websites and classified material, but she never says what malware was used nor does she provide a list of the questionable websites or even provide the title of the classified document. Why not? If she's an objective journalist, why doesn't she provide the evidence to support her claims instead of speaking in generalities? What's crazy is the same people who claim they don't trust anonymous sources are the same people who are quick to believe this woman's 1st Amendment/government corruption/lame stream media :bs:.

I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that she was a guest on Mike Huckabee's show (knowing his far-right, conservative lean along with his anti-mainstream media and anti-Obama sentiments), but in the end all I did was plug my earholes full of more deep-state, pro-Trump, anti-government, hate the media blustering.
Click to expand...

So...you are going to dismiss everything she said because she didn't give you all the details you want in a six minute interview? shrug... Maybe you should read her books and articles.

In any case, you are ignoring the over-arching point: The corrupt Obama administration didn't just spy on Trump and Attkinsson. They spied on a LOT of Americans.
 
bubbabgone said:
If you report the truth, your bias wouldn't show. Guardian and Vice are not examples.

There's nothing that indicates Chris Wallace has a conservative bias - the opposite is more likely.
I get the sense that anyone who doesn't publicly toe the Dem Party line will be perceived by you as having a Conservative bias.
Click to expand...

Well then, whom do you believe shows no bias, and only reports the truth. Either a person, or a news source.
 
Cramer said:
Well then, whom do you believe shows no bias, and only reports the truth. Either a person, or a news source.
Click to expand...

Not many.
Perhaps Howie Kurtz and the subject of this thread. Jake Tapper has his moments but not often enough to get him the gold. Maybe he needs to break from CNN.
I would agree Chris Wallace somewhat tries except, while he will ask "confrontational" questions to both right and left guests, the questions to each often carry a different level of intensity and penetration.

Who do you like?
 
Amelia's point that a person completely without bias is as rare as a person completely without sin is an excellent point.

But Sharyl Attkisson is as close to the ideal as we have on TV today in the "mainstream media".

I too am skeptical of Sinclair, but Sharyl is a breath of fresh air in a very stale environment.
 
Mycroft said:
So...you are going to dismiss everything she said because she didn't give you all the details you want in a six minute interview? shrug... Maybe you should read her books and articles.

In any case, you are ignoring the over-arching point: The corrupt Obama administration didn't just spy on Trump and Attkinsson. They spied on a LOT of Americans.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I acknowledged the wrong-doing of the Obama Administration when it used meta-data from ISPs under the USA Patriot Act to "spy" on American citizens. I called it wrong then just as I'm calling it wrong now for having been done. But what Mike Huckabee did here was frame his questions on "spying" to Ms. Atkinson in a way that gave the appearance that widespread spying is taking place using her alleged victimization as not only as evidence that such spying takes place holistically but that spying had, in fact, taken place against then candidate Trump. Put another way:
He used her story to seegway into an even bigger story (or so he thinks) just to gain the viewer's attention. He did a nice job of giving the "illusion" of widespread spying against private citizens, but that's all he did...give an illusion.

Now, if the government did, in fact, invaded Ms. Atkinson's work and personal electronic devices, i.e., work PC, her cellphone, laptop, etc., and planted spyware/malware on them I say show me the proof first and then we can talk about why that occurred and the right or wrong of it. But using her story with no real evidence and allow such to morph into a "deep state, left-wing counter narrative"...nah! I'll call :bs: on stuff like this every time.
 
Objective Voice said:
No, I'm not. I acknowledged the wrong-doing of the Obama Administration when it used meta-data from ISPs under the USA Patriot Act to "spy" on American citizens. I called it wrong then just as I'm calling it wrong now for having been done. But what Mike Huckabee did here was frame his questions on "spying" to Ms. Atkinson in a way that gave the appearance that widespread spying is taking place using her alleged victimization as not only as evidence that such spying takes place holistically but that spying had, in fact, taken place against then candidate Trump. Put another way:
He used her story to seegway into an even bigger story (or so he thinks) just to gain the viewer's attention. He did a nice job of giving the "illusion" of widespread spying against private citizens, but that's all he did...give an illusion.

Now, if the government did, in fact, invaded Ms. Atkinson's work and personal electronic devices, i.e., work PC, her cellphone, laptop, etc., and planted spyware/malware on them I say show me the proof first and then we can talk about why that occurred and the right or wrong of it. But using her story with no real evidence and allow such to morph into a "deep state, left-wing counter narrative"...nah! I'll call :bs: on stuff like this every time.
Click to expand...

You seem to be unaware of the FISA database queries that people in the Obama administration abused. That was the spying that Huckabee alluded to. And the whole Trump mess is intimately connected to that abuse.

But don't worry, even though the proof already exists...even though you won't accept that proof even though it is substantiated by a FISA Court Judge...eventually, you won't be able to deny the proof. Especially when people start going to jail.
 
Mycroft said:
You seem to be unaware of the FISA database queries that people in the Obama administration abused. That was the spying that Huckabee alluded to. And the whole Trump mess is intimately connected to that abuse.

But don't worry, even though the proof already exists...even though you won't accept that proof even though it is substantiated by a FISA Court Judge...eventually, you won't be able to deny the proof. Especially when people start going to jail.
Click to expand...

As you're correctly stated, I know of no such FISA database incursions made by the Obama Administration that were done unlawfully. What proof is there that FISA warrants under the Obama Administration were obtained illegally? Several officials within the FBI, NSA and DoJ - both from the Obama and Trump Administrations - have all stated publicly that they've combed through the records and have found no evidence that any FISA warrant issued related to the Russia investigation were obtained illegally. They've also stated that Trump was never spied on. So, what proof have you or can you point to that's to the contrary? Who is this FISA court judge you speak of who backs your claim?
 
Objective Voice said:
As you're correctly stated, I know of no such FISA database incursions made by the Obama Administration that were done unlawfully. What proof is there that FISA warrants under the Obama Administration were obtained illegally? Several officials within the FBI, NSA and DoJ - both from the Obama and Trump Administrations - have all stated publicly that they've combed through the records and have found no evidence that any FISA warrant issued related to the Russia investigation were obtained illegally. They've also stated that Trump was never spied on. So, what proof have you or can you point to that's to the contrary? Who is this FISA court judge you speak of who backs your claim?
Click to expand...

This might help you: 2016 Cert FISC Memo Opin Order Apr 2017 (4) (351K views)

Now...I know you won't want to actually read that ruling by Judge Collyer so I'll give you this link to help you understand what it's all about: Obama Administration Admits to FISA Court Its NSA Illegally Spied on Americans There is actually a lot of information, analysis and even speculation on this issue available for you to look at on the internet. You won't get that from the mainstream media, though. If you want to know facts, you'll have to look elsewhere.

btw, you should know that it was Obama's NSA Director Rogers who brought this issue to the FISA court's attention in late 2015. Shortly after that, Brennan and Clapper tried to get Obama to fire Rogers. Also shortly after that is when the CIA operations against Papadopoulus, Flynn and other Trump campaign members started which led to the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

As I said, those FISA database query abuses by the Obama administration, besides targeting thousands of Americans, are intimately connected to the Trump mess.

Regarding proof...don't get ahead of things. Right now the DOJ is in the investigative phase because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered and a lot of evidence that needs to be examined. This work is going on as we speak. You'll likely see the proof when indictments start dropping.
 
Mycroft said:
This might help you: 2016 Cert FISC Memo Opin Order Apr 2017 (4) (351K views)

Now...I know you won't want to actually read that ruling by Judge Collyer so I'll give you this link to help you understand what it's all about: Obama Administration Admits to FISA Court Its NSA Illegally Spied on Americans There is actually a lot of information, analysis and even speculation on this issue available for you to look at on the internet. You won't get that from the mainstream media, though. If you want to know facts, you'll have to look elsewhere.

btw, you should know that it was Obama's NSA Director Rogers who brought this issue to the FISA court's attention in late 2015. Shortly after that, Brennan and Clapper tried to get Obama to fire Rogers. Also shortly after that is when the CIA operations against Papadopoulus, Flynn and other Trump campaign members started which led to the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

As I said, those FISA database query abuses by the Obama administration, besides targeting thousands of Americans, are intimately connected to the Trump mess.

Regarding proof...don't get ahead of things. Right now the DOJ is in the investigative phase because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered and a lot of evidence that needs to be examined. This work is going on as we speak. You'll likely see the proof when indictments start dropping.
Click to expand...

This isn't any great revelation. The NSA has been spying on Americans for decades. Under Republicans and Democrats.

We only recently have learned the gargantuan scope due to Edward Snowden.
 
Rogue Valley said:
This isn't any great revelation. The NSA has been spying on Americans for decades. Under Republicans and Democrats.

We only recently have learned the gargantuan scope due to Edward Snowden.
Click to expand...

download.png

This isn't about the NSA collecting data. They've been legally doing that according to law.

This is about the Obama administration illegally searching the database and extracting information on American citizens. That is against the law.
 
Mycroft said:
View attachment 67257035

This isn't about the NSA collecting data. They've been legally doing that according to law.

This is about the Obama administration illegally searching the database and extracting information on American citizens. That is against the law.
Click to expand...

That's not how I read it. You better try harder and present better "evidence".
 
Rogue Valley said:
That's not how I read it. You better try harder and present better "evidence".
Click to expand...

What they are doing is simply cherry picking.

It will be interesting to see if Barr has the stomach to churn actually indictments/prison time out of this stuff. They'll never get away with it in open courts, but Barr is quite a tool. I'm sure Obama didn't follow legal norms, yet Trump and Barr will.:lamo
 
Rogue Valley said:
That's not how I read it. You better try harder and present better "evidence".
Click to expand...

LOL!!

No matter how hard I try, you'll still get it wrong.

Your problem...not mine.
 
Empirica said:
I must admit I was shocked back on October 4, 2015 when CBS debuted Full Measure, a 30 minute Sunday morning news program hosted by the totally unbiased journalist extraordinaire, Sharyl Attkisson.

And I'm amazed it survived for three and a half years, considering it regularly reports extremely important news (complete with details and facts) that MSM/Cable News have long avoided, twisted, sugar coated, and even faked.

I applaud those MSM affiliates for their courage to break rank with the Progressive status-quo by airing Full Measure. (even if it is for only 30 minutes a week)

Thank you Sinclair Broadcast Group and thank you Sharyl Attkisson...you ROCK girlfriend!
“FULL MEASURE With Sharyl Attkisson” Debuts Sunday, Nationwide On Sinclair Affiliates And Through Streaming At [url]WWW.FULLMEASURE.NEWS |[/url]

Sharyl Attkisson; among the all time best investigative reporters!
Home | Full Measure
Click to expand...

"Sinclair Broadcast Group" does nothing that is unbiased.
 
Mycroft said:
This might help you: 2016 Cert FISC Memo Opin Order Apr 2017 (4) (351K views)

Now...I know you won't want to actually read that ruling by Judge Collyer...
Click to expand...

Actually, I did read her "Conclusion". And although I did read up to page 16, I don't have time presently to read the entire Memorandum of Opinion and Order and from what I could tell, the MOO doesn't seem to support your claim of improper procedures or unauthorized use of FISA warrants. In fact, the conclusion states quite the opposite.

First off, on page 6, subparagraph B(C) under "Background - Subject Matter of the Certifications", it reads:

Each 2016 certification involves the targeting of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. to acquire foreign intelligence."
Click to expand...

This would clearly indicated that the FISA warrants were not meant to "spy" on any U.S. citizen.

Second, I think footnote 13 on page 12 which defines "foreign intelligence information" may be of interest to you.

Third, from my quick review of the MOO it would appear that the NSA did make some questionable inquires into individuals within their system, but it doesn't appear that those inquiries were malicious.

Fourth, Judge Rosemary M. Collier concluded that the Certificates as amended met proper procedural guidelines and did not violate anyone's 4th Amendment rights.

I'll probably read over the entire MOO at a later date when I have time, but from what I've read so far it would appear that the Obama Administration followed the law and adhered to proper guidelines for obtaining FISA warrants. Of course, Judge Collier added a few new stipulations herself as to how the government should go about obtaining FISA warrants in the future, as well as, adding a few reporting requirements/guidelines to follow, but overall it doesn't appear that she found anything improper as to how the Obama Administration went about obtaining FISA warrants.

(sidenote: Per the MOO, NSA is "the lead agency in making targeting decisions under Section 702" where surveillance which may lead to obtaining a FISA warrant is concerned. I came across that tidbit while skimming over the MOO...can't recall exact which page I read it, but it's there.
 
Last edited:
Empirica said:
I must admit I was shocked back on October 4, 2015 when CBS debuted Full Measure, a 30 minute Sunday morning news program hosted by the totally unbiased journalist extraordinaire, Sharyl Attkisson.

And I'm amazed it survived for three and a half years, considering it regularly reports extremely important news (complete with details and facts) that MSM/Cable News have long avoided, twisted, sugar coated, and even faked.

I applaud those MSM affiliates for their courage to break rank with the Progressive status-quo by airing Full Measure. (even if it is for only 30 minutes a week)

Thank you Sinclair Broadcast Group and thank you Sharyl Attkisson...you ROCK girlfriend!
“FULL MEASURE With Sharyl Attkisson” Debuts Sunday, Nationwide On Sinclair Affiliates And Through Streaming At [url]WWW.FULLMEASURE.NEWS |[/url]

Sharyl Attkisson; among the all time best investigative reporters!
Home | Full Measure
Click to expand...
She is a vaxxer, and vaxxers are complete morons.
 
Objective Voice said:
Actually, I did read her "Conclusion". And although I did read up to page 16, I don't have time presently to read the entire Memorandum of Opinion and Order and from what I could tell, the MOO doesn't seem to support your claim of improper procedures or unauthorized use of FISA warrants. In fact, the conclusion states quite the opposite.

First off, on page 6, subparagraph B(C) under "Background - Subject Matter of the Certifications", it reads:



This would clearly indicated that the FISA warrants were not meant to "spy" on any U.S. citizen.

Second, I think footnote 13 on page 12 which defines "foreign intelligence information" may be of interest to you.

Third, from my quick review of the MOO it would appear that the NSA did make some questionable inquires into individuals within their system, but it doesn't appear that those inquiries were malicious.

Fourth, Judge Rosemary M. Collier concluded that the Certificates as amended met proper procedural guidelines and did not violate anyone's 4th Amendment rights.

I'll probably read over the entire MOO at a later date when I have time, but from what I've read so far it would appear that the Obama Administration followed the law and adhered to proper guidelines for obtaining FISA warrants. Of course, Judge Collier added a few new stipulations herself as to how the government should go about obtaining FISA warrants in the future, as well as, adding a few reporting requirements/guidelines to follow, but overall it doesn't appear that she found anything improper as to how the Obama Administration went about obtaining FISA warrants.

(sidenote: Per the MOO, NSA is "the lead agency in making targeting decisions under Section 702" where surveillance which may lead to obtaining a FISA warrant is concerned. I came across that tidbit while skimming over the MOO...can't recall exact which page I read it, but it's there.
Click to expand...

I'll wait till you finish reading so you'll know what we are talking about later. But I'll leave you with these two snippets. These are important, though not the only important things in the ruling.

fisa-abuse-error-rate-v3.jpg

Think about that...85% of NSA database searches were illegal and that had been going on since 2012.

fisa-abuse-improper-decisionmaking.jpg

And this means this happened as the result of a deliberate decision made by people in the Obama administration.
 
Empirica said:
I must admit I was shocked back on October 4, 2015 when CBS debuted Full Measure, a 30 minute Sunday morning news program hosted by the totally unbiased journalist extraordinaire, Sharyl Attkisson.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up. I have now added her to my podcast list. Incidentally, the description of her on the Google stream is as follows for all those haters out there: " Sharyl Attkisson is a nonpartisan investigative journalist, five-time Emmy Award winner, and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting... For thirty years, Atkisson was a correspondent and anchor at CBS News, PBS, CNN and in local news...Emmy Award for...undercover investigation into fundraising by Republican freshmen... "

I recently terminated my NPR Politics podcast after listening to Mara Liason, Pete Dominico, et. al. discuss Russian collusion for hours without any mention whatsoever of the Steele Dossier and how the entire Russia collusion conspiracy started. NPR has truly become hack journalism. And we pay for it. What a farce.
 
Mycroft said:
I'll wait till you finish reading so you'll know what we are talking about later. But I'll leave you with these two snippets. These are important, though not the only important things in the ruling.

View attachment 67257300

Think about that...85% of NSA database searches were illegal and that had been going on since 2012.

View attachment 67257301

And this means this happened as the result of a deliberate decision made by people in the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that the ratio of redactions in just those two pages is considerably higher than we saw in the Mueller Report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom