• 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!

House Intelligence Committee releases Dem rebuttal to GOP FISA memo

Moderate Right said:
It had a lot of words. Not even one specific. Maybe we can come at this from a different angle. What was it that Hillary or the DNC did which Russia or Wikileaks used against them?
Click to expand...

I explained all that. Go back and read it - this time with an open mind.
 
bubbabgone said:
Of course I know there's a difference. Hillary paid for damaging material and got what she paid for. That's known.
Click to expand...
Hillary? Still talking about Hillary? You guys are pathetic.
Hillary legally paid Fusion which legally paid Steele, who legally obtained intelligence. Intelligence that the FBI routinely paid for too. <- obviously not a crime

It's why Nunes has to release a memo, and Mueller has been issuing indictments. One is doing a professional, criminal investigation. The other is Nunes.

Mueller is now right on top of Trump and his inner circle, why don't we all pull up a chair and patiently wait for his big reveal? You really think Donald and those in his orbit, were wise enough...with all that he's done to date, to stay squeaky clean? If I were a betting man...
 
Mach said:
A criminal theft, violation of their confidential communications by a foreign power, and presumably Americans who assisted with it, was specifically what was used against them.

We didn't have a similar crime committed against the RNC, as you know, it would have been 100x worse. What? You don't know that? That's because no one committed that crime against them, it was a lopsided campaign, thanks to the Russians and their co-conspirators.

Despite Nunes running cover for Trump *again*, you will find that not only did Russia hack and meddle in the campaign illegally, some Americans unwittingly, and wittingly, helped. We have confirmation of the crime, and some unwitting are kept secret for now. The witting, you now they are coming. The only thing you can do is try to discredit DOJ/FBI, and that's not working....what's next? Mueller wasn't born in the U.S.? Maybe the FBI orchestrated 9/11?

Because another Nunes "memo" isn't gonna cut it. I'd love to know if they can find legal jeopardy on Nunes for attempting to obstruct or abuse of power. He's a dirty ****bag either way.
Click to expand...

Boy, can you lefties dodge the question. What confidential communications were stolen and used against them. Again, be specific.
 
haymarket said:
I explained all that. Go back and read it - this time with an open mind.
Click to expand...

You didn't explain anything. Not one thing. If you actually said something then I could look at it with an open mind. But, I'm still waiting. At least one of you linked to some information that said that the wikileaks releases showed that Hillary and the DNC colluded to influence the primary election against Bernie. Can you at least admit to that, since you didn't even name that yourself?
 
Schiff's memo is a disappointment, it doesn't rehabilitate the FBI and DoJ for their perfidious reliance on this uncorroborated dossier.

I've noted before, the dossier's funding and the biased views of it's author are not significant -if the substance is independently verified, evidently this was not the case. To the degree the FBI and intelligence community cannot verify Steele's allegations, they've a serious problem.

The Ohr-Strzok-mistress-McCabe exchanges suggest this "deep state" is a real thing that explains the unorthodox manner FBI and DoJ has proceeded.

Mueller's indictment of those 13 Russians for their fraudulent misrepresentations highlights the insignificance of any Russian role in the elections. Russians shouldn't be involved at all, but the evidence Mueller has that they were is ridiculous and looks a lot like a simple online marketing exercise.

Ongoing litigation around the world confronting Steele for his false allegations naming a variety of individuals supposedly involved in collusion with Trump suggests the veracity of this dossier deserves scrutiny.

The 'deep state' is now leaking Mueller has the evidence of Russia's "hack" of Hillary's emails and a relationship to Wikileaks. I hope it isn't just a rehash of the Crowdstrike claims.
 
Moderate Right said:
You didn't explain anything.
Click to expand...

I explained a great deal to you. I gave a thorough and complete answer. I will try to elaborate on it for you if you did not understand the first time.

The Russians hacked the DNC accounts and then used Assange and wikileaks as their stooge to get the material to the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign was the only campaign in a position to be helped by the material. Nobody else was in that position.

The genius of the wikileaks material was that they decided to release it in dribs and drabs like the proverbial Chinese Death of a Thousand Cuts. No one lethal cut is necessary or fatal but it is a combination of ALL the small cuts which inflicts pain on the victim and eventually it is the combined totality of all the cuts and the pain it causes that kills the victim.

Do you understand what that means?

Do you understand the comparison to the Chinese Death of a Thousand Cuts> Ae you familiar with that?

That was the Machiavellian beauty of the entire thing. There was no smoking gun nor did there have to be a smoking gun. There was no big scandal being revealed. They basically had a bunch of little molehills that Trump turned into mountains. Trump loudly and very publicly invoked wikileaks by name several times everyday and making it appear that there was something so damaging in them. He kept screaming WIKILEAKS and CROOKED HILLARY and LOCK HER UP and the reality that there was not much there took as secondary backseat to the invocation of WIKILEAKS as a scandal in itself.

Do you understand who Machiavelli was? Do you understand that there was no smoking gun in the wikileaks information but that THERE DID NOT HAVE TO BE A SMOKING GUN since they used it in an entirely different way?

The result was a daily attack that made Clinton the issue and her honesty the issue and the use of the wikileaks material a club to which administer a beating to her every day several times each day for the last month of the campaign.

Do you follow that?

Trump LOVED WIKILEAKS and said so. I amn sure you remember his repeated use of this and his loud love for it. Don't you?

Nunes tried to do the same thing with his memo which turned out to be a big nothing burger (to use the right wings favorite term) but the right wing did not care as they keep repeating the same lies and falsehoods about it despite it having crashed and burned and thoroughly refuted. The right wing has learned that if you point at a melted chocolate and scream that it is actually SH*% loud and often enough, people will believe it.

The Trump-Russian wikileaks event would have made Machiavelli proud as punch.

Got it this time?
 
Moderate Right said:
Boy, can you lefties dodge the question. What confidential communications were stolen and used against them. Again, be specific.
Click to expand...

The argument is that the various DNC files showing that the party was in the bag for Clinton highlighted the corrupt nature of mrs clinton for the electorate. Since Mr. Trump was the only realistic beneficiary, he must have been involved in the plot.
 
haymarket said:
...

Nunes tried to do the same thing with his memo which turned out to be a big nothing burger (to use the right wings favorite term) but the right wing did not care as they keep repeating the same lies and falsehoods about it despite it having crashed and burned and thoroughly refuted. The right wing has learned that if you point at a melted chocolate and scream that it is actually SH*% loud and often enough, people will believe it.
...
Click to expand...
Why write a 10 page memo to reply to to a 3 page nothingburger?
 
JasperL said:
BTW, as you know the Schiff memo directly contradicts your claim there. What's...interesting to me is the GOP responded to a bunch of claims in the Schiff memo - corrected the record if you will. It's here:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/democrat_memo_charge_and_response.pdf

Guess what the Majority (i.e. Nunes and crew) do NOT dispute? Schiff's claim about the purpose of the Yahoo article! which he said was to put on the record Page's denials of allegations in that article. Schiff basically called Nunes and crew liars on that particular claim, and I'd like to quote how Nunes responded, but he said...nothing!

What it means is Nunes played you and the rest of us for fools by intentionally deceiving us. If it were me, I'd never trust Nunes on anything, ever, again, and don't. Not sure why the GOP who know what happened here aren't also upset at this guy's rank partisanship and dishonesty. He's shamed the HPSCI, and the House IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm replying to both of your posts here. Weather has kept me away.

First, I'm not about to get into what lawyers say about this. I have my own basis for making conclusions, and it's not from an attorney perspective. I have no interest in legal twists and turns based on the content of a particular phrase. One could make much of Comey's comment that "parts are salacious and unverified". The essence of it is that the use of the dossier violates the FBI's own stated principles, and flies in the face of "evidence" presented to the FISA court. One of the judges that granted a warrant in this affair has stated this. There was simply no reason to include the Yahoo article as evidence of anything other than corroboration. Either the dossier was sufficient on it's own as verified evidence, or it was not. It's clear that the dossier by itself was not sufficient.

If you consider what has occurred from the start of this thing, the most striking element is that this was planned and coordinated across multiple government agencies in advance of Trump's capture of the nomination. The securing of the warrant(s), the unmasking, the relentless leaking and the coordination with the media can't be missed by any sentient being as anything other than an attempt to undermine the election - the insurance policy. As much as you'd like to make it a partisan concern, it simply isn't for those who place country above party.

Now, I'm going to get back to cleaning up wind damage.
 
haymarket said:
I explained a great deal to you. I gave a thorough and complete answer. I will try to elaborate on it for you if you did not understand the first time.

The Russians hacked the DNC accounts and then used Assange and wikileaks as their stooge to get the material to the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign was the only campaign in a position to be helped by the material. Nobody else was in that position.

The genius of the wikileaks material was that they decided to release it in dribs and drabs like the proverbial Chinese Death of a Thousand Cuts. No one lethal cut is necessary or fatal but it is a combination of ALL the small cuts which inflicts pain on the victim and eventually it is the combined totality of all the cuts and the pain it causes that kills the victim.

Do you understand what that means?

Do you understand the comparison to the Chinese Death of a Thousand Cuts> Ae you familiar with that?

That was the Machiavellian beauty of the entire thing. There was no smoking gun nor did there have to be a smoking gun. There was no big scandal being revealed. They basically had a bunch of little molehills that Trump turned into mountains. Trump loudly and very publicly invoked wikileaks by name several times everyday and making it appear that there was something so damaging in them. He kept screaming WIKILEAKS and CROOKED HILLARY and LOCK HER UP and the reality that there was not much there took as secondary backseat to the invocation of WIKILEAKS as a scandal in itself.

Do you understand who Machiavelli was? Do you understand that there was no smoking gun in the wikileaks information but that THERE DID NOT HAVE TO BE A SMOKING GUN since they used it in an entirely different way?

The result was a daily attack that made Clinton the issue and her honesty the issue and the use of the wikileaks material a club to which administer a beating to her every day several times each day for the last month of the campaign.

Do you follow that?

Trump LOVED WIKILEAKS and said so. I amn sure you remember his repeated use of this and his loud love for it. Don't you?

Nunes tried to do the same thing with his memo which turned out to be a big nothing burger (to use the right wings favorite term) but the right wing did not care as they keep repeating the same lies and falsehoods about it despite it having crashed and burned and thoroughly refuted. The right wing has learned that if you point at a melted chocolate and scream that it is actually SH*% loud and often enough, people will believe it.

The Trump-Russian wikileaks event would have made Machiavelli proud as punch.

Got it this time?
Click to expand...

Still not one mention of even one thing that Wikileaks released that caused Hillary harm. However, I will give you some credit for at least admitting that there were thousands of things that Hillary and the DNC did which caused themselves harm. Pity you couldn't even name one though out of the thousands.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The argument is that the various DNC files showing that the party was in the bag for Clinton highlighted the corrupt nature of mrs clinton for the electorate. Since Mr. Trump was the only realistic beneficiary, he must have been involved in the plot.
Click to expand...

Well, since the DNC files showed that the party was in the bag for Clinton and highlighted the corrupt nature of mrs clinton then obviously SHE was the only realistic beneficiary in the primaries. Thanks though for doing infinitely better than haymarket at attempting to list the damaging nature of the hacked emails. He apparently can't think of even one example. He seems to think that an endless stream of Wikileaks releases of how many girl scout cookies Hillary and the DNC bought influenced the election against her and I call bull on that.
 
Moderate Right said:
What was it that Hillary or the DNC did which Russia or Wikileaks used against them?
Click to expand...
The primary issue that was revealed, though not through Wikileaks, was her unlawful use of a private server to conduct State Department business.

Hillary's leaked emails reveal major multinationals contributing substantial sums to "Bill Clinton Inc." and the "Clinton Global Initiative", sometimes for face-to-face meetings with the former president or speeches. We also found out her own team was critical of her "terrible instincts", Mr Podesta complained that Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall, as well as former State Department staffers Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines concealed those detrimental 'instincts'. It was also revealed that despite Obama claiming he found out about her private server "from the news", he had email exchanges with her not addressed "state.gov". Her leaked emails show her participation in a "Clinton Global Initiative" summit held in Morocco was contingent on a donation of $12 million from the king there. We found out she described Bernie as a "doofus". It was revealed that Podesta strategized on Hillary's vice-presidential selection with a list of potential running mates arranged as what he called "rough food groups" referring to demographic coalitions. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook emailed Podesta about rescheduling the Illinois primary and noted "the Clintons won't forget what their friends have done for them". According to the leaked emails, Hillary told a Goldman Sachs conference she would like to intervene secretly in Syria, and that she would deploy missiles around North Korea if China didn't disarm them. Her communications director and a think tank fellow discussed the "bastardization of Catholicism" referring to it's prevalence among conservatives. She referred to her need to have a public and private position on whatever issues. We found out CNN contributor Donna Brazile provided Hillary with questions she would be asked in advance of a Town Hall event the broadcaster was hosting. Brazile took over at the DNC when Debbie Wasserman's emails revealed the DNC sidelined Bernie. Her campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon noted the DoJ meeting to discuss action on her unlawful private server use and transmission of classified materials suggesting some sort of collusion. Hillary's emails indicate her concern over admitting Muslim refugees. She expressed a desire for a "hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders". Robby Mook expressed his concern over the fact one of the Keystone Pipeline project's investors was also a substantial contributor to her campaign, and the need to deal with her environmentalist constituents. One of Bill Clinton's advisers described daughter Chelsea as a "spoiled brat". Podesta refers to "needy latinos and one easy call" suggesting Hillary reach out to former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Energy Secretary Federico Pena to ask for their support in her primary campaign.

None of all this is particularly awful, one would be reasonably critical of it all, but it isn't earth-shattering, however, what if only Putin knew about it?
Hillary's emails are here: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
 
Last edited:
Plus Ultra said:
The primary issue that was revealed, though not through Wikileaks, was her unlawful use of a private server to conduct State Department business.

Hillary's leaked emails reveal major multinationals contributing substantial sums to "Bill Clinton Inc." and the "Clinton Global Initiative", sometimes for face-to-face meetings with the former president or speeches. We also found out her own team was critical of her "terrible instincts", Mr Podesta complained that Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall, as well as former State Department staffers Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines concealed those detrimental 'instincts'. It was also revealed that despite Obama claiming he found out about her private server "from the news", he had email exchanges with her not addressed "state.gov". Her leaked emails show her participation in a "Clinton Global Initiative" summit held in Morocco was contingent on a donation of $12 million from the king there. We found out she described Bernie as a "doofus". It was revealed that Podesta strategized on Hillary's vice-presidential selection with a list of potential running mates arranged as what he called "rough food groups" referring to demographic coalitions. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook emailed Podesta about rescheduling the Illinois primary and noted "the Clintons won't forget what their friends have done for them". According to the leaked emails, Hillary told a Goldman Sachs conference she would like to intervene secretly in Syria, and that she would deploy missiles around North Korea if China didn't disarm them. Her communications director and a think tank fellow discussed the "bastardization of Catholicism" referring to it's prevalence among conservatives. She referred to her need to have a public and private position on whatever issues. We found out CNN contributor Donna Brazile provided Hillary with questions she would be asked in advance of a Town Hall event the broadcaster was hosting. Brazile took over at the DNC when Debbie Wasserman's emails revealed the DNC sidelined Bernie. Her campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon noted the DoJ meeting to discuss action on her unlawful private server use and transmission of classified materials suggesting some sort of collusion. Hillary's emails indicate her concern over admitting Muslim refugees. She expressed a desire for a "hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders". Robby Mook expressed his concern over the fact one of the Keystone Pipeline project's investors was also a substantial contributor to her campaign, and the need to deal with her environmentalist constituents. One of Bill Clinton's advisers described daughter Chelsea as a "spoiled brat". Podesta refers to "needy latinos and one easy call" suggesting Hillary reach out to former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Energy Secretary Federico Pena to ask for their support in her primary campaign.

None of all this is particularly awful, one would be reasonably critical of it all, but it isn't earth-shattering, however, what if only Putin knew about it?
Hillary's emails are here: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
Click to expand...

Shsssh. Shsssh. It was the Russians who used the Wikilieaks hacked emails to influence the election, even though Hillary blamed Comey herself immediately after the election for her loss, until she and the left found a better scapegoat in an attempt to cover up Hillary's and the DNC's own corruptness (including the use of her private email server). And, they even called for Comey's head over the whole mess immediately after the election and then after Trump fired Comey, all of a sudden Comey wasn't so bad after all and Hillary and the left were forced to officially change their tack to "The Russians did it, the Russians did it!" instead of "Comey did it, Comey did it!"

But, I wonder why haymarket couldn't fess up to the merits of your post that it may have had a lot more to do with her email scandal than anything else.
 
humbolt said:
I'm replying to both of your posts here. Weather has kept me away.

First, I'm not about to get into what lawyers say about this. I have my own basis for making conclusions, and it's not from an attorney perspective. I have no interest in legal twists and turns based on the content of a particular phrase. One could make much of Comey's comment that "parts are salacious and unverified". The essence of it is that the use of the dossier violates the FBI's own stated principles, and flies in the face of "evidence" presented to the FISA court. One of the judges that granted a warrant in this affair has stated this. There was simply no reason to include the Yahoo article as evidence of anything other than corroboration. Either the dossier was sufficient on it's own as verified evidence, or it was not. It's clear that the dossier by itself was not sufficient.
Click to expand...

But everyone acknowledges that the dossier or related claims (such as the Yahoo article, if it was used to corroborate the dossier) was not the only evidence against Page. We have no idea what that was because it's highly classified and only Gowdy and Schiff on the House side have seen it, but it was significant because not even Gowdy asserts no warrant if not dossier, just that it was important. Fine.

And the point I keep getting back to is if the Yahoo article was used that way, why didn't Nunes, or Grassley assert it and why did they leave Schiff's account unchallenged? It's an important point that no one made, and when the narrative emerged and was challenged by Schiff, crickets.

If you consider what has occurred from the start of this thing, the most striking element is that this was planned and coordinated across multiple government agencies in advance of Trump's capture of the nomination. The securing of the warrant(s), the unmasking, the relentless leaking and the coordination with the media can't be missed by any sentient being as anything other than an attempt to undermine the election - the insurance policy. As much as you'd like to make it a partisan concern, it simply isn't for those who place country above party.

Now, I'm going to get back to cleaning up wind damage.
Click to expand...

OK, but it's only a problem if this coordinated government response was to...nothing of interest or importance. If Russia was significantly involved with trying to impact our elections and people in the Trump orbit, whether or not that included Trump, were assisting or collaborating, then the coordinated response is entirely appropriate and what was demanded of the FBI and the rest doing their JOBS.

We'll get a lot more visibility about this when the Mueller investigation concludes.
 
What I find shocking, and Grim expertly pointed out is that freaking news articles were used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application, and the sources for corroboration in those articles seems to be Steele himself....that seems ok to people? It's insane!

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
JasperL said:
only Gowdy and Schiff on the House side have seen it, but it was significant because not even Gowdy asserts no warrant if not dossier, just that it was important.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Gowdy made it clear... No Steele dossier, no FISA warrant. He said so confidently and without hesitation during a sit down interview with CBS. See for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ylNzY7Ixc&t=394s

.
 
Grim17 said:
Incorrect.

Gowdy made it clear... No Steele dossier, no FISA warrant. He said so confidently and without hesitation during a sit down interview with CBS. See for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ylNzY7Ixc&t=394s
Click to expand...

OK, he made a different assertion in a Fox interview I watched, where he said it was critical but didn't go as far as he did there. I don't think he's necessarily even using a double standard - the question is a subjective one, ultimately, and the person who can make it is that first FISC judge.
 
j-mac said:
What I find shocking, and Grim expertly pointed out is that freaking news articles were used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application, and the sources for corroboration in those articles seems to be Steele himself....that seems ok to people? It's insane!

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If that was true, you'd think Nunes or Grassley would have asserted it, then objected to Schiff's claim that the Yahoo article wasn't included for that purpose, but the GOP did none of those.
 
JasperL said:
OK, he made a different assertion in a Fox interview I watched, where he said it was critical but didn't go as far as he did there. I don't think he's necessarily even using a double standard - the question is a subjective one, ultimately, and the person who can make it is that first FISC judge.
Click to expand...

Actually, Gowdy's opinion isn't subjective, but factual. We know this because Assistant Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe said under oath in closed door testimony, that without the Steele dossier, the FBI would have never sought that FISA warrant in the first place.

Like I've been telling you for days this whole thing stinks. It's obvious the FBI and DOJ used falsehoods, deception and lies of omission when they presented that dossier to the FISA courts, which is directly responsible for obtaining that warrant to spy on Carter Page, violating his 4th amendment right to privacy.

This need to be exposed, people need to go to jail, and this need to be fixed so that it never happens again.


.
 
Grim17 said:
We know this because Assistant Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe said under oath in closed door testimony, that without the Steele dossier, the FBI would have never sought that FISA warrant in the first place.
Click to expand...

okay, if the door was closed, how do you know what McCabe said? And why are you so upset that Page was surveilled? I've never quite understood the obedient anger of conservaitves in this matter.
 
Moderate Right said:
Still not one mention of even one thing that Wikileaks released that caused Hillary harm. However, I will give you some credit for at least admitting that there were thousands of things that Hillary and the DNC did which caused themselves harm. Pity you couldn't even name one though out of the thousands.
Click to expand...

Go back and read it because it explains quite thoroughly what harmful effects the wikileaks information had on Clinton.

The fact that you are playing ostrich here says more about you and your dishonest tactics that it does about anything else.
 
haymarket said:
For the benefit of those who need a more thorough examination of the issue.
Click to expand...

No need to thoroughly examine a nothingburger ... especially 10 pages of thoroughness.
I guess the weasel didn't think it was such a nothingburger.
He was upset even before the nothingbirger came out.
No point voting against releasing a nothingburger.
 
Vern said:
okay, if the door was closed, how do you know what McCabe said?
Click to expand...

Because it was disclosed in the republican memo and wasn't disputed or even addressed in the Schiff memo, even thought they have access to the transcripts of that testimony. If that claim wasn't true, it would have been highlighted in big, bold letters on page 1 of the democratic memo, and destroyed the credibility of republican claims.


And why are you so upset that Page was surveilled?
Click to expand...

I'm not... Carter Page doesn't mean a damned thing to me.

The issue isn't who the FBI spied on, or even what information they obtained through that spying, it's about the FBI presenting unverified evidence, then making false and misleading statements to a FISA court to obtain a warrant to spy on an American citizen under false pretenses. They abused their power to spy on someone and violated their constitutionally protected right to privacy... something that should concern EVERYONE, regardless of political allegiance.

I've never quite understood the obedient anger of conservaitves in this matter.
Click to expand...

One would have to revere the US Constitution and believe that it's important to respect and uphold the 4th amendment for this to matter to them. If a person doesn't believe that US citizens have right to privacy, then I wouldn't expect them to take issue with what the FBI and DOJ did.

.
 
Grim17 said:
Because it was disclosed in the republican memo and wasn't disputed or even addressed in the Schiff memo, even thought they have access to the transcripts of that testimony. If that claim wasn't true, it would have been highlighted in big, bold letters on page 1 of the democratic memo, and destroyed the credibility of republican claims.
Click to expand...

So you believe the same people who told you president Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery, death panels, the stimulus lies and the vile and disgusting "stand down lies" because you think democrats didn't dispute that aspect of the nunes memo. And speaking of nunes, are you not aware of the fact that he's a liar and a trump stooge. Why do you ignore the steady stream of lies from the right? is reality so upsetting that you literally look for any excuse to ignore it? So to be clear, you don't know what McCabe said. You should stop focusing on what you want to believe and focus on what you know.

I'm not... Carter Page doesn't mean a damned thing to me.

The issue isn't who the FBI spied on, or even what information they obtained through that spying, it's about the FBI presenting unverified evidence, then making false and misleading statements to a FISA court to obtain a warrant to spy on an American citizen under false pretenses. They abused their power to spy on someone and violated their constitutionally protected right to privacy... something that should concern EVERYONE, regardless of political allegiance.
Click to expand...

Grim, this is only an issue if the dossier was the only thing used and inaccurate. It wasn't and isn't. And how are you so oblivious to the accuracy of the dossier? oh yea, you get your info from the conservative media.

One would have to revere the US Constitution and believe that it's important to respect and uphold the 4th amendment for this to matter to them. If a person doesn't believe that US citizens have right to privacy, then I wouldn't expect them to take issue with what the FBI and DOJ did.
Click to expand...

Oh grim, its just hilarious that the party that created and strengthened the Patriot Act now obediently whines about the 4th amendment. Remember when you cared about deficits? Yea, you'll believe whatever your conservative masters tell you to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom