• 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!

Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo[W:71]*****

Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Vern said:
well I wasn't thinking that but since you implied that fisa warrants are rubber stamps it did make me wonder. But only for a second, your angry reply based on nothing convinces me otherwise.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the angry tone. I despise 9/11 CT.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Helix said:
the wikipedia page shows that 12 warrants were rejected out of 35,529. if you feel that this figure is incorrect, feel free to edit it. that's how wikipedia works.
Click to expand...

You are repeating your absurd claims.
I am quoting directly from wikipedia, are you not reading or not awake?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

"The annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General ... – frequently cited to in press reports as a suggestion that the Court's approval rate of application is over 99% – reflect only the number of final applications submitted to and acted on by the Court. These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered to prior or final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them."[17] He added: "There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts and then by the judges, to ensure that the court's authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize."[18] In a following letter Walton stated that the government had revamped 24.4% of its requests in the face of court questions and demands in time from July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.[19][20][21]
Click to expand...

I had no idea you were a head-in-the sand type.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Rogue Valley said:
At any rate, the Democrat rebuttal establishes that the FBI began surveiling Carter Page prior to obtaining the Steele Dossier.
Click to expand...

Why were they continuing to watch him? Didn't he get utilized as an FBI undercover informant testifying in these Russian cases? I believe he was also formerly a vetran of Navel Intelligence? Something fishy going on in all that. Too LHO ish going to Russia, bteturning then informant.

If there was anything, whys he still walking around?
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Helix said:
I apologize for the angry tone. I despise 9/11 CT.
Click to expand...

You don't have to apologize for being angry. I'm used to people lashing out at the facts I post. It does show you're a classy guy though. But Helix, your narrative that Fisa warrants are rubber stamped kinda makes it hard to infer anything I've posted is 9-11 CT. You know, you could point out that the Minnn FBI's claim it was sabotaged doesn't undermine your "rubber stamp" narrative.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Gaugingcatenate said:
Why were they continuing to watch him? Didn't he get utilized as an FBI undercover informant testifying in these Russian cases? I believe he was also formerly a vetran of Navel Intelligence? Something fishy going on in all that. Too LHO ish going to Russia, bteturning then informant.

If there was anything, whys he still walking around?
Click to expand...

You ask questions because you cant make a valid point. And since your agenda is to obfuscate the truth, you don't need to make a point. win win. Watch how I make a point. Nunes had already proven to be a liar and a trump stooge. There was no reason to believe what he said. Now you have no reason to believe him. Hence, the questions
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Lutherf said:
That section of the memo is totally twisted for political purposes. While McCain had not yet handed the dossier to the FBI the FBI was well aware of its existence and well aware of Steele's actions in creating the dossier.
Click to expand...

If it contradicts the narrative, it must be ignored.



I wish I could still laugh at that kind of ridiculous crap, but it's the kind of thing that landed us where we are today. Various people on the right have been pushing Nunes' and Grassley's narrative in order to destroy Trump's enemies, so when something comes out that contradicts it, it must naturally be dismissed out of hand.

You want to call the rebuttal memo "totally twisted for political purposes", but not Nunes? Not Grassley's? Their memo is a wonderfully neutral and unbiased memo, which they released in the golden goodness of their hearts in aid of America?




That crap is why we don't deserve a democracy anymore. You don't give half a **** about whether or not Nunes was just putting on another political stunt. It said the kind of thing you wanted to hear, so...

:shrug:
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Helix said:
feel free to edit the wikipedia page if you think that it's incorrect.
Click to expand...

He didn't say the number of warrants rejected was false. He explained why the number doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means, in light of how the process actually works.



Helix said:
the wikipedia page shows that 12 warrants were rejected out of 35,529. if you feel that this figure is incorrect, feel free to edit it. that's how wikipedia works.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Vern said:
You ask questions because you cant make a valid point. And since your agenda is to obfuscate the truth, you don't need to make a point. win win. Watch how I make a point. Nunes had already proven to be a liar and a trump stooge. There was no reason to believe what he said. Now you have no reason to believe him. Hence, the questions
Click to expand...

Ummm, empty rhetspeak... no information, no facts backing up ANYTHINGYOU EVER SAY...yano. Its a banality that gets very boring...yano? But I will challenge you again to backup or shaddap.

Show me the beyond normal political lying ( that every single politician can be accused ) and any proof beyond being in the same party and agreeing with your president makes anyone a stooge.

Everybody in slenderman's admin and party was an Obama stooge then? I guess that might make sense.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Helix said:
the wikipedia page shows that 12 warrants were rejected out of 35,529. if you feel that this figure is incorrect, feel free to edit it. that's how wikipedia works.
Click to expand...

You understand now why that is and it's not rubber stamping, right?
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

The problem is that FISC is not a traditional adversarial court. There is no advocate for the target of the surveillance able to argue against the case made by the government. Its going to look like a rubber stamp because there are no motions to suppress, dismiss, or limit warrants.

Maybe there should be advocates for the defense there to make strenuous arguments against surveillance. Something should limit government power in this instance, to prevent abuse in the future and even more importantly to represent the limitations of the Fourth Amendment.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

OpportunityCost said:
The problem is that FISC is not a traditional adversarial court. There is no advocate for the target of the surveillance able to argue against the case made by the government. Its going to look like a rubber stamp because there are no motions to suppress, dismiss, or limit warrants.
Click to expand...
Warrants are routinely limited and withdrawn, and of those remaining that they push forward anyway, some are denied. The courts are supposed to weigh both sides, the FBI too really, they have rules and they are a by-the-book organization. It is done in secret for a reason, unfortunately, they can't tip any hands.
I think if you saw the full guidelines and process, you would likely have a different opinion, because when it's secret and potentially harmful, our imagination gets the better of us.

Maybe there should be advocates for the defense there to make strenuous arguments against surveillance. Something should limit government power in this instance, to prevent abuse in the future and even more importantly to represent the limitations of the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...
Bush and Cheney were appalled at all such "advocates for the defense". Cheney told Mueller at the time (of all people), he was tired of hearing about how they can't hold and question people who they did not have any reasonable cause on. Mueller rebuffed him and basically said "we don't do that". I think that's a party issue, you'd have no trouble getting Democrats on board with additional restrictions on privacy for American citizens....well I say that, but everyone seems to fold under U.S. corporations raiding and selling our private data as new business models...
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Mach said:
Warrants are routinely limited and withdrawn, and of those remaining that they push forward anyway, some are denied. The courts are supposed to weigh both sides, the FBI too really, they have rules and they are a by-the-book organization. It is done in secret for a reason, unfortunately, they can't tip any hands.
I think if you saw the full guidelines and process, you would likely have a different opinion, because when it's secret and potentially harmful, our imagination gets the better of us.


Bush and Cheney were appalled at all such "advocates for the defense". Cheney told Mueller at the time (of all people), he was tired of hearing about how they can't hold and question people who they did not have any reasonable cause on. Mueller rebuffed him and basically said "we don't do that". I think that's a party issue, you'd have no trouble getting Democrats on board with additional restrictions on privacy for American citizens....well I say that, but everyone seems to fold under U.S. corporations raiding and selling our private data as new business models...
Click to expand...

The only motions are those the court itself or the prosecutors start. There is no rights advocate on the other side. There should be. Our court system is designed to work in that way. It should work that way in this instance as well, even if it is only a work around.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

OpportunityCost said:
The only motions are those the court itself or the prosecutors start. There is no rights advocate on the other side. There should be. Our court system is designed to work in that way. It should work that way in this instance as well, even if it is only a work around.
Click to expand...

They aren't convicting anyone in this though, just seeking approval to investigate clandestinely. Because it doesn't hold the same potential violations of our rights, it doesn't have the same threshold. If they routinely leaked all our private information during this process, even if we were innocent, then I think we would have serious cause to raise that standard.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Mach said:
They aren't convicted anyone in this though, just seeking approval to investigate clandestinely. Because it doesn't hold the same potential violations of our rights, it doesn't have the same threshold.

But then, Nunes and Ryan, and damn sure Cheney and Bush, though it was good enough or was perhaps even too tedious. I don't know how dems fall on it, I'd like to think they are more against all this and for privacy, than the Right.
Click to expand...

Since it usually leads to conviction and is the exact same violation of rights, there should be a defense advocate for fourth amendment protections present and giving pushback to the process. IF we are interested in the rights being protected, that is.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Gaugingcatenate said:
Ummm, empty rhetspeak... no information, no facts backing up ANYTHINGYOU EVER SAY...yano. Its a banality that gets very boring...yano? But I will challenge you again to backup or shaddap.
Show me the beyond normal political lying ( that every single politician can be accused ) and any proof beyond being in the same party and agreeing with your president makes anyone a stooge.
Everybody in slenderman's admin and party was an Obama stooge then? I guess that might make sense.
Click to expand...

Oh GC, thanks for the chuckles. I dont have to back up "Nunes is a liar and a trump stooge". Its common knowledge what he did. You're just doing the typical dishonest conservative dodge of pretending not to know. ( GC, here's me backing up that point) You know he's a liar because you're moving the goal posts to " beyond normal political lying ( that every single politician can be accused ) wah wah wah". I said he was a liar and so did you. And by your magical standard he's also a stooge. See how easy that was. I proved Nunes was a liar and a stooge and I proved you are dishonest.

GC, you need to understand its just normal for people in a cult to flail angrily at the facts. Or ask questions as if they are making point. Or pretend not to know the truth. They are just looking for any excuse to cling to what their masters told them to believe. Yano?
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

ecofarm said:
You understand now why that is and it's not rubber stamping, right?
Click to expand...

no, i guess that i don't. 12 out of 35,529 is a pretty high approval rating. those 12 rejections must have been like "we need to spy on him because **** you and stamp the ****ing form, asshole" or something like that.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

OpportunityCost said:
The only motions are those the court itself or the prosecutors start. There is no rights advocate on the other side. There should be. Our court system is designed to work in that way. It should work that way in this instance as well, even if it is only a work around.
Click to expand...

That was my thought -- there should be someone acting as an advocate for civil rights, especially in cases of surveillance. Evidence like the dossier and yahoo news stories would be thrown out, forcing warrants to be based on the merits of admissible evidence.

In a normal criminal court process, the DA acts more as a check on the integrity of the process. Warrants can later be challenged in court by defendants. Prosecutors don't want a search warrant, and any evidence gained, thrown out on a technicality, and judges don't want to be overturned. But in the case of a FISA warrant, it's never going to trial. Most never see the light of day. There should be some kind of safeguard to protect against potential abuses.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

When are the libertarians going to issue their memo? That could be the tiebreaker.
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Vern said:
O

GC, you need to understand its just normal for people in a cult to flail angrily at the facts. Or ask questions as if they are making point. Or pretend not to know the truth. They are just looking for any excuse to cling to what their masters told them to believe. Yano?
Click to expand...

Hyperpartisan hack lectures other about being partisan. LAFFRIOT
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

KLATTU said:
Hyperpartisan hack lectures other about being partisan. LAFFRIOT
Click to expand...

oh Klat, if I was a hyperpartisan hack you'd be able to shred my posts the way I easily shred you or Gaugingcatenate. and if I was a hyperpartisan hack I would always cut and run from honest and intelligent conversations or avoid them altogether. and I would also lurk around debate forums and yell "hyperpartisan hack" to assuage my delicate ego at those who had dared argue with me (using facts no less).
 
Re: Democrats release rebuttal to Nunes memo

Moderator's Warning:
Knock of the snarking personal comments. You all who are doing this, are NOT the topic.

Address the topic in the linked article. Any further comments about or towards each other (or baiting) will result in thread bans, at the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom