• 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!

GOP memo criticizing FBI surveillance is released

haymarket said:
Feel free to present that evidence.
Click to expand...
She has paid for materials gathered by foreign agents from Britain and Russian for use in her political election campaghin. According to your denifition that qualifies as collusion

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
She has paid for materials gathered by foreign agents from Britain and Russian for use in her political election campaghin. According to your denifition that qualifies as collusion

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How many times have we been through there right win us of this ruse? Clinton purchased legal information from an American company. There was no collusion with the Russians on her part.
 
haymarket said:
How many times have we been through there right win us of this ruse? Clinton purchased legal information from an American company. There was no collusion with the Russians on her part.
Click to expand...
Trump didn't purchase anything

She used information generated by foreign entities against her opponent which is exactly what you telling us is collusion as it pertains to trump.
 
trouble13 said:
Trump didn't purchase anything

She used information generated by foreign entities against her opponent which is exactly what you telling us is collusion as it pertains to trump.
Click to expand...

He accepted and used something of considerable value for his campaign. And this is a violation of federal law.

Clinton purchased legal information from an American firm. There was no violation of that same law.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
This has nothing to do with protecting freedoms. This is all about covering up for a corrupt politician by attacking the investigators. “I’m being framed!” Is the oldest story in the book. Apparently, OJ was framed too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You'll need to construct the parallels between the OJ investigation and the Trump investigation. In making this comparison, it is interesting to note that the OJ investigation started because a crime had been committed.

In the Trump investigation, no such beginning can be cited.

Why do people like you wish to remove the safeguards that protect your individual liberties and rights?

I find this mystifying. Why do you long to live in a police state?
 
haymarket said:
He accepted and used something of considerable value for his campaign. And this is a violation of federal law.

Clinton purchased legal information from an American firm. There was no violation of that same law.
Click to expand...


Unless you can show that he paid for the emails, you don't have a case.

Those emails were released to the entire world. Hillary had just as much opportunity to use them to her advantage as Trump did.

Anyone could use them -- they were nothing more, nor less, than public information. To continue to claim that they represent "something of value" to Trump, specifically, isn't going to fly.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's not happening in terms of the FBI surveillance, nor can you show that it is.
Click to expand...

Right...

That explains why Peter Strzok is the new HR Assistant and McCabe has resigned.

There was a time when liberal autobots had a healthy suspicion of the authority of Law Enforcement.

Now you guys long to live in a police state.

What happened?
 
beefheart said:
Histrionic hyperbolic bilge.
Click to expand...

Lisa page has vanished.

Peter Strzok is the new HR Assistant.

Andrew McCabe has resigned.

This is beginning to look like a modern version of "All the President's Men".

Comey is now shown to have concealed pertinent information in gaining the FISA warrant.

The FISA Court is now shown to have approved about 30,000 warrants and denied less than 10.

Liberal autobots used to have a healthy suspicion of unlimited police authority.

What happened to you guys?
 
slick said:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/nu...act-15704.html

'The publication yesterday by the House Intelligence Committee, under the leadership of chairman Devin Nunes, of a four-page summary memo
regarding FBI surveillance of a Trump campaign advisor in 2016 is the long-awaited opening act of an extended drama about the Obama
administration’s abuse of power—which, when all is revealed, might yet outdo that of the Nixon administration.

Democrats are holding to the line that the prophet of hope and change ran a pure administration, virtually free of scandal.
But the memo is probably just the beginning; we’re likely to see many more revelations come out.

Trump isn’t constrained by convention. He won’t go soft on politicians who saw no problem in issuing FISA warrants in the midst of a
presidential campaign and then keeping them operational into his first term in office. As the information comes out, the Democrats’ FISA
subterfuge will be seen by much of the country as a soft coup attempt. There’s no other way to put it.'
Click to expand...

We know with absolute certainty that Obama weaponized the IRS to silence political opposition.

He weaponized the DOJ to attack Boeing.

He weaponized the EPA maybe just for fun.

Trump is just sitting back and allowing the mills of justice to grind.

As the Inspector General conducts his investigation, this is going to just keep netting an ever widening gang of thugs.

Trump doesn't need to help. He only needs to sit back and let it happen.

As Lisa Page said in one of her tweets, "potus wants to know everything...". By this point, I think we all want to know everything.

Did McCabe's wife win her election? Did Strzok's pay get cut when he was re-assigned to the HR Department? So many questions... ;)
 
code1211 said:
Did you read the memo?

In it, Comey characterizes the dossier as "salacious and unverified".

It is subsequently used to gain a FISA Warrant leading to this whole witch hunt.

The Memo states pretty clearly that the Dossier was funded by Hillary and the DNC. It is a made up hit piece commissioned by one set of politicians to attack another.

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I doubt any of them read it. This form of blind ignorance is rather common on DP.

They are going to sit there and repeat that they are right, even though they probably haven't read a single line. That wasn't spoon fed to them from some other source.
 
ultmd said:
LOL. You're about 3 months behind the news, it seems. Sorry....No scintillas there, at all. After all.....we now KNOW that Strzok was also extremely disparaging of Clinton in his personal texts between 2015 and late 2016.........and we KNOW that Strzok was also the guy responsible for re-opening the Clinton email investigation just weeks before election day.




No "we" don't know any such thing. You (and other FoxNews types) BELIEVE this to be true, while the majority of the American public understands that very little in the Dossier has been discredited (and much of it has been corroborated).



So? That's the DEFINITION of opposition research. We also know that neither party (i.e. the Conservative Washington Free Beacon working on behalf of the Rubio and Bush campaigns, followed by the DNC working on behalf of the Clinton campaign).......had any control of the project. The CONSERVATIVE former WSJ columnist who runs Fusion GPS testified under oath that the project was conducted independently without any input from either party.



Straw Man Alert! What "lies"? To date, the only error revealed in news accounts has been misstating the Trump lawyer's trip to Prague. Other than that, reports are that most of the Dossier's claims that have been resolved, has been proven accurate.

All of that said, the simple truth is that the Dossier is only a small fraction of the mounting evidence associating the Trump campaign to the Russian government. The fact that Trump acolytes are so obsessed with the Dossier (as if the entire case rests upon that one document), reflects the disreputable sources they trust for their news.
Click to expand...

You have an interesting blind spot that departs from what the rest of the US is thinking.

What is very interesting in this to me is that the FBI has constructed for itself a huge PR problem.

When I was a kid, the FBI was the gold standard of integrity. Now it's a bar mop in the hands of crooks.

The US public is losing its faith in our law enforcement because the cops are corrupt. It's pretty sad, really... 68% of us think they definitely are crooked or are not sure they are honest.

Voters Call for Special Prosecutor to Investigate FBI - Rasmussen Reports®
<snip>
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that

49% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate whether senior FBI officials handled the investigation of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump in a legal and unbiased fashion.

Thirty-one percent (31%) disagree, but a sizable 19% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
<snip>
Voters by a narrow 48% to 41% margin said in December that senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Trump from winning the 2016 election.
<snip>
 
ultmd said:
LOL. You're about 3 months behind the news, it seems. Sorry....No scintillas there, at all. After all.....we now KNOW that Strzok was also extremely disparaging of Clinton in his personal texts between 2015 and late 2016.........and we KNOW that Strzok was also the guy responsible for re-opening the Clinton email investigation just weeks before election day.




No "we" don't know any such thing. You (and other FoxNews types) BELIEVE this to be true, while the majority of the American public understands that very little in the Dossier has been discredited (and much of it has been corroborated).



So? That's the DEFINITION of opposition research. We also know that neither party (i.e. the Conservative Washington Free Beacon working on behalf of the Rubio and Bush campaigns, followed by the DNC working on behalf of the Clinton campaign).......had any control of the project. The CONSERVATIVE former WSJ columnist who runs Fusion GPS testified under oath that the project was conducted independently without any input from either party.



Straw Man Alert! What "lies"? To date, the only error revealed in news accounts has been misstating the Trump lawyer's trip to Prague. Other than that, reports are that most of the Dossier's claims that have been resolved, has been proven accurate.

All of that said, the simple truth is that the Dossier is only a small fraction of the mounting evidence associating the Trump campaign to the Russian government. The fact that Trump acolytes are so obsessed with the Dossier (as if the entire case rests upon that one document), reflects the disreputable sources they trust for their news.
Click to expand...

By your post, I can only assume that you know exactly what the discussions with and the evidence presented to the FISA Court in its entirety.

Where did you gain this knowledge?

Regarding the "Dossier", I have not heard of any salient fact from the Dossier that has been shown to be entirely true. Everything I've heard of including the contained events that Comey characterized as unverified and salacious are untrue.

Using your complete unrestrained access, what was contained in the Dossier that was not a lie?
 
HowardBThiname said:
Unless you can show that he paid for the emails, you don't have a case.

Those emails were released to the entire world. Hillary had just as much opportunity to use them to her advantage as Trump did.

Anyone could use them -- they were nothing more, nor less, than public information. To continue to claim that they represent "something of value" to Trump, specifically, isn't going to fly.
Click to expand...

Actually those emails were released so that the one person on the planet who could actually benefit from them would use them and benefit from them and that was Trump.
 
haymarket said:
Actually those emails were released so that the one person on the planet who could actually benefit from them would use them and benefit from them and that was Trump.
Click to expand...

It could be said that every person in the US benefited. Since when is learning the truth not a benefit?

You really don't have anything with this line of thinking.
 
HowardBThiname said:
It could be said that every person in the US benefited. Since when is learning the truth not a benefit?

You really don't have anything with this line of thinking.
Click to expand...

Truth? What so called TRUTH was revealed in those emails that benefitted every American?
 
haymarket said:
Truth? What so called TRUTH was revealed in those emails that benefitted every American?
Click to expand...

They got to see, up close and personal, how the DNC was manipulating the nomination, how Hillary was given advance notice of debate questions, and how some DNC contractors were found to have recruited "bystanders" to start chaos at Trump rallies.

How is it not beneficial for all of us to know those underhanded little secrets?
 
HowardBThiname said:
They got to see, up close and personal, how the DNC was manipulating the nomination, how Hillary was given advance notice of debate questions, and how some DNC contractors were found to have recruited "bystanders" to start chaos at Trump rallies.

How is it not beneficial for all of us to know those underhanded little secrets?
Click to expand...

Minor stuff and trivia to anybody but a fanatic who follows the campaign every hour. None of those things registered with the public and you darn well know it. The reality is that there was hardly anything of substance in those daily releases and if you stopped a hundred people on the street and asked them what was damaging in the wikileaks releases I would bet lots of cash that not even five could tell you the three things you just thought were so damaging and crucial.

There was no great damaging TRUTH that came out of those and everybody knows it.

The damage was in the expert way they were released and used by Trump on the campaign trail in the most Machivallean way possible and he got huge mileage from virtually nothing. It was the predecessor of the Nunes memo hubbub which also proved to be much ado about nothing.
 
haymarket said:
Minor stuff and trivia to anybody but a fanatic who follows the campaign every hour. None of those things registered with the public and you darn well know it. The reality is that there was hardly anything of substance in those daily releases and if you stopped a hundred people on the street and asked them what was damaging in the wikileaks releases I would bet lots of cash that not even five could tell you the three things you just thought were so damaging and crucial.

There was no great damaging TRUTH that came out of those and everybody knows it.

The damage was in the expert way they were released and used by Trump on the campaign trail in the most Machivallean way possible and he got huge mileage from virtually nothing. It was the predecessor of the Nunes memo hubbub which also proved to be much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true, that there was nothing very damaging in the emails, then certainly could not be said to be "of value."

I agree that people don't know what they're talking about much of the time and perhaps the "appearance" of impropriety concerning the DNC was all it took to keep them from voting for Hillary.

But still, you have nothing. You're trying to make something of value out of nothing of value, and you've as much said so yourself.

Whatever Wikileaks chose to do in the release of the (truthful) information is not Trump's fault. Did he take advantage of the release? Sure, it was within his right to do so. Remember, there was a bogus dossier floating around at that time that had Hillary's prints all over it. Do you not believe that turnabout is fair play?
 
HowardBThiname said:
If what you say is true, that there was nothing very damaging in the emails, then certainly could not be said to be "of value."

I agree that people don't know what they're talking about much of the time and perhaps the "appearance" of impropriety concerning the DNC was all it took to keep them from voting for Hillary.

But still, you have nothing. You're trying to make something of value out of nothing of value, and you've as much said so yourself.

Whatever Wikileaks chose to do in the release of the (truthful) information is not Trump's fault. Did he take advantage of the release? Sure, it was within his right to do so. Remember, there was a bogus dossier floating around at that time that had Hillary's prints all over it. Do you not believe that turnabout is fair play?
Click to expand...

The damage done by the Russian wikileaks material was in the masterful use of them as a body of work as opposed to any one damaging smoking gun which they lacked. The strategy employed was worthy of Machiavelli at this evil heights of manipulation. They had this pile of fairly trivial carping and instead of releasing it in one fell swoop they trickled it out over the month so that it became the death of a thousand cuts for Clinton. It was pure genius how they did it. And Trump kept screaming how he loved wikileaks and how it proved she was Crooked Hillary but really came up with precious little that actually damaged her in terms of one issue or charge that the publicized about.

It was evil perfection at it absolute best.... or worst .... as the case may be.
 
haymarket said:
The damage done by the Russian wikileaks material was in the masterful use of them as a body of work as opposed to any one damaging smoking gun which they lacked. The strategy employed was worthy of Machiavelli at this evil heights of manipulation. They had this pile of fairly trivial carping and instead of releasing it in one fell swoop they trickled it out over the month so that it became the death of a thousand cuts for Clinton. It was pure genius how they did it. And Trump kept screaming how he loved wikileaks and how it proved she was Crooked Hillary but really came up with precious little that actually damaged her in terms of one issue or charge that the publicized about.

It was evil perfection at it absolute best.... or worst .... as the case may be.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that -- but, while I think you've called it correctly -- I don't think it translates into Trump purposefully, or knowingly, receiving something of value, which could be interpreted as violating election laws.
 
HowardBThiname said:
I don't disagree with that -- but, while I think you've called it correctly -- I don't think it translates into Trump purposefully, or knowingly, receiving something of value, which could be interpreted as violating election laws.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion the man is simply stupid and thus not responsible for violating the law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom