• 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!

Of memos and mayhem...

It's a sad day in our country when you find out Australians and British citizens care more about our country than American citizens.
As soon as i heard on the radio that the memo was out I turned off all news so I could read it with an open mind and that was my take away on the whole thing.
Almost everything else was already reported to death.
Nothing else even moved me.
What is it going to take actual American citizens to care about our republic without being Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal?
 
So, you would demand unquestionable evidence from the klansman, but you in Steele's case, you want us to just take his word for it. Got it!


For anyone to be convicted of a crime there should be unquestionable evidence. As I said, law enforcement should consider any evidence put forward, even that put forward by a klansman. I never said Trump should be convicted or even charged based on the dossier, alone. My only point was that bias should not automatically disqualify any evidence/reports one may present.
 
For anyone to be convicted of a crime there should be unquestionable evidence. I never said Trump should be convicted or even charged based on the dossier, alone. My only point was that bias should not automatically disqualify any evidence/reports one may present.

You seem very tolerable of this highly questionable evidence.
 
You seem very tolerable of this highly questionable evidence.

Why shouldn't I be? You call it 'highly questionable,' but there has yet to be anything disproved in the dossier. Some information has already been proven. This is not to say there aren't some false reports (after all, it is bound to happen with secondhand information) but that is why, as the FBI, you try and sift through it and find the leads.
 
You seem very tolerable of this highly questionable evidence.

Like the Nunes "memo" yes that was a good joke, thinking you guys should have saved that joke for April 1st.:lamo
Another day in the USA.
 
Like the Nunes "memo" yes that was a good joke, thinking you guys should have saved that joke for April 1st.:lamo
Another day in the USA.

So much for you being an "independent", eh?
 
Moot point. You said Steele was 'biased' therefore his report shouldn't be taken seriously. Your 'logic' follows, then, that since prosecutors are biased against a defendant their claims against the defendant shouldn't be considered in court.



Oh, do tell me what law the FBI broke (this should be good).

 
You don't think it was well-said? I thought it was pretty good.

Ordinarily, Carter Page would have a lawyer who would try to have the investigation thrown out if the evidence against him was gathered by unconstitutional means. Got any clue as to why the GOP would have a vested interest in making sure that this investigation never reaches that point, to the extent that they reach for a partisan hail mary so desperate, Ben Ghazi himself jumped ship?

No, it was mostly a rant that barely addressed anything in the actual memo.
 


Ah, so you present me with a Fox News spin segment. I am thoroughly convinced!

The fact Greg Jarrett thinks there is a right-to-privacy law is ridiculous. Then again, Jarrett is known for letting his politics dictate his 'legal analysis.' This is the same guy who wanted a grand jury for Clinton, but when it came to Trump/Russia, he declared grand juries to be undemocratic farces. Either he is dishonest or hitting the bottle again.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so you present me with a Fox News spin segment. I am thoroughly convinced!

The fact Greg Garrett thinks there is a right-to-privacy law is ridiculous. Then again, Garrett is known for letting his politics dictate his 'legal analysis.' This is the same guy who wanted a grand jury for Clinton, but when it came to Trump/Russia, he declared grand juries to be undemocratic farces. Either he is dishonest or hitting the bottle again.


So...do you contend that he is wrong about the perjury and abuse of power stuff? Perhaps you have a different legal opinion than he does?

Or, are you playing that typical game of "He's biased so I won't listen"?

He's stating facts. Do you have any?
 
So...do you contend that he is wrong about the perjury and abuse of power stuff? Perhaps you have a different legal opinion than he does?

Or, are you playing that typical game of "He's biased so I won't listen"?

He's stating facts. Do you have any?

That you think he is stating "facts" makes me understand why you think the way you do. He is stating his opinion and spinning it as fact. He thinks the FBI has committed perjury but he states that they did. He thinks the FBI abused their power, but states they did. This is the same guy who said we needed a grand jury for Clinton, but then a day later criticized grand juries as undemocratic when discussing Trump/Russia. Only mindless sheep would take Jarrett's 'legal advice' seriously.
 
Last edited:
That you think he is stating "facts" makes me understand why you think the way you do. He is stating his opinion and spinning it as fact. He thinks the FBI has committed perjury but he states that they did. He thinks the FBI abused their power, but states they did. This is the same guy who said we needed a grand jury for Clinton, but then said a day later criticized grand juries as undemocratic when discussing Trump/Russia. Only mindless sheep would take Jarrett's 'legal advice' seriously.

Dude...he's a talking potato head and he's a lawyer. I'd say he knows what perjury and abuse of power are. Take it or leave it.

But if you actually disagree with him, don't cry at me about it. Just dispute him with facts. That's all I'm interested in.
 
You really do not understand what it means to be an Independent do ya.........

I do and you aren't representitive of an "independent". But hey, believe what you want.
 
Back
Top Bottom