• 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!

A thread for Democrats to answer, Republicans to read: FISA issue

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
46,517
Reaction score
22,699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Republicans wrongly (those two words are almost like one word) think Democrats cheer, defend, if people in the FBI did wrong things, if they were against a Republican figure.

Actually, Democrats are in favor of appropriate investigations of such wrongdoing. As much as the IG found wrongs on FISA and Carter Page, we support the IG's uncovering that, and punishing wrongdoing involved. We're the ones who have long raised problems with the FISA system and would support reforms. Democrats can post if they agree or if they defend wrongdoing as Republicans wrongly claim.

As usual, Republicans are projecting.

They're the ones who have violated the rights of their 'enemies', and supported that, pretty much forever. We could go back a century to J. Edgar Hoover's war on 'anarchists', but it especially happened since Nixon, such as Cointelpro. Show me the Republicans who criticized that.

"FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive, including feminist organizations, the Communist Party USA, anti–Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights movement or Black Power movement (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, the American Indian Movement (AIM), independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left."
 
Republicans don't think such a thing.

What they think is that the story line for the past three years of Trump conspiring with Russia was the result of the Obama Admin wrongly using the presidential law enforcement and surveillance powers in service of political aims.
 
What pages are so damning


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Republicans wrongly (those two words are almost like one word) think Democrats cheer, defend, if people in the FBI did wrong things, if they were against a Republican figure.

Actually, Democrats are in favor of appropriate investigations of such wrongdoing. As much as the IG found wrongs on FISA and Carter Page, we support the IG's uncovering that, and punishing wrongdoing involved. We're the ones who have long raised problems with the FISA system and would support reforms. Democrats can post if they agree or if they defend wrongdoing as Republicans wrongly claim.

As usual, Republicans are projecting.

They're the ones who have violated the rights of their 'enemies', and supported that, pretty much forever. We could go back a century to J. Edgar Hoover's war on 'anarchists', but it especially happened since Nixon, such as Cointelpro. Show me the Republicans who criticized that.

"FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive, including feminist organizations, the Communist Party USA, anti–Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights movement or Black Power movement (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, the American Indian Movement (AIM), independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left."

Seriously? Dude...you make my ex-wife look like a piker, the way you bring up something that happened more than 40 years ago and apply that to current Republicans.

Tell you what...if you want to support investigations into wrongdoing, then talk about something more current...like the political corruption of the Obama administration.

btw, you really shouldn't be trying to speak for "Democrats". I dare say most Democrats don't agree with you regarding the actions of the Obama administration pukes.
 
"appropriate investigations" eh?

Like Muller's investigation, right?

5 Times The Mueller Probe Broke Prosecutorial Rules That Ensure Justice
  1. Using Leaks And Press Conferences to Trash Un-charged Targets
    Rule 3.8 of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional responsibility for prosecutors provides,A prosecutor shall, except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
  2. Using Their Power to Crush Client-Attorney Privilege
    Rule 3.8 also provides,
    A prosecutor shall not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:
    (1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
    (2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
    (3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

  3. Prosecuting Despite Knowing They Can’t Prove Their Case[/h]Rule 3.8 also provides “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.”
    Notwithstanding that the key collusion allegation had already been disproven before Mueller first turned on the lights in the special counsel’s office, for nearly two years Mueller has been trying President Trump in the court of public opinion. This is more than a mere expression. The venue for trying the president is in the Senate under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, and the constitutional framers always intended that senators make their decisions based in part on the opinions of the electorate they represent.
  4. Special Counsels Aren’t Supposed to Be a Partisan Hit Squad
    Federal law regarding the “Independence of the Special Counsel” says: “An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, …. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
    Mueller should not have been selected as the special counsel, due to his close personal relationship with Comey. Further, his entire staff was clearly not impartial.
    As one example, the prominent attorney Jeannie Rhee worked for the Clintons to keep Hillary’s emails out of public view only months before joining the Mueller team to investigate Hillary’s political opponent. Clinton might face legal consequences for secretly starting the Russia collusion hoax using campaign funds.
    Is it a surprise that Clinton’s role in hiring Fusion GPS appears nowhere in the report? Instead, on the very first page of the report, Mueller’s team repeats the myth that the investigation began with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian diplomat. This is the desperate cover story the media pushes to hide Clinton’s obvious effort to use campaign money to frame her political opponent.
  5. Rosenstein Used His Government Position to Protect Himself

    Federal conflict of interest law (28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a)) says:
    Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

If that's what your idea of what "appropriate investigations" are, it seems like quite a reversal of existing civil rights.
 
Republicans don't think such a thing.

A poll of Republicans would show you wrong. But good for you being an exception if you don't say Democrats support something wrong done by the low-level attorney on the FISA application.
 
Republicans don't think such a thing.

What they think is that the story line for the past three years of Trump conspiring with Russia was the result of the Obama Admin wrongly using the presidential law enforcement and surveillance powers in service of political aims.

Which is a ****ing lie. Congrats.
 
A poll of Republicans would show you wrong. But good for you being an exception if you don't say Democrats support something wrong done by the low-level attorney on the FISA application.

Ho! Ho! Ho! It's a lot more than that.
 
Ho! Ho! Ho! It's a lot more than that.

The only wrongs I've heard about so far are about the one FISA application they did, for Carter Page - as opposed to the massive list of wrongs Republicans claimed that would see the leadership of the FBI jailed.
 
The only wrongs I've heard about so far are about the one FISA application they did, for Carter Page - as opposed to the massive list of wrongs Republicans claimed that would see the leadership of the FBI jailed.

17 serious mistakes-- and they all were mistakes detrimental to Mr. Trump.
The final nail into the Steele Dossier as a serious document.
The confirmation that the Nunes Memo was correct and the Schiff response to it incorrect.
The 40 plus reforms which the FBI director plans to make in its operations.
 
17 serious mistakes-- and they all were mistakes detrimental to Mr. Trump.
The final nail into the Steele Dossier as a serious document.
The confirmation that the Nunes Memo was correct and the Schiff response to it incorrect.
The 40 plus reforms which the FBI director plans to make in its operations.

None of that points to any FBI wrongdoing outside the Carter Page FISA warrant.
 
None of that points to any FBI wrongdoing outside the Carter Page FISA warrant.

Then Mr. Obama had an incompetent Intelligence team and thus their conclusions on matters can fairly be disputed and discredited ( like the conclusion that Russian efforts were designed to favor Trump).
 
Then Mr. Obama had an incompetent Intelligence team and thus their conclusions on matters can fairly be disputed and discredited ( like the conclusion that Russian efforts were designed to favor Trump).

Bizarre and baseless false statement. The fact you still challenge the Russian actions puts you in flat earther, birther, moon is made of cheese delusions.
 
Bizarre and baseless false statement. The fact you still challenge the Russian actions puts you in flat earther, birther, moon is made of cheese delusions.

I have not denied that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

I have been skeptical that they conspired with Trump (vindicated) to do so.

I have been skeptical of the legitimacy of the Steele Dossier (vindicated).

I am of the opinion the dossier was part of the Russian 2016 disinformation operation (which is far more plausable than trusting those anonymous Russian sources-- which many of anti-Trump folks require we do ).

Which means Russia played both sides-- SUCCESSFULLY sent anti-Trump stuff to the Clinton campaign and TRIED (UNSUCCESSFULLY) to send anti- Clinton stuff to the Trump campaign.

Given how wrong, and gullible, the USA intelligence agencies were, we should certainly be skeptical of their conclusion as to what Russia was trying to do in 2016.
 
I have not denied that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

That's a start.

I have been skeptical that they conspired with Trump (vindicated) to do so.

No, he hasn't. There is proof he 'welcomed' their interference. They clearly operated in cooperation whether they discussed doing so or not, as if there was an implicit understanding - Russia with a massive effort helping trump, and trump utterly pro-Putin, only complimenting him and pushing every agenda Putin had.

I have been skeptical of the legitimacy of the Steele Dossier (vindicated).

That dossiere is irrelevant, and it was political opposition of leads on rumors against trump with varying degrees of likelihood, Steele said much of it was likely inaccurate.

I am of the opinion the dossier was part of the Russian 2016 disinformation operation (which is far more plausable than trusting those anonymous Russian sources-- which many of anti-Trump folks require we do ).

Wrong and no evidence. Steele was highly skilled at his research, and much of it had been confirmed, with none of it looking like 'Russian disinformation' - and it makes no sense when they're supporting trump why they'd feed anti-trump things to Steele.

Which means Russia played both sides-- SUCCESSFULLY sent anti-Trump stuff to the Clinton campaign and TRIED (UNSUCCESSFULLY) to send anti- Clinton stuff to the Trump campaign.

You're back in delusions. There is no evidence anything in the campaign against trump was disinformation or that Russia did anything but help trump.

Given how wrong, and gullible, the USA intelligence agencies were, we should certainly be skeptical of their conclusion as to what Russia was trying to do in 2016.

So you're trying to have it both ways - responding to my criticism that your questioning Russian interference is delusional by saying you accept it, and then questioning it again about 'skepticism of the intelligence agencies findings' about it.

You can go back to your flat earth, birtherism and moon made of cheese.

It's a free country and you can choose lies and delusions.
 
That's a start.



No, he hasn't. There is proof he 'welcomed' their interference. They clearly operated in cooperation whether they discussed doing so or not, as if there was an implicit understanding - Russia with a massive effort helping trump, and trump utterly pro-Putin, only complimenting him and pushing every agenda Putin had.



That dossiere is irrelevant, and it was political opposition of leads on rumors against trump with varying degrees of likelihood, Steele said much of it was likely inaccurate.



Wrong and no evidence. Steele was highly skilled at his research, and much of it had been confirmed, with none of it looking like 'Russian disinformation' - and it makes no sense when they're supporting trump why they'd feed anti-trump things to Steele.



You're back in delusions. There is no evidence anything in the campaign against trump was disinformation or that Russia did anything but help trump.



So you're trying to have it both ways - responding to my criticism that your questioning Russian interference is delusional by saying you accept it, and then questioning it again about 'skepticism of the intelligence agencies findings' about it.

You can go back to your flat earth, birtherism and moon made of cheese.

It's a free country and you can choose lies and delusions.

1. Why would it be a "start"? The argument for the past three years had been 'Russian interference=Trump complicity.' It's always been a nonsense argument and it's an argument that has been discredited and disconfirmed.
But you still cling to it. Why?

2. The dossier was certainly relevant when it was in used in court against an American citizen, or entered into the Congressional Record as evidence against an American president. That Steele was a trusted person doesnt really matter when questioning the judgment of those who were quick to rely upon it. And rely upon it they did, and at a time when they knew Russia was screwing with the election. Which is why their conclusion as to Russian objectives in 2016 can absolutely be questioned.
 
Republicans wrongly (those two words are almost like one word) think Democrats cheer, defend, if people in the FBI did wrong things, if they were against a Republican figure.

Actually, Democrats are in favor of appropriate investigations of such wrongdoing. As much as the IG found wrongs on FISA and Carter Page, we support the IG's uncovering that, and punishing wrongdoing involved. We're the ones who have long raised problems with the FISA system and would support reforms. Democrats can post if they agree or if they defend wrongdoing as Republicans wrongly claim.

As usual, Republicans are projecting.

They're the ones who have violated the rights of their 'enemies', and supported that, pretty much forever. We could go back a century to J. Edgar Hoover's war on 'anarchists', but it especially happened since Nixon, such as Cointelpro. Show me the Republicans who criticized that.

"FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive, including feminist organizations, the Communist Party USA, anti–Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights movement or Black Power movement (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, the American Indian Movement (AIM), independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left."

Oh please. You are either completely in the dark or knowingly fabricating Liberal Democrat BS.

In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a flight risk so they could tap phone lines at Fox news and seize records of reporters.

Obama weaponized the IRS against over 40 conservative organizations to the point the IRS apologized in Federal court for their actions.

Obama illegally targeted, monitored, and unmasked political opponents, including members of Congress, journalists reporting unfavorable stories, Trump allies and average Americans. The FISA report is just the tip of the iceberg.

And you have the balls to come in here with your fairy tale story about how Democrats are above reproach? Give me a break.
 
1. Why would it be a "start"? The argument for the past three years had been 'Russian interference=Trump complicity.' It's always been a nonsense argument and it's an argument that has been discredited and disconfirmed.
But you still cling to it. Why?

The question is why you misrepresent what I said, for a start. That hasn't been the argument, it hasn't been discredited or "disconfirmed", and I'm repeating myself, it was proven trump welcomed the help, and whether or not they made an agreement, they did everything as if they had, Russia helping trump, and trump completely serving Putin.

2. The dossier was certainly relevant when it was in used in court against an American citizen, or entered into the Congressional Record as evidence against an American president. That Steele was a trusted person doesnt really matter when questioning the judgment of those who were quick to rely upon it. And rely upon it they did, and at a time when they knew Russia was screwing with the election. Which is why their conclusion as to Russian objectives in 2016 can absolutely be questioned.

It played a minor supporting role in the warrant on Carter Page - basically no role in all the issues with trump. As the Mueller report you obviously didn't bother to pay any attention to showed, the investigations into trump were based on other evidence. But the right keeps the dishonest distractions about the Steele Dossier going.
 
The question is why you misrepresent what I said, for a start. That hasn't been the argument, it hasn't been discredited or "disconfirmed", and I'm repeating myself, it was proven trump welcomed the help, and whether or not they made an agreement, they did everything as if they had, Russia helping trump, and trump completely serving Putin.



It played a minor supporting role in the warrant on Carter Page - basically no role in all the issues with trump. As the Mueller report you obviously didn't bother to pay any attention to showed, the investigations into trump were based on other evidence. But the right keeps the dishonest distractions about the Steele Dossier going.

1. The welcoming of help had to do with the Trump campaign thinking the Wikileaks release would benefit them politically.
That's it. Not the stuff of crisis.

2. I thought Democrats were driven by facts? As McCabe testified a few years ago, and as Horowitz recently confirmed, without the dossier there would be no FISA warrant.
Without the dossier, all we have is a few instances when Russia approached the Trump campaign, with sometimes the campaign responding and other times not.
 
1. The welcoming of help had to do with the Trump campaign thinking the Wikileaks release would benefit them politically.
That's it. Not the stuff of crisis.

2. I thought Democrats were driven by facts? As McCabe testified a few years ago, and as Horowitz recently confirmed, without the dossier there would be no FISA warrant.
Without the dossier, all we have is a few instances when Russia approached the Trump campaign, with sometimes the campaign responding and other times not.

So, you're going to keep wasting my time, ignoring trump's subservience to Putin in every way, ignoring that the dossier played pretty much role on the trump issues, only the Page FISA warrant. Done with you ignoring issues.
 
So, you're going to keep wasting my time, ignoring trump's subservience to Putin in every way, ignoring that the dossier played pretty much role on the trump issues, only the Page FISA warrant. Done with you ignoring issues.

The dossier was about Trump. It claimed there was a well coordinated plan between the campaign and Russia. The reason it was used in the FISA warrant is because it was thought that Page was the contact person with Russoa for the campaign.
Without the dossier, no warrant.
Which is why it is correct to say that absent the dossier there is no reason to think there was any sort of conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

It continues to be mysterious why Putin would want a fully funded NATO or lethal weaponry shipped to Ukraine.
 
The dossier was about Trump. It claimed there was a well coordinated plan between the campaign and Russia. The reason it was used in the FISA warrant is because it was thought that Page was the contact person with Russoa for the campaign.
Without the dossier, no warrant.
Which is why it is correct to say that absent the dossier there is no reason to think there was any sort of conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

It continues to be mysterious why Putin would want a fully funded NATO or lethal weaponry shipped to Ukraine.

You continue your disingenuous cherry picking. Just because an investigation investigates one possible detail that turns out not to be the case doesn't change the larger investigation. The dossier was not the basis for the investigations. It did play a role in detail, the FISA warrant on page. None of that has anything to do with what you ignore, the many other problems including the Russian interference trump welcomed, and trump's complete subservience to Putin, endorsing Putin's agenda entirely.

Then you try to cherry pick areas you think trump hasn't supported Putin, as if proving there are any disprove all the areas he has supported Putin. Bad logic, wrong. Actually, it's amazing how badly trump does this. If he was even a little competent at his sellout to Putin, he'd try to hide it better, look for areas he could criticize Putin, say he disagreed, find policies he could look like he was putting our country first. He's done none of that. It's incredible how consistently he's done nothing but praise Putin even when he didn't need to. He's attacked, for example, every single sanction on Russian. He doesn't even try to hide it.

The best trump has come up with is his abuse of the English language lie how he's been 'tough on Putin' just because he says so, like he's 'the most pro-woman president in history' because he says so or any of his other absolutist lies. Even your cherry picked examples don't hold up. trump does understand where he can't get away with dong things for Putin because Congress would override him. Or, for example, where all he can do is say he wants Putin let back in the G-7, removing the punishment for the hostility to Ukraine, but not get it done because the other countries won't vote for it. trump incredibly has attacked NATO from the start just as Putin wants, threatened NATO funding as Putin wants, he just can't get away with destroying NATO because Congress won't let him.

trump supported the former pro-Soviet and corrupt government in Ukraine, picking a campaign manager who had been deeply involved with it and a Putin oligarch, to this day having his 'personal attorney' who is paid by oligarch-linked figures charged with crime work with the corrupt former prosecutor and others, and as soon as the new president was elected, trump withheld the military aid until a whistleblower got it exposed he was doing it. And even then it wasn't entirely released.

You're posting nonsensical falsehoods, you might as well say 'prove FDR wasn't on the side of Hitler', and throw out garbage like a military mistake made saying it 'proves' FDR did it to help Hitler.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom