|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 02 2018 01:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 02 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. I'm not sure if they're actually allowed to "correct the record" to Nunes if they believe Nunes is in any way compromised or connected to their investigation of the Trump campaign/transition team. Which he kind of is as a member of the Trump transition team. Nunes is one man on an intelligence committee. It is within the FBI's/DOJ's power to write a letter to the committee members in response to the multiple subpoenas and document requests noting their concerns with member/members of the committee under investigation for being compromised by Russians. ...Which Nunes would never be allowed to read, and so he would view the committee as stonewalling. Hence why his memo is pointless and misleading if there's even the slightest chance anything is being withheld from him in the investigation. He hasn't accused the committee of stonewalling (the minority presence of Democrats have repeatedly voted against actions taken by the majority). You're off assuming that the FBI could tell the committee some of its members are under investigation for compromise by Russians, and nobody would vote different or refer the matter to a second select committee. When really, that's exactly how the FBI/DOJ could do it if their concerns were as you stated. There's absolutely no reason to think that the memo is pointless and misleading for those concerns. The FBI would be great idiots to not point that out to committee members.
I mean, yeah, they would be. But we literally could not be told of that, and neither could Nunes. And even the Democrats' memo shouldn't contain that information unless the FBI had told them it was okay.
This is why I don't understand the impetus for this now. The world where Nunes writes this memo and the FBI was unjustified and the world where they were justified are indistinguishable without access to all the classified goings-on of the committee and the FBI. Without all of the context, which does not seem to be forthcoming and would jeopardize an ongoing investigation, it's literally impossible to gain information from this memo.
Beyond the fact that Trump had a known past foreign agent, Carter Page, on his campaign that the Steele dossier was accurate about, of course.
On February 02 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. Congress has oversight, not Nunes all on his own. If they have a problem with the way the FBI is operating, all of congress, house or senate, can agree to hold hearings and discuss the matter. That is not happening. Just because groups/people are empowered to do things does not make their actions justified automatically. Power can be abused. Business owners are empowered to fire employees. That does not mean that a business owner is justified in firing an employee for refusing sexual advances. Nunes’s actions are not self justifying simply because he exists in congress. And the FBI is NOT ALLOWED TO CORRECT THE RECORD PUBLICLY. Just like Judges cannot respond publicly to attacks on them. Nunes can claim he didn’t receive all the information he wanted and the FBI cannot say anything beyond “We complied with the request.”
Can they even say they complied with the request publicly?
|
On February 02 2018 01:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:51 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 02 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. I'm not sure if they're actually allowed to "correct the record" to Nunes if they believe Nunes is in any way compromised or connected to their investigation of the Trump campaign/transition team. Which he kind of is as a member of the Trump transition team. Nunes is one man on an intelligence committee. It is within the FBI's/DOJ's power to write a letter to the committee members in response to the multiple subpoenas and document requests noting their concerns with member/members of the committee under investigation for being compromised by Russians. ...Which Nunes would never be allowed to read, and so he would view the committee as stonewalling. Hence why his memo is pointless and misleading if there's even the slightest chance anything is being withheld from him in the investigation. He hasn't accused the committee of stonewalling (the minority presence of Democrats have repeatedly voted against actions taken by the majority). You're off assuming that the FBI could tell the committee some of its members are under investigation for compromise by Russians, and nobody would vote different or refer the matter to a second select committee. When really, that's exactly how the FBI/DOJ could do it if their concerns were as you stated. There's absolutely no reason to think that the memo is pointless and misleading for those concerns. The FBI would be great idiots to not point that out to committee members. I mean, yeah, they would be. But we literally could not be told of that, and neither could Nunes. And even the Democrats' memo shouldn't contain that information unless the FBI had told them it was okay. This is why I don't understand the impetus for this now. The world where Nunes writes this memo and the FBI was unjustified and the world where they were justified are indistinguishable without access to all the classified goings-on of the committee and the FBI. Without all of the context, which does not seem to be forthcoming and would jeopardize an ongoing investigation, it's literally impossible to gain information from this memo. Beyond the fact that Trump had a known past foreign agent, Carter Page, on his campaign that the Steele dossier was accurate about, of course. Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. Congress has oversight, not Nunes all on his own. If they have a problem with the way the FBI is operating, all of congress, house or senate, can agree to hold hearings and discuss the matter. That is not happening. Just because groups/people are empowered to do things does not make their actions justified automatically. Power can be abused. Business owners are empowered to fire employees. That does not mean that a business owner is justified in firing an employee for refusing sexual advances. Nunes’s actions are not self justifying simply because he exists in congress. And the FBI is NOT ALLOWED TO CORRECT THE RECORD PUBLICLY. Just like Judges cannot respond publicly to attacks on them. Nunes can claim he didn’t receive all the information he wanted and the FBI cannot say anything beyond “We complied with the request.” Can they even say they complied with the request publicly?
From my understanding from the reporting I have heard, they are allowed to make non-specific public statements about the compliance oversight requests. But they cannot confirm or deny specific details or anything else. They are allowed to investigate and build a case, but are not allowed to discuss any part of that publicly until the case goes to trial.
It would be super messed up if they could just release whatever information they felt was worth releasing, while also having arrest, subpoena powers and the ability to charge people with a crime for lying to them.
|
On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact.
But we basically know it wasn't.
The FBI was aware of the stuff in the Steele dossier.
Multiple foreign intelligence agencies warned about the contacts between Trumps team and Russia.
Members of Trumps team were already under investigation and surveillance.
If the entire Steele dossier was removed from history nothing would have changed!
(other then public knowledge, its easier to leak an outside dossier then an internal classified FBI investigation).
It reminds me of the fuss Berlusconi threw when his phone conversations were recorded by the police. They weren't spying on him, he kept calling known mafia figures who were under surveillance.
|
On February 02 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. Congress has oversight, not Nunes all on his own. If they have a problem with the way the FBI is operating, all of congress, house or senate, can agree to hold hearings and discuss the matter. That is not happening. Just because groups/people are empowered to do things does not make their actions justified automatically. Power can be abused. Business owners are empowered to fire employees. That does not mean that a business owner is justified in firing an employee for refusing sexual advances. Nunes’s actions are not self justifying simply because he exists in congress. And the FBI is NOT ALLOWED TO CORRECT THE RECORD PUBLICLY. Just like Judges cannot respond publicly to attacks on them. Nunes can claim he didn’t receive all the information he wanted and the FBI cannot say anything beyond “We complied with the request.”
The FBI has said they won't give up anything. The FBI has chosen to say nothing for a month after requests were received. The FBI has chosen to wait until Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, lambastes them publicly for the stonewalling and delays. That's known as the FBI doing it's best to make sure the investigation does not proceed. That's known as the FBI having zero credibility to act like they're interested in providing the truth to the American public through the committee.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is the body charged by Congress with oversight of the intelligence committee. You dislike the current occupants of the Congress and the current chairmanship of that committee. It still doesn't mean there have to be whole-Congress hearings or they aren't justified. Domestic surveillance of Americans is supposed to be a big deal. The majority of the committee has voted to proceed with the subpoenas and summaries and interviews and document requests. This is oversight. We're about to see what the majority are presenting as important conclusions on alleged FISA abuse. You're just too partisan to allow any oversight done with a party you disagree with, and you continually act like Nunes and Nunes alone acts as oversight, and isn't the chair of 12 other members pursuing this investigation.
If you told me Democrat hacks would be defending the FBI's ability to dodge oversight and tarring investigations into the department a couple years ago, I'd tell you that you were crazy. Now it's like, all intelligence is great and all oversight is bad/evil/too-partisan-to-matter/hate-hate-hate-Republicans-arrrrr...
|
Hooray for partisan memo day! I can't wait for Nunes to expose the FBI's troubling behavior of spying on Russians and Russo-Americans like Carter Page to the public.
|
On February 02 2018 01:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:51 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 02 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. I'm not sure if they're actually allowed to "correct the record" to Nunes if they believe Nunes is in any way compromised or connected to their investigation of the Trump campaign/transition team. Which he kind of is as a member of the Trump transition team. Nunes is one man on an intelligence committee. It is within the FBI's/DOJ's power to write a letter to the committee members in response to the multiple subpoenas and document requests noting their concerns with member/members of the committee under investigation for being compromised by Russians. ...Which Nunes would never be allowed to read, and so he would view the committee as stonewalling. Hence why his memo is pointless and misleading if there's even the slightest chance anything is being withheld from him in the investigation. He hasn't accused the committee of stonewalling (the minority presence of Democrats have repeatedly voted against actions taken by the majority). You're off assuming that the FBI could tell the committee some of its members are under investigation for compromise by Russians, and nobody would vote different or refer the matter to a second select committee. When really, that's exactly how the FBI/DOJ could do it if their concerns were as you stated. There's absolutely no reason to think that the memo is pointless and misleading for those concerns. The FBI would be great idiots to not point that out to committee members. I mean, yeah, they would be. But we literally could not be told of that, and neither could Nunes. And even the Democrats' memo shouldn't contain that information unless the FBI had told them it was okay. This is why I don't understand the impetus for this now. The world where Nunes writes this memo and the FBI was unjustified and the world where they were justified are indistinguishable without access to all the classified goings-on of the committee and the FBI. Without all of the context, which does not seem to be forthcoming and would jeopardize an ongoing investigation, it's literally impossible to gain information from this memo. Beyond the fact that Trump had a known past foreign agent, Carter Page, on his campaign that the Steele dossier was accurate about, of course.
We'd already have a second select committee on the FBI's handling of the FISA application if they were fearful that committee members were compromised by the Russians. Period. The excuse doesn't hold.
The HPSCI is absolutely justified in asking for the publication of this memo to inform the people they represent what they believe to be abuses in the process of domestic surveillance of Americans. The FBI ultimately answers to the people's representatives, and doesn't exist in a "we surveil who we want, and oversight might be compromised so we won't comply" universe. You're really riding a conspiracy theory too far into permanently unaccountable government agencies.
|
On February 02 2018 02:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. But we basically know it wasn't. The FBI was aware of the stuff in the Steele dossier. Multiple foreign intelligence agencies warned about the contacts between Trumps team and Russia. Members of Trumps team were already under investigation and surveillance. If the entire Steele dossier was removed from history nothing would have changed! (other then public knowledge, its easier to leak an outside dossier then an internal classified FBI investigation). It reminds me of the fuss Berlusconi threw when his phone conversations were recorded by the police. They weren't spying on him, he kept calling known mafia figures who were under surveillance.
All you have is anonymous leaks. We basically don't know it was or wasn't. In fact, that's precisely why this is no small deal. I have a higher standard than going through shady campaign workers and then concluding that nothing improper happened in FISA wiretaps.
|
On February 02 2018 02:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. Congress has oversight, not Nunes all on his own. If they have a problem with the way the FBI is operating, all of congress, house or senate, can agree to hold hearings and discuss the matter. That is not happening. Just because groups/people are empowered to do things does not make their actions justified automatically. Power can be abused. Business owners are empowered to fire employees. That does not mean that a business owner is justified in firing an employee for refusing sexual advances. Nunes’s actions are not self justifying simply because he exists in congress. And the FBI is NOT ALLOWED TO CORRECT THE RECORD PUBLICLY. Just like Judges cannot respond publicly to attacks on them. Nunes can claim he didn’t receive all the information he wanted and the FBI cannot say anything beyond “We complied with the request.” The FBI has said they won't give up anything. The FBI has chosen to say nothing for a month after requests were received. The FBI has chosen to wait until Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, lambastes them publicly for the stonewalling and delays. That's known as the FBI doing it's best to make sure the investigation does not proceed. That's known as the FBI having zero credibility to act like they're interested in providing the truth to the American public through the committee. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is the body charged by Congress with oversight of the intelligence committee. You dislike the current occupants of the Congress and the current chairmanship of that committee. It still doesn't mean there have to be whole-Congress hearings or they aren't justified. Domestic surveillance of Americans is supposed to be a big deal. The majority of the committee has voted to proceed with the subpoenas and summaries and interviews and document requests. This is oversight. We're about to see what the majority are presenting as important conclusions on alleged FISA abuse. You're just too partisan to allow any oversight done with a party you disagree with, and you continually act like Nunes and Nunes alone acts as oversight, and isn't the chair of 12 other members pursuing this investigation. If you told me Democrat hacks would be defending the FBI's ability to dodge oversight and tarring investigations into the department a couple years ago, I'd tell you that you were crazy. Now it's like, all intelligence is great and all oversight is bad/evil/too-partisan-to-matter/hate-hate-hate-Republicans-arrrrr...
Why does this oversight have to happen in the middle of an investigation into the leader of the Republican party’s election campaign? Why now and not earlier? Or after the investigation? What is the rush? FISA warrants have been around for a long time, but now they matter? Why not put a pin in it and wait until May 2018?
|
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic.
|
On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic.
you dont get it okay! One is the president of the US, the most important man in the world, the face of the american public! One is just some guy nobody had ever heard of before this text thing. Clearly that rando has NO right to privacy and the President has every right to keep finical info that could shed light into how he leads private
|
On February 02 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:
Hooray for partisan memo day! I can't wait for Nunes to expose the FBI's troubling behavior of spying on Russians and Russo-Americans like Carter Page to the public.
This just in: American citizens can be "Russo-Americans" undeserving of constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment against spying.
I thought Democrats were into civil rights, even including criminals on trial? Maybe I'm relying on outdated assumptions about Democrats. Americans that deal with Russians get put on the gangplank these days.
|
On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic.
In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case.
Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right?
|
|
|
On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right?
In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt.
|
So now its useless right? If you are going to take things out why are you releasing anything?
|
|
|
On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt.
Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law.
|
On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law.
Anger is a childs emotion that I have never really felt so I couldn't be angry.
If your trying to argue Trump isn't cirrupt then yes I will laugh at you, but again that isn't anger. It isn't the first time some of the unwritten rules were broken and had to be written down but this is one of the more self serving and the fact that he has to lie about why is the funniest part.
|
On February 02 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:18 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Just wanted to let everyone in this thread know about Lawfare. It's a great site that has lots of well-written commentary on national security law. Best of all, it's written by people who actually know what they are talking about. For example, one of their writers was an NSA lawyer for years, one is a Harvard law professor, etc. Real experts, as opposed to twenty-something journalists with degrees in 4 years of literary analysis and not much else. Literarily analysts have really gotten a bad rap for the last decade. It used to be under water basket weaving, modern art and poetry. What did literary critique do to become a pejorative?
All art critique has, really. As someone who studied it at university and has been an editor before, a lot of people operate on 'if I like it, it is good' and they reject the sort of things that someone like me will just casually reel off to point out why the thing they like isn't.
The problem is you need to understand it for the critique to actually have meaning. So literary critique - like film critique - ends up seeming more and more elitist, because the things that piss us off are only really irritating if you understand what makes things good in the first place on a structural level. I can tell anyone, easily and clearly, why War and Peace is superior to Twilight. But a lot of people would say Twilight is better because they like it more.
They're allowed to be wrong. But they're still wrong.
|
On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law.
I think it could be safe to say that it was an unwritten rule that you should keep rat shit out of food you sell to people. But god damn then people kept letting rat shit get into the food and so now we have the FDA.
Unwritten rules get broken all the time and then you create laws around it because you can't trust people anymore
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
