Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 35 of 37 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 541
  1. #511
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Look I think anyone would look at both the Russian stuff and this FISA scandal and think they both deserve investigation. Both are so mired in activities on both sides. It looks like Hillary had extensive Russian contacts, possibly even more than Trump, and it looks like Trump is trying to use the Hillary/Obama scandal to both discredit other investigations and allow him political cover to do whatever he wants with LE.

    But this thread is about the FISA scandal and so far we know for a fact that the FBI and DOJ used questionable and uncorroborated evidence that originated as campaign dirt in order to obtain secret warrants from secret courts and put a secret number of their political opponents under our 1984-style surveillance system.

    The rest we don't know because so much of it is secret - but that is enough to raise a lot of eyebrows because it's basically Watergate except using government law enforcements instead of private citizens. That is why it's way worse than Watergate and the only saving grace is going to be if the surveillance was justified by the Russia investigation. And even if it is, the way it was handled makes the Obama administration look terrible. There is so much noise in the media about everything else - nobody in the media can possibly know what the result will be, what the FISA documents say, etc. so they just make stuff up. On both sides.

    We're all bros here.

    I'm not partisan because I don't really like either party, but I do have views that I will not move from. I'm a Democrat but I am vigorously opposed to restricting the Constitutional rights of citizens and the PC agenda, which puts me at odds with the current DNC zeitgeist. I like Sanders but I disagree with most of what he thinks, except for some sort of public health care option. But people like Keith Ellison, Liz Warren, and the various other people that check the diversity boxes but don't really offer much else are not to my liking.

    If someone like Jim Webb or Dennis Kucinich were still leaders in the party I'd be right in there with them. It is not my fault that the DNC has decided to become the anti-Constitution and anti-law party. Most Democrats that aren't on the coasts actually do not like open borders, federal control over local law enforcement, anti 1st and 2nd amendment legislation, etc. But the party thinks it can cobble together every minority in the country by embracing SJWism and calling everything racist while also not suffering the consequences of those radical views. We'll see - DNC has always been the 'big tent' party but that's a tenuous political strategy in polarized times.
    I think there's a lot your extrapolating to make this seem worse than it is. For one, the idea that the FBI was "against" Trump and viewed him as a political opponent. The FBI re-opened the investigation into Hillary Clinton a week before the election and may very well have cost her the election, these were not DNC schills. Hell, FBI leans more Republican than Democrat. This is retroactive logic, ergo anyone who does anything Trump or his cronies deem not beneficial to him is "against him" intrinsically. It's absolutism at its worst.

    But as you said, the only saving grace will be if the surveillance was justified by the Russia investigation. So if that is the case, how can you definitively say it's already worse than Watergate if that would exonerate it? Seems like your mind is made up. I've asked repeatedly which of the two characters (Page and Papadopoulos) should not have been surveilled based on what we know about them and no one can give an answer: because everyone knows the obvious. They were beyond dirty enough to justify surveillance given what they knew back then. So if there was justification enough to surveil them, what exactly is the problem?


    I mean, is it Watergate because we used government law enforcement to surveil two guys that had multiple ties to Russia and had bragged about information Russia had and had met Russian officials around that time? I'm just not seeing it, because the crux of the argument is that these guys did not deserve to be surveilled and that's a pretty absurd notion. If they didn't warrant surveillance, we should shutter the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. because nobody deserves to be surveilled.


    In regards to your political affiliation, it sounds like your a Democrat that hates Democrats lol. That's fine, I don't particularly like a lot of what's going on in the DNC and the more extreme Liberal wings. I think the PC agenda has gone too far, but if they were gone conservatives would go too far, so we're stuck in this uncomfortable middle where both sides are poised to go off a cliff to crazy. As for whether most Democrats who aren't on the coast do not like open borders, anti 1st and 2nd Amendment legislation, etc. Well, an Alabama Democrat is far more conservative than a California one, but the inverse is true. All Republicans not in the South do not like hating on homosexuals and minorities, marching in Neo Nazi rallies, etc. As for the anti 2nd Amendment legislation, actually most Americans are in agreement on wanting tougher gun laws, there's just an incredibly powerful lobby and a small but very vocal minority that oppose any more restrictions on firearms, no matter how common sense (such as the opposition to denying firearms to people with mental illnesses or on terrorist watch lists).

    My point is, there's a lot of bad and crazy on both sides. But Republicans voted for Trump, so if you're asking which side's crazy is worse, I've yet to seen a compelling argument that trumps Trump.

  2. #512
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    18,932
    since the dossier was mentioned, I see this on this dossier..

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...sations-unver/

    Dossier’s 10 core collusion accusations remain unverified 20 months later
    Christopher Steele’s unproven dossier is a mix of felony charges against President Trump and his people, as well as supposed gossip inside the Kremlin over computer hacking and personnel firings.

    For the ongoing special counsel investigation into suspected Trump-Russia election coordination, it is helpful to separate what counts: Dust away the atmospherics — supposed Kremlin intrigue — and focus on the collusion charges brought by the former British spy based on his paid intermediaries and Moscow sources. None is identified.

    Funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, these specific dossier charges of secret spy missions and criminality are what came to permeate the FBI investigation. Republicans say the FBI abused the court process by using the partisan charges to obtain four wiretap warrants against the other campaign. They say the bureau has yet to confirm any charge.

    As the dossier today takes on even more importance, The Washington Times identified Mr. Steele’s 10 core collusion accusations. The analysis includes the charges’ status, 20 months after Mr. Steele first contacted the FBI and urged the prosecution of President Trump.

    • The Trump campaign launched an “extensive conspiracy” with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. To date, no public verification.

    • Mr. Trump, for decades a developer of tall buildings, maintained an eight-year relationship of give-and-take with Russian intelligence. To date, no public verification.

    • Mr. Trump and senior campaign aides actively supported the Russia hacking of Democratic Party computers to steal and release stolen emails. To date, no public verification.

    • Volunteer Carter Page and campaign manager Paul Manafort personally conspired with Moscow to hack the Democrats’ computers. When the hacking began in 2015, neither man was associated with the Trump campaign. Both deny the charge. Mr. Page testified under oath that he had never met or spoken with Mr. Manafort. To date, no public verification of this dossier part.

    • Mr. Page, an Annapolis graduate, an energy investor and a former resident of Moscow, traveled to that city in early July 2016 to deliver a public speech at a university. The dossier says he met with two top Kremlin operatives and discussed bribes for working to lift economic sanctions. Mr. Page testified under oath that he had never met nor spoke with them. He has filed libel lawsuits.

    • Mr. Trump engaged with Russian prostitutes during a trip to Moscow in 2013. Mr. Trump has denied this numerous times. To date, no public verification.

    • Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, secretly traveled to Prague in August 2016. His supposed mission: to orchestrate payments with agents of Vladimir Putin to cover up the hacking. At that point, the hacking was known worldwide. Mr. Cohen repeatedly has denied under oath that he took such a trip and showed his passport. He has filed libel lawsuits, including against Fusion GPS. Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson, who ordered the dossier, has suggested that Mr. Cohen took a private Russian plane and might have been on a yacht in the Adriatic Sea. To date, there has been no public verification of any of this.

    • Russian tech entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev, owner of XBT Holding, hacked the Democrat Party computers with spyware and pornography. He has denied this repeatedly. He sued Mr. Steele for libel in a London court, where the former spy said the information was raw call-in information and not verified.

    • Three Russian oligarchs and shareholders in Alfa Bank were involved in Russian election interference and paid bribes to Mr. Putin. They deny the charges and have filed libel lawsuits.

    • Mikhail Kalugin was chief of the economic section at the Russian Embassy in Washington. Mr. Steele accuses him of being a spy and of funding the hacking with skimmed-off pension funds. He was supposedly whisked out of Washington when the hacking scandal broke in August. Washington associates of Mr. Kalugin told The Washington Times that the diplomat announced his planned departure 10 months beforehand. He and his family returned to Moscow. He now works in the Foreign Ministry. A former senior U.S. government official told The Times that Mr. Kalugin was never internally identified as a spy.

    Republicans and dossier targets uniformly deride the 35 pages as falsehoods and fabrications. Some Democrats have acknowledged that the collection of memos is flawed.

    But there are steadfast dossier believers, such liberal Twitter brigades and Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the leading Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

    The FBI used the unverified dossier on Oct. 21, 2016, to obtain a court wiretap warrant on Mr. Page that lasted nearly a year.

    Agents included dossier information in the application and three subsequent renewals. The filing was based on the pledge from Mr. Steele that he was not the source of a dossier-type report on Mr. Page that Michael Isikoff reported in Yahoo News in September 2016. But in the London court case, Mr. Steele acknowledged that he was the source.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, released a declassified referral last week that urges the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation of Mr. Steele for lying to the FBI.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s ranking Democrat, issued a rebuttal on Friday.

    “Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted,” she said, referring to the former MI-6 officer as a “respected and reliable expert on Russia.”

    She said the Grassley-Graham referral “provides no evidence that Steele was ever asked about the Isikoff article or if asked that he lied.”

    But the Republican senator’s referral said there is ample evidence that Mr. Steele lied.

    “There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility,” the referral said.

    The next paragraph, which presumedly details that evidence, is completely redacted.

    The two senators wrote, “The FBI already believed Mr. Steele was reliable, he had previously told the FBI he had not shared the information with the press — and lying to the FBI is a crime.”

    Four targets of the dossier have filed seven libel lawsuits against Mr. Steele, Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed, which first posted it online on Jan. 10, 2017, during Mr. Trump’s presidential transition.

    Then FBI-Director James B. Comey told Mr. Trump in a one-on-one meeting that month that the dossier was “salacious and unverified.”

    At the same time, the FBI was citing dossier information before a judge to obtain a second 90-day wiretap warrant on Mr. Page. There would be two more, the last in June 2017.

    J.D. Gordon, a former Pentagon spokesman and Trump campaign adviser, has suffered over a year of government, press and congressional scrutiny. All the negative attention is because he had brief encounters with the Russian ambassador at the Republican National Convention.

    “At least four dozen Trump associates have reportedly been summoned before the various congressional committees and special counsel over anything and everything related to Trump-Russia,” Mr. Gordon told The Washington Times. “Apart from targeting the president with a high-tech coup, the Democrats and ‘Never Trump‘ Republicans are trying to destroy a large group of innocent people who were merely trying to serve their country in presidential politics.”
    if anyone wants to dispute this then go ahead.

    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  3. #513
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    since the dossier was mentioned, I see this on this dossier..

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...sations-unver/

    if anyone wants to dispute this then go ahead.
    Ok. For one your article is factually incorrect about this claim:

    Mr. Page, an Annapolis graduate, an energy investor and a former resident of Moscow, traveled to that city in early July 2016 to deliver a public speech at a university. The dossier says he met with two top Kremlin operatives and discussed bribes for working to lift economic sanctions. Mr. Page testified under oath that he had never met nor spoke with them. He has filed libel lawsuits.


    Yeah, Carter Page testified he had never met with them, and then later admitted he did:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/u...e-russian.html

    Not only did he actually meet with Russian officials, he notified the Trump campaign after he returned:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carte...ry?id=50977310

    Page admitted to sending an email to Trump officials after the trip promising a ”readout” of “incredible insights and outreach” from “Russian legislators” and “senior members of the Presidential administration” in Moscow.


    So no, that claim is not "unverified", it is true and Page lied about it initially and has subsequently admitted to it.

  4. #514
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    81,810
    Yea but the article he cited was from the Washington Times. And yours was ABC and the NYT. Two fake news versus one Trump lover. Who is right?

  5. #515
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    18,932
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Ok. For one your article is factually incorrect about this claim:

    Mr. Page, an Annapolis graduate, an energy investor and a former resident of Moscow, traveled to that city in early July 2016 to deliver a public speech at a university. The dossier says he met with two top Kremlin operatives and discussed bribes for working to lift economic sanctions. Mr. Page testified under oath that he had never met nor spoke with them. He has filed libel lawsuits.


    Yeah, Carter Page testified he had never met with them, and then later admitted he did:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/u...e-russian.html

    Not only did he actually meet with Russian officials, he notified the Trump campaign after he returned:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carte...ry?id=50977310

    Page admitted to sending an email to Trump officials after the trip promising a ”readout” of “incredible insights and outreach” from “Russian legislators” and “senior members of the Presidential administration” in Moscow.


    So no, that claim is not "unverified", it is true and Page lied about it initially and has subsequently admitted to it.

    from the ABC article you posted it also says this..

    Page said he met with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich on his July 2016 trip, which appeared to be at odds with what he's said about his trip in media appearances.

    In January, Page told ABC News that he spoke “not one word” to anyone from the Kremlin during the trip, and then in April, he acknowledged only that he “said hello briefly to one individual, who was a board member of the New Economic School where I gave my speech.”

    Under pressure from Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, however, Page admitted to sending an email to Trump officials after the trip promising a ”readout” of “incredible insights and outreach” from “Russian legislators” and “senior members of the Presidential administration” in Moscow.

    “Those accounts are directly contradictory, so you have to conclude that what he was saying publicly simply wasn’t true,” Schiff said in an interview with ABC News.

    Page downplayed the significance of that note in his interview with lawmakers. In explaining his email, Page said he spoke briefly with Dvorkovich at a reception -- and that he and wanted to share impressions of what he observed on Russian television and in speeches with Trump officials.

    this doesn't make it out to be something that scandalous.

    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  6. #516
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    from the ABC article you posted it also says this..

    this doesn't make it out to be something that scandalous.
    That quote is from Carter Page. So Carter Page said the controversy over Carter Page isn't that scandalous.

    Carter Page originally lied about it anyway, so needless to say I simply don't believe him when he says that, particularly when he also said this:

    Page admitted to sending an email to Trump officials after the trip promising a ”readout” of “incredible insights and outreach” from “Russian legislators” and “senior members of the Presidential administration” in Moscow.

    So he was lying when he said he only briefly spoke with Dvorkovich. Either way, he is lying and the Washington Times article is wrong.

  7. #517
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    81,810
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That quote is from Carter Page. So Carter Page said the controversy over Carter Page isn't that scandalous.

    Carter Page originally lied about it anyway, so needless to say I simply don't believe him when he says that, particularly when he also said this:

    Page admitted to sending an email to Trump officials after the trip promising a ”readout” of “incredible insights and outreach” from “Russian legislators” and “senior members of the Presidential administration” in Moscow.

    So he was lying when he said he only briefly spoke with Dvorkovich. Either way, he is lying and the Washington Times article is wrong.
    But he’s lying in the least legally and politically damaging way. For sure!

  8. #518
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,194
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    IMy point is, there's a lot of bad and crazy on both sides. But Republicans voted for Trump, so if you're asking which side's crazy is worse, I've yet to seen a compelling argument that trumps Trump.
    My point is that open borders, anti-rights, etc. agenda taken to its extreme will end this republic - if that fate is not already sealed. Last election we saw abuses, potentially by both parties but certainly by the DNC, on the integrity of the electoral system and our media's answer is to blame Russia and say that we need more censorship on social media - presumably they or bureaucrats they agree with will decide which political opinions are allowed to be talked about. Meanwhile the 4th Amendment is dead and all of our nation's police are militarizing as the federal government attempts to wrest control away from local authorities.

    This is what it looks like when multi-ethnic empires fall. It happened to Rome, to Spain, to the British Empire, to the USSR, and if we aren't careful it will happen here.

  9. #519
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    My point is that open borders, anti-rights, etc. agenda taken to its extreme will end this republic - if that fate is not already sealed. Last election we saw abuses, potentially by both parties but certainly by the DNC, on the integrity of the electoral system and our media's answer is to blame Russia and say that we need more censorship on social media - presumably they or bureaucrats they agree with will decide which political opinions are allowed to be talked about. Meanwhile the 4th Amendment is dead and all of our nation's police are militarizing as the federal government attempts to wrest control away from local authorities.

    This is what it looks like when multi-ethnic empires fall. It happened to Rome, to Spain, to the British Empire, to the USSR, and if we aren't careful it will happen here.
    I agree with a lot of what you said and disagree with a lot as well. If we are still stuck on the idea that Russia's attempts to influence our election is some media conspired boogey-man we aren't in danger of falling, we've already fallen, and we might as well pack up Congress and the White House and move them into the Kremlin. Never has unconventional information warfare been outed and had so many people deny it is happening. Most empires would be giddy at the notion they can act with impunity towards their greatest threat and have that enemies populace side with them.

    I agree strongly with your warnings on the dangers of open borders, anti-freedoms/rights, and the militarization of our police.

  10. #520
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,194
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I agree strongly with your warnings on the dangers of open borders, anti-freedoms/rights, and the militarization of our police.
    Read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Or any number of books about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Westerners tend to think it was because communism failed, which isn't really true. Communism is a terrible failure as an ideology (it's really just slavery updated) but the USSR wasn't really communist anymore by that point - communism had already murdered some 50-60 million but that was well and over and things were looking up when the USSR fell.

    The main problem was they couldn't hang on to all their territories and ran out of the political willpower plus money to rule by force. The USSR was about 50% ethnic Russian in the 80s. Today, Russia proper is about 80% ethnic Russian (of course it's much smaller too). Russia still struggles with ethnic tensions a bit but Putin has actually been very good about this - understanding that the legacy of the USSR (where your status in society dependied entirely on what race you were) was a big part of what destroyed it.

    Unfortunately I think if America survives over the course of the next 50 years it will be under a Putin-like authoritarian regime - though of course many observers already think that's where we are with the Bush+Clinton political dynasties ruling for the last 30 years (Obama is just a part of that gang, he was no coup). Time will tell what Trump is, but it looks like meet the new boss same as the old obss.

  11. #521
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    18,932
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That quote is from Carter Page. So Carter Page said the controversy over Carter Page isn't that scandalous.

    Carter Page originally lied about it anyway, so needless to say I simply don't believe him when he says that, particularly when he also said this:

    Page admitted to sending an email to Trump officials after the trip promising a ”readout” of “incredible insights and outreach” from “Russian legislators” and “senior members of the Presidential administration” in Moscow.

    So he was lying when he said he only briefly spoke with Dvorkovich. Either way, he is lying and the Washington Times article is wrong.
    he original lied and this is what has been revealed. right now with what he has said to this point is not really showing anything that scandalous. maybe there is more. I think you (and others) believe there is more so lets wait and see.

    as for this article you picked one thing. there were 10 listed. if this is what it takes to classify any source as fake/wrong then you would have to do the same for the likes of Washington Post since they have had stories/articles that were wrong and not corrected.






    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/37...emocratic-memo

    Schiff: We're not going to revise Democratic memo
    Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday night that members of his party won’t revise their countermemo, despite requests from the White House to do so.

    “We’re not going to make any revisions to it. The only question is what redactions will be made. And obviously we’d like to keep those to a minimum,” Schiff told reporters.

    “The White House has a different interest. I think their interest is in redacting anything that doesn’t reflect well on the White House,” Schiff added.

    President Trump last week blocked the release of the Democratic rebuttal to a GOP-crafted memo accusing the Justice Department and FBI of abusing a surveillance program.

    The White House said the Democratic memo would create “especially significant concerns” for “national security and law enforcement interests,” adding that it would work with the Intelligence Committee if it wanted to revise and resubmit the document.

    The committee previously voted to make the 10-page Democratic memo public after Trump declassified the Republicans' four-page document.

    Democrats have argued their memo will respond to and provide fuller context for the claims made in the Republican memo.

    Schiff said Sunday on CBS's “Face The Nation” that he believes Trump doesn’t want the Democratic memo to be made public because it will undermine his claim that the Republican document clears him in the ongoing probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
    Adam Schiff still playing politics.

    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  12. #522
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    81,810
    Well he lied in public and then told the truth under oath. Did he lie under oath too? Or just when the problems would be political as opposed to legal?

  13. #523
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    he original lied and this is what has been revealed. right now with what he has said to this point is not really showing anything that scandalous. maybe there is more. I think you (and others) believe there is more so lets wait and see.

    as for this article you picked one thing. there were 10 listed. if this is what it takes to classify any source as fake/wrong then you would have to do the same for the likes of Washington Post since they have had stories/articles that were wrong and not corrected.






    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/37...emocratic-memo




    Adam Schiff still playing politics.
    Yep. For once a Schiff is doing it better than nunes and trump. President should have probably stayed out of the memo drama. Now he’s gonna look foolish regardless of what he does.

  14. #524
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    he original lied and this is what has been revealed. right now with what he has said to this point is not really showing anything that scandalous. maybe there is more. I think you (and others) believe there is more so lets wait and see.

    as for this article you picked one thing. there were 10 listed. if this is what it takes to classify any source as fake/wrong then you would have to do the same for the likes of Washington Post since they have had stories/articles that were wrong and not corrected.
    You just admitted he lied and then said what he did say wasn't that scandalous. So even though you know he lied you're still going to take his word for it?

    As for your jab at the Washington Post, if you think a specific article in the Washington Post is wrong, then post it with what you think is wrong and why. That's what you demand we do to your biased conservative rags, which I've now done. So don't go changing the rules now that I've caught your sources spouting BS.

  15. #525
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsbruh
    Posts
    69,800
    Reflecting on this as it's settled down a bit (too many scandals to remain fixated on one) and all this really is to me is just another example of how awful our politicians all are. I think this is all mostly just partisan political nonsense. I know that's not some "aha!" realization, but really...there's nothing really here, at least not in the ways Fox and MSNBC are talking about it.

    (I got 10 minutes so pardon me if this is stream of conscious babbling)

    On the right you have a bunch of people that have never cared about FISA courts before until a guy who looks like them is targeted. So they go absolutely apoplectic. Never before had you heard concern from the vast majority of them about how invasive the whole thing is and how ****ed up it is that one party (our wonderful and altruistic justice department!) can go to one judge (presumably pro-surveillance) and present whatever evidence they want and that's that. There's a reason these warrants are almost always attained. There's one side asking for it with the ability to share whatever information they have (and ignore whatever information they want) without anyone there to counter it. Share what you want, omit what you want, get your warrant. It's a rubber-stamp machine. And what happened here WAS inherently serious. Does it mean it was wrong? Invalid? The fact is that in terms of big picture neither side cares, they've shown that for decades now. But the ability for this specific Carter Page issue to happen is due to a process the right fought for, established and has since enabled.

    But before Carter Page it was primarily used to spy on Muslims so of course you never heard a peep. It's always been about political reasons, not national security reasons. That's why it seems like time after time both parties end up getting burned by creations of their own. And as they're learning (through their partisan self-serving worldview) it is an inherently BAD process. It's something that the party of freedom and small government should be against. But sadly it's always been politically beneficial to them (until now) so they overlook it. Again, until Carter Page....someone who's not Muslim and who in fact is a lot like them. So now Tucker and Sean are losing their minds over this and the politicians have to deal with this self-inflicted mess.

    On the left you have this sudden lionizing of the FBI. You have a new hero in Comey-- the guy who went out of his way in an unprecedented manner to comment on the Clinton investigation and the polls suddenly were erased. He's the good guy now. The FBI is infallible! It's ****ed up. But everything I said about the right applies to the left here too. They've never seriously fought back against surveillance and the FISA courts. In fact, Pelosi, Feinstein, Schiff etc. all got together w/ all those Republicans to pass a bill that INCREASED Trump's ability to spy on Americans all the while blocking all amendments that would have given safeguards and reform. It's another example of Democrats saying one thing and doing another, and it will probably come back to haunt them or eventually public pressure will swell so much that they'll be forced to actually evolve and fight back...like is always the case. None of these people are truly progressives. Rarely are they ever out in front of anything, and that's the problem. We just have to wait on them to figure it out. Decades later.

    Anyways, none of these people actually care about the actual process, so I'm losing my patience listening to either side.

    We will never get the serious debate about this process, or the greater issue at hand, because all anything ever is is political. The right doesn't actually want any change (they want to find another conspiracy to cream themselves over), and will go back to not caring about it once this is done. The left doesn't want it either, because they're all mostly centrists who are absolutely fine with this sort of stuff. And if there's anything we know about Libs, it's that they're especially MORE than comfortable looking the other way when it's politically viable.
    this my sig

Page 35 of 37 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •