For Spence and WDMSO, here is the miriam webster definition of a spy - "one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information".

Now, we would all appreciate it, if you could
explain specifically, how that’s not what happened to trump?

I’m all ears.



,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, they Re-Defined the word "Racist", so......

racist - anyone who disagrees with me on anything, especially if I cannot intelligently respond
to their point so I need to silence them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The truth can be painful for some of these people.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which is exactly why they choose to deny truth, rather than face it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep ignoring how words are traditionally used in the English language... but we all know how often you see everything as the same .. would you consider a murder the same as someone convicted of manslaughter the end result is the same .. .. but your all about easy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems your having trouble yourself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots and lots of people, before Trump became part of it, used "spying" and "surveillance" synonymously. And now we know that the Mirriam Webster dictionary defines they in a similar way. But on order to make Trump look like a liar, you are willing to ignore all that.

When I read my 12 year-old's text messages to make sure he's safe, am I spying on him? HELL YES. When I follow my 9 year-old as he walks to his friends house so I can make sure he stays on the sidewalk, am I spying on him? HELL YES.

You are denying the Webster definition of a word, in order to make Trump look like a liar. That's literally what you're doing.

TDS...

"would you consider a murder the same as someone convicted of manslaughter the end result is the same "

The end result isn't even close to the same. Murder is far more serious.

But if Trump said "someone murdered so-and-so", but the killer was actually convicted of manslaughter and not murder, does that make Trump a liar? You would say yes. A sane person would say no.

Take off the tin foil hat for Christs sake, and breathe some fresh air.

I understand clearly, the distinction between murder and manslaughter. I have no idea what the difference is, between secret surveillance and spying.

Orange Man Bad, that's what matters.

The word spy generally denotes it's against an enemy or opponent. That's why Christopher Wray said the agency doesn't use it. Barr used it for a specific and highly partisan purpose with no evidence that the investigation was improper. He has in short order already lost all credibility as AG.

FBI Director Wray says surveillance not the same as ‘spying’ I guess he is wrong also .. why am I not surprised you and the usual suspects keep trying to put a round peg in a square hole .. funny

The Same Republicans Who Pushed for Invasive Surveillance Are Complaining About It Now. But they call it spying because they look bad... shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then you must therefore believe that the Merriam Webster dictionary is also "highly partisan", since it defined spying as secretly watching someone to gather information, which is exactly what happened with Trump.

Anything that doesn't serve your agenda must be dismissed as "highly partisan".

Barr said very specifically, that he wasn't saying the spying was improper, but he was going to look into it. You are literally making up bullsh*t as you go along. Getting a little desperate?

Wray's boss, the AG, said it iS spying, and more importantly, SO DOES THE MIRRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY. Look it up. Is the Webster dictionary a Trumplican outfit as well?

The DoJ is supposed to be impartial Jim, spying is a loaded word and it was used intentionally for partisan gain. His entire testimony was intended for partisan gain, not to promote justice. The brazen nature of it all is really shocking.

About the only reasonable thing the senate Republicans have done on this issue is subpoena Trump Jr. Case closed! :rotflmao:

"spying is a loaded word "

For Gods sake, read the definition from the Webster dictionary that I posted. I'm sorry that Trump was correct when he said he was spied on. I'm sorry everyone on your side looks foolish for saying he was lying. I'm sorry that the Webster definition absolutely supports the way Trump and Barr used the word.

Last month, if I told you that surveillance was far different from spying, you'd have laughed at me.

Spying on someone, means secretly gathering watching them to gather intelligence. That's the common definition. If that bothers you now for political reasons, then the problem is your politics, not everyone's common understanding of the word.

Barr used the word spying to spin and help his boss, pretty clear to most; unless your in the Trump camp. FISA warrants aren’t given out like free samples, Jim I fear you have beaten that Webster dead horse to death.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

it's pretty shameful what the democraps are up to...

Andy McCarthy(another guy with much more credibility than spence)

"In gross violation of Justice Department policy and constitutional norms, a prosecutor neither charges nor recommends charges against a suspect, but proceeds to smear him by publishing 200 pages of obstruction allegations. Asked to explain why he did it, the prosecutor says he was just trying to protect the suspect from being smeared.


This is the upshot of the Mueller report’s Volume II. It might be thought campy if the suspect weren’t the president of the United States and the stakes weren’t so high.

The smear-but-don’t-charge outcome is the result of two wrongs: (1) Mueller’s dizzying application of Justice Department guidance, written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), holding that a president may not be indicted while he is in office; and (2) the media-Democrat complex’s demand that only laws they like — those that serve their anti-Trump political purposes — be enforced.

On the matter of the OLC guidance, the Mueller report exhibits the same sleight-of-hand that I detailed in Monday’s column regarding its account of the George Papadopoulos saga — in which Mueller obscures the fact that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation (“Crossfire Hurricane”) was opened on the false pretense that a Russian agent named Joseph Mifsud confided to Trump adviser Papadopoulos that Russia had thousands of Clinton emails, which Papadopoulos told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer the Kremlin planned to publish in a manner timed to damage Clinton for Trump’s benefit. To the contrary, if you wade through the fine print of Mueller’s report, you learn that Mifsud was not a Russian agent; there’s a good chance he did not tell Papadopoulos anything about emails; in relating to Downer that Russia might have damaging information on Clinton, Papadopoulos said nothing about emails or about Russia trying to help Trump; but, two months after they spoke and the hacked DNC emails were published, Downer (in consultation with the Obama State Department) leapt to the overwrought conclusions that Papadopoulos must have been referring to those emails (he wasn’t) and that Russia and the Trump campaign must be collaborating to undermine the election (they weren’t).

The narrative head fakes and legal mumbo-jumbo make you wonder what’s going on here. Who is running this show, Mueller — or some of his notoriously aggressive staffers, recruited from the Obama Justice Department and private practice stints representing the Clintons?

But the politics have landed us in the place, not the law. Democrats and their echo chamber have insisted that Mueller must write a report because the special-counsel regulations require one. Yet the same regulations require the report to be confidential: just between the special counsel and the attorney general, to resemble how charging decisions are always made in the Justice Department — non-publicly, by prosecutors and their supervisors. If Barr had followed those supposedly binding federal regulations, House Democrats would already have impeached him — just as they now ridiculously propose to hold him in contempt for redacting from Mueller’s report grand-jury information he is legally obligated by congressional statute to withhold.

The closer you look at this fiasco, the worse it seems."

Would "unauthorized surveillance" or "improper surveillance" be more acceptable words to you? And would it have not helped his boss if he had used those terms rather than "spying"?

Because it was unauthorized or improper surveillance (would that be equivalent to "spying"?) that he was concerned about and that he wanted to investigate.

I love how the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s have simply broken it down to semantics. Shakespeare said it best...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The National Security Agency’s mass surveillance has greatly expanded in the years since September 11, 2001.

But now you and the party who passed it want to call it spying

and blame semantics .. but only jim and you are the only ones here using semantics to fit your argument and the only ones intertwining surveillance and spying..

seem logic and the historical use of the 2 words has little meaning to the by any means necessary crowd

you assume it was unauthorized or improper surveillance

and it was already investigated and determined to be authorized proper surveillance .. prior to Barr

What the right need conspiracy to keep the base involved

When did I say that I want to call it spying. I don’t care what you call it,it is what it is. Try not to be so shallow and restore the integrity that seems to be lacking in your narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso, for the tenth time, I’m not using semantics, i’m using the webster definition. Are you saying the webster dictionary has a right wing political bias?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't assume that it was unauthorized or improper. Barr, in response to questioning his use of "spying" said that he was concerned with unauthorized or improper surveillance. I think that it is very clear what he meant by "spying."

You're the one who's "assuming" he meant something else.

BTW, I find it telling (not assuming anything) that you're perfectly fine with SCOTUS Judges applying totally different meanings to words in the Constitution than the original meanings of those words when it was written. But in this far, far, far, less important synonymous (not actually different in substance) usage of a word you get all high and mighty about it not being what the supposedly traditional meaning is.

common sense is hard for you isn't it :jump:

No, it isn't. But nonsense, as you've demonstrated here, comes very easily to you, almost an automatic knee-jerk.

A Trump supporter believing Barr, that’s shocking, Trumps newly appointed AG ( cough cough personal defense lawyer) it must be so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps other attorney is headed to the Ukraine to request election help from a foreign power, any similarity there?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree.

Fixed it, not sure everyone understands your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device