Memo is out

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It eviscerates the Democrat's memo.

It really doesn't. What it does so is set up all manners of speculative assertions to be ripped apart. This is classic McCarthy.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It really doesn't . . . This is classic McCarthy.

Yes it does . . . this is classic McCarthy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, and four federal republican appointed judges and the FBI had no problem with that.

Any other questions?

Sure, how's this for starters If 'the FBI' that had no problem with it is riddled with leaders who wanted Hilary to win, who cares that they are OK with it? That they are OK with it, could be more evidence of wrongdoing, not less.

Here's another...how do you know the judges would have been OK with it, if they knew that the Steele dossier was provided by an adversarial political campaign?

Any other pathetic excuses that a 10 year-old can tear to shreds?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes it does . . . this is classic McCarthy

he was pretty thorough...I doubt Spence could grasp much through that veil of partisanship and the grief he must be enduring after his Country's loss to the American girls in ice hockey...those Canadian girls felt as entitled to a gold medal as Hillary felt entitled to the Presidency....I'm surprised he can type at this point

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure, how's this for starters If 'the FBI' that had no problem with it is riddled with leaders who wanted Hilary to win, who cares that they are OK with it? That they are OK with it, could be more evidence of wrongdoing, not less.

Jim, the request has to be approved by Federal Judges before the FBI can sign off on it.

Here's another...how do you know the judges would have been OK with it, if they knew that the Steele dossier was provided by an adversarial political campaign?

The Dossier wasn't provided by an adversarial campaign, it was by a law firm and the FISA request clearly stated it was political opposition research.

Any other pathetic excuses that a 10 year-old can tear to shreds?

Mind bending.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure,

Any other pathetic excuses that a 10 year-old can tear to shreds?

Yet you couldn't? SAD!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, the request has to be approved by Federal Judges before the FBI can sign off on it.

McCarthy: Schiff makes much of the fact that the four FISA warrants (the original authorization and three renewals, at 90-day intervals) were signed by four different FISA-court judges — all apparently appointed to the federal district courts by Republican presidents. This hardly commends the validity of the warrants . . . the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application.


The Dossier wasn't provided by an adversarial campaign, it was by a law firm

McCarthy: "If you know it’s necessary to disclose that “identified U.S. person” Simpson was being paid by “a U.S.-based law firm” (Perkins-Coie), then it is at least equally necessary to disclose that, in turn, the law firm was being paid by its clients: the Clinton campaign and the DNC. To tell half the story is patently misleading."


and the FISA request clearly stated it was political opposition research.

McCarthy: Schiff comically highlights this DOJ assertion as if it were his home run, when it is in fact damning: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is the vague reference that Democrats and Trump critics laughably say was adequate disclosure of the dossier’s political motivation. But why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?

There was no reason for supposition here. If the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign — oh, sorry, didn’t mean to unmask; if the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of “Candidate #2’s” campaign — then the court would have been informed about the apodictic certainty that the people behind the dossier were trying to discredit the campaign of Candidate #2’s opponent. It is disingenuous to tell a judge that something is “likely” when, in fact, it is beyond any doubt.



Mind bending.

Your posts often are.

[scottw]

remember when Trump was mocked and ridiculed for his wire tapping claims....

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

remember when Trump was mocked and ridiculed for his wire tapping claims....

Yes, and he still is and should be.

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

McCarthy: Schiff makes much of the fact that the four FISA warrants (the original authorization and three renewals, at 90-day intervals) were signed by four different FISA-court judges — all apparently appointed to the federal district courts by Republican presidents. This hardly commends the validity of the warrants . . . the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application.

It's clear now that SOME of the information used in the FISA application was from Steele which was made clear to the Federal judge. If the judge isn't satisfied with the justification for the warrant they don't have to approve it. McCarthy is en effect calling these Federal judges incompetent. Considering he's only seen what's been declassified that's laughable.

McCarthy: "If you know it’s necessary to disclose that “identified U.S. person” Simpson was being paid by “a U.S.-based law firm” (Perkins-Coie), then it is at least equally necessary to disclose that, in turn, the law firm was being paid by its clients: the Clinton campaign and the DNC. To tell half the story is patently misleading."

McCarthy has a clever use of quotes here to mislead his reader, yourself. The FISA requests don't name Simpson or Perkins-Coie because that is the protocol to not name US persons or entities unless they are the subject of the surveillance. By co-mingling the quotes from the warrant with what we know today McCarthy is trying to establish a quid pro quo that would be improper.

McCarthy: Schiff comically highlights this DOJ assertion as if it were his home run, when it is in fact damning: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is the vague reference that Democrats and Trump critics laughably say was adequate disclosure of the dossier’s political motivation. But why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?

At the time of the FISA request Simpson had not testified about the full nature of their research nor had the FBI led any formal investigation into Steele's potential bias. To hang all this on the word "likely" is comical.

There was no reason for supposition here. If the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign — oh, sorry, didn’t mean to unmask; if the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of “Candidate #2’s” campaign — then the court would have been informed about the apodictic certainty that the people behind the dossier were trying to discredit the campaign of Candidate #2’s opponent. It is disingenuous to tell a judge that something is “likely” when, in fact, it is beyond any doubt.

How far did that Nunes "unmasking" stunt go before it was discredited as well?

McCarthy is just presenting one straw man after another. The FBI, the Federal Judiciary, the Clinton campaign...they're all in it together!

[wdmso]

People pleading guilty left and right and some how it's still a witch hunt . They only seem to care they can't touch Trump with the collusion lable.. they could careless if those who worked for appointed by Trump are pleading guilty to crimes involving Russians..

SENIOR Adviser on President Donald Trump’s election campaign plead guilty... and you guys are still blaming the steel dossier to funny

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

People pleading guilty left and right and some how it's still a witch hunt . They only seem to care they can't touch Trump with the collusion lable..

Interesting read of a pretty credible guy. Collusion or not the damage is being done regardless...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-hayden-217091

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting read of a pretty credible guy. Collusion or not the damage is being done regardless...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-hayden-217091

I can hear it now
He is an Independent......
Clearly a deep state operative..........

I think the article puts a different perspective on the situation. He is a critical thinker and shows that this issue is more interesting and convoluted than the politicians or media would have us believe.

[scottw]

some interesting thoughts on Hayden...sorry to interrupt the tongue bath


https://www.cjr.org/first_person/cia...den_expert.php

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

some interesting thoughts on Hayden...sorry to interrupt the tongue bath


https://www.cjr.org/first_person/cia...den_expert.php

A little quote from the article, since selecting portions that are in our favor are en vogue.
"That’s not to say everything Michael Hayden says is inherently wrong. Again, he’s right that President Obama almost certainly did not directly order a “wiretap” of Donald Trump, and he generally has a reasonable positions on Trump’s dangerous Muslim Ban and even encryption."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A little quote from the article, since selecting portions that are in our favor are en vogue.
"That’s not to say everything Michael Hayden says is inherently wrong. Again, he’s right that President Obama almost certainly did not directly order a “wiretap” of Donald Trump, and he generally has a reasonable positions on Trump’s dangerous Muslim Ban and even encryption."

I read that....I didn't select portions...I linked the entire article


it's really funny...during the Bush years...regarding wiretapping...it was portrayed by the left as Bush and Cheney sitting around a monitor all day listening to the phone conversations of average Americans...Google..."Bush Wiretapping"....Trump does essentially the same thing and he's crazy...so I'll admit both Trump and the left are crazy

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

I read that....I didn't select portions...I linked the entire article


it's really funny...during the Bush years...regarding wiretapping...it was portrayed by the left as Bush and Cheney sitting around a monitor all day listening to the phone conversations of average Americans...Google..."Bush Wiretapping"....Trump does essentially the same thing and he's crazy...so I'll admit both Trump and the left are crazy

Speaking of crazy... the complaint with the Bush era wiretapping was that it was warrantless. Trump is making up something about Obama that never happened. The faulty analogies in this forum? Crazy.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's clear now that SOME of the information used in the FISA application was from Steele which was made clear to the Federal judge. If the judge isn't satisfied with the justification for the warrant they don't have to approve it. McCarthy is en effect calling these Federal judges incompetent. Considering he's only seen what's been declassified that's laughable.

Pertinent information was withheld from the FISA Court.

McCarthy has a clever use of quotes here to mislead his reader, yourself. The FISA requests don't name Simpson or Perkins-Coie because that is the protocol to not name US persons or entities unless they are the subject of the surveillance. By co-mingling the quotes from the warrant with what we know today McCarthy is trying to establish a quid pro quo that would be improper.

Informing the Court about who paid Perkins-Cole was not withheld because of the protocol. HRC could have been referred to as Candidate #2 just as Trump was referred to as Candidate #1. And the DNC could have been named without breaking protocol.

At the time of the FISA request Simpson had not testified about the full nature of their research nor had the FBI led any formal investigation into Steele's potential bias. To hang all this on the word "likely" is comical.

Did the FBI not know at the time they applied for the FISA warrants that Hillary and the DNC paid the law firm? I don't know. It is implied or alleged that they did. Perhaps that is not true.

How far did that Nunes "unmasking" stunt go before it was discredited as well?

McCarthy is just presenting one straw man after another. The FBI, the Federal Judiciary, the Clinton campaign...they're all in it together!

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa...key_points.pdf

[scottw]

isn't Spence accusing McCarthy of doing exactly what Spence does on a regular basis?...I see what he's doing here

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Speaking of crazy... the complaint with the Bush era wiretapping was that it was warrantless. Trump is making up something about Obama that never happened. The faulty analogies in this forum? Crazy.

there was apparently a lot of wiretapping going on...Trump was just being Trump....you know...like "Biden being Biden"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's really funny...during the Bush years...regarding wiretapping...it was portrayed by the left as Bush and Cheney sitting around a monitor all day listening to the phone conversations of average Americans...Google..."Bush Wiretapping"....Trump does essentially the same thing and he's crazy...so I'll admit both Trump and the left are crazy

You must have a short memory, Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping after 911.

Big, huge, monstrous difference.

[scottw]

yes...very big difference...

the Bush folks were trying to prevent terrorism after 911

members of the Obama admin in collusion with the Hillary campaign were trying to ensure Trump was never elected and.... how was is put?...."have an insurance policy if somehow he was?".....

very troubling...


if Hillary had just gotten elected none of this would be a problem..plan B is a lot of work.......damn Russians

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

Trump was just being Trump...."

Crazy? Delusional? Paranoid? Factually incorrect? Ok, touche.

[wdmso]

Kushner's security clearance downgraded

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Crazy? Delusional? Paranoid? Factually incorrect? Ok, touche.

try to understand this....through 8 years of Clinton the media and left told and often scolded the country explaining that lying was perfectly normal, part of the human condition, psychologists and sociologists told us that Clinton made us feel better about our own shortcomings...and that men in power, of course, had sex with their underlings...they needed a stress reliever...and have big egos and even bigger libidos so badda-bing-badda-boom ...and as long as his wife doesn't mind.....Oh...and I was reading back over the Clinton/Communist Chinese money scandal recently...good grief

then...for 8 years we heard Bush=Hitler...Bush=Idiot....

the left and media embraced and promoted the foul mouth comics and the nuts sleeping in the ditch outside his Texas ranch....it was relentless

then... for the next 8 years, if you did not celebrate the new president like it was the second coming of Christ...you were a racist...the media and left bristled and attacked every critique...some fair and some unfair but it was basically a protection racket and Obama leveraged that on a daily basis

Trump...is a big middle finger to those 8+8+8...basically 24 years of the left and media having their way...setting the tone of the political debate in this country....however disheveled Trump may be opposite the lefts ideal preened pseudo-intellectual type.... he's the only figure on the right that's really had the stones to not back down to the thugs on the left...and they ARE thugs...

doesn't make him a good guy....doesn't make him someone to emulate...but at this time he's the new kid that punched the bully in the face...politics is ugly...always has been

that's why he's liked or supported...I don't know if that's good or bad in the long run.... and so far....regarding the economy likes him which means people with jobs and families who don't want to be dependent on government like him because ultimately they care more about what they can provide their families that what a president says or does.....

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

By comparison, President Obama earned 43% approval on this date in the second year of his presidency.


the bonus is that he's got the media and left in full cackle on a daily basis....which, though probably wrong...feels really good...which means the more cackling...the better it feels

so yes..."Trump Being Trump"

great VDH article this morning chronicling the disastrous Obama Russia policies

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...-exposing-fbi/

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Kushner's security clearance downgraded

you should read the whole article...not just the headline

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Kushner's security clearance downgraded

Kushner is going to get crushed for using his Govt position to sell property.

The story running now that other government were trying to manipulate him when he improperly had top secret clearance is pretty frightening.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

you should read the whole article...not just the headline

I’ve had security clearance and I know how it works.. security clearance or lack of them are just another log on a fire they are unable to extinguish
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Hope Hicks: Close Trump aide and White House communications chief resigns

another one bites the dust

[Sea Dangles]

She was a total smoke show
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device