poll says americans want to investigate actions of Obama’s DOJ

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The DOJ used fabricated political fodder to spy on him, and never told the judge where the dossier came from.

Jim, this isn't true.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, this isn't true.

To you, there is one truth,

democrat=good, republican=bad. No exceptions, not ever.

Let's do an honest and thorough investigation. If the smoke is all fabricated by Sean Hannity, that will come out.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To you, there is one truth,

democrat=good, republican=bad. No exceptions, not ever.

No, there's the actual FISA application a judge ruled on. It's online, go read it and report back what it says.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, there's the actual FISA application a judge ruled on. It's online, go read it and report back what it says.

i’m not reading 400 pages. if you can refer me to the section which says “the accusations against Mr Page are based on a dossier paid for by the Hilary Clinton campaign”, i’d appreciate it. similarly, if you can point me to the section which says “the justice department officials
seeking this warrant, have a deep, deep animosity for the candidate Mr Page is working for”, I’d appreciate that too.

I suppose Alan Dershowitz is part of the vast right wing conspiracy now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not reading 400 pages.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you skip the redacted sections, it's only about 6

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not reading 400 pages, i'm too busy trying to own libs on the internet.

I suppose Alan Dershowitz is part of the vast right wing conspiracy now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed the first part for you, you could try the executive summaries. I put a link and the page numbers in an earlier thread.

As far as Dershowitz goes he's certainly a Trumplican.
If you can find a lawyer other than Rudy who agrees with his theory on Flynn not lying because the FBI already knew the answer and therefore it was not material under section 1001, he probably went to a worse law school than Michael Cohen. Dershowitz doesn't have that excuse.

Here is a little case law for you to explain it, feel free to look up the cases if you need further enlightenment, they are all in casetext.com

United States v. Mercedes, 401 F. App’x 619, 620 (2d Cir. 2010)
(rejecting argument that false statement about citizenship could not have been material because interviewing agent had already “ruled out the possibility of relying on the statement”)

United States v. Moore, 708 F.3d 639, 649 (5th Cir. 2013)
(“A statement can be material even if the agency already knew the answers given by the defendant and even if the receiving agent knows they are false.”)

United States v. LeMaster, 54 F.3d 1224, 1230–31 (6th Cir. 1995)
“It is irrelevant what the agent who heard the statement knew at the time the statement was made. A false statement can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.” (“The fact that the FBI already knew that LeMaster received $6,000 in cash from Spurrier did not affect the materiality of his false statement to the FBI. A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)

United States v. Whitaker, 848 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1988)
(“A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)

United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 820 (9th Cir. 1976)
(“Darrell Goldfine contends, however, that since the Compliance Investigators knew the answer and were not misled by the falsity, the statement was not materially false. . . . [T]he statement here was clearly material.”)

United States v. Henderson, 893 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018)
(“Indeed, a false statement can be material even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.”)