This is not normal: Trump's tweet storm

[hog88]

Didn’t say you had used it, but it’s clearly not been an issue for you, you’re not going around grumping about what a sleazy toolbag Trump is like you have been today about McCain.

Disagree about the dossier. I would have forwarded that thing to the FBI so fast it would have caused a static charge that erased all of the sleazy text messages. Hey wait, maybe McCain erased their text messages!

(I didn’t ignore you a few posts back. I want to look into some things you said about the unions and BCRA. And I can’t do it until later. Can’t promise I won’t forget but not dodging it.)

Would you have shopped it around to the media also as McCain did?

I agreed with BB on the pettiness of Trumps tweets, wtf more do you want?

 

[RockyTop85]

Completely two different subjects. You also ignore the fact McCain shopped the dossier to the media trying to get it distributed BEFORE the election. yeah, sure you could maybe play it off an his desire for national security if he ONLY gave it to the FBI but shopping it around to different media outlets blows that out of the water.

I haven’t seen where he offered it to the media, personally. I’ve seen where Kramer said he did show it to media and knew other media had already received it. I find it hard to believe that they started leaking it in October wanting it to come out and nobody ran with it until January.

 

[37L1]

Are you blaming the FBI’s policy violations on McCain as well?

As I said to Hog, I find it interesting that you guys gripe about the Obama DOJ sitting on evidence and effectively nolle’ing charges against Hillary, but apparently expected McCain to do the same?

It may have been “gotcha” but that seems to be based entirely on speculation.

I ain't the only one "speculating" here. You are giving McCain way too much benefit of the doubt. McCain's got a temper and Trump pushed his buttons being the cheap shot artist that he is. McCain's a politician as well, and sending that tripe, (not "evidence"), forward was well within his wheel house. More likely then not, he didn't care about the veracity. It was damning until proven otherwise, which seems to be the game. I wonder if he would have been so quick to send it forward if it exonerated Trump? What do you think? (rhetorical)

 

[Velo Vol]

Simply because it cannot be verified. Add in it was funded by the political opposition and it carries no weight, IMO. It's speculation and hearsay.

When George Papadopoulos told an Austrian diplomat that the Russians had compromising data on Hillary Clinton, was that grounds for an investigation? Or should it have been dismissed as hearsay?

 

[37L1]

When George Papadopoulos told an Austrian diplomat that the Russians had compromising data on Hillary Clinton, was that grounds for an investigation? Or should it have been dismissed as hearsay?

Need more than that to get a FISA warrant, or you should.

 

[Velo Vol]

Need more than that to get a FISA warrant, or you should.

Why need it be difficult for law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to use surveillance against foreign agents? Are you concerned about their civil liberties?

 

[hog88]

Why need it be difficult for law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to use surveillance against foreign agents? Are you concerned about their civil liberties?

It needs to be extremely difficult for any law enforcement agency to obtain a surveillance warrant on a US citizen for any reason.

 

[37L1]

Why need it be difficult for law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to use surveillance against foreign agents? Are you concerned about their civil liberties?

If it's regarding a US citizen then the law should be followed. Lying or omitting important details when requesting a warrant is doing so under penalty of perjury. That's not waived even in FISA. If it's that important, do it right or don't do it all. It's not like there was any immenent threat to anyone's life or destruction of property, so what was the urgency that they had to take "liberties" with the law?

 

[RockyTop85]

I ain't the only one "speculating" here. You are giving McCain way too much benefit of the doubt. McCain's got a temper and Trump pushed his buttons being the cheap shot artist that he is. McCain's a politician as well, and sending that tripe, (not "evidence"), forward was well within his wheel house. More likely then not, he didn't care about the veracity. It was damning until proven otherwise, which seems to be the game. I wonder if he would have been so quick to send it forward if it exonerated Trump? What do you think? (rhetorical)

I think what he did was mostly reasonable. As I said to Hog, I can’t defend him on taking it to the media, but I’m not nominating him for sainthood.

Simply because it cannot be verified. Add in it was funded by the political opposition and it carries no weight, IMO. It's speculation and hearsay.

It’s competent evidence for a search warrant. Perhaps not a trial. How much weight it carries was up to the FBI, DOJ, and the Judge.

 

[37L1]

I think what he did was mostly reasonable. As I said to Hog, I can’t defend him on taking it to the media, but I’m not nominating him for sainthood.



It’s competent evidence for a search warrant. Perhaps not a trial. How much weight it carries was up to the FBI, DOJ, and the Judge.

I submit that it is not "competent evidence". It wasn't verified as true (vetted) and it wasn't disclosed that it was financed by the opposition. Both those facts should have been presented to the judge but were not. Why? You and I both know the answer to that one.

It's this sort of abuse that brings the whole FISA court into question. It wasn't worth it.

 

[RockyTop85]

Would you have shopped it around to the media also as McCain did?

I agreed with BB on the pettiness of Trumps tweets, wtf more do you want?

I wouldn’t rule it out. It depends on whether, at that time, I thought there might be some truth to it, how bad of a president I thought he would make, and whether I thought his campaign had opened the door by using similar tactics. There may be other variables.

I have a hard time believing McCain was trying to get media to scoop it before the election and they just wouldn’t, but Buzzfeed swiped it against his wishes, afterwards. Both of those things being true at once is highly unlikely.

You may not want to go back to this, and that’s fine but I had to set it aside while working. Regarding McCain-Feingold/BCRA: where are you getting the information about the unions? I haven’t been able to find that. Found a Cato Institute arguing that Unions has greater access to PAC money, but were treated equally. That’s about it.

 

[RockyTop85]

I submit that it is not "competent evidence". It wasn't verified as true (vetted) and it wasn't disclosed that it was financed by the opposition. Both those facts should have been presented to the judge but were not. Why? You and I both know the answer to that one.

It's this sort of abuse that brings the whole FISA court into question. It wasn't worth it.

I’m not sure if you’re saying this is how it should be or this is how it is. If you’re saying this is how it is, what legal authority are you relying on?

 

[RockyTop85]

I guess I can agree.
Same thought with water or air pollution. Where does your right to dump whatever you wish into the creek that runs through your property infringe on the rights of the person next door who also has land through which the creek runs? Or the town's whose water supply is fed by the creek?

I think it’s the same question. I’ve just gone from being a noisy ass hole to a cold hearted sociopath.



You and the townsfolk need to come up there and convince me to stop and if I won’t stop, I suggest hostile takeover. Water is important to a developing society.

 

[luthervol]

I think it’s the same question. I’ve just gone from being a noisy ass hole to a cold hearted sociopath.



You and the townsfolk need to come up there and convince me to stop and if I won’t stop, I suggest hostile takeover. Water is important to a developing society.

lol......talk about your mob rule.

 

[RockyTop85]

lol......talk about your mob rule.

Maybe I’m totally wrong. I’m not any kind of philosopher. Just think people can do whatever they want but often should choose not to do them to harmonize with others or surrender the rights permanently to a government to ensure others don’t do the same or similar things to them.

 

[RockyTop85]

“That effect them.” *

Won’t let me edit for some reason.

 

[Velo Vol]

If it's regarding a US citizen then the law should be followed. Lying or omitting important details when requesting a warrant is doing so under penalty of perjury. That's not waived even in FISA. If it's that important, do it right or don't do it all. It's not like there was any immenent threat to anyone's life or destruction of property, so what was the urgency that they had to take "liberties" with the law?

The surveillance is on foreign targets. If you're communicating with them, oops.

 

[37L1]

I’m not sure if you’re saying this is how it should be or this is how it is. If you’re saying this is how it is, what legal authority are you relying on?

The Fourth Amendment and what was released.

Any warrant requires that the affiant swear before the magistrate to the truth of the facts within the affidavit under pain of perjury. Since the dossier was not vetted how could the affiant swear to it's truthfulness? I'm pretty sure that the FISA court would frown upon being presented with made up sh!t paid for by the opposition party and not being made aware of it. Particularly with those being responsible for writing the warrant in the first place knew it was unvetted and paid for by the DNC/Clinton campaign.

Probable cause will not lie unless the facts supporting the warrant are sworn by the officer as true to the best of their knowledge. The officer's oath can be written or oral, but the officer must typically swear that no knowing or intentionally false statement has been submitted in support of the warrant and that no statement has been made in reckless disregard of the truth.

Really, really stupid. Particularly for those who have related that the Steele Dossier and related news articles (yahoo/Isikoff) only played a small part in obtaining the warrant. If so, why risk perjuring yourself?

DOJ and FBI falsely attested to the FISA court not once, not twice, not thrice, but four separate times that Steele was not the source of Isikoff's September 23 article, which DOJ used to corroborate claims from Steele's dossier. In fact, Steele was the only source.

But others say it was vital and probably wouldn't have gotten the warrant without it. What was released was so heavily redacted that no one outside of the insiders that have seen the whole thing, knows.

This doesn't pass the remedial smell test.

Oh, has Carter Page, the target of this warrant, been indicted/charged with any crime yet?

10 pieces of evidence against most diabolical Russian spy ever

 

[37L1]

The surveillance is on foreign targets. If you're communicating with them, oops.

The surveillance was on Carter Page, a United States citizen.

Oops.

 

[lawgator1]

I doubt if you would be a McCain fan if he was a Democrat trying to take your candidate down by peddling a fake dossier.

The FBI had ALREADY started the investigation BEFORE they got the dossier from any source, including McCain. Get your facts straight.

(I suspect you are taking your facts from Trump. As usual, he's lying.)

 

[lawgator1]

But others say it was vital and probably wouldn't have gotten the warrant without it. [/URL]

"Others say."

No one who is in a position to know says that. It's a made up claim by those falsely trying to tie the investigation to Clinton.

It had already begun. And many sources gave info unrelated to the dossier that sustained the warrants.

So please stop with the lie that the dossier is what led to the investigation. That is simply not true.

 

[37L1]

"Others say."

No one who is in a position to know says that. It's a made up claim by those falsely trying to tie the investigation to Clinton.

It had already begun. And many sources gave info unrelated to the dossier that sustained the warrants.

So please stop with the lie that the dossier is what led to the investigation. That is simply not true.

Then why use it?

 

[Orangeburst]

"Others say."

No one who is in a position to know says that. It's a made up claim by those falsely trying to tie the investigation to Clinton.

It had already begun. And many sources gave info unrelated to the dossier that sustained the warrants.

So please stop with the lie that the dossier is what led to the investigation. That is simply not true.

How bout admitting that the dossier itself is s lie?

 

[Hunerwadel]

I doubt if you would be a McCain fan if he was a Democrat trying to take your candidate down by peddling a fake dossier.

Now Grad you know that's just a big right wing lie.

 

[luthervol]

Maybe I’m totally wrong. I’m not any kind of philosopher. Just think people can do whatever they want but often should choose not to do them to harmonize with others or surrender the rights permanently to a government to ensure others don’t do the same or similar things to them.

I get your point and sort of agree. Government is what steps in when people fail.