FISA Abuse

[jwlcosu]

You mean the part where you said this will be Watergate times 10?

The president was forced to resign because of Watergate, or face certain impeachment and removal and prosecution.

You still stand by your claim that this is going to be 10 times bigger?

Yea, I stand by it. Or maybe it’s seven times bigger. Whatever. Read the rest of that post. That’s where we are. There is no mistaking the direction of this thing and I tipped you guys off more than a year ago.

Edit: I also stand by what I said in post 20 of this thread.

Edit II: The only thing I missed in post 20 is that I should also have included CIA. Brennan is in this up to his eyeballs.

 

[tigermud]

I think Grassley summed it up pretty accurately.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU7BXbOpVy4#action=share

 

[tinselwolverine]

Yea, I stand by it. Or maybe it?s seven times bigger. Whatever. Read the rest of that post. That?s where we are. There is no mistaking the direction of this thing and I tipped you guys off more than a year ago.

Of course I read the rest of the post.

Even if all that turns out to be proven to be true-and even if it is true, I think it will be very hard to prove - they?re all going to say that they suspected Trump was colluding with a foreign power and they were investigating treason, and even if that story is bullshit, it?s going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they didn?t really believe it, and viewed the surveillance as entirely justified- I know you?re going to make a boneheaded response to this that proves that you didn?t understand the meaning of what I just stated, but I?ll address that at the time you do-that having been said, Obama is no longer subject to needing to resign to avoid impeachment, removal and prosecution because Obama is termed out- he?s not the president anymore.

Given that how can this story being Watergate times anything?

What about the logic of this are you missing?

I think I?ve pointed this out before-there seems to be a paucity in the teaching of critical thinking at Thee Ohio state university.

 

[jwlcosu]

I think Grassley summed it up pretty accurately.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU7BXbOpVy4#action=share

You were the leader on this thread, Tiger. Congratulations!

 

[tinselwolverine]

Sad but true. But in this case, the underlings, indeed, are bad guys. McCabe and Strzok will probably pull prison time Brennan, Comey and Clapper should but likely won’t (too important). Clinton and 0bama? Of course not. But they will be shamed, if that’s possible, and judged poorly by history.

This summary by Victor Davis Hanson is as clean and clear as you will find:

Post #282.

Kind of contradicts Watergate times any magnitude, wouldn’t you say?

Lack of critical thinking taught at Ohio State again.

You’re kind of a ready fire aim type of poster, I am observing.

 

[jwlcosu]

Of course I read the rest of the post.

Even if all that turns out to be proven to be true-and even if it is true, I think it will be very hard to prove - they?re all going to say that they suspected Trump was colluding with a foreign power and they were investigating treason, and even if that story is bullshit, it?s going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they didn?t really believe it, and viewed the surveillance as entirely justified- I know you?re going to make a boneheaded response to this that proves that you didn?t understand the meaning of what I just stated, but I?ll address that at the time you do-that having been said, Obama is no longer subject to needing to resign to avoid impeachment, removal and prosecution because Obama is termed out- he?s not the president anymore.

Given that how can this story being Watergate times anything?

What about the logic of the school are you missing?

I think I?ve pointed this out before-there seems to be a paucity in the teaching of critical thinking at Thee Ohio state university.

Boarding a plane, Tinsel, but I?ll answer your question tomorrow. Then you can remind me what a bonehead I am.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Boarding a plane, Tinsel, but I?ll answer your question tomorrow. Then you can remind me what a bonehead I am.

Cool.

Plus I didn?t call you a bonehead.

I just said your response was going to be boneheaded.

I don?t think I?m a bonehead myself, but I admit I have done boneheaded things from time to time.

 

[tigermud]

You were the leader on this thread, Tiger. Congratulations!

i'm ahead of it all on the other one too saw it coming from day one, I see probably future timelines based on current conditions up to 2 years in advance give or take, tinsel doesn't believe me, thinks I'm crazy, yes Hillary would have been much worse. I am not liking what I see in the timeline if trump loses in 2020 to any of those crazy younger generation dems and there is concerning probability we will still end up at war with China, Iran and Russial, we'd already be in major conflict right now with Russia over Syria if Hillary had won, so we still have a chance.. :nuts:

 

[jwlcosu]

i'm ahead of it all on the other one too saw it coming from day one, I see probably future timelines based on current conditions up to 2 years in advance give or take, tinsel doesn't believe me, thinks I'm crazy, yes Hillary would have been much worse. I am not liking what I see in the timeline if trump loses in 2020 to any of those crazy younger generation dems.

Trump?s not losing the 2020. The dems will wind up with some pissant to run against him and with the economy roaring, only the most crazy are going to want to take that leap.

 

[tinselwolverine]

i'm ahead of it all on the other one too saw it coming from day one, I see probably future timelines based on current conditions up to 2 years in advance give or take, tinsel doesn't believe me, thinks I'm crazy, yes Hillary would have been much worse. I am not liking what I see in the timeline if trump loses in 2020 to any of those crazy younger generation dems.

I never said I think you?re crazy.

I once made a joke when you were bemoaning ?deplatforming,? from Facebook, (which isn?t a thing of consequence), that we here at the DSF fortunately had you, through your links, keep crazy alive right here.

That?s pretty mild.

 

[tigermud]

I never said I think you’re crazy.

I once made a joke when you were bemoaning “deplatforming,” from Facebook, (which isn’t a thing of consequence), that we here at the DSF fortunately had you, through your links, keep crazy alive right here.

That’s pretty mild.

I'd just prefer it if you considered me crazy so maybe I might still be wrong about where it all goes. The next fork in the road is Nov 2020

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'd just prefer it if you considered me crazy so maybe I might still be wrong about where it all goes.

It all goes to we are all going to die someday of something.

If that?s where you think it all goes, you?re not wrong at all.

 

[tigermud]

It all goes to we are all going to die someday of something.

If that?s where you think it all goes, you?re not wrong at all.

True father time is undefeated.

 

[Spartanmack]

Of course I read the rest of the post.

Even if all that turns out to be proven to be true-and even if it is true, I think it will be very hard to prove - they’re all going to say that they suspected Trump was colluding with a foreign power and they were investigating treason,...and viewed the surveillance as entirely justified

is that a valid defense? the mere suspicion of treason? If MC posted this I would know it was wrong but given the source, I'm saying it sounds unlikely to be true.

 

[tigermud]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUM7NjEmc5Q#action=share

 

[tinselwolverine]

is that a valid defense? the mere suspicion of treason?

Law enforcement sets up surveillances because of suspicion all the time - they’re not always right, obviously.

Typically they won’t get in trouble for it if they’re wrong.

I heard some conservative analyst on the radio saying that this would probably be the story, suspicion of treason. Is he right? I don’t know. Maybe it will be another story.

It’s a little hard to believe that these guys didn’t have some story in their back pocket to fall back on.

In the New York Times article that JWLCOSU linked to, Barr states that he does not know that the surveillance was inappropriate.

Remember, just like any defendant, if any of the guys that JWLCOSU wrote could go to prison is even charged-I suspect more than likely won’t be-they would have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The details here would be subtle and nuanced, and of course, juries have a tendency to award law enforcement wide latitude whenever they’re charged with a crime.

Juries like to take law enforcement’s word for things. People are convicted of crimes every day primarily on the testimony of law-enforcement officers.

 

[Spartanmack]

Law enforcement sets up surveillances because of suspicion all the time - they’re not always right, obviously.

Typically they won’t get in trouble for it if they’re wrong.

I heard some conservative analyst on the radio saying that this would probably be the story, suspicion of treason. Is he right? I don’t know. Maybe it will be another story.

It’s a little hard to believe that these guys didn’t have some story in their back pocket to fall back on.

In the New York Times article that JWLCOSU linked to, Barr states that he does not know that the surveillance was inappropriate.

Remember, just like any defendant, if any of the guys that JWLCOSU wrote could go to prison is even charged-I suspect more than likely won’t be-they would have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The details here would be subtle and nuanced, and of course, juries have a tendency to award law enforcement wide latitude whenever they’re charged with a crime.

Juries like to take law enforcement’s word for things. People are convicted of crimes every day primarily on the testimony of law-enforcement officers.

Clearly they thought suspicion wasn't enough and they needed a warrant and because they went and got one which I would think eliminated (in their minds) the need for a fallback story. If the warrant was obtained improperly or illegally I suppose they could play dumb about the validity of the dossier but ignorance is no excuse above the law and if it's demonstrated that they were negligent in their duty to vette the report, then they could (should) be criminally charged.

As for Barr, I would expect him to say he does not know that the surveillance was inappropriate when they're just starting to talk about investigating whether or not it was inappropriate - claiming otherwise would set the Dems hair on fire about his prejudice tainting any investigation. I'd be pretty shocked if the Dems don't talk about Barr's bias to the press every chance they get. It's really interesting how both sides lauded him for his impartiality when he was appointed and now one side is saying he's a Trump puppet and they want him impeached after he didn't deliver the result they wanted.

One thing's for sure, it's going to extend the expected life of this thread by a few pages.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Clearly they thought suspicion wasn't enough and they needed a warrant and because they went and got one which I would think eliminated (in their minds) the need for a fallback story. If the warrant was obtained improperly or illegally I suppose they could play dumb about the validity of the dossier but ignorance is no excuse above the law and if it's demonstrated that they were negligent in their duty to vette the report, then they could (should) be criminally charged.

As for Barr, I would expect him to say he does not know that the surveillance was inappropriate when they're just starting to talk about investigating whether or not it was inappropriate - claiming otherwise would set the Dems hair on fire about his prejudice tainting any investigation. I'd be pretty shocked if the Dems don't talk about Barr's bias to the press every chance they get. It's really interesting how both sides lauded him for his impartiality when he was appointed and now one side is saying he's a Trump puppet and they want him impeached after he didn't deliver the result they wanted.

One thing's for sure, it's going to extend the expected life of this thread by a few pages.

Maybe they thought the FISA warrant would be sufficient to cover.

Maybe it will be.

Maybe there?s a different plan.

Maybe there are legitimate things beyond the FISA warrant that haven?t been disclosed yet.

This thread could outlive us all.

 

[jwlcosu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUM7NjEmc5Q#action=share

Powerful stuff. Solomon has been huge throughout. As has Sara Carter. And what’s funny is that folks who get their "news" from NYT or WaPo or LAT or ABC or NBC or CBS or CNN or MSNBC or NPR or AP or Reuters and so on and so forth, have no clue who either of these people are. But you’re crazy and I’m a bonehead!

 

[tigermud]

Powerful stuff. Solomon has been huge throughout. As has Sara Carter. And what’s funny is that folks who get their news from NYT or WaPo or ABC or NBC or CBS or CNN or MSNBC or NPR have no clue who either of these people are. But you’re crazy and I’m a bonehead!

Yup I’m a right wing now extremist apparently before that I was just a deplorable, The right to dissent and question lefty narratives has become increasingly dangerous since trump won