Quote :

"There are people in this thread that seriously believe Russia managed to derail a billion dollars worth of Clinton campaigning with $100,000 in facebook advertising."

outside of your usual bullshit, a simple cost/benefit analysis is all you need

9/21/2017 4:27:38 PM

in the end, who's ads were better or better targeted or more convincing or whatever doesn't matter.

All that matter is Hillary's ads were bought legally, while a foreign entity purchasing campaign ads is illegal.
(could depend on content, but I'm guessing they broke campaign finance laws).



That being said, everyone should take the time to read up on psychometrics and Cambridge analytica. It's a brave new world we are living in.

9/21/2017 4:37:47 PM

Quote :

"And you could be right about bias, on a couple different levels IMO. First there is a strong chance other politicians have been getting Russian money (see rohrbachar). I think there's a strong chance other politicians have been getting money from other nations too (Clinton and KSA as a well known example. It all goes back to the FEC being completely broken and unable to enforce anything."

I don't think you'll find many taking money from countries considered our enemy. I mean, in principal, taking money from any foreign national or foreign government is wrong and should be illegal. But if you had to rank in terms of egregiousness, taking money/working with a foreign enemy is 10 times worse and is why this should be addressed so seriously.

Quote :

"Is it taboo to talk about how accurate the Steele Dossier is on a lot of what has come out?"

Only if you believe this is some fake witch hunt against Trump. For real, though, it is interesting to watch the confirmations roll in.

Quote :

"Manafort arranged for John McCain to meet with Deripaska in person in 2008 while McCain was running for president. "

Definitely an important point. Has McCain ever lied about those meetings though? Taken money and support from those meetings?

Meetings in and of themselves are not the problem. It's the subterfuge that is occurring that implies criminality occurred.

Quote :

"I mean I get it, you guys want multinational corporations and billionaires working on behalf of campaigns during elections just so long as they aren't Russian. "

This is another great point, quite frankly. Citizens' United along with a few other important Supreme Court decisions have royally fucked us over. But if it's inevitable, then I certainly have a far greater problem if that support comes from our enemies than from our allies.

Quote :

"Obama- this does not literally mean Obama did it. Bush didn't "make" intel on Iraq, his administration did. We say "Obama" and it represents the entire umbrella of his executive administration. That includes the entire FBI."

The Bush example is slightly misleading because it was Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz constantly going in person to the CIA and NSA and saying "you need to give me something that says we can invade Iraq and I'm not going to stop until you do." They spent the entire time giving them intel that said Iraq had nothing to do with anything.

But more to the point, when Trump says "Obama tapped me" he means specifically Obama. He is trying to use whatever outrage exists presently against Obama to his advantage by making it personal. People have a much harder time with an abstract entity like "government" than they do with a concrete, specific individual, like "Obama." It goes in line with every thing Trump has said/done, in particular, that birth certificate insanity.

Quote :

"Wiretapped- in 2017 this means monitoring calls in some way. Manafort works for Trump. If you want to listen to someone calls without tapping "them", you can just tap people who you know they will talk to. Already been explained in this thread."

If you want to monitor someone, you monitor them, not their friends exclusively. For starters, you would be missing out on the calls with people you haven't even discovered yet and that's likely where the real fruit of the labor lies. If they had enough shit to think Trump was doing something, they would have gotten a FISA against him specifically. The fact they didn't (at least as far as we know right now) is really the only and best piece of evidence that could possibly convince me that Trump had no clue what was going on.

Quote :

"Trump- This also can refer to anyone under his umbrella. If you tap the campaign chair, or anyone close to Trump, we can go ahead and call that "Trump""

Trump means Trump. Trump Campaign means Trump Campaign which includes Trump and all the other individuals what worked for him. Trump Administration means the personnel employed in government (really, the ones he specifically appointed) during his Presidential administration.

Quote :

"Russia- You guys are using this to mean people from Russia, with Russian names, and companies in Russia but insinuating that it implicates the Russian government. People have been using Russia and Putin interchangeably when all of the evidence involves people who just happen to be Russian. "

Agree with you here. "Russia" should be replaced with "Russian intelligence operatives," "Russian government employees," and "Russian nationals connected with the aforementioned entities."

Quote :

"Hacked- DNC is the only thing that was hacked. IP addresses were tracked to Russia. That means nothing. I can make my IP address Russian right now. "

The IP address is only one aspect, or piece of the evidence. It absolutely means something but not in isolation.

Quote :

"the election- no one has any evidence that the election (voting booths and vote count) was hacked but someone Russian companies putting political ads on facebook is being intentionally misrepresenting as "hacking" the "election". "

And if I rob a bank, fail and subsequently have no money as a result (no evidence I succeeded) guess what? I still go to prison for attempted robbery, among other crimes. I don't care if they succeeded or not when it comes to ascribing guilt and holding them accountable and more importantly, retaliating to prevent future such incursions.

This is one of the most frustrating aspects of the GOP's defense of Trump. "Who cares? They didn't affect anything." Except they did. We likely can't determine to what extent but there were certainly votes that changed as a result of their efforts.

9/21/2017 4:40:14 PM

I wish I could say I was surprised by these lame diversionary tactics RE: Manafort (but, but Obama did it toooo!!!), but the reality is that an indictment seems all but imminent, given that there's a goddamn FBI investigation currently underway involving Trump and his cronies. I'm so fucking tired of anything related to Trump's shady tactics somehow becoming an anti-Hillary or anti-Obama diatribe. Neither of them are currently the POTUS and neither of them have any FBI investigations pending.

Can we take the anti-Hillary/Obama BS conversations and keep them contained in threads dedicated to them instead?

[Edited on September 21, 2017 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2017 4:43:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm so fucking tired of anything related to Trump's shady tactics somehow becoming an anti-Hillary or anti-Obama diatribe. Neither of them are currently the POTUS and neither of them have any FBI investigations pending. "

the only crime known to have occurred so far is that intelligence briefings were unmasked and then leaked to the press, and those leaks came out of the Obama administration. If Mueller truly has free reign to investigate any and all crimes, you can't claim that Obama and/or his staff are off-limits for this discussion.

9/21/2017 5:22:09 PM

Actually, there is a strong possibility the leaks were coming from people in the Trump administration. Also, unmasking isn't illegal and wasn't done illegally.

Also, the leaks really only occurred because nobody in Congress was doing shit because of GOP obstructionism (same as when the Dems tried to obstruct the investigation into Clinton) and also when the GOP tried to obstruct investigations into Reagan and Nixon.

Had our Congressmen been doing their jobs, nothing would have had to been leaked.

[Edited on September 21, 2017 at 5:31 PM. Reason : a]

9/21/2017 5:29:56 PM

no, no, and no.

9/21/2017 5:32:29 PM

Yes, yes and yes. But hey, what are facts anyway? Alternative?

[Edited on September 21, 2017 at 5:33 PM. Reason : a]

9/21/2017 5:33:10 PM

your first statement about unmasking not being illegal is in direct contradiction of your second and third statements about unmasking for the purpose of leaking classified information being for the good of the people in certain situations.

Your comment about the Trump administration being the source of the leaks is laughable. Find one single solitary link from something other than a Buzzfeed caliber publication making that claim.

9/21/2017 5:43:03 PM

Your tears are gonna be so tasty when they perp-walk Trump out the front door of the whitehouse.

9/21/2017 6:55:14 PM

The tears of all the people in here that still haven't come to terms with Trump winning the election are delicious now. The second term will be even sweeter.

9/21/2017 7:02:36 PM

Quote :

"your first statement about unmasking not being illegal is in direct contradiction of your second and third statements about unmasking for the purpose of leaking classified information being for the good of the people in certain situations. Your comment about the Trump administration being the source of the leaks is laughable. Find one single solitary link from something other than a Buzzfeed caliber publication making that claim."

Huh? Unmasking isn't illegal. The unmasking that occurred did not occur illegally. As for the Trump admin leaking, explain to me why so many individuals working for Trump kept talking about stopping the leaks out of the White House? It's literally from the remarks of half the people that worked in senior positions for Trump - "We need to stop the leaks from the White House."

You need to learn how to pay attention.

Quote :

"The tears of all the people in here that still haven't come to terms with Trump winning the election are delicious now. The second term will be even sweeter."

Err once again, I don't think more than one or two (if any) in here have not "come to terms" or "accepted" the election results. Once again, you need to learn how to pay attention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/us/politics/scaramucci-on-white-house-leaks-fire-everybody.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Anthony Scaramucci, President Trump’s new communications director, vowed on Tuesday to purge the White House staff of disloyal aides in an effort to crack down on leaks, as another member of the press staff resigned from a West Wing reeling from an unfolding shake-up."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344422-priebus-kelly-should-get-to-bottom-of-white-house-leaks

Quote :

"Outgoing White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said Friday he hopes his replacement John Kelly can "get to the bottom" of leaks coming out of the White House. "I think that Gen. Kelly should see if he can get to the bottom of it and figure it out, but obviously unnamed sources are something that has been problematic and I wish him well and I'm going to try to help him," Priebus told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in his first interview since resigning."

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/cleaning-trumps-whitehouse-will-prove-difficult-jhld/

Quote :

"Fast-forward a few months and Trump is deep in the weeds. His team is woefully inadequate to lead the nation, reports of constant infighting and daily if not hourly leaks. Bannon, who is jokingly referred to as President Bannon, is struggling to maintain his position as Trump’s key advisor, leading many to believe that it is, in fact, Bannon who is the source of the White House leaks. With the hiring of John Kelly as White House Chief of Staff, Bannon’s position is immediately brought into question. Kelly who is there for one main reason, to eliminate the leaks, reportedly tells Bannon in July that he needs to go. The once nearly autonomous Bannon is out of the administration he helped to install."

[Edited on September 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM. Reason : a]

9/21/2017 7:21:40 PM

no way dude actually believes that this White House doesn’t leak

[Edited on September 21, 2017 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2017 8:21:06 PM

I just can't see how anyone could say with a straight face that Trump's administration is fine/normal and that all of these plausible links that keep popping up with Russians are just funny coincidences.

9/21/2017 8:53:10 PM

In my lifetime, every president's campaign was backed by one special interest or another. The difference is that this time, the traditional powers didn't get their candidates in and are worried now.

9/21/2017 11:22:46 PM

Yes, anti-intellectual, xenophobic, white supremacists, "evangelicals" got their guy.

They had to bring in a General to stop him from watching conspiracy theory broadcasts and going nuts, and it's barely working, as the President threatened to wipe out an entire country this past week.

When you have a person with no experience and minimal competence coupled with an extremely high level of discuriousness in a position of power, this is an existential threat.

9/22/2017 1:19:11 AM

All that yet you still can't point to anything that has gone differently than the last 8 years. Anti intellects, xenophobes, white supremacists and evangelicals have ran this country since its inception. The only difference now is that it sounds worse because it lost its corporate marketing.

Obama destroyed Libya and Syria, Bush destroyed Iraq and Trump said he might destroy Korea. I think its disgusting what he said but I think US policy has been disgusting for a long time.

9/22/2017 1:25:38 AM

Quote :

"The difference is that this time, the traditional powers didn't get their candidates in and are worried now."

No, different power brokers did. Wynn and the Mercer’s did. And I still can think fathom how you can’t understand why progressives are outraged with Trump. It’s almost like you care more about anti-establishment than actual progressive policy (and that lumps you in with the HA Goodman and Cassandra Fairbanks of the world).

It’s no secret I cant stand Trump personally and have for long before he ran for president but I also hate what he is doing with immigration (though the Dems are wrong a lot here too), SCOTUS, backing AWFUL healthcare bills, awful tax reform plans (Bannon was a moderating force here and I’m not joking), deregulation, etc. I also fully realize this would be not much different with Pence.

Quote :

"Anti intellects, xenophobes, white supremacists and evangelicals have ran this country since its inception. "

This is empirically false. I absolutely have critiqued Obama’s foreign policy. In a lot of ways he continued Bush’s stuff and that is rightly condemned. However, to say his administration was anti-intellectual, xenophobic and led by evangelicals is insane.

[Edited on September 22, 2017 at 8:09 AM. Reason : X]

9/22/2017 8:07:41 AM

Words have changed but almost everything is still the same.

Quote :

"And I still can think fathom how you can’t understand why progressives are outraged with Trump. It’s almost like you care more about anti-establishment than actual progressive policy (and that lumps you in with the HA Goodman and Cassandra Fairbanks of the world)."

Progressives are outraged now and have always been outraged. There hasn't been any progressive policy since I've been old enough for politics. I think you are conflating progressive with liberal. Liberals just want to hear nice words and feel good about themselves without making any sacrifice or risk while progressives want progress for all.

Progressives don't compromise with basic human rights. Only liberals can view something like Obamacare as a victory. To progressives, its just another "solution" that, by design, leaves tens of millions of people vulnerable.

Quote :

" I also hate what he is doing with immigration (though the Dems are wrong a lot here too), SCOTUS, backing AWFUL healthcare bills, awful tax reform plans (Bannon was a moderating force here and I’m not joking), deregulation, etc. I also fully realize this would be not much different with Pence."

Liberals are satisfied with Obama because said really nice things about these topics but progressives look for actual progress. DACA was always offensive to progressives because it turned people into second class citizens and was always temporary and the guy Obama nominated to SCOTUS was far from progressive and what good is any kind of regulation when your friends in the justice department aren't going to let you get away with crimes that tanked the economy?

Quote :

"This is empirically false. I absolutely have critiqued Obama’s foreign policy. In a lot of ways he continued Bush’s stuff and that is rightly condemned. However, to say his administration was anti-intellectual, xenophobic and led by evangelicals is insane."

'
Thats not what the quote says. The executive branch or even federal government isn't all that runs the country. Regardless of how the Obama administration came off, they didn't do much to roll back the systems that are racist and xenophobic in this country and in many cases, they contributed to them. You will quickly say that congress didn't let Obama do anything he wanted to do and that would be an example of those hate groups running the country during the obama administration.

Liberals are outraged by what the MSM says they should be outraged about but to anyone who pays attention to actual policy knows there haven't been that many changes. For Obamacare, the MSM headline would be something like "OBAMACARE PROVIDES HEALTHCARE TO MORE AMERICANS" and not "OBAMACARE LEAVES OVER 24 MILLION AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTHCARE". Both are true but the angle of the MSM leaves liberals feeling good.

Then Trump comes along and not much changes but all of the headlines are like that latter one and liberals are suddenly outraged over the same thing they were just happy about.

Travel ban, border fence plan, police shootings, confederate statues, neo-nazis and deportations all existed before Trump took office.

9/22/2017 12:37:13 PM

[Edited on September 22, 2017 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ....]

9/22/2017 12:49:14 PM

^^ you can't just throw out better alternatives that aren't perfect and say that they're just as bad as the original problem. Obamacare was absolutely a step in the right direction, and it helped give MILLIONS of people access to healthcare. While it's not single payer (and yeah, that needs to be the end goal), are you seriously suggesting that the Graham-Cassidy is "just as bad" because it's not the perfect solution we need, right this second? Are you seriously saying that because Obama had flaws and couldn't solve everything, he's just as bad as Trump?

You are NOT a progressive, dude. You're a radical anarchist that has a warped, overly pessimist, and unrealistic worldview. Your all/nothing black and white thinking is actually very harmful and divisive. You don't want compromise at all- you just want compliance, which is actually the same type of fascist and regressive ideology you're so quick to accuse others of.

9/22/2017 3:13:22 PM

Mostly that.

And while progress is slow, Bernie Sanders absolutely succeeded in moving the party left. Single Payer as the Democratic Party mainstream is happening. Even with the so-called centrists like Harris and Booker, who co-sponsored.

Earl didn’t think Trump was serious about the Heritage Foundation justices and the conservative speak Trump gave... and the result is the country drifting right yet again.

[Edited on September 22, 2017 at 3:20 PM. Reason : Format]

9/22/2017 3:19:57 PM

Quote :

"The federal government is telling election officials in 21 states that hackers targeted their systems last year, although in most cases the systems were not breached."

.....most were not breached?....the fuck does that mean?

https://apnews.com/cb8a753a9b0948589cc372a3c037a567/Federal-government-notifies-21-states-of-election-hacking

9/22/2017 5:54:36 PM

If you guys are going to call me an anarchist AND fascist, you're going to need to give some explanation because I don't think you understand what any of these labels mean.

Quote :

"you can't just throw out better alternatives that aren't perfect and say that they're just as bad as the original problem."

Well the "original problem" is different for people with different values.

To me, the original problem was that people in this country don't have access to healthcare. That problem isn't solved until all americans have access to healthcare. I see it as a basic human right.

Surely, you understand that some things related to human dignity cannot be compromised? Can't you agree that there is no acceptable amount of blacks that can be enslaved, or acceptable amount of jews to be incinerated? I'm glad today's liberals weren't around back then. We might still have slaves states but be happy because at least there are less now than before.

The original problem that the makers of Obamacare were trying to solve is "How many people can we allow access to healthcare while still protecting the profits of insurance companies?" They solved that problem.

The republicans are trying to address the problem of added tax burden and higher premiums on the middle class.

The thing about compromise and human rights is that the people doing the compromising are never compromising their own rights. Its elite liberals who are so willing to champion a compromise of someone else's rights. I doubt you would view ObamaCare as positive if your loved ones were some of the uninsured dying from treatable illness.

Also, if everything you believe is up for compromise, then you don't really stand for anything and that is why the democratic party is so weak right now.

Quote :

"are you seriously suggesting that the Graham-Cassidy is "just as bad" because it's not the perfect solution we need, right this second? "

Graham Cassidy is hypothetical. Its not law and hasn't even been scored. I haven't said anything about it. I'm talking about actual policy that has been enacted. Also, you think you are being cute by saying "right this second" but healthcare is indeed that urgent. Someone is dying right this second because your party didn't fix the problem.

Quote :

"Are you seriously saying that because Obama had flaws and couldn't solve everything, he's just as bad as Trump?"

I'm saying that the results are the same. Obviously, that could change any day but so far, there hasn't been much change in anything but rhetoric. I didn't see any major progress from 8 years of Obama so "just as bad" seems like the minimum.

Quote :

"warped, overly pessimist, and unrealistic worldview."

So much that they have been replicated in every modern country. Pessimists compromise because they white supremacy/racism/corporatism has convinced them that the desires of the people are unrealistic. Democrats are pessimists.

How many times have I read "Single payer is impossible"

Quote :

" And while progress is slow, Bernie Sanders absolutely succeeded in moving the party left. Single Payer as the Democratic Party mainstream is happening."

Its sheepdog politics. The party wants to hold the left hostage while they continue to move right in policy. They end up courting neither in elections and thats why we have Trump.

9/22/2017 8:55:59 PM

I'm having a hard time believing that NC wasn't impacted, we had major problems with voter rolls.

9/22/2017 9:30:14 PM

https://boingboing.net/2017/09/22/follow-the-money.html

Quote :

"In April, billionaire Len Blavatnik gave $12,700 to the RNC’s legal fund, on top of donations of about $200,000 to other RNC accounts. He also gave the legal fund $100,000 in 2016, according to FEC filings. The contribution from Mr. Blavatnik came during the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe of U.S. intelligence agencies’ findings of Russian meddling in the U.S. election, a month before the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee its probe of Russian interference—which subsequently prompted Mr. Trump to hire a private legal team. Moscow has denied interfering in the election. Mr. Trump has denied his campaign colluded with Russia and called the investigations a “witch hunt.” A spokesman for Mr. Blavatnik didn’t return a request for comment. The White House referred questions to the RNC. Mr. Blavatnik, who was born in Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union, and moved to the U.S. in his early 20s, amassed his fortune in Russia in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He is a longtime business partner of Viktor Vekselberg, who is one of the richest men in Russia and has close ties to the Kremlin. In 2013, Mr. Blavatnik earned billions when he, Mr. Vekselberg and two other partners sold their stake in the oil company TNK-BP to Rosneft, a Kremlin-controlled oil company. Rosneft’s chief executive is Igor Sechin, a top ally of Russian President Vladmir Putin. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Blavatnik through his company donated to several Republican presidential campaigns, including for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. He didn’t donate to Mr. Trump’s campaign."

[Edited on September 22, 2017 at 10:57 PM. Reason : a]

9/22/2017 10:31:05 PM

Quote :

"The party wants to hold the left hostage while they continue to move right in policy. They end up courting neither in elections and thats why we have Trump"

You are such a fucking crybaby.

9/23/2017 1:44:17 AM

how did i know your next post would be namecalling

9/23/2017 5:11:58 AM

https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/aint-easy-fisa-warrant-fbi-agent/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/what_robert_mueller_has_on_paul_manafort_could_be_the_key_line_of_the_russia.html

9/24/2017 11:04:17 PM

utter bullshit. Since 2001, the FISA court has approved 33,942 applications and rejected 11, for a warrant approval rate of 99.97%. Kangaroo courts don't have that level of rubber stamping going on.

2013 - 1588 approvals, no denials: https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2014rept.pdf

2014 - 1379 approvals, no denials: https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2014rept.pdf

2015 - 1456 approvals, no denials: https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2014rept.pdf

2016 - 8 denials for surveillance, 1 denial for business records: https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2014rept.pdf

an apparently one of those denials may have been over the first Trump FISA request.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Quote :

"The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation."

9/25/2017 2:19:00 PM

What in the articles above conflicts with what you said, from a numbers standpoint? Explain the "bullshit" claim.

Quote :

"Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case."

"over 25,000"

"some estimates at over 99 percent"

Reading comprehension. Arithmetic...

[Edited on September 25, 2017 at 2:33 PM. Reason : a]

9/25/2017 2:32:17 PM

Not an expert but I believe they report on amended warrants now too, which is not an insignificant amount.

9/25/2017 2:40:28 PM

the whole tone of the article is bullshit. The author tries to explain how rigorous and infallible the process is, assuming that is enough to ensure the audience that the FBI never falsifies evidence, takes shortcuts, or relies on the groupthink of an all-Republican panel of judges. He downplays the number of warrant applications and the percentage by rounding them down and claiming "by some estimates" when the numbers are out there for everyone to see.

The fact that every single warrant request for 3 years was approved is proof that the entire FISA system is bullshit - no system with real checks and balances is that efficient. The rumor that a FISA request on the Trump team somehow managed to get denied would indicate that there was almost no evidence to support the warrant in the first place. It makes the claim that the FISA warrant was created for spying on the campaign a plausible reality.

9/25/2017 3:15:51 PM

Your interpretation is ridiculous if you think honestly about it.

The point of the article is that it is entirely reasonable to expect 99% of the requests that make it to the FISA court are approved because for them to get there, they have to pass so many layers of approval, in multiple agencies and require so much evidence to request that if they make that far it's because it's a legit request.

The times they were rejected refer almost entirely to amended requests as mentioned a few posts up.

As for the FBI making up evidence, every single agency, department and company on this planet is capable of doing that. Many have done that in the past. It is ridiculous for you to simply presume they made up evidence on all of their FISA requests. You have no rational basis or evidence on which to base that claim. The most basic reason for why evidence manipulation would not lead to FISA warrants is because they would have to be covered up by three different agencies AND the court itself.

Furthermore, he didn't downplay anything. He literally said numbers that match what your data shows.

I will not engage you further. You lack the initiative to actually read and understand basic language.

[Edited on September 25, 2017 at 3:42 PM. Reason : a]

9/25/2017 3:39:16 PM

your interpretation is ridiculous if you put an ounce of thought into it. No matter how much effort the FBI puts into their warrant requests, they should at least get one or two rejected or at least voluntarily pulled back from time to time. Going 5000-0 over the course of 3 years should not be feasible. Defenders of the 4th amendment from the left have been making that argument for 15 years, but now all of a sudden the FISA courts are legitimate?

9/25/2017 6:02:48 PM

The failure rate for sky diving is like 0.3%, so it's possible to have rigorous "pre-jump" procedures in place that reduce failure significantly. The Woods Procedures implemented by the FBI/DOJ that screens all FISA requests before submittal to the court is allegedly extremely thorough and many requests get stopped right there.

My personal concern about the court is groupthink among the judges, since they've all been appointed by John "seizures" Roberts. I'm sure he's picking real winners.

But unless evidence surfaces that standard FISC procedures weren't used, I'm not gonna throw the process under the bus for Trump. He is what FISA was designed to catch.

9/26/2017 6:14:44 AM

^

9/26/2017 9:11:15 AM

So, question: Now that it's out that certain members of the administration used personal email to conduct White House business (however little may have been conducted), does that now bring their personal email accounts into the scope of Mueller's investigation?

9/26/2017 2:40:52 PM

[Edited on September 26, 2017 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2017 3:42:28 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352561-irs-shares-information-with-muellers-special-counsel-probe

9/26/2017 6:12:52 PM

The tax man cometh.

9/26/2017 6:30:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/jared-kushner-personal-email-account-senate-intelligence/index.html

Oh, look. Another lie from a Trump person.

9/28/2017 4:55:59 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html
Russia hacked our race relations!

9/28/2017 9:16:57 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

Quote :

"The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S." In the United States: Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[2] The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[2]"

9/28/2017 9:21:55 PM

The fake ads posted by Russians on FB

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-will-give-its-3000-russia-linked-ads-to-congress-today-2017-10

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/russian-facebook-ads-showed-a-black-woman-firing-a-rifle-amid-efforts-to-stoke-racial-strife/2017/10/02/e4e78312-a785-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/technology/facebook-russia-ads-.html

If this isn't Russians putting Trump in the WH, then I don't know what is.

10/2/2017 4:18:08 PM

Trump’s company had more contact with Russia during campaign, according to documents turned over to investigators
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-company-had-more-contact-with-russia-during-campaign-according-to-documents-turned-over-to-investigators/2017/10/02/2091fe5e-a6c0-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.32781188313f

10/3/2017 6:51:51 AM

Also, remember that meeting with the Russian agents where Kushner wrote "RNC" in his notes and some people wondered if maybe he meant to write "DNC?" well, about that:

Quote :

"Government officials familiar with the House and Senate investigations into Russian election interference told ABC News that near the conclusion of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting involving Trump’s son Don Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Russian emissaries interested in curtailing U.S. sanctions, Manafort made a cryptic and cursory notation on his phone. It said, “Active sponsors of RNC,” a phrase that some investigators have viewed as a reference to campaign donations, the sources said."

http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/investigators-follow-flow-money-trump-wealthy-donors-russian/story?id=50100024

the rest of that article describes money to trump's campaign from people with russian interests

10/3/2017 6:54:17 AM

That about settles that.

10/3/2017 8:35:15 AM

(I meant Manafort above)

10/3/2017 9:01:45 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/emails-suggest-manafort-sought-approval-from-putin-ally-deripaska/541677/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report

This makes it sound like Manafort was working with Putin in order to get out of debt.

Quote :

"On the evening of April 11, 2016, two weeks after Donald Trump hired the political consultant Paul Manafort to lead his campaign’s efforts to wrangle Republican delegates, Manafort emailed his old lieutenant Konstantin Kilimnik, who had worked for him for a decade in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. “I assume you have shown our friends my media coverage, right?” Manafort wrote. “Absolutely,” Kilimnik responded a few hours later from Kiev. “Every article.” “How do we use to get whole,” Manafort asks. “Has OVD operation seen?” According to a source close to Manafort, the initials “OVD” refer to Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and one of Russia’s richest men. The source also confirmed that one of the individuals repeatedly mentioned in the email exchange as an intermediary to Deripaska is an aide to the oligarch."

Quote :

"Excerpts from these emails were first reported by The Washington Post, but the full text of these exchanges, provided to The Atlantic, shows that Manafort attempted to leverage his leadership role in the Trump campaign to curry favor with a Russian oligarch close to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Manafort was deeply in debt, and did not earn a salary from the Trump campaign."

Quote :

"“I am carefully optimistic on the issue of our biggest interest,” Kilimnik went on. “Our friend V said there is lately significantly more attention to the campaign in his boss’s mind, and he will be most likely looking for ways to reach out to you pretty soon, understanding all the time sensitivity. I am more than sure that it will be resolved and we will get back to the original relationship with V.’s boss.” The source close to Manafort confirmed that “V” is a reference to Victor, the Deripaska aide. Manafort had spent several lucrative years working for Deripaska, both as a high-priced consultant-for-hire in former Soviet republics, and as an investor of Deripaska’s money before the collapse of their venture. Manafort jumped on the suggestion that the campaign might offer the opportunity to restore his relationship with Deripaska: “Tell V boss that if he needs private briefings we can accommodate,” he wrote back eight minutes later."

10/3/2017 9:16:33 AM