Redwingtom
Progressive filth
Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
|
RE: Special counsel probing donations with foreign connections to Trump inauguration
(05-14-2018 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (05-14-2018 09:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (05-11-2018 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (05-11-2018 03:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: (05-11-2018 03:02 PM)TechRocks Wrote: I don't have a problem.
I read what was drectly quoted from his testimony and cannot figure out how "without the Steele Dossier there would have been no FISA warrant", can be construed to mean anything other than what it says.
Comey has said committee members were confused about what he said in testimony about the FBI's impression of Flynn's comments.....specifically that they didn't believe he lied to them. But when you read his words, there is no doubt what he said.
The FBI seems to be confused a lot these days, and I can understand that. It's hard to keep track of so many lies and bullshyte.
Trey Gowdy has said McCabe said what was quoted. That's good enough for me.
NO. YOU. DID. NOT. His testimony was private and has not been made public. What you're putting in quotes is what either Gowdy, Nunes, etc. are saying he said. You're relying on their interpretations of the testimony. And Nunes at least cannot be trusted any more than Schiff can. They're politicians, remember?
And until the judge on the FISA court starts talking, we'll never know if that was the sole reason for the warrant. But when applications normally encompass months of work and scores of pages, I highly doubt it was the sole reason.
So what? Do you understand that whether it was a sole reason or a major reason or a minor factor is irrelevant?
I don't personally believe it was the sole reason OR the major reason.
So what if it wasn't? The FISA warrant was still improperly issued.
It's an ex parte proceeding. The purported object is neither present nor represented. That means every single iota of evidence presented has to be squeaky clean. There can be zero factual issues in dispute. Otherwise the judge cannot issue the warrant. But the judge has no resources with which to assess the truth or falsity of any evidence presented. So it has to be perfect, every part of it.
There are four possibilities:
1) Every single assertion in the dossier, or at least any portion presented to the FISA court, was absolutely verified, down to the very last comma, before it was introduced, or
2) No part of the dossier was introduced in any way, shape, or form before the FISA court, or
3) No FISA warrant was issued by the court, or
4) Such warrant was issued improperly.
Which is it?
So now you are an expert lawyer and one with FISA court expertise? I'm going to start calling you the Michael Cohen of the Spin Room.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2018 12:03 PM by Redwingtom.)
|
|
05-14-2018 12:02 PM |
|
Redwingtom
Progressive filth
Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
|
RE: Special counsel probing donations with foreign connections to Trump inauguration
(05-14-2018 11:34 AM)gdunn Wrote: (05-14-2018 09:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (05-11-2018 05:28 PM)WKUYG Wrote: Dont y'all realize that Tom, Mach, CB and a couple others can say what they want and that makes it true....
asked them to show you something backing it up and not a peep out of them. Then a day or week or a hour later, they repeat it again. Ask them to back it up. Not a peep, out of them. The cycle will continue because if they say it enough they believe you will just take their word for it....
eventually
Well Mach will sometimes post a link...just wont have anything to do with what he's talking about
Your including me (assuming you're not referring to LazyTom) in this diatribe is completely ridiculous.
RWT is correct. I've seen him post links numerous times. Not once have I asked him to provide back up has he said I'm doing it for you do your own homework. He's usually pretty responsive.
Thanks, but in fairness, I have told some people that from time to time, but usually after I've already provided that information...usually more than once...or if they're just being completely ridiculous or obtuse.
|
|
05-14-2018 12:04 PM |
|
SoMs Eagle
Heisman
Posts: 8,998
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 683
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
|
RE: Special counsel probing donations with foreign connections to Trump inauguration
(05-14-2018 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: (05-14-2018 11:34 AM)gdunn Wrote: (05-14-2018 09:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (05-11-2018 05:28 PM)WKUYG Wrote: Dont y'all realize that Tom, Mach, CB and a couple others can say what they want and that makes it true....
asked them to show you something backing it up and not a peep out of them. Then a day or week or a hour later, they repeat it again. Ask them to back it up. Not a peep, out of them. The cycle will continue because if they say it enough they believe you will just take their word for it....
eventually
Well Mach will sometimes post a link...just wont have anything to do with what he's talking about
Your including me (assuming you're not referring to LazyTom) in this diatribe is completely ridiculous.
RWT is correct. I've seen him post links numerous times. Not once have I asked him to provide back up has he said I'm doing it for you do your own homework. He's usually pretty responsive.
Thanks, but in fairness, I have told some people that from time to time, but usually after I've already provided that information...usually more than once...or if they're just being completely ridiculous or obtuse.
Have you provided a link to proof Nunes lied about his “midnight run to the White House”?
|
|
05-14-2018 03:18 PM |
|