"In part" is more than enough to show they're colluding with the DNC and Clinton campaign. Or is it your thinking they only colluded "in part" ? LOL
What was Trump's excuse when he exonerated Hillary after the election? Thanked her for 30 plus years of service and said she should retire...Trump said he would not go after her at all.....what's his excuse? Why would Trump not go for the jugular back then? Because he said it before Comey said he asked him to back off Flynn?
If I turn you in to the police for murder, does it matter most whether I'm your political enemy or not? Or does it matter most whether you are a murderer or not? Edit: besides, as I understand it, Steele went to the FBI with it, not the Democrats. So maybe my analogy should have been: If I hire a Brit to find out what you are up to, and after some investigation he concludes you may be a murderer, and he goes to the police, is my political affiliation the most important part of the story? Are the police colluding with me? barfo
To be the bigger person. That changed when Hillary and her surrogates foisted this russia witch hunt on him. If you strike at the king, you better not miss.
the King? that speaks volumes....Marz would love to crown Trump ...probably get knighted for it or some shit
In the later part of his life, George III had recurrent, and eventually permanent, mental illness. Although it has since been suggested that he had the blood disease porphyria, the cause of his illness remains unknown. Sound familiar?
Takes another level to see the comedy in Shakespeare....comedy never struck me as your strong suit.....the royalist in you has British pretentions though at times. You guys are so serious, you just don't get it.....there's a distinct double standard in the Trump Clinton feuds.....so I don't see a lot of making America great again in any of this pissing contest other than Trump is flailing around in twitter chaos and multiple failures at cabinet appointments... Hillary is smokescreen material.
Written by a constitutional scholar. http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-delivers-congress-intelligence-oversight-win Not surprisingly, while FISA was supposed to be a narrow exception to conventional warrants, the Justice Department has used it as an easy alternative to conventional court. Not only is the standard almost impossible not to satisfy but, unlike standard warrants, the surveillance — even abusive or groundless searches — can be kept secret forever. Now, some members of Congress believe that the FBI abused FISA to launch a national security investigation with little real evidence. That is exactly what civil libertarians have argued for decades with no response from Congress. The target this time was a close associate of then-candidate Donald Trump. Some media reports indicate that the memo shows the FBI knowingly used a dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to secure the FISA order. The allegation is that the FBI did not reveal to the court the questionable source of the dossier or the lack of verification of its information. Ironically, it is not clear if this would have really mattered, since Congress set the standard for FISA so low. Yet, civil libertarians are not complaining. The “Man From Rule X” is finally challenging the intelligence agencies and asserting the right of Congress to release information in the public interest over agency objections. Ideally, with this vote, the use of the rule will no longer be viewed as sheer fantasy and Congress will engage in serious oversight of these agencies, including the greater disclosure of information in the public interest. So the importance of this conflict may prove far greater than the partisan maneuverings in Congress over the Russian investigation. The use of Rule X to actually disclose information could be a gamechanger in the relationship to federal agencies in this area, or as the character Dr. Mears said in the old cult film, “a man who controls this formula controls the industry of the world.” Well, perhaps not control of the world, but some real oversight of intelligence agencies would be worth watching.
^^^ The big deal really is that FISA is typically abused all along, regardless of Republicans' charges regarding the incoming Trump admin.
There's certainly a discussion to be had about FISA warrants generally. This specific thing (Nunes' memo) isn't that. barfo
Sure it is. Congress has a duty to oversee the FBI. No matter how popular the review is, the people have a right to know. Though it's odd they had these concerns and voted to reauthorize FISA abuse. I'm all in favor of the Democrats' spin/response to the memo also be made public. For the same reasons.
