(05-19-2018, 10:27 AM)13Coronas Wrote: [ -> ]So what do we have here
Another atempt to water down the media
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/politics/...index.html
Why is it that We always see this sugar coating
lol ... You've been listening to Sean again, haven't you? Not smart.
Donald makes up a new lie because he knows he's king of the gullible. Show me the proof.
Whether they are called a 'spy', 'informant', 'intelligence source', or 'confident', it is an unprecedented move by a former administration and the DOJ. Documentation has been combed over by the Intelligence Committee shows most of this took place well before Trump was the official GOP candidate. Pretty dirty. Pathetic that CNN is the only "news" source attempting to mince words to ensure they can continue to fuel the anti-trump machine.
Why do people attack the person not the topic
I see it as a spy and this is worse than water gate
Oh remember Clinton and Nixon have to two things in common
Impeachment and tapping
Nixon tapping phones
Clinton tapping Monica
You can’t impeach trump for banging the headboard
(05-19-2018, 12:00 PM)13Coronas Wrote: [ -> ]Why do people attack the person not the topic
I see it as a spy and this is worse than water gate
Oh remember Clinton and Nixon have to two things in common
Impeachment and tapping
Nixon tapping phones
Clinton tapping Monica
You can’t impeach trump for banging the headboard
Nixon was never impeached, he resigned before the hearings started
As for the Spy, I wouldn't put it past Obama and Clinton to do something like that to protect themselves
And yes, it was a spy planted by the opposing political party
As I see it “He was facing certain impeachment and did not have the votes in the Senate to succeed in a trial or even come close to it.”
Adam2012, like all other liberals have literally never been right about a single thing in 2 years. Hilarious to watch.
This is the spy’s 2nd trip to the gallows
“Halper was implicated in another campaign scandal, when in 1980 he allegedly worked on behalf of the CIA to spy on the Carter campaign to provide information to George H.W. Bush’s campaign.”
The government does not need probable cause before hiring an informant.
That said, Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech would have been probable cause to investigate regarding possible illegal collusion.
So long as the informant did not share information back to the DNC or the Hillary campaign, there is nothing improper about it. The only improper thing is asking a foreign, hostile, government to hack the communications of a rival campaign on national television.
(05-21-2018, 08:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The government does not need probable cause before hiring an informant.
That said, Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech would have been probable cause to investigate regarding possible illegal collusion.
So long as the informant did not share information back to the DNC or the Hillary campaign, there is nothing improper about it. The only improper thing is asking a foreign, hostile, government to hack the communications of a rival campaign on national television.
You are so clueless.
Trump asked Russia to release the deleted E-mails if they already had them. He wasn't asking them to hack anything. They couldn't possibly hack Hillary's server and all of the incriminating evidence it had, since it was already destroyed. Technically he was asking Russia to return stolen property.
And yes, the government DOES need probable cause linked to a specific crime in order to spy on an American citizen.
(05-21-2018, 10:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 08:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The government does not need probable cause before hiring an informant.
That said, Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech would have been probable cause to investigate regarding possible illegal collusion.
So long as the informant did not share information back to the DNC or the Hillary campaign, there is nothing improper about it. The only improper thing is asking a foreign, hostile, government to hack the communications of a rival campaign on national television.
You are so clueless.
Trump asked Russia to release the deleted E-mails if they already had them. He wasn't asking them to hack anything. They couldn't possibly hack Hillary's server and all of the incriminating evidence it had, since it was already destroyed. Technically he was asking Russia to return stolen property.
And yes, the government DOES need probable cause linked to a specific crime in order to spy on an American citizen.
Recruiting and placing an informant does not require a warrant.
Wire taps require a warrant.
Intercepting private communications requires a warrant.
Once placed, an informant is only supposed to listen in and read things that were addressed to him or said with knowledge that he might be listening in.
Also, I find the mental gymnastics you are displaying regarding what Trump meant by saying "Russia if you're listening" hilarious. He could have meant many things. And it was an unacceptable thing for him to say.
Imagine if Hillary had said, "Russia if you're listening you could do us a favor by releasing Trump's tax returns, or his businesses' tax returns, whether to your government or to ours," how would that make you feel, and why would that be any different?
(05-19-2018, 03:22 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Adam2012, like all other liberals have literally never been right about a single thing in 2 years. Hilarious to watch.
While Donald continues to sink deeper into a quagmire of his own making, all you can say is liberal, liberal, liberal. You lie as well as Donald.
Pathetic. And sad.
(05-21-2018, 12:40 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2018, 03:22 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Adam2012, like all other liberals have literally never been right about a single thing in 2 years. Hilarious to watch.
While Donald continues to sink deeper into a quagmire of his own making, all you can say is liberal, liberal, liberal. You lie as well as Donald.
Pathetic. And sad.
Amazing how may FBI figures have retired, resigned, demoted, fired around this which hunt
They are dismantling this from the bottom up
Unless all that quick sand in your eyes is blinding you
(05-21-2018, 12:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 10:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]You are so clueless.
Trump asked Russia to release the deleted E-mails if they already had them. He wasn't asking them to hack anything. They couldn't possibly hack Hillary's server and all of the incriminating evidence it had, since it was already destroyed. Technically he was asking Russia to return stolen property.
And yes, the government DOES need probable cause linked to a specific crime in order to spy on an American citizen.
Also, I find the mental gymnastics you are displaying regarding what Trump meant by saying "Russia if you're listening" hilarious. He could have meant many things. And it was an unacceptable thing for him to say.
Imagine if Hillary had said, "Russia if you're listening you could do us a favor by releasing Trump's tax returns, or his businesses' tax returns, whether to your government or to ours," how would that make you feel, and why would that be any different?
He didn't use the work "hack" or any synonym. What he was asking for could not have been hacked. You and your pantsuited hero's followers use that term. Just because your girl's apologists want to claim something completely different from what was said doesn't make it so. An apple is not an orange.
As for your example, I wouldn't have made a big deal about such a statement from her, but then there would have been nothing new about that, since she had a history of selling a favorable deal to Russia while in US government service in exchange for fat speaking fees and donations to her charity slush fund. And your example is very different because the Federal government already had/has Trump's tax returns and his businesses' tax returns. This is completely different from you girl Hillary's "missing" E-mails, which were evidence the Federal government needed but never received.
If you want to play the "what if" game, what if you found out that GWB's FBI had placed a spy in the Obama campaign after accusing him publicly of (say) colluding with Iran? No problem? Using the FBI to spy on a political opponent is a huge abuse of power in either case.
A sitting President just ordered the Justice Department via Twitter to launch an investigation into a political opponent, ostensibly to divert focus away from the investigation being conducted on him.
My, what a slippery slope we slide down.
(05-21-2018, 02:07 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 12:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I find the mental gymnastics you are displaying regarding what Trump meant by saying "Russia if you're listening" hilarious. He could have meant many things. And it was an unacceptable thing for him to say.
Imagine if Hillary had said, "Russia if you're listening you could do us a favor by releasing Trump's tax returns, or his businesses' tax returns, whether to your government or to ours," how would that make you feel, and why would that be any different?
He didn't use the work "hack" or any synonym. What he was asking for could not have been hacked. You and your pantsuited hero's followers use that term. Just because your girl's apologists want to claim something completely different from what was said doesn't make it so. An apple is not an orange.
As for your example, I wouldn't have made a big deal about such a statement from her, but then there would have been nothing new about that, since she had a history of selling a favorable deal to Russia while in US government service in exchange for fat speaking fees and donations to her charity slush fund. And your example is very different because the Federal government already had/has Trump's tax returns and his businesses' tax returns. This is completely different from you girl Hillary's "missing" E-mails, which were evidence the Federal government needed but never received.
If you want to play the "what if" game, what if you found out that GWB's FBI had placed a spy in the Obama campaign after accusing him publicly of (say) colluding with Iran? No problem? Using the FBI to spy on a political opponent is a huge abuse of power in either case.
I didn't vote for Hillary nor did I recommend that anybody else do so.
The fact that you would assume I did based on the limited information I give you should throw many of the things that you've concluded about politics and other people into sharp doubt. Please try to think more deeply and critically in the future and I beseech you to avoid all ballot boxes till you do so.
(05-21-2018, 05:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 02:07 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't use the work "hack" or any synonym. What he was asking for could not have been hacked. You and your pantsuited hero's followers use that term. Just because your girl's apologists want to claim something completely different from what was said doesn't make it so. An apple is not an orange.
As for your example, I wouldn't have made a big deal about such a statement from her, but then there would have been nothing new about that, since she had a history of selling a favorable deal to Russia while in US government service in exchange for fat speaking fees and donations to her charity slush fund. And your example is very different because the Federal government already had/has Trump's tax returns and his businesses' tax returns. This is completely different from you girl Hillary's "missing" E-mails, which were evidence the Federal government needed but never received.
If you want to play the "what if" game, what if you found out that GWB's FBI had placed a spy in the Obama campaign after accusing him publicly of (say) colluding with Iran? No problem? Using the FBI to spy on a political opponent is a huge abuse of power in either case.
I didn't vote for Hillary nor did I recommend that anybody else do so.
The fact that you would assume I did based on the limited information I give you should throw many of the things that you've concluded about politics and other people into sharp doubt. Please try to think more deeply and critically in the future and I beseech you to avoid all ballot boxes till you do so.
You might as well be a Hillary lover considering the spin you've propagated here. The Hillary camp is the faction claiming Trump asked Russia to "hack" her. If you aren't part of them then you nonetheless subscribe to and buy into their rhetoric hook, line, and sinker.
(05-21-2018, 05:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 02:07 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't use the work "hack" or any synonym. What he was asking for could not have been hacked. You and your pantsuited hero's followers use that term. Just because your girl's apologists want to claim something completely different from what was said doesn't make it so. An apple is not an orange.
As for your example, I wouldn't have made a big deal about such a statement from her, but then there would have been nothing new about that, since she had a history of selling a favorable deal to Russia while in US government service in exchange for fat speaking fees and donations to her charity slush fund. And your example is very different because the Federal government already had/has Trump's tax returns and his businesses' tax returns. This is completely different from you girl Hillary's "missing" E-mails, which were evidence the Federal government needed but never received.
If you want to play the "what if" game, what if you found out that GWB's FBI had placed a spy in the Obama campaign after accusing him publicly of (say) colluding with Iran? No problem? Using the FBI to spy on a political opponent is a huge abuse of power in either case.
I didn't vote for Hillary nor did I recommend that anybody else do so.
The fact that you would assume I did, and that I did so with such gusto that she was my "pantsuited hero," based on the limited information I gave you, should throw many of the things that you've concluded about politics and other people into sharp doubt. Please try to think more deeply and critically in the future and I beseech you to avoid all ballot boxes till you do so.
(05-21-2018, 06:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 05:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't vote for Hillary nor did I recommend that anybody else do so.
The fact that you would assume I did based on the limited information I give you should throw many of the things that you've concluded about politics and other people into sharp doubt. Please try to think more deeply and critically in the future and I beseech you to avoid all ballot boxes till you do so.
You might as well be a Hillary lover considering the spin you've propagated here. The Hillary camp is the faction claiming Trump asked Russia to "hack" her. If you aren't part of them then you nonetheless subscribe to and buy into their rhetoric hook, line, and sinker.
Even if he didn't use the word "hack," the comment was still probable cause to investigate his campaign for collusion with a hostile foreign government.
(05-21-2018, 10:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 06:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]You might as well be a Hillary lover considering the spin you've propagated here. The Hillary camp is the faction claiming Trump asked Russia to "hack" her. If you aren't part of them then you nonetheless subscribe to and buy into their rhetoric hook, line, and sinker.
Even if he didn't use the word "hack," the comment was still probable cause to investigate his campaign for collusion with a hostile foreign government.
Welcome to the Jungle, where you're either a Trumpette or a filthy [BLEEP] fasco-communist out to take our guns, give our jobs to Mexicans and use the wrong bathroom.