There Was Spying On The Trump Campaign

[seer]

Yeah, the FISA judges were corrupt as well, right. You people are making yourselves look more naive each day. So easily led. No wonder we have a president Trump!

No Jim, it is not about the judges but what was used and how they got the information that they gave the judges for the warrants.

[oxmixmudd]

You know, Jim, you can really be grumpy old fart, you know that?

You had said And I was politely objecting to that, as I think BOTH sides stink.

The entire quote is:

However, it is a major problem when one or both sides lose complete sight[SIC] of the importance of impartiality and principle. I know most posting here would like to think there is only one side doing that.

Now in isolation, I think you can see that I am, in fact, talking about both sides. And when I say MOST I'm not saying 'Trump supporters'. I'm saying MOST. Which includes people on the left, and people on the right. What I'm saying is that each side thinks it is (primarily) the other side that has lost sight of impartiality and principle. Each side pushes against what the constitution provides that is designed to protect us from the abuse of power, both sides try to defeat those safeguards thinking that somehow because they are 'right' in what they think and these safeguards limit their power to impose what they know is 'right', the safeguards somehow are more a hindrance than a help.

So I was not being a 'grumpy old fart', I was trying to politely nudge you to recognize the fact you are not understanding my point. You see, you said what I said, but you said it as an objection, not in agreement. So clearly you did not understand my point.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You think there is a moral equivalence between a president legally firing someone, and members of the intelligence community conspiring with the presidential administration to illegally spy on a candidate in the opposing party and start a counter intelligence operation under false pretenses?

Seriously?

I think it is immoral for the president to fire a person that refuses to violate the law, or put the presidents wishes above the constitution.

I think is is not a conspiracy to investigate the potential compromise of any individual who has withheld information about contacts with hostile foreign entities, especially if those individuals are vying for political office where they have access to critical information that could compromise the security and well being of every person in this country.

What you fail to realize MM is that the 'red flags' that prompted the actions are 'red flags' regardless of party. Donald Trump nor any of his children would not be able to get a security clearance if they where applying on their own merits. It is as simple as that. They show all the warning signs associated with individuals compromised by a foreign government. ANY employee holding a security clearance behaving like DT has would be flagged and reported and investigated.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

No Jim, it is not about the judges but what was used and how they got the information that they gave the judges for the warrants.

Right, and we know they lied to the court about the source of the dossier, never revealing that it was opposition research paid for by the Hillary campaign, and they leaked details of the dossier to the media and then presented stories based on those leaks as independent corroboration of the dossier without telling the court they had leaked the details in the first place. There are also a lot of questions surrounding Carter Page, who was a trusted and valuable FBI asset in mid-2016, and then a few months later was suddenly and inexplicably accused of being a foreign agent as justification to begin a wide-ranging intelligence operation against the Trump campaign. We also know, based on texts between lovers Lisa Page and Peter Stzork, that one of their biggest fears was that it would be discovered that "there was literally nothing" to the Collusion Delusion.

This is why Trump and Barr seem intent on getting to the genesis of this thing. Knock away the sketchy foundation, and all the rest will come tumbling down.

[Mountain Man]

I think it is immoral for the president to fire a person that refuses to violate the law, or put the presidents wishes above the constitution.

I guess it's a good thing, then, that Trump never did anything like that.

[oxmixmudd]

I guess it's a good thing, then, that Trump never did anything like that.

Yates. Sessions. Comey. Nielson. Tillerson. Kelly. Should I go on?

Trump does not recognize the necessity of the independence of the judicial branch, or an apolitical position in law enforcement or intelligence, nor does he respect those that honestly disagree with him and tell him so. He fires them and attempts to rehire replacements that are willing to elevate himself and his wishes above their own expertise and above the law and/or the constitution. Barr is just such an attempted replacement. And Barr so far has demonstrated significantly more willingness to yield principle to Trump's demands than those that preceded him. I'm sure we will see the same as DHS is gutted and refitted.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

Right, and we can see your objectivity in your postings, CP. "fed up with both sides"

That I'm not here every day viciously and insanely attacking Trump (like you losers) has nothing to do with my objectivity, and I am, indeed, fed up with both sides.

[Mountain Man]

Yates. Sessions. Comey. Nielson. Tillerson. Kelly. Should I go on?

Go on listing people who have exited the Trump campaign? Sure, if you want, but what I'm not seeing is anything to suggest that they were fired because they refused to break the law.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, the FISA judges were corrupt as well, right.

What a moronic conclusion. No, it's entirely possible that they looked at the matter brought before them, trusted those presenting it, and were not given the exculpatory evidence.

You people are making yourselves look more naive each day. So easily led.

Says the boy who gets his "leftist talking points for dummies" and dutifully regurgitates everything it says.

No wonder we have a president Trump!

Hillary is not POTUS and SCOTUS is not Hillary's.

[Cow Poke]

So I was not being a 'grumpy old fart'

were too!

[JimL]

No Jim, it is not about the judges but what was used and how they got the information that they gave the judges for the warrants.

I think we can trust the judges evaluation of that more than we can trust your biased perspective, seer. If not, then you are supporting the actual coup taking place under Trump. Trump is accusing the U.S. government of a coup while at the same time he is in the process of perpetrating a coup on democracy itself. Wake the bleep up, will you!

[Cow Poke]

....If not, then you are supporting the actual coup taking place under Trump....!

Is this the latest leftist blooming idiot talking point? Jim, I gotta hand it to you, you are a RIOT!

[JimL]

I guess it's a good thing, then, that Trump never did anything like that.

Of course he did you blithering idiot. He fired Comey, and he admitted exactly why he did so both to the news on live tv and to the Russian ambassador in the oval office of all places. How stupid do you have to be to not recognize that? You like to think your smart, but you are a complete nincompoop!

[JimL]

Is this the latest leftist blooming idiot talking point? Jim, I gotta hand it to you, you are a RIOT!

No, it isn't a talking point it is an obvious observation on my part, and you like MM, are blind fool.

[Cow Poke]

...You like to think your smart, but you are a complete nincompoop!

It's "you're", Jimmy. Every time you get on one of these "you're an idiot" rants, you screw up and show what an uneducated ignoramus you are.

"your" is a possessive, like "your socks, your house, your first name" -- "you're" is a contraction, like "you are a blooming idiot, Jim".