Travesty
-
You all might as well name names.
-
For all I know you weren't even posting at the time, Aqua. I only noticed that no Trump hater raised an objection. Maybe at most "well see this is what happens when you elect a lunatic". I mean had a similar thing happened to Obama it would have been treason this and treason that splashed across every media outlet's front pages until the terrorists in the White House had been rooted out.
In any case, I said my piece about it then. It was merely amusing. I really don't expect much in the way of intellectual coherence when it comes to the opinions of Trump haters regarding anything Trump. It would be madness to expect much. People are enjoying their righteous hatred and it's not within normal human parameters to be motivated to care about hypocrisy etc as long as the tribe encouraging the hate is large enough.
I actually think it's pretty normal, if one feels about a president the way TDS folk feel about Trump, to be perfectly fine with breaking all the rules to get rid of him.
-
People are enjoying their righteous hatred
Yeah I think maybe it would be healthier to tone that down a little. I know very little about this topic and it's absolutely possible you're right about everything that's being said about Trump. But to me it sounds like this thread stopped being about him a handful of posts back.
-
This thread is not really about Trump, other than the fact that people are so colored by their opinion, that they will ignore treason and sedition, not really caring what happens to the country.
I've been beating a drum from the beginning of this subversion of the U.S. system.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
This thread is not really about Trump, other than the fact that people are so colored by their opinion, that they will ignore treason and sedition, not really caring what happens to the country.
I've been beating a drum from the beginning of this subversion of the U.S. system.
This thread is not really about Trump, other than the fact that people are so colored by their opinion, that they will ignore treason and sedition, not really caring what happens to the country.
I've been beating a drum from the beginning of this subversion of the U.S. system.
Yes
Obviously
Someone has to be held accountable -
Somebody needs to go to jail.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I haven't been following this investigation too closely. Some questions I'd have:
-
How loose / tight are judges normally with granting a FISA request?
-
Is the sloppy rationale for the (was it papadopolous?) warrant the norm, or an exception? Maybe most FISA requests are pretty flimsy and don't really follow the letter of the law
-
What was the genesis of the probe? Was someone out to get Trump, or did this investigation just escalate in an organic manner
I feel like I can't really have a good opinion here until at least the Durham report is done and there are more facts. Also - I'm inclined to be against surveillance in general (didn't like the Patriot Act), I feel like shady stuff is gonna happen if you have shady programs.
Comey is also an interesting character. Reviled across the political spectrum. Let's not forget he was most probably the decisive factor in Trump getting elected in the first place.
-
-
I haven't been following this investigation too closely. Some questions I'd have:
-
How loose / tight are judges normally with granting a FISA request?
-
Is the sloppy rationale for the (was it papadopolous?) warrant the norm, or an exception? Maybe most FISA requests are pretty flimsy and don't really follow the letter of the law
-
What was the genesis of the probe? Was someone out to get Trump, or did this investigation just escalate in an organic manner
I feel like I can't really have a good opinion here until at least the Durham report is done and there are more facts. Also - I'm inclined to be against surveillance in general (didn't like the Patriot Act), I feel like shady stuff is gonna happen if you have shady programs.
Comey is also an interesting character. Reviled across the political spectrum. Let's not forget he was most probably the decisive factor in Trump getting elected in the first place.
I haven't been following this investigation too closely. Some questions I'd have:
-
How loose / tight are judges normally with granting a FISA request?
-
Is the sloppy rationale for the (was it papadopolous?) warrant the norm, or an exception? Maybe most FISA requests are pretty flimsy and don't really follow the letter of the law
-
What was the genesis of the probe? Was someone out to get Trump, or did this investigation just escalate in an organic manner
I feel like I can't really have a good opinion here until at least the Durham report is done and there are more facts. Also - I'm inclined to be against surveillance in general (didn't like the Patriot Act), I feel like shady stuff is gonna happen if you have shady programs.
Comey is also an interesting character. Reviled across the political spectrum. Let's not forget he was most probably the decisive factor in Trump getting elected in the first place.
This is one I think everybody needs to follow.
In fact, I think in terms of importance, I'd rank it right behind the current pandemic.
-
-
Yeah, it's Greg Jarrett. But is what any of what he says false?
In 2018 the House Intelligence Committee “forged a rare bipartisan moment: Its Republican and Democratic members voted to make public the transcripts of 53 witnesses in the Russia collusion investigation,” John Solomon’s Just the News reminds us. However, that act of transparency has been aggressively thwarted by Adam Schiff.
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) took over as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) from Republican Devin Nunes in 2019. It was then that Schiff deployed his disgraceful strategy. Schiff sent a letter to the office of then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, which Just the News has obtained.
In the letter, Schiff “ordered that the witness transcripts – some of which contained exculpatory evidence for President Trump’s team – not be shared with Trump or White House lawyers even if the declassification process required such sharing.” The letter, dated March 26, 2019 stated:
Under no circumstances shall ODNI, or any other element of the Intelligence Community (IC), share any HPSCI transcripts with the White House, President Trump or any persons associated with the White House or the President…Such transcripts remain the sole property of HPSCI, and were transmitted to ODNI for the limited purpose of enabling a classification review by IC elements and the Department of Justice.
U.S. intelligence officials explain the severe consequence of Schiff’s actions. Officials say the request made it “impossible for them to declassify 10 of the transcripts, mostly of current and former White House and National Security Council witnesses, because White House lawyers would have had to review them for what is known as ‘White House equities’ and presidential privileges.” Just the News states 43 transcripts have been made declassified and “cleared for public release and given to Schiff’s team, but they have never been made public despite the committee’s vote to do so.”
Republicans would like to see testimonies of some key figures such as former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Michael Sussman, a private lawyer for the Democratic Party, be made public. “Republicans had hoped the witnesses’ testimonies would be released before the 2018 election so Americans could see some of the problems with the Russia probe and the false narrative of collusion that had been foisted on the public.” Unfortunately that did not occur and the “declassification efforts dragged into 2019, when Democrats took control of the House.”
Just the News notes that spokesmen for Schiff and House Intelligence Committee Democrats did not return emails seeking comment. Additionally, Just the News writes that Schiff’s letter came “just as Special Counsel Robert Mueller was releasing his final report, which declared there wasn’t evidence to prove the core allegation lodged against Trump by Democrats – that Trump had colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.”
-
Yeah, it's Greg Jarrett. But is what any of what he says false?
In 2018 the House Intelligence Committee “forged a rare bipartisan moment: Its Republican and Democratic members voted to make public the transcripts of 53 witnesses in the Russia collusion investigation,” John Solomon’s Just the News reminds us. However, that act of transparency has been aggressively thwarted by Adam Schiff.
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) took over as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) from Republican Devin Nunes in 2019. It was then that Schiff deployed his disgraceful strategy. Schiff sent a letter to the office of then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, which Just the News has obtained.
In the letter, Schiff “ordered that the witness transcripts – some of which contained exculpatory evidence for President Trump’s team – not be shared with Trump or White House lawyers even if the declassification process required such sharing.” The letter, dated March 26, 2019 stated:
Under no circumstances shall ODNI, or any other element of the Intelligence Community (IC), share any HPSCI transcripts with the White House, President Trump or any persons associated with the White House or the President…Such transcripts remain the sole property of HPSCI, and were transmitted to ODNI for the limited purpose of enabling a classification review by IC elements and the Department of Justice.
U.S. intelligence officials explain the severe consequence of Schiff’s actions. Officials say the request made it “impossible for them to declassify 10 of the transcripts, mostly of current and former White House and National Security Council witnesses, because White House lawyers would have had to review them for what is known as ‘White House equities’ and presidential privileges.” Just the News states 43 transcripts have been made declassified and “cleared for public release and given to Schiff’s team, but they have never been made public despite the committee’s vote to do so.”
Republicans would like to see testimonies of some key figures such as former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Michael Sussman, a private lawyer for the Democratic Party, be made public. “Republicans had hoped the witnesses’ testimonies would be released before the 2018 election so Americans could see some of the problems with the Russia probe and the false narrative of collusion that had been foisted on the public.” Unfortunately that did not occur and the “declassification efforts dragged into 2019, when Democrats took control of the House.”
Just the News notes that spokesmen for Schiff and House Intelligence Committee Democrats did not return emails seeking comment. Additionally, Just the News writes that Schiff’s letter came “just as Special Counsel Robert Mueller was releasing his final report, which declared there wasn’t evidence to prove the core allegation lodged against Trump by Democrats – that Trump had colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.”
Yeah, it's Greg Jarrett. But is what any of what he says false?
In 2018 the House Intelligence Committee “forged a rare bipartisan moment: Its Republican and Democratic members voted to make public the transcripts of 53 witnesses in the Russia collusion investigation,” John Solomon’s Just the News reminds us. However, that act of transparency has been aggressively thwarted by Adam Schiff.
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) took over as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) from Republican Devin Nunes in 2019. It was then that Schiff deployed his disgraceful strategy. Schiff sent a letter to the office of then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, which Just the News has obtained.
In the letter, Schiff “ordered that the witness transcripts – some of which contained exculpatory evidence for President Trump’s team – not be shared with Trump or White House lawyers even if the declassification process required such sharing.” The letter, dated March 26, 2019 stated:
Under no circumstances shall ODNI, or any other element of the Intelligence Community (IC), share any HPSCI transcripts with the White House, President Trump or any persons associated with the White House or the President…Such transcripts remain the sole property of HPSCI, and were transmitted to ODNI for the limited purpose of enabling a classification review by IC elements and the Department of Justice.
U.S. intelligence officials explain the severe consequence of Schiff’s actions. Officials say the request made it “impossible for them to declassify 10 of the transcripts, mostly of current and former White House and National Security Council witnesses, because White House lawyers would have had to review them for what is known as ‘White House equities’ and presidential privileges.” Just the News states 43 transcripts have been made declassified and “cleared for public release and given to Schiff’s team, but they have never been made public despite the committee’s vote to do so.”
Republicans would like to see testimonies of some key figures such as former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Michael Sussman, a private lawyer for the Democratic Party, be made public. “Republicans had hoped the witnesses’ testimonies would be released before the 2018 election so Americans could see some of the problems with the Russia probe and the false narrative of collusion that had been foisted on the public.” Unfortunately that did not occur and the “declassification efforts dragged into 2019, when Democrats took control of the House.”
Just the News notes that spokesmen for Schiff and House Intelligence Committee Democrats did not return emails seeking comment. Additionally, Just the News writes that Schiff’s letter came “just as Special Counsel Robert Mueller was releasing his final report, which declared there wasn’t evidence to prove the core allegation lodged against Trump by Democrats – that Trump had colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.”
In other words, we held a rigged impeachment...
-
Christopher Steele told a British court last month that he no longer has documents and other information from his meetings with the main source for his Trump dossier, suggesting that the former British spy has no way of backing up his side in a dispute with the Justice Department’s inspector general (IG), according to a deposition transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Steele also told the court that his communications regarding the dossier, including with Fusion GPS, were “wiped” in December 2016 and January 2017, the transcript shows.
-
Christopher Steele told a British court last month that he no longer has documents and other information from his meetings with the main source for his Trump dossier, suggesting that the former British spy has no way of backing up his side in a dispute with the Justice Department’s inspector general (IG), according to a deposition transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Steele also told the court that his communications regarding the dossier, including with Fusion GPS, were “wiped” in December 2016 and January 2017, the transcript shows.
Christopher Steele told a British court last month that he no longer has documents and other information from his meetings with the main source for his Trump dossier, suggesting that the former British spy has no way of backing up his side in a dispute with the Justice Department’s inspector general (IG), according to a deposition transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Steele also told the court that his communications regarding the dossier, including with Fusion GPS, were “wiped” in December 2016 and January 2017, the transcript shows.
Bwhahahahahahaha!
-
Somebody needs to go to jail.
They ALL need to go to jail. This will likely be the main topic in late Aug thru November.
Once the pandemic settles down, this will explode on the scene, led by Durham indictments.... very public indictments.
And guess who the VP was when all this was going down? He won't be able to run from this during the debates.
-
I notice some of our regular TDS sufferers are avoiding this thread...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Just because Trump's a walking anus doesn't mean I need to read this thread or give a crap about its implications. I honestly don't care who goes to prison over what here. If it's the people you don't like I'm happy for you, but I'm not a supporter.
-
Source Says FBI Director Christopher Wray Pushed To Withhold Exculpatory Evidence In Mike Flynn Case
Federal Bureau of Investigations Director Christopher Wray fought to prevent exculpatory evidence from surfacing in the case of President Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, a source with direct knowledge of the situation tells Daily Caller.
New court documents were filed in Flynn’s case Friday containing the aforementioned exculpatory evidence, commonly referred to as Brady Material. Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, announced the new filing on Twitter. She has repeatedly accused the FBI and Justice Department of hiding evidence in the case.
“This afternoon, the government produced to Mr. Flynn stunning Brady evidence that proves Mr. Flynn’s allegations of having been deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI,” Powell wrote in an additional filing. “The government has deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution—knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.”
“Since August 2016 at the latest, partisan FBI and DOJ leaders conspired to destroy Mr. Flynn,” she continued. “These documents show in their own handwriting and emails that they intended either to create an offense they could prosecute or at least get him fired.”
Powell claimed that more exculpatory evidence in the case will surface in the future.
