Why this isn't like Watergate

dflea said:

HoustonHusky said:

Its simple...in Watergate you had Republicans that looked at what happened and said they didn't approve.

Now no matter what laws were broken and whatever happened you won't see a single Democrat look at the same thing and say it was wrong. They will defend their own until the bitter end...hell look at HondoFS, boobs and Cirrhosis of the brain as examples...

lol

HoustonHusky said:

A long but great article by Andrew McCarthy (former assistant US Attorney) detailing the various frauds from the FISA aspect.

I'm sure its too long for Boobs and flea to comprehend and we already know there is no hope for HondoFS and Cirrhosis of the brain...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456287/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier

a few excerpts...

As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge. Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . . and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that.
...

Let that sink in, then think about this contrast: No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator. Jim Comey, despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele’s, including Senate confirmations to some of federal law-enforcement’s loftiest positions, would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI, the Justice Department, the president, and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability. The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.
...

In fact, they kept telling the FISA court he was reliable even after Steele himself admitted to a British court that his dossier wasn’t at all reliable.

What’s that? Am I kidding? No.
...

Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele’s sources after months of investigation, even though Steele had lied to them, the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again, in April and June 2017, that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele’s reliability. By early 2017, however, Steele was being sued for libel in Britain, among other places, by people accused of misconduct in the dossier.

Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense.
...

I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.

I was wrong.

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

Its simple...in Watergate you had Republicans that looked at what happened and said they didn't approve.

Now no matter what laws were broken and whatever happened you won't see a single Democrat look at the same thing and say it was wrong. They will defend their own until the bitter end...hell look at HondoFS, boobs and Cirrhosis of the brain as examples...

Seriously dood. If there were only one single thing with which I'd take issue with the current republican party, it would be that.

Other than McCain, and once in a while, depending on just how far off the reservation (sorry Swaye) the administration has gone, another one or two lone Rs standing in the way, this is party politics today. Please regale me with tales of Ryan and the other Hitler youth standing against the tide. Jeebus you could have picked almost any other issue.

I won't say the Ds are any better, but come on. The former party of Reagan, now the party of dim-witted tea baggers, will support anyfuckingthing that comes out the banana play book.

There is literally zero room for maneuver on this one.

PS: if anything, the left has eaten, and will eat, their own. Axe Weinstein or one of the other numerous Hollywood and other placed men who are now being called to the carpet for being too handsy in the past. Those fuckers will ruin anybody, regardless of party affiliation.

Your confusing politics with law...politically you can bitch about both sides CYA and that's fine (not sure how that's applicable to the many Repubs that have and do disagree with Trump but whatever). But to rope the IRS into political attacks, interfering/killing investigations into painfully obvious breaches of law, and starting fake investigations because you don't like somebody is something completely different.

But why sweat the details...

CirrhosisDawg said:

HoustonHusky said:

A long but great article by Andrew McCarthy (former assistant US Attorney) detailing the various frauds from the FISA aspect.

I'm sure its too long for Boobs and flea to comprehend and we already know there is no hope for HondoFS and Cirrhosis of the brain...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456287/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier

a few excerpts...

As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge. Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . . and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that.
...

Let that sink in, then think about this contrast: No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator. Jim Comey, despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele’s, including Senate confirmations to some of federal law-enforcement’s loftiest positions, would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI, the Justice Department, the president, and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability. The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.
...

In fact, they kept telling the FISA court he was reliable even after Steele himself admitted to a British court that his dossier wasn’t at all reliable.

What’s that? Am I kidding? No.
...

Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele’s sources after months of investigation, even though Steele had lied to them, the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again, in April and June 2017, that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele’s reliability. By early 2017, however, Steele was being sued for libel in Britain, among other places, by people accused of misconduct in the dossier.

Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense.
...

I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.

I was wrong.

Way to cherry pick McCarthy from NRO. Why don’t you quote Shapiro, Williamson, French or Goldberg, all NRO columnists, on the same memos and topic? You don’t like their analysis on NRO but like McCarthy’s so you repost it?

As @YellowSnow and @dflea have posted, there’s a lot of information still to come. One obvious conclusion to be drawn as of today, however, is that you are full of shit.

dflea said:

HoustonHusky said:

Bravo...further proof it was too long for "Hey you are a 'fag' for pointing out I'm dumb" to comprehend...

Further proof you're a faggot.

If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.