Whether you agree or disagree with a so called memo none of has seen aren’t the media and the Dems trying to squash free speech?
[image/video deleted]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
The media really can't quash free speech. Nor can a minority on a committee.
I get your point, but this is both sides playing with national security and selective disclosure.
It's political, which is what happens when a legislative body extends itself to quasi judicial activities.
Of course, what's the best example of that.... Starts with an I, and it's not going to happen unless and until Trump makes himself look so dirty that even Republicans vote for it.
Sure looks like Trump is trying to do down that road then. The one side only release looks bad.
I get your point, but this is both sides playing with national security and selective disclosure.
It's political, which is what happens when a legislative body extends itself to quasi judicial activities.
Of course, what's the best example of that.... Starts with an I, and it's not going to happen unless and until Trump makes himself look so dirty that even Republicans vote for it.
Sure looks like Trump is trying to do down that road then. The one side only release looks bad.
katielass · F
@MistyCee Who said anything had to be pretty. Of course it's not pretty. It's downright embarrassing for the entire world to see that our democrat party colluded to affect the 2016 election and when those pre-election efforts failed they conspired to derail a duly elected president. I never thought I'd see the day when something like this would happen. It's like the dems turned us into a third world country overnight. This ugliness didn't have to happen but because the dems have an insatiable quest for power it did happen.
@jackjjackson. What truth? Whose version of the truth?
And who decides there's no there there?
I kind of like the idea that someone besides the government digs around in the dirt.
Not to say I like ALL of the dumpster divers, but it's not a First Amendment issue.
And who decides there's no there there?
I kind of like the idea that someone besides the government digs around in the dirt.
Not to say I like ALL of the dumpster divers, but it's not a First Amendment issue.
jackjjackson · M
Even the media admits that it’s claim the release of the memo would compromise national security issues was false and the memo doesn’t compromise national not a little bit. @MistyCee
@katielass Yup. That's the story Nunes needed to put his signature on (and get it out before the other side).
Hasn't Hannity been saying all this?
Why is it so important that this set of talking points is released?
Sorry, but this is just theater IMO, and a chance to say that a partisan committee has opined ....
Hasn't Hannity been saying all this?
Why is it so important that this set of talking points is released?
Sorry, but this is just theater IMO, and a chance to say that a partisan committee has opined ....
jackjjackson · M
You’ve read one part of the tea leaves. A big part. @katielass
katielass · F
@MistyCee I've read the memo. We now know the fake dossier was used to get the fisa warrants. We also know that according to Andrew mc cabe's testimony in December that they could not have gotten the warrants without the dossier info. Now if the dossier had been true or they had not known it was fake that would be unfortunate but not criminal but they KNEW it was fake/false. I'm afraid the left's hatred for trump and the deplorable people who elected him just probably set manafort free of any charges. Because unless they had probable cause without the dossier those charges will be dismissed because it is a violation of his 4th amendment rights. so he skates on money laundering and tax evasion, acts considered against the United States. Of course, what's one more sleazeball running around in elite circles.
@katielass I gotta go back to work, but, read carefully. McCabe said he wouldn't have asked for the warrant, he didn't say it couldn't have been obtained, just that it wouldn't have.
The deal with the exclusionary rule/poisonous tree thing is all about whether there is other evidence, which is really why one side's story is pretty much not so useful, especially when edited for security purposes.
I'm not saying it doesn't support the narrative, just saying it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
This is not calculated to get indictments dismissed, even if the underlying facts might. It's calculated for public consumption and political purposes.
The deal with the exclusionary rule/poisonous tree thing is all about whether there is other evidence, which is really why one side's story is pretty much not so useful, especially when edited for security purposes.
I'm not saying it doesn't support the narrative, just saying it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
This is not calculated to get indictments dismissed, even if the underlying facts might. It's calculated for public consumption and political purposes.
katielass · F
@MistyCee You can try to paint this as a partisan effort, I'm fine with that. I happen to believe all the info should be put out there. But the fact remains that the FBI reviewed this memo and stated it is factually accurate. They state there is info not included in the memo but I fail to see how anything left out can possibly mitigate these facts. In other words, the facts presented in the memo are factually accurate and no additions can make them untrue.