https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-s...not-spying

semantics battle it seems.

Basically what Comey is saying—-

“When we bugged a campaign and used both electronic monitoring and human assets within the campaign—we weren’t spying. When we regularly reported Trump campaign data obtained from the “not spying”activities to Obama—those were just informative meetings—not spying. Because the extensive “not spying” was done by law enforcement, using lies and faked evidence to obtain the use of intelligence assets, it’s really just monitoring and information gathering. Had Watergate been done this way, it wouldn’t have been spying or illegal. It would have been “not spying”...clearly something all together different from spying. Really hard to figure out what Barr means when uses that whole “spying” term. It’s an inappropriate label for our “not spying” activities that were handled by 17 seperate intelligence agencies.”

I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.

How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

(04-12-2019 09:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-s...not-spying

Any bets that if the "surveillance" was setup on HIM it would spying in his mind.....

(04-12-2019 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.
How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

The FISA warrant was clearly obtained improperly, if not illegally. I'm assuming that the dossier was a part, but not a major or deciding part, of the information filed to support the FISA application; that only parts of the dossier were included; and that most of the parts that were filed with the FISA court had been independently verified. I base those assumptions on Adam Schiff's comments in a CNN interview. If those assumptions are correct, then the FISA warrant was not properly issued.

I'm no fan of the FISA court as currently structured. I have said before that I believe there needs to be a statutory ad litem to represent the interests of the target. If such an ad litem had been present, and had made a proper inquiry into the verification of the dossier, then either someone would have perjured his/herself or the warrant would not have been issued. Either way, anything coming from that warrant or its progeny would be fruit of the poisoned tree.

(04-12-2019 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.

How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

They were forthcoming. The source was listed within the footnotes of the request and it’s asinine to believe a judge reviewing the request would not take the time to review the noted sources.

Barr implied there was something more going on; and if that’s the case, then it is owed more than just an off-the-cuff remark.

I guess we'll just have to investigate.

Everything comey, mccabe and rosenstein did or signed off on is going to have to be masked in levels of "well, technically..", semantics, and plausible deniability.

They are in deep shite, and know it. Trump was never supposed to win. This was all supposed to be able to be covered up.

(04-12-2019 11:45 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.

How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

They were forthcoming. The source was listed within the footnotes of the request and it’s asinine to believe a judge reviewing the request would not take the time to review the noted sources.

Barr implied there was something more going on; and if that’s the case, then it is owed more than just an off-the-cuff remark.

And more will be given. It is called an investigation and Barr has already started down that path.

As for Comey ... he's corrupt to the core and I wouldn't trust him to be truthful in anything he says. He and Lynch did a total cover up job for Hillary regarding her felonious assault on the nation's Classified Data.

(04-12-2019 12:27 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 11:45 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.

How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

They were forthcoming. The source was listed within the footnotes of the request and it’s asinine to believe a judge reviewing the request would not take the time to review the noted sources.

Barr implied there was something more going on; and if that’s the case, then it is owed more than just an off-the-cuff remark.

And more will be given. It is called an investigation and Barr has already started down that path.

As for Comey ... he's corrupt to the core and I wouldn't trust him to be truthful in anything he says. He and Lynch did a total cover up job for Hillary regarding her felonious assault on the nation's Classified Data.

If there has been no investigation, then how irresponsible of the attorney general to offer up the certainty of a crime??

(04-12-2019 11:45 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.

How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

They were forthcoming. The source was listed within the footnotes of the request and it’s asinine to believe a judge reviewing the request would not take the time to review the noted sources.

Barr implied there was something more going on; and if that’s the case, then it is owed more than just an off-the-cuff remark.

it's coming

(04-12-2019 12:42 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 12:27 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 11:45 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.

How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

They were forthcoming. The source was listed within the footnotes of the request and it’s asinine to believe a judge reviewing the request would not take the time to review the noted sources.

Barr implied there was something more going on; and if that’s the case, then it is owed more than just an off-the-cuff remark.

And more will be given. It is called an investigation and Barr has already started down that path.

As for Comey ... he's corrupt to the core and I wouldn't trust him to be truthful in anything he says. He and Lynch did a total cover up job for Hillary regarding her felonious assault on the nation's Classified Data.

If there has been no investigation, then how irresponsible of the attorney general to offer up the certainty of a crime??

Are you moving the goal post now?

Your own words ... "Barr implied there was something more going on; and if that’s the case, then it is owed more than just an off-the-cuff remark".

Even you - till just now - didn't say that Barr said he was certain a crime had been committed.

Let me ask you since you obviously have an opinion about this. Do YOU think there is something to be investigated with how all of the "Russian Collusion" Special Counsel got started? Do YOU think there was any foul play involved with any of this to support the Democrats and to attack Trump?

For the record ... I would answer with an emphatic YES to both questions.

Truth isn't truth. Works for me.

(04-12-2019 09:36 AM)VA49er Wrote:  semantics battle it seems.

Gross negligence-extremely careless.....coming from the same spook.

(04-12-2019 11:45 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't understand the reaction to the word spying, other than to distract from the actual issue. It's an established fact that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant (and maybe before, lol). And they sent one or more informants in.

How is that not spying? The issue is whether it was legally justified or not. And no, an issued warrant from a FISA court obtained without being forthcoming about the source of the dossier doesn't count.

They were forthcoming. The source was listed within the footnotes of the request and it’s asinine to believe a judge reviewing the request would not take the time to review the noted sources.

Barr implied there was something more going on; and if that’s the case, then it is owed more than just an off-the-cuff remark.

Straw man argument. They didnt offer what they knew at the time---ie, the FBI's own informant told them the data was suspect, from a biased source, and UNVERIFIED. FISA law REQUIRES all evidence in a FISA warrant be VERIFIED. By including in the FISA request and not expressly stating the data was UNVERIFIED they were essentially representing that the dossier was verified actionable evidence.

They lied to a FISA judge to get a FISA order to spy on the Trump campaign. Look---flip the script to 2008. McCain Campaign pays an ex-intelligence source to write a dossier full of unverified claims from unnamed sources claiming Obama has multiple terrorist links (you could even include his relationship with Ayers). The George Bush FBI then uses that dossier to get a FISA order to spy on the Obama campaign using 17 US intellegence agencies, electronic monitoring, bugs, and actual human assets placed within the Obama campaign. The FBI then give regular reports on the "investigation" to the White House....which are then leaked back to McCain through a private email server not connected to the government using fake names. The democrats would be going ape crap crazy over this---as would the press....and everyone knows thats true.

(04-12-2019 01:29 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Truth isn't truth. Works for me.

There are many different truths. Alternative truths if you will.

(04-12-2019 10:14 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 09:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-s...not-spying

Any bets that if the "surveillance" was setup on HIM it would spying in his mind.....

(04-12-2019 09:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-s...not-spying

Uhhhhh, Homey?

Is spying surveillance?

They're farking synonyms, and Jims an idiot.

Frankly, I don't trust this dickhead's words... Nor that fuckface Clapper.