- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FISA Application Breakdown
Posted on 7/22/18 at 8:30 pm to starsandstripes
Posted on 7/22/18 at 8:30 pm to starsandstripes
quote:Yes you can. You can surmise that information was added to the applications, and that it was enough for 3 different federal judges to approve.
you can't surmise anything from changing length of a given section.
Attacking a Fisa warrant on Carter "Please love me, mother Russia" Page is about as Quixotic a quest as there is, but making up shite that isn't true about it looks even dumber.
Posted on 7/22/18 at 8:53 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Yes you can. You can surmise that information was added to the applications, and that it was enough for 3 different federal judges to approve.
Attacking a Fisa warrant on Carter "Please love me, mother Russia" Page is about as Quixotic a quest as there is, but making up shite that isn't true about it looks even dumber.
I showed several instances of the application flat out lying.
I showed where completely unverified information from unverified sources was used.
I showed where unverified news articles were used.
I showed where the FBI avoided informing the FISC who funded the Dossier.
And I showed where the FBI knew the Yahoo article was sourced by Steele, and yet they continued to used it like a 2nd independent corroborating source, then continued to lie in each renewal claiming they didn’t believe Steele was the source.
They never asked Isikoff who sourced his article, so it’s an irrefutable attempt at obfuscation and willful dishonesty.
But you want to sit here and not only avoid discussing those issues, but then insist that we’re supposed to believe they followed protocol with the rest of it???
You really don’t understand the concept of “credibility”, and how being wildly dishonest in the unredacted parts we can see makes it absurdly impossible to believe the redacted parts are truthful and prudent.
I’m sure the concept of honesty is hard for your type, so I don’t expect you to understand.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 7:41 am to JuiceTerry
quote:Was all of the "new" data redacted?
You can surmise that information was added to the applications, and that it was enough for 3 different federal judges to approve.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News