- 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: Comey Admits He Knew Democrats Financed ‘Pee’ Dossier Before FISA Warrant Signoff
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:07 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:07 pm to BBONDS25
What wasn't disclosed?
And how do you suppose that affected the determination of probable cause?
And how do you suppose that affected the determination of probable cause?
This post was edited on 12/10/18 at 8:09 pm
2
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:16 pm to Decatur
quote:
What wasn't disclosed? And how do you suppose that affected the determination of probable cause?
That the “evidence” was unverified and funded by the political opposition. That would go to the weight of the evidence. Whether that would have changed the judges mind is irrelevant. The party seeking the warrant has a duty. You don’t get to sugarcoat a warrant app. This is very basic stuff Decatur. I’m disappointed you are playing dumb.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:21 pm to Decatur
quote:
And how do you suppose that affected the determination of probable cause?
Were you born retarded or did you just become that way over time?
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:23 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
That the “evidence” was unverified and funded by the political opposition.
It was rather clearly identified as opposition research to discredit the campaign of Candidate #1 (aka Individual-1). Cleary identified as open source from a source with a good track record.
These guys aren't dumb.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:28 pm to Decatur
quote:
These guys aren't dumb.
They aren’t honest either. Everyone should be worried about this practice. You are ok with it because orange man is bad.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:28 pm to BBONDS25
What were they dishonest about?
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:29 pm to BBONDS25
Do we know it wasn’t disclosed?
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:29 pm to Decatur
It wasn’t full disclosure. FULL. They misled the court.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:30 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Do we know it wasn’t disclosed?
Let’s go with this. If the application didn’t fully disclose, will you admit it was a violation of their duty?
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:30 pm to BBONDS25
Just a dumb question but how do we justify indicting Russian internet trolls and not the people behind the fake dossier? The Russians spent what a few hundred grand on Facebook ads to “influence” the election? Contrast that with the Dems and the Clinton campaign who spent millions on a fake dossier to also influence the outcome of an election. More precisely, the money they spent in conjunction with foreign powers to create the dossier will actually have a greater impact in the 2020 elections than it ever had in the 2016 campaign. Further more, these idiots want to indict Trump over a 150k payment to a whore he banged over a decade ago. They claim it was done to you guessed it, influence and election. Does no one else see the hypocrisy of this entire affair?
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:31 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Do we know it wasn’t disclosed?
Bonds is obviously privy to the staff-level work on this matter.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:31 pm to BBONDS25
That’s why I wanted to read Woods Procedures earlier. You say everything must be verified. Does FBI have to confirm pee tape independently or can they say “Source A, although historically reliable, is now working for opposing campaign and his report has alleged there is a pee tape...”?
This post was edited on 12/10/18 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:32 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
They misled the court.
How?
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:32 pm to Decatur
quote:
Bonds is obviously privy to the staff-level work on this matter.
Didn’t you say just a few posts above there was disclosure? Yet when you apply a little common sense and deduce there was not full disclosure it’s an issue of privity? Come on dude. Take off he partisan glasses.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:33 pm to BBONDS25
Define disclose. Yes, they should disclose its opposition research from a political campaign. Do they have to do Q level research into deep-seeded intentions of Steele and his sources? That’s where it gets murky.
But disclosure of oppo research memo is bare minimum. Absolutely. Absence of that and heads should roll
But disclosure of oppo research memo is bare minimum. Absolutely. Absence of that and heads should roll
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:34 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Meh. Just blackmail them or threaten their children. I don’t care. There is no moral high ground anymore. There is no civility or integrity. Any means necessary.
Kind of like the CJ John Roberts "re-write" of the ACA the night before the announcement? I really want to know what happened with this one day.
These "secret" judges and the FISA Courts are very un-American and un-Constitutional. I don't care if it was W or whomever, they need to be done away with or drastically redesigned to not be able to do what O's DOJ and the DNC did.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:35 pm to Decatur
quote:
How?
I’ll ask again. If it comes out they did not fully disclose all of the info hey had to the court would you consider that nefarious or at least a violation of their duty?
You have gone from saying they didn’t have to disclose, that the judge should have dug, to saying they did disclose, to saying nobody knows what was disclosed and mocking me because I must be privy to something.
This post was edited on 12/10/18 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:37 pm to BBONDS25
Can you just come out and say what you think wasn't properly disclosed or how they otherwise misled the court? Those are the claims you are making.
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:38 pm to Decatur
Sure. I don’t think they disclosed there was no verification of the dossier and that the opposition funded it.
Can you come out and admit if that is the case they failed to fulfill their duty?
Can you come out and admit if that is the case they failed to fulfill their duty?
Posted on 12/10/18 at 8:46 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
and that the opposition funded it.
Yes. Violation.
Verification is trickier because of the degree of verification.
Now let’s flip it for you. Let’s assume no disclosure of opposition-funded, but muh sources and methods had other information in there that would have warranted... the warrant without dossier intel. Failure to disclose still a scandal then?
This post was edited on 12/10/18 at 8:47 pm
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News