Judicial Watch: Justice Department Discloses No FISA Court Hearings Held on Carter Page Warrants

I hope that sentence made sense to you when you posted it. It comes out as garbled nonsense regardless.
The point remains: You claim Judicial Watch has no credibility (confusing political leaning with reliability and accuracy) and this point of yours
remains merely a disingenuous allegation.

It does not surprise me.

 

Yet you can make an informed choice now, no? Anytime!

Actually, if you want to be intellectually honest (the possibility still exists!!!), go back to my original post before all the butt hurt it apparently caused, and you will see I am merely informing those that are unaware (not those that choose to be unaware) that the OP source site is a PROVEN propaganda crackpot website hence lacks credibility. I am not responsible if that causes great discomfort to peeps that choose an alternate reality. I merely stated the facts re the OP source for his thread.

 

Conformity with a website you like doesn't equal being an informed consumer.

Citing an opinion that a website has propaganda on it doesn't make it fact or proven. To claim otherwise is to stretch the truth.

Now what specifics do you have regarding the factual accuracy of the article posted in the OP of this thread or are you going to continue to attempt to derail the thread?

 

I understand the reality discomfort, really I do. Jack Nicholson said it best in "A few good men". Fact remains, JudicialWatch is a propaganda conspiracy website, AKA FAKE NEWS SOURCE.

 

A double down on the definition of strawman does not require further commentary from me......it's rhetorical by purpose & intent.

 

That’s not to get the FISA warrant. That’s for a petition from the targeted party to get it removed. Of course they first have to know they have one against them.... which doesn’t seem to happen.

 

I see, so nothing on the documents revealed in the OP.

I guess I'll just reserve your strawman approach for the next time you use ThinkProgress or any of the other radical alt-left sources you back your threads with.

 

Really? Did he say "You can't even tell the truth"? Because that's how I would characterize your posting ouvre.

The fact is
Judicial Watch has been vindicated in a court of law many times and you just can't handle the truth, Jack!

 

Yet your posts eventually stoop to the desperate MO of veiled ad hom flamebait masquerading as debate or more accurately, lack of debate. You are most welcome if I am actually able to help here. JudicialWatch is a proven FAKE NEWS SOURCE as exposed by my OP in this thread.

 

No you don’t, you think we told John gotti we were bugging him? Don’t be silly

 

it's you that makes the uninformed choice
I want you to post the scientific methodology used by that site how they determine a outlets bias?

guess what uninformed there is none its all opinion

read the disclaimer why don't you

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of individual reviewers for Media Bias/Fact Check. The opinions expressed on Media Bias/Fact Check are protected under “Fair Comment.” The information is provided by Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness or accuracy of opinions/information on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/disclaimer/

none of what they provide is based on fact but opinion therefor subject to there own bias
so much so they have to give a disclaimer to protect themselves from liable

 

Trump and his campaign weren't?

 

The dossier and it has been fully documented and even the Director of the FBI said it was an unconfirmed salacious document.

 

It was normal for an administration to seek FISA warrants using paid for opposition research on the opposing party's presidential candidate. Since when?

 

He has other prevailing interests. Like perhaps one day going full blast after states and pot businesses in those states that made pot legal and tax it.

This is more important to a moral crusader than a corrupt DOJ, with nefarious actions being tied with partisan party politics. Making our justice system a helluva joke.

 

Im sure they had probable cause to bug Gotti
they had no probable cause to bug the Trump campaign no unverified opposition research by an opposing campaign isn't probable cause and no hearsay of a drunken bar discussion isn't probable cause

 

What exactly are you disputing?

 

Looks like your source is not very unbiased.

Scam site “Media Bias Fact Check” caught cribbing its ratings from Wikipedia
http://www.palmerreport.com/politic...ght-cribbing-its-ratings-from-wikipedia/2342/

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest/

 

The FISA warrant included so much more than just the undebunked (as in zero debunked) Steele Dossier. Try not to spin reality by cherrypicking only some details.

 

Choice is King! Information is powerful if one can think critically!

 

so McCabe lied to Congress when he testified under oath that the dossier was the bulk of the warrant application that if it wasn't for the dossier there wouldn't have been an issued warrant
when is McCabe going to be charged for perjury?

 

Please prove that McCabe lied; when you can actually do that, he will be charged. BTW, post is a side step to a different topic.

 

it is you pathetically attempting to present an obvious bias opinion as fact
it is you that is uninformed about what you attempted to present as fact

 

It's not actually about me but I understand why it's necessary for your to desperately try to make it so. Luck to ya!!!

 

And he loves civil forfeiture laws too. He wants to make it easier for cops to take whatever they like of yours and harder for you to recover it.
It turns the entire premise of our justice system (innocent until proven guilty) upside down. He would like for people to have to prove their innocence when authorities declare their guilt.