Just remember, all of this unfair, unconsitutional stuff the left is doing

It identifies the beginning point from which all else flows. Surely you cannot ignore that all of this started with the illegal act of the FBI.

 

Are you asking this question in place of evidence because you don’t have any?

 

I can agree that it suggests their warrant requests should undergo more scrutiny, but it doesn’t suggest that all future warrants are invalid.

 

Test it we shall then.

 

Of going by the book yes they do.

 

Hmm.. You seems super trusting of the folks who may have illegally subbed a CIA operative within the FBI to run the op... Golly, the plot thickens...

 

LOL, obstinate doesn't cut it. The question of Carter Page indicts their process, which frankly the last president demanded they fix, and still... chirp.... chirp.... crickets. Why do you demand that what we know is a compromised process be viewed as acceptable?

 

Of course. I can't imagine how that phone call itself could constitute a due process violation. Nancy has not authority over this process, and no direct control over the result. 'Goons' showing up never amount to a due process breach. What they do when they get there might.

 

Great!

 

Are you suggesting that I’m a FED?

 

The joke is on you when you have to wiggle and squirm to get out from underneath your own post...

 

Are you? I didn't assert it of course...

 

There is no thickening plot outside the right wing fever swamp. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-...ut-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666

Don't you think it's time to move on from the fantasy of Trumpworld's aggrievement?

 

You would have us believe mistakes made with regard to Page excuses all that Trump has done? That's a stretch beyond credulity.

 

Sorry you missed your calling as a school crossing guard.... Of course, this isn't what was being discussed, but hey, you participated.

 

Not asserted. Why would you attempt to make such as baseless claim? The observation is that the FBI did lie to a judge to obtain a warrant. Documented. Do try at least to stay on topic and keep up....

 

Let's start with you substantiating that assertion. Don't bother using hyperbolic, flame throwing sources like Breitbart.

 

Sorry, we don't actually have to go over the well plowed ground already.

I used NBC, cause you know you love their flame throwing BS..

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...carter-page-surveillance-application-n1256179

 

You used NBC because your sources are not reliable.

The Justice Department's inspector general reported last December than when Clinesmith was working in the FBI's Office of General Counsel, he altered an e-mail about Page so that it said he was "not a source" for another U.S. intelligence agency. Page has publicly said he briefly was a source for the CIA.

What is your takeaway? That an employee unilaterally altering an e-mail means the entire FBI process is corrupted? Can you see how others not desperate to conclude the entire FBI is corrupt, and Trumpworld treated unfairly, would come to another conclusion?

"Kevin deeply regrets having altered the e-mail," said his lawyer, Jonathan Shur. "It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues, as he believed the information he relayed was accurate, but Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility."

 

Such BS. I used NBC because you are devoted to them, simple as that. And they did report that the FBI lawyer did falsify the statement to the judge. Are you going to deny that happened? Really? NBC admits that it happened and then tries to equivocate by creating an unknowable standard of "would have been approved anyway" which isn't testable, and isn't knowable because it cannot be. But you'd believe in that, and call that the notable fact here, which, again, is BS. Good for you, your shoveling skills are epic.

 

You used NBC because it isn't devoted to lying like your typical sources. Of course the standard of "would have been approved anyway" is knowable. People familiar with prior warrant applications understand what the evidentiary standard is, and can therefore make an informed conclusion as to whether Page's would have been approved. To a 100% certainty? No. But more than an educated guess because of existing examples.

Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg said that while Clinesmith's actions were serious, the warrant application probably would have been approved anyway without his misstatement. Boasberg also serves as the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

 

The US House was poorly designed. With a simple vote of 218-217 the party in power has unlimited power and can abuse it at will for partisan politics. They are above the law - until the other party takes back control and does the very same thing.

 

LOL.. So you actively defend the corruption then. If you "knew it could have been approved without using falsified information to sway the judge? then why did you include the falsified information?

Here's a thought. Garland is prosecuting a couple of cops in Louisville because Brianna Taylor. And yet, he isn't prosecuting these schmoes because... wait for it... he doesn't want to because he agreed with the corruption. And it is just as simple as that. Garland, by his own actions commits the same corruption that he actively prosecutes in others. Ta Da...

 

Not asserted. Why would you attempt to make such as baseless claim?

 

The Justice Department's inspector general reported last December than when Clinesmith was working in the FBI's Office of General Counsel, he altered an e-mail about Page so that it said he was "not a source" for another U.S. intelligence agency. Page has publicly said he briefly was a source for the CIA.
"Kevin deeply regrets having altered the e-mail," said his lawyer, Jonathan Shur. "It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues, as he believed the information he relayed was accurate, but Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility."

You appear to be unfamiliar with the info supplied by your own link.