So, you think this memo thing has legs?

[WoundedKnee]

She's not the only one making that mistake. The Congressmen don't do much of their own writing, that's what staffs are for. It probably has several authors. Same with the Democrat memo and Schiff.

 

[about_average]

Was there a particular piece of information that you can point to that you know was true and Ierified and included in that FISA warrant application?

Of course I can't. But then, I've never claimed it was true, accurate or verified.
I'm not the one claiming it was false.

You, however, are claiming it's false without any evidence that it is. Well, other than two words taken out of context and the claims of people who have only quoted the two words as their "proof".

Your premise is that Comey's testimony about that one piece of the information in the dossier that he was talking to trump about was "salacious and unverified" is the same as him saying the entire document was.

 

[HisArpy]

Do you think the exact same thing can be said about the right?

Of course it can. That's why we need facts, not hyperbole.

At this point the facts seem to be pointing toward election interference by the H campaign, the DNC, and others more than anyone else.

 

[WoundedKnee]

"Imagine if candidate Trump had kept his campaign promises when he became President. Without the “Russia threat” and without the “China threat” and without the need to dump billions into NATO, we might actually have reaped a “peace dividend” more than a quarter century after the end of the Cold War. That would have starved the war-promoting military-industrial complex and its network of pro-war “think tanks” that populate the Washington Beltway area.

Second, the memo shows us that neither Republicans nor Democrats really care that much about surveillance abuse when average Americans are the victims. It is clear that the FISA abuse detailed in the memo was well known to Republicans like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes before the memo was actually released. It was likely also well known by Democrats in the House. But both parties suppressed this evidence of FBI abuse of the FISA process until after the FISA Amendments Act could be re-authorized. They didn’t want Americans to know how corrupt the surveillance system really is and how the US has become far too much like East Germany. That might cause more Americans to call up their Representatives and demand that the FISA mass surveillance amendment be allowed to sunset.

Ironically, Chairman Nunes was the biggest cheerleader for the extension of the FISA Amendments even as he knew how terribly the FISA process had been abused!"
Dr. Ron Paul

 

[coachdb18]

"Imagine if candidate Trump had kept his campaign promises when he became President. Without the “Russia threat” and without the “China threat” and without the need to dump billions into NATO, we might actually have reaped a “peace dividend” more than a quarter century after the end of the Cold War. That would have starved the war-promoting military-industrial complex and its network of pro-war “think tanks” that populate the Washington Beltway area.

Second, the memo shows us that neither Republicans nor Democrats really care that much about surveillance abuse when average Americans are the victims. It is clear that the FISA abuse detailed in the memo was well known to Republicans like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes before the memo was actually released. It was likely also well known by Democrats in the House. But both parties suppressed this evidence of FBI abuse of the FISA process until after the FISA Amendments Act could be re-authorized. They didn’t want Americans to know how corrupt the surveillance system really is and how the US has become far too much like East Germany. That might cause more Americans to call up their Representatives and demand that the FISA mass surveillance amendment be allowed to sunset.

Ironically, Chairman Nunes was the biggest cheerleader for the extension of the FISA Amendments even as he knew how terribly the FISA process had been abused!"
Dr. Ron Paul

We screamed about Obama's abuse of the Constitution and the weaponizing (ie the Lerner IRS, the Holder/Lynch cabal, etc) of the government against US citizens for eight long years... where were you?

 

[HisArpy]

That's an interesting tidbit from Ron Paul.

What it fails to say is that the recent FISA re-authorization was for section 702. The FOREIGN surveillance portion of the act, not the DOMESTIC part. And, it is the Domestic portion of the Act which is being abused. And which hasn't been renewed.

 

[WoundedKnee]

We screamed about Obama's abuse of the Constitution and the weaponizing (ie the Lerner IRS, the Holder/Lynch cabal, etc) of the government against US citizens for eight long years... where were you?

Denny's?

I have mentioned this too.

 

[about_average]

Your logic is very circular.

You admit it's not illegal. You admit that the legality of the meeting was never in dispute. Yet, Russian collusion is the key question. And you're trying to bootstrap a LEGAL meeting into an illegal act to collude with the Russians? Very weird thinking.

No, and if you actually read what I wrote you'd know I never made that claim or tried to do it.

Cite please for your premise that obtaining opposition research that isn't in the public record makes it illegal.

Radio interview last year with a person who actually does opposition research for a living. I'll try to find the transcript.

Character statements are not "illegal acts". Being a "scumbag" isn't either (remember Bill Clinton?). What they are, are projections of YOUR beliefs onto another person. This is why character evidence is frowned upon by everyone.

I'm pretty sure that most people consider theft a scumbag act.
Most people think, I hope, taking credit for other people's work that you had zero to do with, is a scumbag thing to do.
I hope most people would think that contracting with a small business for goods and services then stiffing them on 40% of the contracted price because you know they can't afford to sue you is a scumbag act.

I mean I know trump supporters don't think any of those acts are a scumbag thing to do, but I bet the majority of people do.

 

[HisArpy]

No, and if you actually read what I wrote you'd know I never made that claim or tried to do it.

Then, what's the point of discussing the meeting between Trump Jr and the Russian lawyer?

Radio interview last year with a person who actually does opposition research for a living. I'll try to find the transcript.

An OPINION isn't worth spit. You know what IS worth spit - facts. Like the fact that I can hire a PI to investigate a hypothetical political opponent. Said PI can then take pictures of the opponent propositioning hookers at a cheap motel. Said pictures can then be GIVEN OR SOLD to me as oppo research.

Notice, there's no "public record" of any of that? Yet it's perfectly legal. So your radio transcript opinion is worthless on it's face if it claims otherwise.

Cite to a statute someplace. THAT would be a source supporting your claim.

I'm pretty sure that most people consider theft a scumbag act.
Most people think, I hope, taking credit for other people's work that you had zero to do with, is a scumbag thing to do.
I hope most people would think that contracting with a small business for goods and services then stiffing them on 40% of the contracted price because you know they can't afford to sue you is a scumbag act.

I mean I know trump supporters don't think any of those acts are a scumbag thing to do, but I bet the majority of people do.

Being a scumbag is STILL not illegal. So you're not making any headway here with this argument.

 

[HisArpy]

Denny's?

I have mentioned this too.

You sure it wasn't Waffle House? I swear that's were you were. Unless it was a dopplegangerbanger.

 

[about_average]

Then, what's the point of discussing the meeting between Trump Jr and the Russian lawyer?

An OPINION isn't worth spit.

Then why are you basing your posts about the dossier on opinions?

You know what IS worth spit - facts. Like the fact that I can hire a PI to investigate a hypothetical political opponent. Said PI can then take pictures of the opponent propositioning hookers at a cheap motel. Said pictures can then be GIVEN OR SOLD to me as oppo research.

Notice, there's no "public record" of any of that? Yet it's perfectly legal. So your radio transcript opinion is worthless on it's face if it claims otherwise.

Cite to a statute someplace. THAT would be a source supporting your claim.

So your position is that you can commit illegal acts to get information and legally sell it to a campaign? I really find that difficult to believe, but I could be wrong.

Being a scumbag is STILL not illegal. So you're not making any headway here with this argument.

Where did I say being a scumbag is illegal?
Your claim is that it's only my beliefs that the crap he's pulled makes him a scumbag. Obviously you don't, but I'm sure plenty people who think personal integrity is a good thing agree with me.

I have no interest in discussing things with someone who believes those actions don't make a person a scumbag.

 

[Que]

Of course I can't. But then, I've never claimed it was true, accurate or verified.
I'm not the one claiming it was false.

You, however, are claiming it's false without any evidence that it is. Well, other than two words taken out of context and the claims of people who have only quoted the two words as their "proof".

Your premise is that Comey's testimony about that one piece of the information in the dossier that he was talking to trump about was "salacious and unverified" is the same as him saying the entire document was.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort in fact I supported your speculation that it may be sandwich with all kinds of verified and true things that somehow miraculously haven't leaked out.

keep pretending that comey's characterization of the dossier is out of context with Comey characterizing the dossier as containing salacious an unverified information.

there is nothing out of context about those two words as you continue to insist

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Do you think the exact same thing can be said about the right?

They let the Birth Certificate Bullshit stain the country's discourse for almost three years, on top of a bunch of other bullshit against Obama, just out of pure spite.

But you know, meeting in secret to say no to all of a president's agenda on the night of his inauguration means never having to say you're sorry.

 

[OldJourno]

They let the Birth Certificate Bullshit stain the country's discourse for almost three years, on top of a bunch of other bullshit against Obama, just out of pure spite.

But you know, meeting in secret to say no to all of a president's agenda on the night of his inauguration means never having to say you're sorry.

What's the difference between Birth Certificate Bullshit and Russia Collusion Bullshit?

 

[RobDownSouth]

What's the difference between Birth Certificate Bullshit and Russia Collusion Bullshit?

How about there was NEVER any rationale/justification for the Birth Certificate Bullshit, and there WAS rationale/evidence for Russian Collusion. Nice attempt to conflate the two things, though.

The collusion confusion could be cleared up immediately if Cadet Bone Spurs used his authority as Commander-in-cheif to declassify the original FISA warrant application for Carter Page. Let us see the original source document, in all its glory, rather than Nunes' cherry-picked summary memorandum.

 

[coachdb18]

What's the difference between Birth Certificate Bullshit and Russia Collusion Bullshit?

The Constitution is clear: to be a senator, you have to be a citizen, which does not require both birth parents to be citizens. But the Presidential requirement is different and specific for a reason, it was meant to impose the burden on the eligibility to be President to preclude foreign interests from finding their way into the office, so the framers wrote that the Presidency required a 'natural born citizen'. That's parentage by two US citizens. The only exception was for the first holders, before there was a country to be born into. Call all the names you want, but the bottom line is now and will forever be, Obama was never eligible, and it was only because the Democrats controlled the vetting process that he was ever allowed to run for the office.

 

[removed9556]

 

[coachdb18]

Interesting - is there an official legal (Supreme Court/Constitutional amendment) definition that states 'natural born citizen' only means 'parentage by two US citizens'? If there is, it is indeed hard to understand why he was not stopped from running since the case would be clear cut. If by any chance there is not, then you are talking bollocks for approximately the billionth time.

Perhaps the brit can explain why the framers of our Constitution would differentiate between a citizen and a natural born citizen for the purpose of eligibility requirement, specifically for President and Senate?

 

[Sean]

so the framers wrote that the Presidency required a 'natural born citizen'. That's parentage by two US citizens.

This is utter bullshit, you fucking retard. My son is a "natural born citizen" of the USA and I am most certainly not a US citizen.

 

[Sean]

Two Brits schooling Mensa boy on his own country's constitution. You have to laugh.

 

[islandman]

Interesting - is there an official legal (Supreme Court/Constitutional amendment) definition that states 'natural born citizen' only means 'parentage by two US citizens'? If there is, it is indeed hard to understand why he was not stopped from running since the case would be clear cut. If by any chance there is not, then you are talking bollocks for approximately the billionth time.

No, not two citizens. It signifies a geographic component to birth the United States, and hence why Article 1 offers a path for a naturalization process, i.e., birthright citizenship versus naturalized citizenship.

 

[coachdb18]

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Thus, it's important that neither the mother or father be foreign citizens, ie two US citizens.

Notice the update that mothers weren't considered because 'In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.' Pretty sure our more modern concept of women no longer underrates their importance or position.

 

[Sean]

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

Notice the update that mothers weren't considered because 'In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.'

Which completely invalidates your "two US citizens as parents" claim, you fucking moron.

 

[removed9556]

 

[coachdb18]

Right. But two citizens required, right? In your own words. So Obama needed two fathers?

I must say, I had not thought you so broad-minded.

Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen, not American

Barack Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was of Kenyan citizenship when the President was born. His father was in the United States to study as a foreign exchange student, where he met the President's mother. The President's mother was a natural born US citizen from Kansas.