Support NeoGAF

[Autoignition]

You spoke about honesty. I spoke about how she changes positions on core messages constantly according to what people want to hear. That is dishonest on a base level.

I would rather someone be consistent on their position and tell tall tales regarding it here and there than someone who changes their positions depending on who they are talking to.

One I view as more dishonest than the other.

You do not have to talk down to me. You can just acknowledge my position and respond to it normally.

I'm not trying to talk down to you; I was talking about objective truth-telling as rated from a Pulitzer-winning organization, and your response to that had nothing to do with what I said.

Personally, I'll never understand this stance that a lot of people (admittedly on the left way more than the right) have that people -- ESPECIALLY politicians -- can never learn, or grow, or change their opinions based on new knowledge and experience gained. The vast, vast majority of people don't come out of the womb with a sage-like view of the world, its people, and their struggles. Life is a learning process that doesn't end until a person's final breath.

 

[Corrik]

I'm not trying to talk down to you; I was talking about objective truth-telling as rated from a Pulitzer-winning organization, and your response to that had nothing to do with what I said.

Personally, I'll never understand this stance that a lot of people (admittedly on the left way more than the right) have that people -- ESPECIALLY politicians -- can never learn, or grow, or change their opinions based on new knowledge and experience gained. The vast, vast majority of people don't come out of the womb with a sage-like view of the world, its people, and their struggles. Life is a learning process that doesn't end until a person's final breath.

Because when people are telling you what you want to hear it has less to do with growing and more to do with getting your votes.

If she changed her stances from something that was popular to something non-popular, sure. When you are going from what's popular to what's popular based on polls and feedback, I mean, no....

Bill Clinton literally instituted DOMA. Clinton was booed down when she was repeatedly against gay marriage and only switched over when the numbers dictated it was a more popular stance to take (and then saying she was always for it, but politically the climate wasn't ready for it at that time - which is unequivocally not true).

I get you are referencing a specific site about fact checks.

But, I am referencing her core philosophy and trustworthiness which is not checked by that website.

I feel when discussing honesty that I can refer to something not referenced on that site to justify my claim.

Edit: I believe Clinton has said before she says some things because she has to say them while campaigning while knowing they are not feasible or what she would do if elected.

Al Franken said the same thing about apologizing even though he didn't mean it just to retain votes.

I mean, I am not naive. Most politicians do this. I just am not going to tout their honesty though despite what any fact checker says while knowing that though.

 

[Autoignition]

If she changed her stances from something that was popular to something non-popular, sure. When you are going from what's popular to what's popular based on polls and feedback, I mean, no....

I would like one actual, factual, provable example of her doing this.

Bill Clinton literally instituted DOMA.

Bill is not Hillary, nor is he Hillary's representative.

Clinton was booed down when she was repeatedly against gay marriage and only switched over when the numbers dictated it was a more popular stance to take (and then saying she was always for it, but politically the climate wasn't ready for it at that time - which is unequivocally not true).

How can you say that that's unequivocally not true when an anti-gay marriage message was one of the things that got W elected? He ran on a huge anti-gay platform. It still comes up in political debates. The Republican primary in 2016 had questions about it. While the majority of the country is on board now, you absolutely cannot say that that was true in the mid-90s. That was the primary reason why DADT had to be passed; it was the only way for gays to serve in the military in the 90s, because the very concept of it was so toxic in American public discourse at the time.

Edit: I believe Clinton has said before she says some things because she has to say them while campaigning while knowing they are not feasible or what she would do if elected.

Al Franken said the same thing about apologizing even though he didn't mean it just to retain votes.

I mean, I am not naive. Most politicians do this. I just am not going to tout their honesty though despite what any fact checker says while knowing that though.

I would argue that's a problem with the American electorate and the way that political campaigns in this country are run more than it is a problem with the politicians themselves, though.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I bet with her flops on gay marriage and black superpredators. She literally just says what she thinks people want to hear.

Disclaimer: I am very anti Hillary.

If you're going to go after Hillary for gay marriage, that's just silly. The majority of democrats in her age range who support gay marriage now were likely against it at some point. I know it doesn't feel like it but things have changed very quickly over the past decade as far as how this country views gay marriage, whether it's politicians or regular citizens.

But ignoring that, she was at least a known advocate for same sex rights and unions in the early 2000s.

As far as the "superpredator" stuff goes, that needs to stop. She made that single comment years and years ago about specific people. She was not using it as a term to label all black people. She apologized for it as well, recognizing how it came off.

 

[prag16]

Not a fan of politifact. At all. They'll give a Republican a "pants on fire" where they'd give a Democrat a "mostly false", and a Republican a "half true" where they'd give a Democrat a "mostly true" or "true". The research and sources usually seem pretty solid (and I recommend clicking through to the primary sources rather than just going by their ruling), but the final section with the 'ruling' is often a stretch. And the stretch generally goes in one particular direction.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Prag you're so far right that If you have a problem, that might make them actually right.

 

[Corrik]

I would like one actual, factual, provable example of her doing this.



Bill is not Hillary, nor is he Hillary's representative.



How can you say that that's unequivocally not true when an anti-gay marriage message was one of the things that got W elected? He ran on a huge anti-gay platform. It still comes up in political debates. The Republican primary in 2016 had questions about it. While the majority of the country is on board now, you absolutely cannot say that that was true in the mid-90s. That was the primary reason why DADT had to be passed; it was the only way for gays to serve in the military in the 90s, because the very concept of it was so toxic in American public discourse at the time.



I would argue that's a problem with the American electorate and the way that political campaigns in this country are run more than it is a problem with the politicians themselves, though.

Bush's base and Hillary's base are different. Plus, I think Hillary was still against gay marriage as bush first ran.

 

[gohepcat]

We live in bizarre times when the women who ran the most successful pediatric AIDS charities is considered the evil one.

 

[Autoignition]

Bush's base and Hillary's base are different. Plus, I think Hillary was still against gay marriage as bush first ran.

It has nothing to do with bases and everything to do with the fact that the American public at large was so resistant to the idea of gay rights that a candidate for president on the national stage could be so flagrantly openly anti-gay and not only receive very little criticism for it but also get elected. We're seeing the same thing go on right now with regards to immigrants and Trump.

 

[Sunster]

We live in bizarre times when the women who ran the most successful pediatric AIDS charities is considered the evil one.

but her emails..

 

[VAL0R]

+22.84% rate of return on my 401K investment last year. MAGA.

 

[JORMBO]

I was not thrilled with Trump as a candidate. I say that as a Republican who supported Jeb Bush then Kasich.

I, however, viewed only two options worse than Trump. Cruz and Clinton.

Thus, Trump got my vote. And, I cannot act like his positions do not mirror a lot of my own. Surprisingly way moreso than Bush's did.

I just am not fond entirely of how much he is making a show of things or his way of orating. I mean, do not get me wrong, I am one of apparently the few Americans who seem to get Trump's humor and laugh at his jokes instead of making huge deals mocking or calling him stupid. However, I think he could do more to filter his thoughts and say them in better ways.

That said, I think Trump's first year has been good. I do not know many of anyone besides dreamers who can say Trump has negatively affected them in his first year. I got a tax cut that will help me a ton. He is supporting initiatives that help me where I work indirectly. ISIS has been decimated. We stayed strong on foreign policy. It was a pretty good year. However, it was a year I was ready to write off as a bad one prior to the tax bill getting passed.

Before the tax bill, I was pretty set for voting elsewhere for President in 2020. Now, I am continuing my wait and see approach.

Infrastructure bill, fighting pharma, health care reform hopefully, and some combating of the opiod crisis would be what I would like to see.

This pretty much describes me also. I feel I also get his sense of humor so I don't find outrage in every minor comment. I don't always agree with his comments though and I think he should have scaled back some of his Twitter usage when becoming president.

I was also disappointed until tax return passed. I feel that is a big accomplishment and everyone was excited to start seeing more money in their paychecks where I work last week.

I will add that I am disappointed Republicans did not have a real plan for Healthcare last year.

 

[BANGS]

Politifact has her rated as one of the single most honest politicians in this country.

And I was rated as one of the single most healthiest beer drinking cigarette smoking fast food eating etc etc you get the picture...

Hillary has a huge record of both flip flopping on issues and outright lying. She even admitted to this saying how she has to have a public and private persona that changes as needed. Just search on youtube "hillary lying" and you will find tons of indisputable examples...

 

[Deleted member 12837]

She even admitted to this saying how she has to have a public and private persona that changes as needed.

This really isn't that controversial. The outrage over that statement is so overblown.

In politics, it's not always feasible to win every fight for every cause you believe in. If the public sentiment on an issue is strongly against your own, is it really worth dying on that hill and missing the opportunity to move the needle regarding dozens of other issues where you can make a positive impact? There's no shame in biding your time and waiting it out while public opinion slowly moves in your direction.

Even outside of politics, most people tailor their message to their audience. If you have an extremely conservative view on an issue and you're discussing it with someone who has extremely liberal views, and your goal is to convince them to adopt a more conservative viewpoint, it's not going to be effective to argue from your actual position. It's too far removed. You have to try to find common ground, which would involve shifting closer to the center of the issue and working from there.

 

[Corrik]

This pretty much describes me also. I feel I also get his sense of humor so I don't find outrage in every minor comment. I don't always agree with his comments though and I think he should have scaled back some of his Twitter usage when becoming president.

I was also disappointed until tax return passed. I feel that is a big accomplishment and everyone was excited to start seeing more money in their paychecks where I work last week.

I will add that I am disappointed Republicans did not have a real plan for Healthcare last year.

Yeah, not repealing Obamacare rustled my feathers a lot.

 

[Corrik]

This really isn't that controversial. The outrage over that statement is so overblown.

In politics, it's not always feasible to win every fight for every cause you believe in. If the public sentiment on an issue is strongly against your own, is it really worth dying on that hill and missing the opportunity to move the needle regarding dozens of other issues where you can make a positive impact? There's no shame in biding your time and waiting it out while public opinion slowly moves in your direction.

Even outside of politics, most people tailor their message to their audience. If you have an extremely conservative view on an issue and you're discussing it with someone who has extremely liberal views, and your goal is to convince them to adopt a more conservative viewpoint, it's not going to be effective to argue from your actual position. It's too far removed. You have to try to find common ground, which would involve shifting closer to the center of the issue and working from there.

Have you seen how extreme liberals and conservatives talk on most forums? Lol

It is not as you described. Haha.

It is more like.

I am right you are wrong!
No you are wrong!
No I am not!
Yes you are. Go get an education!
Stop believing everything you read!
God you are a bigot and racist!
No I am not. You are just a sjw, snowflake.



Lol

Not much tailoring to the audience going on too often haha.

 

[BANGS]

This really isn't that controversial. The outrage over that statement is so overblown.

In politics, it's not always feasible to win every fight for every cause you believe in. If the public sentiment on an issue is strongly against your own, is it really worth dying on that hill and missing the opportunity to move the needle regarding dozens of other issues where you can make a positive impact? There's no shame in biding your time and waiting it out while public opinion slowly moves in your direction.

Even outside of politics, most people tailor their message to their audience. If you have an extremely conservative view on an issue and you're discussing it with someone who has extremely liberal views, and your goal is to convince them to adopt a more conservative viewpoint, it's not going to be effective to argue from your actual position. It's too far removed. You have to try to find common ground, which would involve shifting closer to the center of the issue and working from there.

I agree with most of that. The statement alone isn't what caused such controversy, it would actually be admirable if she or any other politician said such a thing publicly. What make it controversial was that she only said it in secret to her true constituents, on top of her many many flip flops and lies caught on record to the actual public...

 

[BANGS]

Have you seen how extreme liberals and conservatives talk on most forums? Lol

It is not as you described. Haha.

It is more like.

I am right you are wrong!
No you are wrong!
No I am not!
Yes you are. Go get an education!
Stop believing everything you read!
God you are a bigot and racist!
No I am not. You are just a sjw, snowflake.



Lol

Not much tailoring to the audience going on too often haha.

He's referring to politicians, not forum trolls...

 

[Corrik]

He's referring to politicians, not forum trolls...

"Even outside of politics, most people tailor their message to their audience."

Disagree that is what he meant. <.< >.>

 

[Deleted member 12837]

I agree with most of that. The statement alone isn't what caused such controversy, it would actually be admirable if she or any other politician said such a thing publicly. What make it controversial was that she only said it in secret to her true constituents, on top of her many many flip flops and lies caught on record to the actual public...

Yeah her explanation/clarification was pretty poor. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt in my explanation of what I think she meant. The fact that it was connected to her speeches to Wall Street (who people generally don't trust) didn't help either.

I won't argue that she hasn't flip-flopped on positions, but I think for a politician she's done it less than most, and generally over longer time periods before switching positions (which I think is better -- it's much more realistic for someone to change their mind over a decade than over an election cycle).

"Even outside of politics, most people tailor their message to their audience."

Disagree that is what he meant. <.< >.>

"Most people" was admittedly vague. I meant people arguing/discussing/approaching issues in good faith (which seems to be disappearing in an increasingly polarized/tribal society, I'll give you that).

 

[rokkerkory]

Damn stock market roughest week in last 2 years, hopefully bounce back next week.

 

[Nikana]

Yeah, not repealing Obamacare rustled my feathers a lot.

This is honestly what I want most. Repealing the individual mandate and getting costs of perscriptions down is a start but it's very small compared to the big picture.

 

[gohepcat]

This is honestly what I want most. Repealing the individual mandate and getting costs of perscriptions down is a start but it's very small compared to the big picture.

I'm confused by this. The repeal of the individual mandate has removed incentive for young healthy people to get insurance. All of the other protections were left in.
So we just cut the brake line on the only thing that slowed healthcare costs.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

I'm confused by this. The repeal of the individual mandate has removed incentive for young healthy people to get insurance. All of the other protections were left in.
So we just cut the brake line on the only thing that slowed healthcare costs.

You didn't cut the brake the line. Pres. Trump has continued the status quo of weak enforcement by the IRS of the individual mandate that began under Pres. Obama.

Plus, the reduction in the growth of health costs was being driven by the economy, market restructuring that predated ACA, etc. Not Obamacare policy. The idea that Obamacare was the "only thing" that slowed something down is silly. At the end of the day, the ACA doesn't change the fact that Americans are paying a lot more for less when it comes to health care. Even if you're white, educated, and rich doesn't change the fact that on average you're living shorter lives with poor health vs. the best in the world.

 

[zelo-ca]

Damn stock market roughest week in last 2 years, hopefully bounce back next week.

It was bound to happen, the market needed a bit of a correction. I wouldn't be too worried.

 

[Rocket Number 22]

So the Trump memo was nothing right?

/pol/ is saying its the biggest thing ever and reeeeset is saying its nothing, I have read the BBC and from what i gather it implies a lot but doesnt actually have proof....

So which is it?

 

[zelo-ca]

So the Trump memo was nothing right?

/pol/ is saying its the biggest thing ever and reeeeset is saying its nothing, I have read the BBC and from what i gather it implies a lot but doesnt actually have proof....

So which is it?

To me it is in the middle. It implies that there is a lot of problems with the FBI and DOJ but we need the evidence. I want them to declassify the FISA Memos on Carter Page then we can see for ourselves how good/bad this situation really is.

 

[JORMBO]

To me it is in the middle. It implies that there is a lot of problems with the FBI and DOJ but we need the evidence. I want them to declassify the FISA Memos on Carter Page then we can see for ourselves how good/bad this situation really is.

This is my take away from it also. Without the classified information from the FISA memo we are lacking too many details.

 

[zelo-ca]

Also the major takeaway from the memo is that the muller investigation started before carter page so Trump firing Muller because of this memo would be a big mistake.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Trump failed to turn the public against the investigation, lmao.

 

[Naudi]

The memo doesn't prove anything, and it was never meant to. It was released to create doubt so when trump and his people keep getting indicted they can continue to brush it off as deep state conspiracy. This administration should worry all Americans.

 

[zelo-ca]

The memo doesn't prove anything, and it was never meant to. It was released to create doubt so when trump and his people keep getting indicted they can continue to brush it off as deep state conspiracy. This administration should worry all Americans.

There is no question that Obama and his FBI/DOJ has done some bad stuff. Per example mike flynn lied to the fbi and he got in trouble, the aid to hilary openly lied to them as well when she said she didn't know about the email server (she is caught on camera years ago talking about it) and she goes away scott free. There are problems with the admin and I think having all this out in the open will let people understand it all.

 

[Autoignition]

If you read it, the memo doesn't actually accuse the FBI of any crime at all.

It's a propaganda piece. It exists solely for the reason of attempting to shift public opinion. If your opinion of the FBI or the Russia investigation has changed at all, even a little bit, as a result of this memo, it worked.

 

[zelo-ca]

If you read it, the memo doesn't actually accuse the FBI of any crime at all.

It's a propaganda piece. It exists solely for the reason of attempting to shift public opinion. If your opinion of the FBI or the Russia investigation has changed at all, even a little bit, as a result of this memo, it worked.

Using unverified information (Steel dosier) to get a FISA memo is a big accusation. What if I could make up some BS then get the government to spy on someone cause of it? That is what it is alleging. That is why I want the FISA application declassified so we can see for ourselves how big a part the Steel dosier was in getting the memo

Also to note the Steel dosier was partially funded by the DNC so that is another problem.

 

[Autoignition]

Using unverified information (Steel dosier) to get a FISA memo is a big accusation. What if I could make up some BS then get the government to spy on someone cause of it? That is what it is alleging. That is why I want the FISA application declassified so we can see for ourselves how big a part the Steel dosier was in getting the memo

Also to note the Steel dosier was partially funded by the DNC so that is another problem.

Just because you disagree with the process/don't like it doesn't make it a crime. What law or statute was violated?

 

[zelo-ca]

Just because you disagree with the process/don't like it doesn't make it a crime. What law or statute was violated?

Are you seriously ok with them doing that though? Would you like to be spied on if someone made up some stuff and proved it to a judge? What this memo does is show that there is problems within the FBI and they need to be figured out. I do not know if they violated a law, I am not a lawyer but what I can tell you is that I am very worried about what precedent this sets.

Can the trump campaign make up some false info and spy on the 2020 dem candidate or their team? By your logic it sounds like that would be ok.

 

[Autoignition]

Are you seriously ok with them doing that though? Would you like to be spied on if someone made up some stuff and proved it to a judge? What this memo does is show that there is problems within the FBI and they need to be figured out. I do not know if they violated a law, I am not a lawyer but what I can tell you is that I am very worried about what precedent this sets.

Can the trump campaign make up some false info and spy on the 2020 dem candidate or their team? By your logic it sounds like that would be ok.

I protested the Patriot Act when it was codified. I was livid; I saw red. But my moral outrage doesn't change the law, nor does it magically redefine the boundaries of proper procedure vs wrongdoing based on my own personal moral standards.

By rule of law, no wrongdoing was committed on the part of law enforcement agencies in this country.

As an aside, though, Christopher Steele isn't just some rando dude in his basement spinning stories. If we can't use intelligence gathered from a seasoned professional from the country that's considered our closest ally, then who the hell are we supposed to trust anymore?

 

[zelo-ca]

I protested the Patriot Act when it was codified. I was livid; I saw red. But my moral outrage doesn't change the law, nor does it magically redefine the boundaries of proper procedure vs wrongdoing based on my own personal moral standards.

By rule of law, no wrongdoing was committed on the part of law enforcement agencies in this country.

As an aside, though, Christopher Steele isn't just some rando dude in his basement spinning stories. If we can't use intelligence gathered from a seasoned professional from the country that's considered our closest ally, then who the hell are we supposed to trust anymore?

My main problem with the Steele dossier is that it was funded in part by the DNC, so you use evidence that the DNC funded to get a FISA memo on a political rival. That is my main problem with it. Lets flip it. Hillary is president, Chris steele gets funding by the RNC to get a dossier that is used to wiretap a person on the Hilary campaign which then leads to a hypothetical Russian investigation on Hillary. It looks bad in both scenarios and I bet if the reverse happend all the left would be going nuts that the RNC funded the dossier.

 

[Autoignition]

My main problem with the Steele dossier is that it was funded in part by the DNC, so you use evidence that the DNC funded to get a FISA memo on a political rival. That is my main problem with it. Lets flip it. Hillary is president, Chris steele gets funding by the RNC to get a dossier that is used to wiretap a person on the Hilary campaign which then leads to a hypothetical Russian investigation on Hillary. It looks bad in both scenarios and I bet if the reverse happend all the left would be going nuts that the RNC funded the dossier.

But optics and integrity are two completely different things. Does it look bad? Sure, of course it looks bad. But do the optics automatically impugn Steele's integrity or strip him of his experience and expertise? No.

You act like DNC representatives knocked on Steele's door and told him to put something together. The DNC hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research (something that happens in literally every single political campaign, at all levels, from all sides), and Fusion GPS hired Steele. The reason why they hired Steele was because Steele was already investigating this shit thanks to George Papadopalous running his mouth in a bar.

Steele would've come to the FBI about what was going on regardless of whether Fusion GPS hired him or not.

 

[zelo-ca]

But optics and integrity are two completely different things. Does it look bad? Sure, of course it looks bad. But do the optics automatically impugn Steele's integrity or strip him of his experience and expertise? No.

You act like DNC representatives knocked on Steele's door and told him to put something together. The DNC hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research (something that happens in literally every single political campaign, at all levels, from all sides), and Fusion GPS hired Steele. The reason why they hired Steele was because Steele was already investigating this shit thanks to George Papadopalous running his mouth in a bar.

Steele would've come to the FBI about what was going on regardless of whether Fusion GPS hired him or not.

I see your point. Should opposition research which is politically motivated be able to be used to impede on the freedom of a US citizen? I think we are gonna agree to disagree on this one haha.

Also the IG is doing up a report that is sounding pretty bad for the FBI, I think he will be done in a few months so I am going to rest my judgement until that is released.

The Times, citing one official close to McCabe, said the deputy director's decision to leave before his anticipated retirement in March came after Wray discussed the looming inspector general report and suggested demoting McCabe from the number two post at the bureau.

 

[Autoignition]

I see your point. Should opposition research which is politically motivated be able to be used to impede on the freedom of a US citizen?

Steele didn't know who he was working for, for the record.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

My main problem with the Steele dossier is that it was funded in part by the DNC, so you use evidence that the DNC funded to get a FISA memo on a political rival. That is my main problem with it. Lets flip it. Hillary is president, Chris steele gets funding by the RNC to get a dossier that is used to wiretap a person on the Hilary campaign which then leads to a hypothetical Russian investigation on Hillary. It looks bad in both scenarios and I bet if the reverse happend all the left would be going nuts that the RNC funded the dossier.

I'd only be concerned if it was provable that there was political bias that altered or tainted the findings in the dossier. We just don't know enough to know if this is true or not. There's a lot of stories flying around about how Chris Steele is anti-Trump, but that doesn't mean he can't be objective when it comes to doing his job. As someone else said, he's a seasoned professional spy.

There's nothing illegal about oppo research, and if the oppo research digs up a bunch of prosecutable dirt, I don't see why that shouldn't be able to be used as evidence.

We also don't know how much else was brought into the FISA warrant request. We do know it was renewed several times, so at the very least, what they found with the wiretaps corroborated the original evidence used to obtain the warrant in the first place, right?

 

[Pomerlaw]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/the-gop-war-on-the-fbi-is-conspiracy-theater

Whatever you think Trump meddled with Russia or not... The guy must be having fun right now.

 

[zelo-ca]

I'd only be concerned if it was provable that there was political bias that altered or tainted the findings in the dossier. We just don't know enough to know if this is true or not. There's a lot of stories flying around about how Chris Steele is anti-Trump, but that doesn't mean he can't be objective when it comes to doing his job. As someone else said, he's a seasoned professional spy.

There's nothing illegal about oppo research, and if the oppo research digs up a bunch of prosecutable dirt, I don't see why that shouldn't be able to be used as evidence.

We also don't know how much else was brought into the FISA warrant request. We do know it was renewed several times, so at the very least, what they found with the wiretaps corroborated the original evidence used to obtain the warrant in the first place, right?

Thats true and that is why I want the Fisa Applications declassified. #Freethefisaapp

 

[mr2xxx]

Should opposition research which is politically motivated be able to be used to impede on the freedom of a US citizen? I think we are gonna agree to disagree on this one haha.

What do you mean? Fusion GPS was used by both sides as credible research. If impeding freedom is revealing that a candidate has ties to one of our countries biggest enemy then impede all you want.

 

[PJV3]

I'd only be concerned if it was provable that there was political bias that altered or tainted the findings in the dossier. We just don't know enough to know if this is true or not. There's a lot of stories flying around about how Chris Steele is anti-Trump, but that doesn't mean he can't be objective when it comes to doing his job. As someone else said, he's a seasoned professional spy.

There's nothing illegal about oppo research, and if the oppo research digs up a bunch of prosecutable dirt, I don't see why that shouldn't be able to be used as evidence.

We also don't know how much else was brought into the FISA warrant request. We do know it was renewed several times, so at the very least, what they found with the wiretaps corroborated the original evidence used to obtain the warrant in the first place, right?

I thought Chris Steele became anti-Trump during his investigation, that seems fair enough to me if he found evidence of concern.

 

[rokkerkory]

Trump failed to turn the public against the investigation, lmao.

Whatcha gonna do when the come for you

 

[prag16]

So the Trump memo was nothing right?

/pol/ is saying its the biggest thing ever and reeeeset is saying its nothing, I have read the BBC and from what i gather it implies a lot but doesnt actually have proof....

So which is it?

Eh. It's not nothing. It's pretty bad if the claims are all true. The FBI knowingly used a dossier at least in part funded as opposition research to justify spying on a political opponent of the financier of that research, warrants for which McCabe allegedly acknowledged would not have been possible to obtain without the dossier. They also claimed a second source as corroboration to justify on at least one of the applications without acknowledging that the second source was based on the first source. And then this whole dynamic of Steele being fired, but still continuing to funnel information in through an intermediary, plus Comey on one hand signing off on multiple warrants while simultaneously dismissing the dossier as salacious and unverified.

But as zelo said, we need more info the FISA applications. But it's not "nothing". Anybody telling you it's nothing is extremely biased (as is anyone saying the opposite... the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle at this point).

 

[Corrik]

Eh. It's not nothing. It's pretty bad if the claims are all true. The FBI knowingly used a dossier at least in part funded as opposition research to justify spying on a political opponent of the financier of that research, warrants for which McCabe allegedly acknowledged would not have been possible to obtain without the dossier. They also claimed a second source as corroboration to justify on at least one of the applications without acknowledging that the second source was based on the first source. And then this whole dynamic of Steele being fired, but still continuing to funnel information in through an intermediary, plus Comey on one hand signing off on multiple warrants while simultaneously dismissing the dossier as salacious and unverified.

But as zelo said, we need more info the FISA applications. But it's not "nothing". Anybody telling you it's nothing is extremely biased (as is anyone saying the opposite... the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle at this point).

Eh, the memo moreso just showed a lack of trust among the Presidency and the agencies. Was not a huge deal, in my opinion.

That investigation needs to run its course and come to an objective result. If he is innocent, he is innocent. No need to debase the investigation itself.

 

[Pomerlaw]

I never get used to it. Trump tweets sound so damn retarded! Also he sounds guilty as hell. Leader of the free world....