Monitoring Twitter, a number of people are reporting some download sites aren’t working. So, since WUWT has been setup to handle such things (Climategate for example) here is the memo in full. Some might say “Why is WUWT getting into the polictical mess that has nothing to do with climate?”.
Well, if you monitor Twitter like I do, you’ll see that many of the major players in climate alarmism are Tweeting about it. I figure if Michael Mann can rail about it…
…the least I can do is provide a link for the document.
370598711-House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses (PDF)
(updated to include Mann’s Tweet)
Ok, that seems a lot of more credits assigned to WUWT, when it comes to climate, politics of it, and the mess mentioned, than it actually may be deserved.
None of it was started, instigated, maintained or fueled by WUWT, as far a the political mess in climate concerned…as per and from my point of view and understanding…
Most that can be contemplated in these lines consist, as only played as it was served.
As far as I can tell, is in no way that the fault or the delusion of Mann can be blamed on WUWT.
If Mann happens to live in a prospering and what may be called a country with great potential and with the best chance to great human achievement….it is not the fault of WUWT, that Man still considers, envisions and treats this country, his own, as one belonging and subjected to “Rats” and ‘Monkeys’ to rule, “rightfully” so, as that happens and supposes to be an indisputable outcome in the means and conclusions of “the ruling” of the “Rats” and the ruling “monkeys”…
I know this may be to harsh, but that how it is from my position.
As the saying goes: “Save one and you save the world”
Sorry but as far as I can tell, that was not, and it is still not about men, ever, but actually was only meant in context about “rats” and “monkeys”…as far as my understanding permits.
Save one of them, if you can, and maybe you have saved the world… tough,really really tough… I know…:)
(but at least you maybe could claim some credit when at that point..:) )
Please do be kind to my harsh position…
Trust me, you need not to extra remind me about it…very aware of.
cheers
Truth should not rely on political persuasion. When only the Left is trying to bury the Truth, then the Left is evil… and every last one of their supporters.
Something tells me that if the memo made Republicans look bad, Mikey wouldn’t see it as a Constitutional crisis but rather a call to action.
I’ve no view on the memo – too hard for someone this side of the pond to follow it all
What is disappointing is that the discussion in comments proves just how politically partisan the followers of this site are. I would have hoped that at least some climate sceptics would have different political views.
If all climate sceptics are on the political right, what does that say about sceptics, the right, or the left?
The right and the left is a red herring. This has been the uni-party, posturing in public.
‘Skeptics’ are LABLED as ‘on the right’ whether they are or not. The views here are expressing empirical reality, not partisanship, and only appears that way to someone who IS, in fact, partisan – SO partisan, in fact, that they are completely unaware of their own bias. That, in a nutshell, is why Progressives lost Independents.
And as far as how to ‘follow it all’ – simple: those making the accusations have been guilty of what they accused the opposition of all along. That’s been their cover. It’s that simple.
Just because someone supports the US political right doesn’t mean they are wrong in much of what they say.
I know that
I would have hoped that the cross-section of people who follow a climate-sceptical site would include at least some people not on the political right. Science should be cross-party.
Seriously AndyL, I believe actual science IS cross-party or at least, non-political.
The reason “climate change” is so political is not because of the science but because of the proposed “solution” to the problem which involves more governmental control over people’s lives. That “solution” is clearly one supported by the American Left.
The memo, that you have no view on – evidences that intelligence services acted in concert to corrupt court processes & allow a President to spy on a political opponent during Presidential campaign.
Yet, your only concern is that people commenting here are not saying ‘oh no they didn’t’?
I’ve no idea whether a 4 page memo is evidence of anything. Some people say it is, some people say it isn’t, and everyone seems to have taken the conclusion based on their political prejudice. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just today’s hot topic and tomorrow there will be another.
What is interesting to me is that this is purely political topic. And on a science based site everyone seems to have the same political viewpoint. I actually think that is a shame. This site would be stronger if it had supporters from left and right (and even the middle if there is one…)
He’s great on deflecting. Like you can do to a puck with a hockey stick. 🙂
AndyL, you are at least partly wrong. I am a registered indepndent because I dislike much of what is both right and left.
Two illuminating points for your edification.
One, THIS IS a BIG CONSTITIONAL DEAL. Democrats are calling for Trump impeachment based on bogus (no evidence yet at all) Russian collusion. Collusion alleged in a dossier paid for by the DNC and Clinton’s campaign. Intentionally and knowingly misrepresented to FISC to get a FISA search warrent on Carter Page, the dossier’s alleged collusion intermediary between Trump campaign and Russia.
Two, the same perps on CAGW nonsense as point 1. Mann’s two tweets are sufficient evidence. Obama behind both is the deepest layer.
So there are deep connections making this post quite appropriate.
ristvan (I hope this ends up below your 1:22 post)
Interesting to hear your view as an independent. I’ve no idea who Carter Page is or what FISC or FISA are, so I’m in no position to form my own judgement.
Unfortunately I can only form a view when someone comments who is not politcally motivated or who steps away from their natural political home. One thing I learned from years of reading Steve McIntyre is not to take at face value anything put together by someone picking cherries – especially when they are motivated to make cherry pie.
Rud, the FBI was also paying for that……….and did pay
Latitude, You and I both know that and that it matters here in US as additional evidence against FBI, but not in Europe. An old hunting rule : once game is dead, a second kill shot isn’t necessary.
AndyL it’s not hard to find out who Carter Page is, or what FISC or FISA are. I didn’t know either but was very easy to find out. You’re sounding very much like a concern troll.
..right now I’m in the unload the entire clip mode
My kind of guy, sort of. Roger you on the unload the entire clip mode. We did that in the Army against Congs. Not later against my Wisconsin dairy deer. Highest regards.
Bingo
While there is some partisan politics involved, there is just no other way to view this as anything but what you have read here. No matter what you personally think of Trump, it is an outrage that the actions of the very people who are supposed to protect the Constitution were taken to purposely subvert the Constitution.
AndyL,
You are right that most sceptics are at the right side of the political spectrum. In the USA even more right, as the bipartisan system makes little choice inbetween possible (to a lesser extent the same problem in the UK, due to its voting system). In the rest of Europe we have a lot more diversity in the political spectrum: from far right to far left you can have 7-10 political parties with different nuances in ideas and accents, even when in the government.
The drawback: forming a government with 3 and (much) more parties may be a hell of a job. The benefit: as near everybody is represented in the Parliament and can have its say, there is no need to use more drastic methods to be heard. Except for the most extreme fanatics (of both sides)…
BTW, I am from the left side (as far as that says something about one’s personal idea’s), be it rather central here in Europe, but that is already (too) far left for some on the other side of the Atlantic…
At a loss as to what you are saying. Does it bother you that most skeptics in the US skew right (by American political standards) or does it bother you that there aren’t a lot of those who skew left (by American political standards) on these boards.
I will admit that I struggle to comprehend the political platforms of other countries, say for instance, the U.K. I also am amused by those from other countries who do not comprehend American politics. In the U.S., there are now 4 very distinct groups, 1 on the far left, 2 in the middle and 1 on the right. But to get that you have to understand what left and right are in the U.S. Don’t pay attention to our media. Journalists nowadays are almost entirely incapable of logic and completely unable to show a diversity of opinion that is reflective of our far from monolithic culture.
The left is for more government, the right is for less government – domestically. Foreign policy wise it is far more complicated.
AGW is all about more government. The left likes this. The right hates it. By nature then, a skeptic is much more likely to lean right in the United States. Lefties like bigger more powerful government with a heavy foot, so the AGW is a beautiful fit for them.
The latter. I’m concerned that this site only seems to attract people from the political right
It is a trap that climate sceptics have fallen into. It is much easier to dismiss scepticism if it only comes from one political viewpoing.
Perhaps it’s because they are more astute.
Likely not many Hillary voters in here would be my venture.
AndyL, you are talking rubbish.
You come across as seriously against President Trump.
AndyL, I don’t know if you are for Trump, against him, against Republicans, don’t like the American right, or just like to see a diversity of opinions.
What I tried to explain to you is that the left in America likes AGW because it fits their political views. End of story. They won’t go against it. You will see very few leftist American skeptics because AGW is a useful tool for the left.
Useful idiots, all.
Andrew Cooke
Thanks, I can see your point.
Unfortunately the reverse is also true. It is too easy to accuse the right of being sceptical purely because they are against the big-government solutions that might be required if CAGW turns out to be true.
To win the argument, you either have to convince some people belonging to the opposite political persuasion, or wait an awfully long time until the evidence can no longer be disputed.
naw- to win the argument you don’t negotiate at all. you just say NO.
i know it’s complicated for somebody who is trained to obey like a serf or a slave, but:
winning and fighting are 2 entirely different things.
Good explanation, Andrew.
AndyL,
I suspect that people who lean more “right” are more likely to comment on this article. I also think that the oversimplification of political leanings can obscure where people might fall on the political spectrum overall. Reading between the lines on various comments (on multiple articles), many commenters lean “right” in some ways but lean “left” in others. The degree to which people get riled up varies based on the exact issue being discussed, and it is interesting (to me, at least) how differently people react to different issues. Some commenters really surprise me, because based on where they stand on issues X and Y, I would think they would react a particular way to issue Z, but their actual take is quite different.
Personally, I consider myself to be fairly moderate. I lean right on a lot of issues, but I am willing to consider other viewpoints, and I do not think that something should be rejected simply because it came from “the other side”. However, most of the vocal left (and the media) insist on absolute party loyalty and adherence to the “approved” viewpoints, and having seen what happens to anyone who dares voice a different opinion, I am rather disdainful of leftist ideology and practice.
Currently, diversity of thought seems to be tolerated mostly by the right. If leftist leaders were more accepting of a thought spectrum rather than only supporting a single specific opinion, I suspect there would be more people identifying as center left. Look at what happens to people who support the AGW but disagree on a tiny little part of it: denier!!! On the left, it often only takes one disagreement to get kicked out of the fold.
Regardless, a plurality of Americans have identified as conservative/right for decades, so statistically, it is likely that more Americans on this site will lean right (as opposed to left).
Much of this is still hard to believe although the evident overall government corruption goes back to “Rapido y Furioso,” the gun aiding and abetting gun smuggling to Mexican criminals in the last administration. I learned about this from a Spanish program of that name on Univision, gleaned with poor language skills and some English in the program. CNBC covered this a couple of years later. Long before this many of us saw serious problems developing in science and academia.
It is unfortunate that so much has pulled scientists into politics. It happened because some scientists themselves, not just in climate science per se, succumbed to a number of false narratives and methodologies in their field. Many of us witnessed it, were to some degree a victim of it, but few had the fortitude and ability to counter it as in retrospect we should have done earlier and better.
I look forward to WUWT being able to stay with their primary goal, but it unfortunately will take a long while to clean it all up (as in Cook University and a lot of sloppy papers). The good news is that it is being cleaned up, which I guess has to be repeated time and time and time again. It is not a partisan issue. Someone non-partisan and just retired, told me–“All the university is interested in is money.”
It’s true that in the USA skeptics are skewed right, and alarmists are skewed left. But if I were a left-wing American skeptic, this thread is certainly NOT where I would promote my minority views. The subject of the memo is a specific abuse of government power against an opposition party. That’s not easy to defend on merit, and certainly isn’t ideologically a left/right issue.
AndyL: You miss the point. Most WUWT readers are skeptics. Skeptics need reasoning to believe in something. They are typically on the side of sensical things. If you think there are two sides of the issue, what side would like like to see endorsed?
“What is disappointing is that the discussion in comments proves just how politically partisan the followers of this site are. I would have hoped that at least some climate sceptics would have different political views.”
Anthony: How about running a couple of polls re WUWT-ers’ poitical tendencies?
One would be a survey of how members voted in the last five (say) presidential elections. The other would be a choice of which among ten tranches of leftness or rightness a member identifies with: e.g., 50–59% Right.
“If all climate sceptics are on the political right, what does that say about sceptics, the right, or the left?” It shows the political left will use any lie, any backstabbing tactic to advance their anti-America ideology.
AndyL: I was noticing the same thing, i.e., the absence of leftist comments in this thread.
After considering it a bit, I wonder if it isn’t that both climate skeptics and those on the right are less likely to be influenced by outright propaganda, preferring instead to find out what the facts of matters are instead of accepting at face value whatever the general public is being told at the time. In support of that proposition, I would point out that those of the opposite bent on climate are permitted to make their cases here, whereas many who frequent this site have been banned from commenting on websites that espouse global warming/climate change. That is, one side prefers emphasize facts, the other propaganda.
Not all of those on the right are climate skeptics, nor are all climate skeptics on the right, but as you pointed out, there’s apparently a strong overlap between the two, as evidenced by this comment stream.
“If all climate sceptics are on the political right, what does that say about sceptics, the right, or the left?” I was skeptical of a climate change crisis long before I was politically conservative. I did not vote for Trump or Clinton, but I am extremely grateful for those who did vote for Trump.
I became a climate crisis skeptic when I naively believed it was about climate science, and didn’t think it had anything to do with politics. I found the science to be so poor and illogical, that I became skeptical of any real danger. That was 28 years ago. The climate crisis science today is even worse, but continuous because it is financially and socially rewarded by the left, who control academia and the much of the media. Thus it is no longer about science, but about politics.
I am not a climate crisis skeptic because I was conservative. I am conservative because I was a climate crisis skeptic. Climate crisis skeptics are on the right, because the left has no room for someone who doesn’t adhere to their doom and gloom narrative. I oppose the left, because the left is clearly anti-science. They project the ‘anti-science’ label onto their scientific challengers, just like they have projected their political crimes on their political enemies.
Andy L: Let me answer your question directly and clearly: Climate crisis skeptics are largely found on the political right because the political right embraces skepticism in the climate debate. The political left has zero tolerance for climate crisis skepticism. (Having no tolerance for skepticism is an extremely ‘anti-science’ behaviour).
I cannot speak for everyone here, but I believe the majority would agree with me: My stance on climate change is not politically motivated. My stance on politics is ‘climate change’ motivated.
I discovered the tail of the dragon when I first started investigating climate change in a serious way.
In my humble opinion, the only thing that’s left is to decide who’s eligible for the firing squad.
Joel, Damn I can’t find the thumbs up button for your comment. If I could I would hit it a few times.
i’ve been hoping for this day.
heads on a post ends the fake debates.
The unethical behavior (and maybe illegal behavior) occurs because those perpetrators do not think they will ever get called to account.
Clinton-Obama crimes and the IRS-EPA-DOJ bureaucrats all expected they wouldn’t get caught or that even if exposed, like Lois Lerner, they would not be investigated or prosecuted. And the Left-biased media remains quiet as in the WaPo’s “Democracy dies in the darkness” mantra apparently only applies to Republicans.
Similar unethical data manipulation behavior at NOAA and GISS happens because those involved believe they won’t get caught or investigated.
Those assumptions are now being challenged by a Trump Presidency they have actively tried to unseat.
Mann actually got part of that right, he just listed the wrong names, to wit
Clinton, Obama, Lynch, Comey, Ohr, Strzok, Page…….
And while Strzok and Page are being mentioned, how are these two still employed by FBI? They were involved in a clandestine extra marital affair, and last I heard such activity is cause for immediate termination of employment at FBI, especially seeing as Strzok was deeply involved in FBI Counter Intelligence. Funny how nobody in all this has mentioned those small facts.
Good point. The number of things that are broken in gov/politics is far far bigger than I ever imagined.
And Trump has been carrying a big bucket of bleach trying to clean it up.
Quite frankly this twitter nonsense turns me off. I would like WUWT to scrub these and return to proper discussion of the science.
This is just an observation, Alasdair, but one can ignore any thread/discussion easily by not opening it.
Frankly it turns all of us off. Only some of us can’t be ostridges. Thank you Antony for the link.
The science of climate has become politicized. The data most relating to climate, the long-term temperatures records, are being adjusted out of recognition by politically-motivated activists masquerading as scientists, mostly at NOAA and GISS. The perpetrators of this science perversion have behaved so because they have believed they would never get caught with their thumbs on the scale, so to speak.
Those assumptions of immunity and their pseudoscience misdeeds remaining in the dark are slowly being destroyed.
Alasdair, this is a proper discussion of the science. From the very beginning, climate change has been more about politics than science. The IPCC is a political body, looking for scientific evidence to support its political aspirations, completely ignoring any evidence to the contrary. An actual discussion of JUST the science is what all ‘skeptics’ have been requesting for decades, but such discussions always end when the fear-mongers invoke the precautionary principle, which is a political tool designed to circumvent science. In order to discuss the science (as you desire), we must overcome the politics that prevents that from happening.
The real issue has little to do with Trump and his campaign. The tragedy here is the gross and fraudulent misuse of the FISA court by DOJ and the FBI to obtain a warrant to surveil American citizens. It is that the previous administration and the “deep state” used the powers of the federal government to try and manipulate an election. The Democrats and MSM screaming about Trump-Russia collusion was to try and cover this travesty. This is far worse than Watergate. After all Watergate was just about covering up a botched burglary. The Democrats and their handmaidens in the mainstream press will continue to scream about Trump-Russia collusion and that all this memo or any other materials in support of this memo is just a ploy by the Republicans. They will make every effort to make this about Trump and not about the misuse of power by federal bureaucrats.
Misuse knowing the core was funded by Clinton and woild be an ‘insurance policy’ to harm Trump. Memo point 5, last sentance.
Let’s just hope the Russia collusion investigation gets finished, so we can all know the full facts and move on in the appropriate direction.
There will not be a finish to the investigation till after the mid-term elections. You can take that to the bank. If the Democrats get a mid-term majority, the investigation will come to a miraculous conclusion, probably with some finding against Trump that has nothing to do with Russia (since we all know that is a stupid, ignorant lie), however, if the Democrats lose in the mid-terms, it will probably continue in some form until 2020.
We all know this.
“since we all know that is a stupid, ignorant lie.” Please tell me how we know this? Seems to me his son met with the Russians on the promise of getting dirt on Clinton. Then the dirt came out a short time later. I think that is worth investigating don’t you? If only to clear the good name of the honourable Mr Trump.
That was investigated, the truth came out, the meeting was a sham meant to get a reversal of Magnitsky Act. Claiming it was about Hillary was a deception since Trump had earlier said he would leave Magnitsky Act as is if elected.
Oh, nice try Simon. Here let me give you the “Atta-boy” award.
First, I have no idea what happened in that meeting..and neither do you. What I do know is that the meeting occurred because Jr had a bad case of stupid disease or was poorly advised – although I doubt he sought advice. He saw opportunity and reached for it. Excusable, no….collusion, no to that as well.
But that is not what the FISA warrant was about, was it? No, the FISA was about a secret memo paid for by the Democrats, wasn’t it?
I will make this plain in a language even a cultish Democrat can understand. A memo, paid for by the political opposition, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the campaign and the person of a man running for office by a secret tribune not answerable to anyone on false pretenses.
If that doesn’t chill your blood, you are…..well, I won’t this post to stick around so I won’t say what I think of people who would justify this.
“But that is not what the FISA warrant was about, was it? No, the FISA was about a secret memo paid for by the Democrats, wasn’t it?”
Actually paid for by Republicans first…. they started it.
“I will make this plain in a language even a cultish Democrat can understand. A memo, paid for by the political opposition, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the campaign and the person of a man running for office by a secret tribune not answerable to anyone on false pretenses.”
It was not a memo, it was an investigation (dossier) paid for by the Republicans and the Democrats. The memo was released today. Seems Trump has a few foes in both camps. And… we don’t know that it was only the dossier that was used to get the warrant. The FBI can’t tell their side of the story so we don’t know what else they used… and nor do you.
So…if Mr Trump has nothing to hide, he may as well let it all finish so we can all sleep well. And let’s not forget, Mueller is a Republican, so how could he possibly not be straight as an arrow. Actually by all accounts he is a fine man.
So it seems that Simon is not bothered by the fact that a US citizen was targeted for surveillance by the government based on false testimony of US agents of the government using fabricated evidence.
RAH
What was the fabricated evidence?
The so called “Steele Dossier”. Political opposition research bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary campaign using a foreign agent working with Russian “sources” and used to get the initial FISA warrant and all three of the renewals by being presented to the Judge by the FBI as vetted intelligence.
Name one material thing in that “Dossier” that has been corroborated by a reliable source. ONE MATERIAL THING!
@Simon – it has long been known that the discussion at that meeting was about the Magnitsky Act.
DJT Jr. was snookered into it by promises of “dirt,” which he wasn’t even offered when he got there. Now, that might be stupidity on his part. I view it as more ignorance about how to swim with the sharks. (If it is stupidity, which is not correctable, I hope that DJT is easing him out of any decision position in the family business – or he’ll end up with a one generation wealth.)
RH
“Name one material thing in that “Dossier” that has been corroborated by a reliable source. ONE MATERIAL THING!”
I admit much of it has not been verified… yet… but that does not mean it is not true. It may well be that some of it may prove to be inaccurate later, but that is dilemma for a spy collecting info.
Simon: “So…if Mr Trump has nothing to hide, he may as well let it all finish so we can all sleep well.”
If you have nothing to hide, let’s have the FBI crawl all over your life and listen to all of your phone calls and emails, trying to find anything they can find from your entire life –just to prove you have nothing to hide.
We already know the answer… the collusion was with the Democrats and the FBI. And we know the Trump investigation actually started because Comie leaked classified information to start the process of looking into obstruction of justice… which is what Comie is guilty of! They are not looking into collusion because that is not a crime.
What was fabricated? Most of it.
So it is your opinion that until it is refuted, it must be treated as accurate.
Funny how you only say that when the data is damaging to your enemies.
For your friends you reverse the burden of proof.
Democrat Party keeps publicly and loudly standing with illegal aliens and in opposition to American Citizens and they are going to crater. Massively.
Simon, you do realize that most of this information has probably come from the very Investigation that you want “completed”.
As soon as Mueller got the players talking all this information started coming out.
Simon February 2, 2018 at 2:24 pm
“But that is not what the FISA warrant was about, was it? No, the FISA was about a secret memo paid for by the Democrats, wasn’t it?”
Actually paid for by Republicans first…. they started it.
No, the Republicans did not pay for the Steele dossier. Not one cent. It was entirely paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. This is public knowledge. You are woefully misinformed, Simon.
They started the ball rolling…
In October 2015, during the Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.[1] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him…..
It also must be remembered it was Fusion who hired Steele not the Democrats. They just paid to get dirt on Trump, which is what politicians do to each other. But usually they don’t go looking to get it from the government of a foreign enemy. that’s the difference here.
“You are woefully misinformed, Simon.”
And he will remain so.
Wilfully.
“There’s none so blind…”
catweazle666 February 2, 2018 at 5:25 pm
“You are woefully misinformed, Simon.”
And he will remain so.
Wilfully.
“There’s none so blind…”
Tell me where I am wrong?
Sadly Simon and others buy into anything and everything the mainstream news media is selling. Even when the MSM broadcasts or prints corrections you have got to be looking or you will miss it. Simon misses most of the time. If Simon hasn’t figured out that the Washington Post, New York Times, the broadcast news programs and two of the 24/7 cable news channels are little more than propaganda for the Left, not just the Democratic Party well we probably aren’t going to change his mind. I learned long ago that politics, CAGW and environmentalism is religion to people like Simon. They believe anything that doesn’t fit the orthodoxy is a lie created by some corporation or secret society.
Edwin
So what you are saying is you are right coz you are well… “right.” There are good and bad people on both sides of the political divide, so being right of centre does not automatically mean you own the truth. Like I say, tell me “where ” I am wrong, not just that I am.
Simon: You’re not too bright. The Steele Dossier was not funded by the Republicans. They stopped paying for that when Trump was running for President. The Clinton Campaign pained for the dossier. Or do you know know that?
Simon. There is nothing wrong with the Clinton machine paying Fusion GPS to find dirt on Trump. That is probably standard practice and not illegal. But the dirt should only be useful if it can be cooperated to be true. The Steele report does not fall into that category. There is no evidence that it is true. Yet, members of the FBI, who have demonstrated their dislike for Trump, presented it to the FISA court as if it was verified, knowing full well that it wasn’t. They knowingly tricked a FISA judge in order to put surveillance on the Trump organization, in order to get some dirt that might derail his campaign.
While this is similar in concept to Watergate, it is much more egregious, because it involved a coordinated illegal effort from the FBI, the DOJ, the Clinton Campaign and the sitting President of the United States. Watergate was just a few rogue members of the White House Staff illegally taking matters into their own hands by trying to break into an office to find some dirt. They never got the chance, and Nixon tried to cover up for them. (That was Nixon’s crime). The FBI illegally broke into Trump’s offices and stayed their for months! They still haven’t found anything, but they continue to harass the president and his staff, prosecuting individuals for not telling the complete truth to the FBI, which is the same crime the FBI committed with the FISA court; lying under oath.
“Simon
Let’s just hope the Russia collusion investigation gets finished, so we can all know the full facts and move on in the appropriate direction.”
The government at no time has ever presented a single piece of evidence that any investigation was warranted. There was no probable cause for the issuance of a FISA warrant. You seem to think that the POTUS and his family, and all others surveilled don’t deserve the Constitutional protections we all are supposed to enjoy.
“Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
What was the probable cause? That is the key question that the FBI has to answer to justify the FISA warrant and what Mueller and those that appointed him has to answer to justify the current investigation.
That is unless one went to the Maxine Waters school of law.
Yes, with the prosecution of the Clintons and all other members of Obama Admin who participated.
Obviously, the investigation into Trump’s election organization is illegal based upon tainted and biased information willing submitted to a federal judge. The fact the did so in the first place might be incompetence, but in repeating the submissions after its clear they should have know better looks like malfeasance to me. People involved need to be indited.
If the entire investigation is based on illegal submissions, it needs to be stopped. They need to fire the entire investigatory team and *IF* there is sufficient legal evidence, they can start a new investigation. This time they need to limit the reach of the investigation instead of just fishing for any crime possible.
The corruption of the previous administration is just mind-reeling. I still find it hard to believe that the DOJ and FBI were so easily led down this corrupt political-charged path. SHAME ON THEM.
And shame on anyone who is hyperbolizing social media with thin veiled references to violence.
Argh, hit “Post” accidentally before I was able to review all of my writing… Sorry about the mistakes, how does one correct their posting anyhow?
Those who signed off on the phony info given to the fisa court to obtain permission to, in effect, illegally spy on American citizens, should be summarily fired and prosecuted. And Trump may be one of the few with the cojones to do it! It would be a great way to begin draining the swamp and given the memo from Schumer warning against doing this as potentially creating a “constitutional crisis”, it is exactly what the democrats fear most.
What’s really telling is how leftists claim to be so concerned about civil liberties and government abuses, until they aren’t.
Am I the only one to think that Mickey Manns’ reference to Paul Ryan (a pretty straightforward guy by any accounts) as part of a “coalition of hostile interests” (in association with Putin of course) indicates that Mann is either potty, bent or utterly prejudiced?
“…Mann is either potty, bent or a dangerous extremist?”
Those three things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Yup. All three. Remember his congressional testimony when live on a congressionally televised hearing he said he had never called Judith Curry a denier, and then she interupted saying: “ you did, in your written testimony for this hearing. Read it again!” My favorite 17 second youtube short, permalinked. Googlefu will take anyone directly to it.
Mann is far left. I read that he addressed some leftist gathering in Pennsylvania two or three (?) years ago and led a group chant with a fist-pumping “The people united / shall never be defeated.” Somewhere else he listed the sites he follows, which included some fairly far-left ones. Ditto for the periodicals he reads, IIRC.
What I think people are really missing isn’t so much the Russia thing, its more like:
1) The USA has a secret court. This is something previously only ever seen in totalitarian, banana republic states. It is an anathema to democracy and almost certainly forbiden by the constitution, if the SCOTUS had any balls.
2) Congress allowed the secret court only with a set of requirements that were used to buy off SCOTUS and a large portion of congress, supposedly differentiating the secret court from the secret courts of other dictatorships: a) In applying for a spying warrant, they had to give ALL the evidence, not just that in favor of a warrant. b) A warrant against a US citizen had to be renewed every 90 days, and follow the same rules – ALL the evidence, including ALL the evidence gathered by previous iterations of the warrant.
So what happened here is that the DOJ/FBI did not present all the evidence, either at the initial application, or at the renewals.
They could claim that some of it was unknown initially (but that is a stretch, especially for an organization billing itself as the world’s best law enforcement/investigative agency). By the time of subsequent renewals it is not credible that they didn’t know that a lot of their evidence was bogus and the motives of those providing it politically motivated.
Using a secret court for political motives has to be a big no-no. It is an attack on the integrity of the state.
Those that lied have to face jail (or worse). The court judge(s) have to face an inquiry as to whether they acted as a rubber stamp or not (it looks like they may have).
The real problem is not spying on Trump (although that is bad enough) it is perverting the mechanisms of state for political motives.
People have found themselves against a wall for less.
… how does one correct their posting anyhow?
One does not. It cannot be done here. When you hit that “post” button, you’d better be psychologically ready to display all your typos to the world. … No second chances. You’re doomed to look bad sometimes. This is a website about reality, and so this no-edit situation somehow seems appropriate. [Oh God, did I type “the” correcly … uh, … corretly, … damn, correctly?]
“We must defend out nation by any means available.” As by having top Democrat FBI appointees lie to FISA court about the Democrats’ phony Trump, Russia, Putin opposition research in order to attack an opposition candidate and then to try to overthrow the democratic election result. Got it.
Always knew Gorebal warmists were radical leftists to the marrow of their bones. Good to see them self-identify.
“We must defend out nation by any means available.”
That phrase is right out of the playbook for North Korea . . . for the KGB . . . for the Stalinists . . . for the Nazi Gestapo and SS . . . for the KKK . . . for the Salem (US) witch hunters . . . for the Spanish Inquisitors . . . for . . .
Well, I could go on and on, but need I.
This site has been way ahead of this story and was just proven correct with this release. Very in depth and detailed investigation and coverage:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/
Right now the MSM et al are screaming that this memo is ‘disputed’ (CNN headline) and doesn’t have all the background details to support it. That’s the next step in the trap. Those missing details they are demanding to see just add more ammunition.
This is only shocking news if you have forgotten all the in-your-face corruption we saw from Obama and Clinton. Hard to imagine but they are more corrupt than the CAGW industry.
BBC in full TDS spin mode as usual (no surprise there).
According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz collusion is not a crime. An interesting fact if true which seems to be the case. The memo however points to some possible criminal behaviour.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/shame-on-you-dershowitz-fights-back-after-being-attacked-for-saying-collusion-not-a-crime/
Graduated cum laude from Harvard Law. Never thought highly of Dershowitz depite his obvious legal chops because of his extreme liberal views—until the last couple,of years after he retired. Seems he has shed his ‘forced’ Harvard liberalism yet remains a legal lion.
I knew Dershowitz was a liberal but as you pointed out he started to appear publicly. My first recollection of that was the Trayvon Martin case. On that one, he said the prosecutor should be brought up on charges.
I think he really cares about the law and integrity. I have gained a lot of respect for him since. He is rare. He is a liberal you can talk to. I do trust him.
Maybe Dershowitz and Giuliani can form a team to clean up the mess we have at the DOJ. Is it possible to have dual special prosecutors?
What the memo shows is actual obstruction of justice, and conspiracy, and withholding evidence.
And this touches on the fineness of semantics. When does collusion become conspiracy? at what point is the threshold crossed to conspiring to commit the perversion of the course of justice?
Since I am not a US lawyer, it is not clear to me whether any affidavit in support of a FISA warrant/order/application requires a full and frank disclosure of all material facts, or whether some lesser threshold is required say merely showing reasonable cause.
Perhaps one of the US lawyers can elucidate precisely what standard is required on such an ex parte application.
The Democrats and the FBI didn’t ‘cheat’…they just used ‘Mike’s Nature trick’!
It would have been better if the Clinton Foundation had funded the operation. Try harder next time.
You assume there is some kind of boundary between the Clinton Foundation and the Dem Party when Hillary et al was controlling it? Don’t think so.
The December Executive Order on corruption is the big sledgehammer hanging over the Clinton Foundation and their globalist associates. Much more unfolding here. Just a matter of time.
I wonder why the CEO of Alphabet (Google) recently resigned?
Here’s the sledgehammer hanging over the Clinton Foundation et al.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/?utm_source=twitter
I just finished reading the memo when BBC here in the UK had it near top item on the evening news. A very interesting spin put on it by the Beeb, implies the document contains (may contain) deliberate fabrications. Why on earth would you classify a fabricated/false set of statements as “Top Secret!”? Furthermore they do not report the actual detail of anything in the document (show it scrolling in the screen with print too small to read). 50% of the report then talks about the Russia/Trump allegations. Left biased reporting at its best – is there an award category for this?
Proves they do not follow the news. The FBI reviewed it, and said that everything it contains is factually true.
And the Democrats were desperate to prevent its release. Why would they do that if it was fake?
The BBC do not do news, they only do views.
BBC is nothing more than a relentless SJW/left wing/global elitist propaganda channel. It surely must be one of the biggest purveyors of fake news.
All very depressing, in what used to be a free country and proponent of free speech and democracy. How times have chaged.
Ain’t gotta fight all the battles today, tomorrow is another day.
The Democratic Party wants to reverse the result of democratic elections. Resist! Impeach! It is a sacred goal. Do it by any means necessary. Who cares for honesty or integrity. A corruption on a third world scale. Damage control institutions have been compromised.
The thing is that multiple sources, including several congressmen are saying this is just the beginning. We’re just getting a whiff of the pile of excrement they are wading through in the intel committee with this first memo. And that there will be more to come that will be even more damaging.
Some have asked how could something like this happen.
From 1979-2013 there were 35,529 FISA warrant requests. Only 12 of those requests were denied.
Clearly the FBI & DOJ knew the FISC is a rubber stamp court.
They actually wanted to investigate 35,529 people, that is amazing.