Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Only a few aging historians still remember Rep. John J. Rooney, but from the 1940s into the 1970s he was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's most powerful enabler. Rooney, a Brooklyn, N.Y., Democrat, led the House appropriations subcommittee that oversaw the Justice Department. He remained Hoover's steadfast ally as presidents from Truman through Nixon came and went.

John Rooney personified an era in which congressional Democrats eagerly aided and abetted the FBI's running amok, as the bureau surveilled political activists who attracted Hoover's ire. Rooney's retirement in 1974 ushered in a radically different age, featuring rigorous and aggressive congressional oversight. A new generation of Democrats, led by principled progressives like Sen. Frank Church and Rep. Otis Pike, courageously proved ready and willing to expose and eliminate the abuse of Americans' constitutional rights that had long been Hoover's political bread and butter.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The Church Committee, along with decades' worth of Freedom of Information Act releases, exposed once top-secret documents that FBI executives never imagined would see the light of day. These files detailed the scale of politically motivated misbehavior that had occurred when executive-branch controls and meaningful congressional oversight were absent. As a historian who cut his teeth on that copious record, I found it unimaginable that congressional Democrats, or American progressives generally, would ever return to championing unquestioned acceptance of FBI claims that its surveillance practices must remain hidden from the public.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I get that liberals, progressives and Democrats are highly skeptical of the Nunes memo, believing it to be highly partisan and misleading. What I don't get is the ferocious opposition to it even seeing the light of day, given the FBI's sordid history of abuse absent meaningful oversight and accountability. That is the point the author of the linked opinion piece makes and does so rather effectively IMO.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 10:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"liberals, progressives and Democrats are highly skeptical of the Nunes memo, believing it to be highly partisan and misleading"

Only because it's highly partisan and misleading.

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What counter-evidence do you have that shows it to be misleading?

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 10:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"What counter-evidence do you have that shows it to be misleading?"

Turns out the Steele dossier wasn't the solitary basis for the FISA warrant.
Turns out the judge WAS told about the political nature.
Turns out Page was being watched long before the FISA warrant in question.
Turns out Page's FISAs were renewed multiple times.
Turns out renewing a FISA requires proof of fruit of wiretaps.

Of course, the main reason I know it's misleading is it has Devon "I found something you just gave me" Nunes prints all over it.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

"But as Frank Church's legacy faded, the FBI protested that the 21st-century bureau bore no relationship whatsoever to Hoover's. In a 2016 speech, then-Director James Comey said that under the glass on his desk he kept a copy of a 1963 memo, signed by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, authorizing a wiretap on Martin Luther King Jr. "I keep it there in that spot," Mr. Comey said, "to remind me of what we in the FBI are responsible for, and what we as humans are capable of, and why it is vital that power be overseen, be constrained, be checked."

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-06 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What counter-evidence do you have that shows it to be misleading?"

How many more times will you ask the same question and then be answered with facts which you then ignore? Everything Danforth posted consicely has been posted previously in less consice manner.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-06 10:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Turns out the Steele dossier wasn't the solitary basis for the FISA warrant.

That claim wasn't made. The claim was that the FISA warrant would never have been obtained without the Steele dossier, which is to say, any other evidence they had pursuant to obtaining the warrant was insufficient without the Steele dossier.

Turns out the judge WAS told about the political nature.

I haven't seen this yet. I'll dig into this claim and will get back with you.

Turns out Page was being watched long before the FISA warrant in question.

Yes and that rebuttal is a red herring. Prior, he was watched in 2013 and it was determined that he was not a Russian agent and he even cooperated with the FBI by feeding them information about the Russians.

Turns out Page's FISAs were renewed multiple times.

Yes. 4 applications in total.

Turns out renewing a FISA requires proof of fruit of wiretaps.

Yet, in spite of all of that monitoring, they came up completely empty-handed? Something isn't right here and it's this aspect of this memo-saga that is most troubling for me.

Having said all of that, none of what you came back with justifies trying to keep the memo in the dark. If it can be easily and thoroughly discredited it will cause great political harm to Nunes and the GOP. That it's release was dubbed as a tremendous threat to national security and then those hysterics were walked back suggests that Dems, the FBI and DOJ wanted it kept under wraps for reasons far less noble than protecting national security.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 10:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Yet, in spite of all of that monitoring, they came up completely empty-handed?"

No, the FISA warrants were renewed. They had to show proof prior warrants bore fruit to get them renewed.

"none of what you came back with justifies trying to keep the memo in the dark."

You're moving the goalposts. Your salient words were "misleading" and "partisan"; the memo is clearly both.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 10:52 AM | Reply

The point of this thread isn't the veracity of the memo itself, it's befuddlement as to why progressives, liberals and Democrats all of a sudden want maximum secrecy regarding FBI surveillance practices knowing what the Church commission and subsequent FOIA requests uncovered four decades ago.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 10:52 AM | Reply

You're moving the goalposts. Your salient words were "misleading" and "partisan"; the memo is clearly both.

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That is what you focused on in my first post. It was tangential to the post itself.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 10:53 AM | Reply

I get that liberals, progressives and Democrats are highly skeptical of the Nunes memo, believing it to be highly partisan and misleading. What I don't get is the ferocious opposition to it even seeing the light of day, given the FBI's sordid history of abuse absent meaningful oversight and accountability. That is the point the author of the linked opinion piece makes and does so rather effectively IMO.

#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ


The part in bold is the thrust of this thread.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 10:55 AM | Reply

"The claim was that the FISA warrant would never have been obtained without the Steele dossier"

Talk about a red herring. First, that's a wild guess, and second, the judge was informed of the political nature.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Judge was informed:
thehill.com

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I get that liberals, progressives and Democrats are highly skeptical of the Nunes memo, believing it to be highly partisan and misleading. What I don't get is the ferocious opposition to it even seeing the light of day, given the FBI's sordid history of abuse absent meaningful oversight and accountability. That is the point the author of the linked opinion piece makes and does so rather effectively IMO."

My objection to the Nunes memo coming out was issuing it alone without the minority memo accompanying it. If the goal is transparency, then the GOP should not have objected to waiting and releasing both memos at the same time. Why the rush to get Nunes memo out so quickly and first? It's not like there was some kind of deadline looming that they had to beat.

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"all of a sudden want maximum secrecy regarding "

points to the 40's thru the 70's

calls it "all of a sudden"

do you even know what year it is, deflectobot?

#15 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-02-06 11:06 AM | Reply

From your link:

The Washington Post reported Friday that Justice Department officials made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the court that a political entity provided financial backing for the research, though they did not name Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign or the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Interesting. Thank you for sharing.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 11:06 AM | Reply

The fact that the GOP rushed through putting out Nunes memo, after weeks of foreshadowing it in places like Fox News, shows that the motivation behind the release, even if you set aside the content, was in itself partisan. If they had the truth on their side, then they should not have feared and fought against issuing both memos simultaneously.

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

That's a fair point. However, Democrats were adamantly opposed to the memo being released period. Had they simply stuck with, "We've seen the memo and it's misleading by omission. Therefore, we don't think it should be released. However, if it's going to be released we ask that it be released concurrently with our own rebuttal toward the aim of transparency."

Had it been handled like that, I would completely agree with you. But it wasn't. Democrats, Comey and others ALL painted a sky-is-falling picture of grave national security threats if the memo was released. It was only after it was released that they got mum about that and started complaining that their own rebuttal couldn't be revealed at the same time.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 11:10 AM | Reply

What I don't get is the ferocious opposition to it even seeing the light of day, given the FBI's sordid history of abuse absent meaningful oversight and accountability. That is the point the author of the linked opinion piece makes and does so rather effectively IMO.
#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Releasing the classified memo was a total dick move by Nunes and Trump. It was done just to muddy the waters. You know it. I know it. Trump & Co knows it.

We already have a process in place for oversight and accountability.

That is why we have IGs.

How's that DACA bill coming along?

Feb 8th is only 2 days away.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-06 11:13 AM | Reply

"It was only after it was released that they got mum about that and started complaining that their own rebuttal couldn't be revealed at the same time."

That's simply not true, Jeff. The Dems said all along that if you are going to release one, you need to release both. Some Republicans, like Burr, asked to be read in before the release and were denied access to the memo. You are excusing a lot of bad behavior on the House GOP's part. Why is that?

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

I'm not excusing anything, Gal. I am simply pointing out that Democrats are no angels in all of this. You're right, the memos should have been released concurrently.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 11:35 AM | Reply

How's that DACA bill coming along?
Feb 8th is only 2 days away.
#19 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Not sure what that has to do with this thread, but I've seen it hinted that Democrats are not going to shut down the government again over the lack of a DACA bill, especially given that Trump offered to grant amnesty to 1.8 million DREAMER's including a path to citizenship in exchange for the things he promised on the campaign trail and Democrats flatly refused.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 11:37 AM | Reply

"the things he promised on the campaign trail"

You mean like the big, beautiful wall, or some other cockamamie idea the majority of voters pulled the lever against?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Democrats, Comey and others ALL painted a sky-is-falling picture of grave national security threats if the memo was released. "

Some of those others included McCain and Kasich. Thune as well issued a word of caution:

"There are important national security considerations they need to weigh, and hopefully they're doing that," he said.

"They have to take into consideration what the FBI is saying, and if there are things that need to be redacted, I think they need to pay careful attention to what our folks who protect us have to say about how this bears on our national security," he said.

Thune also urged Nunes to release the Democratic memo if he goes ahead and makes public the Republican-authored document.

"If you're going to release one, I think you have to release the other," he said.

www.drudge.com

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 12:02 PM | Reply

#24

There is a world of difference between urging caution, especially having not seen the memo, and claiming the sky will fall if it's released after having seen the memo.

Hell, the memo doesn't even prove abuse.

#23 - yes.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 12:12 PM | Reply

"What counter-evidence do you have that shows it to be misleading?"

How many more times will you ask the same question and then be answered with facts which you then ignore?

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-06 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

As often as it takes.

#26 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-06 12:45 PM | Reply

do you even know what year it is, deflectobot?
#15 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

It's been at least 3 years since your liver fully pickled in '15, which means it MUST be 2018!!

#27 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-02-06 12:47 PM | Reply

The part in bold is the thrust of this thread.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ

More non-support support.

Thread sucks.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-06 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

liberals and Democrats all of a sudden want maximum secrecy regarding FBI surveillance practices

The memo did nothing to shed light on the process as it was manipulated in a partisan attempt to throw shade on the Mueller investigation by Nunes and the White House.

#29 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-06 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Judge was informed:
thehill.com

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-06 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ooops

#30 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-06 12:52 PM | Reply

And posting this article is how you aid Putin.

#31 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-06 01:12 PM | Reply

The memo did nothing to shed light on the process as it was manipulated in a partisan attempt to throw shade on the Mueller investigation by Nunes and the White House.

#29 | POSTED BY 726

Given that Gowdy worked with Nunes on the memo and Ryan is the highest ranking member of the House, what is in bold appears to be false based on this:

As I have said repeatedly, I also remain 100 percent confident in Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The contents of this memo do not - in any way - discredit his investigation.
- Trey Gowdy

thehill.com

"What this is not is an indictment on our institutions, of our justice system. This memo is not an indictment of the FBI, of the Department of Justice. It does not impugn [special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia] investigation or the deputy attorney general," Ryan said at a retreat for GOP lawmakers in West Virginia.

"What it is is the Congress's legitimate function of oversight to make sure the FISA process is being used correctly," he added, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "If it wasn't being used correctly, that needs to come to light and people need to be held accountable so this doesn't affect our civil liberties."


thehill.com

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And posting this article is how you aid Putin.

#31 | POSTED BY TOR

This article has nothing to do with Putin.

More non-support support....

#28 | POSTED BY JPW

What?

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 01:58 PM | Reply

Does the article help discredit the agency investigating Trump and Putin's unnatural relationship?

#34 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-06 02:07 PM | Reply

Does the article help discredit the agency investigating Trump and Putin's unnatural relationship?

#34 | POSTED BY TOR

No. Did you read the article?

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 02:14 PM | Reply

Now 73% of Republicans believe that the FBI and DOJ are seeking to undermine Trump.

That's the fruit of the memo - and articles like this.

I can't get past "Today they've (liberals) reverted to the J. Edgar Hoover era"

Such a lie. Years of work on the part of the FBI to restore trust and faith with the American people. Gone.

The poll numbers show that the work of the GOP to support Trump at the cost of the FBI's reputation have been successful.

No amount of rebuttal or release of the Democrat's memo will undo all the damage, the now engrained belief, of the GOP.

#36 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-06 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wait, wasn't the story that the fbi's built up trust had eroded due to Comey/Clinton Email investigation?
I recall the vast majority of liberals here claiming Comey tainted the FBI for going political.

#37 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-02-06 02:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"There is a world of difference between urging caution, especially having not seen the memo, and claiming the sky will fall if it's released after having seen the memo.
Hell, the memo doesn't even prove abuse."

Thune urged caution; McCain and Kasich were much more forceful. I'm not sure which version of the memo actually got released. There was the 1st version, the House saw. Then there was the changed version Nunes sent to the WH. Was that version the one that got released, or was there a 3rd version that took into account feedback from Trump's national security team?

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I recall the vast majority of liberals here claiming Comey tainted the FBI for going political.

#37 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Yes - after having closed the Clinton email "matter" it had to be reopened when in an unrelated investigation into Anthony Weiner's sexting of a minor the feds discovered a bunch of emails on his laptop tied to her server. That he disclosed this to congress less than 2 weeks before the election was apparently the worst crime ever.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 02:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Given that Gowdy worked with Nunes on the memo and Ryan is the highest ranking member of the House, what is in bold appears to be false based on this:"

A number of GOP House members claimed the memo undercut the Mueller investigation. Jordan, Meadows, Gaetz, to name a few. I can't remember them all. Mostly freedom caucus members and some others. If you google, you can find them.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That he disclosed this to congress less than 2 weeks before the election was apparently the worst crime ever."

Comey should have told the American people both Clinton and Trump were under FBI investigation. Many feel that only revealing Clinton was contributed to her losing the election, and Comey himself said it made him nauseous to think that his actions in that regard influenced the outcome of the election.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All In with Chris Hayes 2/5/18

Hayes: No one knew how right Harry Reid was

Chris Hayes explains how the FBI really did screw up the 2016 election by tipping it to Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 02:53 PM | Reply

A number of GOP House members claimed the memo undercut the Mueller investigation. Jordan, Meadows, Gaetz, to name a few. I can't remember them all. Mostly freedom caucus members and some others. If you google, you can find them.

#40 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I believe you. However, those making these claims are FAR less authoritative than Gowdy or Ryan.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 02:53 PM | Reply

"However, those making these claims are FAR less authoritative than Gowdy or Ryan."

They are also a lot more persistent and vocal in their claims.

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 02:55 PM | Reply

They are also a lot more persistent and vocal in their claims.

#44 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

It doesn't mean they are taken seriously. Do you think Maxine Waters' inane rants since Trump got elected are being taken seriously by anyone other than an extreme fringe?

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 02:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I recall the vast majority of liberals here claiming Comey tainted the FBI for going political.

#37 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2018-02-06 02:39 PM

Conflating their narratives only makes the pointy headed proggies angrier than usual.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 03:17 PM | Reply

"It doesn't mean they are taken seriously. "

They are on Fox News. Also, I wouldn't call Meadows and Jordan the extreme fringe, would you? Perhaps Gaetz would be equivilent to Waters.

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-06 03:24 PM | Reply

"No. Did you read the article?"

"In the 1970s, progressives stood up for civil liberties. Today they've reverted to the J. Edgar Hoover era."

Smears Democrats and the FBI at the same time.

#48 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-06 03:26 PM | Reply

We've seen the memo and it's misleading by omission.
#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why do the House Dems need to do that when the FBI literally already released a statement saying just that?

#49 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-06 03:35 PM | Reply

HRC devotees hated Comey. They blame him for their defeat. Pretty funny actually. What neither Trump lovers nor HRC lovers ever seemed to understand was that Comey's flaws were not partisan in nature.

#50 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-06 03:53 PM | Reply

Smears Democrats and the FBI at the same time.

#48 | POSTED BY TOR

Nope. It just smears Democrats.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We've seen the memo and it's misleading by omission.
#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
Why do the House Dems need to do that when the FBI literally already released a statement saying just that?

#49 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Because whilst the FBI made that statement, they didn't provide any contrary evidence of what, specifically, was omitted that made the memo misleading.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 04:20 PM | Reply

"Nope. It just smears Democrats."

And you're just fine with the smearing of the only group with votes in Congress that opposes Trump/Putin being smeared.

#53 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-06 04:30 PM | Reply

I'm fine with criticizing Democrats when their actions warrant criticism.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 04:37 PM | Reply

Do you think Democrats are above reproach?

Do you think that they should never, EVER, be criticized, under any circumstances, as long as they are opposing Trump?

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 04:38 PM | Reply

Remember how faux outraged these limpwristers were over "you're either with us or against us"?
Now, the same exact poofs throw a hissy if anyone dares to not continually join their anti-trump circular firing squad.

Normal person: "Jeesh, it sure is sunny outside!"
Deranged anti-trumper: "you're a trump supporter! You shouldn't talk about anything but negative things about trump!"

I can't stand the guy but I dislike you clowns even more. Youre like mean girls on a playground, only weaker and even more annoying.

#56 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-02-06 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think that the timing of your promoting this article isn't a coincidence.

#57 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-06 05:00 PM | Reply

"limpwristers"

Is that a homophobic slur?

Asking for people who thought a picture of some British loser brown-nosimg Trump was a homophobic slur.

And by people I mean Sentinel.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 05:02 PM | Reply

"Normal person: "Jeesh, it sure is sunny outside!"
Deranged anti-trumper: "you're a trump supporter!"

Just like a Trump supporter to say that!

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 05:03 PM | Reply

The timing is because this article is about Democrats' attempting to suppress the Nunes memo. That's still a fresh story.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 05:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Dems turned the IRS into a political weapon and wonder why people suspect them.
They need to have a more convencing argument than Trump is bad.
If this is a red herring the dems should have no trouble proving it.

#61 | Posted by graph1 at 2018-02-06 05:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Oh so Jeff does have an anti-law enforcement agenda.

#62 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-06 07:24 PM | Reply

Jesus, Jeff...really???

#63 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-02-07 05:31 AM | Reply

#56 | Posted by 101Chairborne

You're just an -------.

#64 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-02-07 05:33 AM | Reply

#61

You get to the essence of the situation, GRAPH: Donald Trump is a Bad Man.

I'm willing to be as fair to the Bad Man as he is to me. But please, suit yourself.

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-07 07:46 AM | Reply

Hillary using an intermediary to get dirt on Trump from the Russians is OK, Trump Jr. attempting the same thing is the biggest crime since 911.

#66 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-02-07 08:15 AM | Reply

Let us look further into the kiddie porn on anthony weiners laptop...

Just open it up, what is there to hide?

#67 | Posted by mutant at 2018-02-07 10:30 AM | Reply

The contracted work product, which includes Steele's findings, was done through an ally of the United States, investigating Trump's history with Russia and lead to quite a cast of unsavory fellows.

Trump's traitorous troop contacted and worked with Russians directly, including those under sanction, to influence the election and put Trump in office. So it has been alleged. Even without the allegation of intent, the contacts with those individuals, the guilty pleas already entered from people on Trump's Team, etc. there's enough there to show how radically different the two events are.

That means your attempt at a false equivalence was a massive fail.

#68 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-07 10:36 AM | Reply

#68 | POSTED BY YAV

I am not sure why everyone who posts on this thread feels so compelled to move the goalposts.

This is what this thread is about:

I found it unimaginable that congressional Democrats, or American progressives generally, would ever return to championing unquestioned acceptance of FBI claims that its surveillance practices must remain hidden from the public.

Yet, everybody on this thread seems hell-bent to make this thread about anything other than what it is actually about.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 10:42 AM | Reply

Among the sources of Steele were Russian agents. The Russian agents working with Steele could also have been working with the same Russian agents attempting influence the election. The only difference is that Hillary was smart enough to work through several intermediaries. Hillary has been colluding for many years, she's admittedly better at it than Trump Jr.

#70 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-02-07 10:55 AM | Reply

"Hillary has been colluding for many years"

Riiiiiiiiiight. She's been pursued by cadres of lawyers for decades, and not a single charge. That would either make her the smartest human who ever lived, or you one of the most gullible.

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-07 10:58 AM | Reply

I am not sure why everyone who posts on this thread feels so compelled to move the goalposts.

Tell that to Visitor - who I was responding to.

I won't respond to the deflection/response if it'll make you feel better :)

#72 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-07 11:07 AM | Reply

#72

I thought your post was directed at me.

My apologies.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 11:08 AM | Reply

She's smarter than Trump and Trump Jr., she uses intermediaries. It doesn't mitigate that collusion with foreign agents is occurring on her behalf for her benefit.

#74 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-02-07 11:09 AM | Reply

Paying for dirt on your political opponent is legal and normal politics. Accepting dirt as a gift from a foreign power is collusion and criminal if it involves a conspiracy to acquire stolen property. That is the difference, and that is why the Whitehouse and Trump crime family has had to lawyer up.

It is amusing to see all you traitor enablers rushing to help cover for Trump so you don't look so stupid.

#75 | Posted by bored at 2018-02-07 06:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort