It was a ruse, a fraud, a swindle, a trick, a hoax. Believers were duped. — NOS4A2
In fact, it was those working for the opposing campaign that spread Russian-sourced active measures to the willing, who lapped it up with nary any criticism. — NOS4A2
We know the dodgy Steele dossier — NOS4A2
was sourced from Russian intelligence — NOS4A2
which included the American govt. spying on American citizens, — NOS4A2
This recent Ukrainian “scandal” will likely backfire—again— — NOS4A2
proving typical opposition overreach — NOS4A2
Active measures (Russian: активные мероприятия, romanized: aktivnye meropriyatiya) is a term for the actions of political warfare conducted by the Soviet and Russian security services (Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, KGB, FSB) to influence the course of world events, in addition to collecting intelligence and producing "politically correct" assessment of it.
Look at you using Trump's propaganda speak.
It's not the nation of origin that matters. It's about working together with agents of a foreign and geopolitically "hostile" government. But you know this, you're just spreading propaganda.
Which it is allowed to do thanks to legislation passed by a republican government.
I curious, just what limits do you think the opposition is overreaching?
Yes Steele worked with Russian FSB and intelligence officials in the Kremlin to produce a salacious dossier. You knew this, of course. — NOS4A2
You think the American govt. should spy on its own citizens and political opponents? Wow. — NOS4A2
Demanding the president’s private conversations with leaders because someone who doesn’t even have direct knowledge believes it’s bad. — NOS4A2
Oh so now opposition research by the DNC was also a secret operation by the Russian intelligence services, who tried to undermine Trump while at the same time trying to get him elected?
And I am sure you have evidence that Steele worked "with" russian officials "to" produce a salacious dossier, rather than just using sources from those circles?
Bad enough for the White House to not comply with it's legal obligations. Are those legal obligations somehow "overreach" to you?
Now you don’t care that an American campaign was working with Russian intelligence to get dirt on their opponent in order to influence an election. Isn’t that a surprise. — NOS4A2
What do you think they were doing, telling the truth? Helping the American people? They spun a web that reached the highest offices in American intelligence, resulting in a massive tax-payer funded witch-hunt. — NOS4A2
Yes it is because any complaint could be use to disrupt the highest office in the land from doing its constitutional duties. — NOS4A2
At no point was the fact that the research was DNC funded, was gathered by a biased anti-trump spy, added to any FISA applications or their subsequent renewals. — NOS4A2
Oh I do care, you just don't have any evidence, and your conjectured story is contradicted by the documented efforts of the russian state to get Trump elected.
Yes it was. Page 16 of the application. Although it doesn’t name the DNC because it’s standard procedure not to identify U.S persons/organisations unless they’re a target (it also doesn’t name Trump - it just refers to Candidate #1), it clearly states that the motivation of the research it to discredit a Presidential campaign.
It says that the motive of the research was to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign. That’s sufficient information for the judges to come to a decision on whether or not the evidence warrants a renewal.
In notes Mr. Ohr took of a September 2016 conversation with Mr. Steele, he wrote that the dossier author “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
This dossier was used to throw American politics, American law enforcement and the press into disarray for years to come, — NOS4A2
fundamentally threatening democracy itself — NOS4A2
Americans spied on other Americans. — NOS4A2
Did any Russian bots achieve so big a score? — NOS4A2
That is insufficient because it fails to mention who was paying for the information and seeking to benefit from it, candidate #2 and her campaign. — NOS4A2
None of it was included in the application, and in fact it said Steele was reliable.
Based on the Patriot act, for which the Bush administration is majorly responsible. You're not claiming that the investigation into Trumps campaign marked the first time Americans spied on Americans, are you?
Oh really? I'd like to hear you justify this claim.
Since russian bots contributed to Trumps election, which is the root cause for all subsequent turmoil, they kind of did.
It didn't need to mention it because the information it gave – that the motivation was to discredit Trump's campaign – was sufficient to establish bias.
Someone can be biased and reliable. Being biased doesn't mean that you're going to put your career and reputation on the line – and possibly put yourself in legal jeapordy – by just making any old shit up and passing it off to the FBI as credible intel.
Am I to dismiss everything you say in support of Trump and against his opponents on the grounds that you clearly have biases of your own? Or should I consider your arguments on their own terms and weigh their strengths against your motivation? That's what the FBI did in stating that "notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."
Using the intelligence apparatus to spy on a political campaign is Watergate-level stuff. — NOS4A2
What, some Facebook ads and fake twitter accounts contributed to Trump’s election? — NOS4A2
In contrast, multi-millions in DNC propaganda and vast, incessant negative reporting did not contribute to Trump’s election? — NOS4A2
Repeatedly people here have responded to you substantively, which is nothing else is work. But you are non-responsive. "Straight DNC propoganda." Like what, for example?
Are Fox News, Breitbart etc. not American media? As to your question: evidently Trump's campaign was relatively more successful than Hillary's.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.