Then why would the dossier say the the justification for the FISA application on Page was the dossier and why was it not corroborated before being used to spy on Page and why was the dossier used multiple times to approve spying?
You're missing the point that the Republicans dropped their interest and funding after the GOP primaries long before the DNC commissioned the dossier. Even the dossier disproves your lies. "Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS".
The Nunes memo revolves around the assertion that Carter Page's collusion with Russia's spy agency should not have been caught by a FISA warrant...
"The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. "
" Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s effort"
"corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application"
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Using political opposition research from Foreign spies as justification to spy on an American without telling the courts that the source for the justification is political opposition research from a Foreign spy is in simple words... Very bad.
By the time Carter Page was caught committing treason for the Trump campaign he had already been caught communicating with and offering help to Russian spies in a completely separate spy ring.
Considering your use of "treason" and being an anonymous troll I think your a shill but to address your point. If that were true, why would the FBI use the Steele Dossier as justification for the initial FISA application and why would the FBI not tell the FISA courts about the political component of that dossier?
Page maybe scummy and an idiot wanting Russian money but that doesn't detract from the monumental shit show the FBI orchestrated and how badly the FISA courts can be abused. This dossier doesn't answer every question but it sure does answer quite a few and highlights various abuses of FISA and the FBI.
This kind of comment shows how effective at poisoning the well works. There is no need for critical thought on the message if you can dismiss the messenger with a single word.
To pivot a little, one argument being made is that we should know "who" donates to PACs, Super-PACs, online ads, and online groups so we know their "true" motives. Initially, sounds great but it is very much like poisoning the well. I don't need to think about the position if I can dismiss it as a Kock or Mercer propaganda piece. I wonder, would that position apply in the US South in 1850's for anti-slavery political spending. Would you care that the person promoting anti-slave positions in the south would face consequences for their position by deanonymizing them? Can their message stand on it's own merits and why would it change today?
The point is that any message should be judged by its own merit and sometimes knowing who said the message is irrelevant. If the best you can do is dismiss any message because someone you don't like said it then you are intellectually lazy and lack critical thinking abilities.
From your article: "Shortly before midnight (0500 GMT) on Monday, the Treasury Department released an unclassified “oligarchs” list, including 114 senior Russian political figures and 96 business people..... the law mandated that the U.S. Treasury and State Departments, and intelligence agencies, compile a list of political figures and business people close to Putin’s government and network, for potential future sanctions. "
According to your own link the administration followed the law. I heard this same crap on NPR this morning. "They only followed the law to the bare minimum. The bare minimum is not following the law!". Bare minimum is more than Obama not enforcing immigration law. More double standards and more lies from the media.
Four Trump campaign and administration officials have been charged with serious crimes.
For lying either after the election or crimes long before the election. Which makes the special investigation moving beyond the original intent and your next point rather moot.
Donald Trump committed treason with Russia, and committed obstruction of justice in his cover-up.
The investigation about Trump Russian collusion only has arrests for things that never occurred during the election in which said collusion was supposed to happen. You know it's a witch because the scope has moved beyond "Trump Russia collusion during the election". Now, it's about "find any dirt and use that hopefully to impeach Trump when our team takes the congress". IOW, dirty politics and the same bullshit that has haunted every special investigation that has ever been convened.
There is most certainly a witch hunt because the original special investigation has moved well beyond "Trump Russian Collusion". Until the facts come out, the FBI, the special investigation, have had their reputation tarnished because of shit people like Strozk and Page.
You are a piece of shit anonymous coward pushing an agenda that gives zero shits about the rule of law when you brandish words like "treason" and "traitor" without giving a fuck about the fruit of the poison tree.
The point is, US police guns down its citizens... the US government slaughters its citizens.
If that is your point then I should fear black men more than the police.
why is the US so far down on the freedom index. Since you keep moving the goal posts
I am not moving the goal post. The only relevant example you brought up is people killed by the police. Yes, the chances of being killed is high if you are violent, criminal, break the law, and resist arrest. Where that happens skew the statistics. You say you lived in the US but obviously do not understand how each state carries out its own laws. I don't live in Chicago or plan to live there, so why should I care? You have failed to explain why I should care what happens in Chicago besides some report that analyzes aggregates that has no bearing on my life or place of living. You missed my point that I have the same means as the police and that means if someone threatens my life or liberty I will gun them down whether they are the government or not. I can do more and say more than most Europeans. I would rather live with the risks of having that freedom than the arbitrary definitions and enforcement of the government.
I don't think you have anything to base your speculation on the idea that greed is going to turn the poor irrelevant especially considering that the rich are no longer guaranteed rich like the royalty of old. The rich can become poor and the poor can become rich and their relationship is more symbiotic than predatory.
. Once robots can do everything that rich people need them to do, poor people will be irrelevant
I don't understand this logic. What makes rich people rich these days is selling products and services that a lot of people (rich, poor and middle) want. Bill Gates didn't make his billions by being an elitist thinking the poor is irrelevant. Even poor people purchased his products and services.
Robots streamline production to lower the costs on some product or service to be sold at more competitive prices. More robots means cheaper products and services. Therefore poor people are irrelevant?
What about, more products and services available to poor people?
You are missing the part of energy quotas. Each according to their need. The Federation is rather authoritarian and tyrannical with a secret police and near limitless power to the Federations ability to declare martial law. Who decides how much energy you can consume if you truly live in post-scarcity? We haven't even kicked the fossil fuel habit yet some believe that a few robots doing mundane tasks will be the equivalent of a society that can convert energy into matter on a whim yet still limits every citizens consumption of energy to yearly quotas?
Is the suggestion that we limit every citizens energy usage to a yearly quota because of a few robots? Ugh... even the Space commie society doesn't sound as Rosie as Picard made it. "betterment of mankind" but you can't use more than X energy btw section 31 is watching you.
The counting would only happen sometimes. If I was in trouble I would get my full name and the belt. Funny why using the full name would denote being in trouble. Never understood that one I just knew that if I heard my full name things were serious and I was probably in trouble.
If you happen to belong to the wrong ethnic group, you're not free to do things anyone is free to do in the US without fear of getting gunned down by government agents.
Again, this is demonstrably false. The media portrayal makes it looks like black men are being killed by police on mass. In reality, they are killing each other far more so. Because you have to make the distinction of "unlawful police killing". Out of the millions of police encounters out of the millions of people only a few end violently and even fewer are unjustified. You are taking media reports and forming your opinion on false partisan talking points. It is false.
you fail to address
No, I did not. Very few police encounters end in violence out of the millions of encounters. Fewer of those are unjustified.
"free speech" zones
Ok, this one I agree is bad but you are still able to protest but sometimes the place is restricted. Can you make your protest wherever you want? Can you block an ambulance to protest healthcare? Do you have equivalent in Europe? Can you protest any where you want in Europe?
economic freedom,
You are taking national averages and trying to extrapolate individual circumstance. The original point was "How am I less free than someone arrested for a tweet". If you don't want to be poor in the US do 3 things: graduate high school, get a full time job, and get married before you have children. Should I concern myself with the national economic freedom index if I did those 3 things and am not poor?
freedom of religion in practice
Who is arrested for practicing their religion? Give me specific examples.
Absolute freedom of speech ranks rather low on most people's requirements to feel, and be, free.
Anyone that thinks this is a fool and do not understand the importance of free speech. Don't get the wrong opinion, you maybe arrested for it.
I am a lot more free in Europe
You have failed to demonstrate it. All you demonstrated is that fools abound, including you.
Couple of points. 1, If I am able to defend myself without the government the government has the same means. I do not need the government to protect me from a mob and I do not need to worry about government complicity allowing mob rule. That means that the government has the same means. 2, Where I live, the national stats do not even come close to reality for "getting killed by police" and is in fact safer than in most of Europe. The stats are skewed by inner city gangs particularly like Chicago and Detroit. Maybe you don't understand how large and diverse the US is. Europe has begun to meddle in that kind of society and have already shown cracks and instability.
If that is your only example of how I am less free than the person arrested for a tweet then I would suggest that you have failed completely. It's very easy to reduce your risk with encounters with the police; not break law, be respectful, etc. Sure there are still bad examples but those are few and far between. The media portrayal is dismally out of sync with reality (Did you see or hear about the story of the guy in Vegas gun downed in a hotel on his knees hands up?) because they drive click bait for money. If you try to extrapolate what you hear in the media to national behavior then you are a fool. If you try to extrapolate national averages to the local reality then you are a fool.
It doesn't matter what I think because it would be speculative as is what you think. Maybe you missed my point. "Even if the worst of the worst happens for climate change that will not end human civilization and it is debated if it will threaten health or stability and by how much. ". It's like claiming that New York City streets will be underneath 5 ft of horseshit if trends continue. Sure, it could happen but that was speculation as is what you are claiming will happen. 2c global temperature increase does not mean the end of the world or humanity. Get over it.
discontent masses, unstable countries, mass migrations, radicalization, nationalism and xenophobia
Don't we already have this? Oh no! More of the same. GG no re. Am I supposed to be concerned about this maybe happening in the future? Wow, so different. So dramatic. So what.
No, supporting the ISS or not has nothing to do with supporting
Does NASA have a fixed budget? Is ISS part of that budget? If NASA removes ISS from their budget can they do other things with that money?
SLS
How many different rocket systems has NASA developed since the shuttle? Does that come out of the budget of NASA? If NASA doesn't have to develop a new rocket for whatever they need can they use that money for other things?
fair
Investment says nothing about return. I don't care what we got back because we already paid for it. Could we have gotten the same return for less investment if we ignored the international community? What matters is if we should continue paying in disproportionate levels for arguably minimal returns for high investment. If the partners involved are not committing equally in investment why should I care to continue supporting disproportionate investment with minimal returns?
Even further, lets say lab grown beef becomes economically viable to replace 'real' beef. Would it be ethical to allow the extinction of the cow because it had become economically unsustainable? It cannot survive without humans because we artificially selected traits to service our needs over its own over thousands of years.
Life may suck for a cow but at least it has a life. Is a bad life better than no life?
Slashdot Mirror
Then why would the dossier say the the justification for the FISA application on Page was the dossier and why was it not corroborated before being used to spy on Page and why was the dossier used multiple times to approve spying?
There seems to be an abnormal number of anonymous trolls spewing garbage.
You're missing the point that the Republicans dropped their interest and funding after the GOP primaries long before the DNC commissioned the dossier. Even the dossier disproves your lies. "Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS".
Stop parroting lies.
The Nunes memo revolves around the assertion that Carter Page's collusion with Russia's spy agency should not have been caught by a FISA warrant...
"The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. "
" Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s effort"
"corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application"
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Using political opposition research from Foreign spies as justification to spy on an American without telling the courts that the source for the justification is political opposition research from a Foreign spy is in simple words... Very bad.
By the time Carter Page was caught committing treason for the Trump campaign he had already been caught communicating with and offering help to Russian spies in a completely separate spy ring.
Considering your use of "treason" and being an anonymous troll I think your a shill but to address your point. If that were true, why would the FBI use the Steele Dossier as justification for the initial FISA application and why would the FBI not tell the FISA courts about the political component of that dossier?
Page maybe scummy and an idiot wanting Russian money but that doesn't detract from the monumental shit show the FBI orchestrated and how badly the FISA courts can be abused. This dossier doesn't answer every question but it sure does answer quite a few and highlights various abuses of FISA and the FBI.
Who also just so happened to step down right before all this.
XXongo isn't your real name?
My whole life is a lie.
Because there's no realistic food shortage that this would address
To expand, we don't have a food production problem we have a food distribution problem.
This kind of comment shows how effective at poisoning the well works. There is no need for critical thought on the message if you can dismiss the messenger with a single word.
To pivot a little, one argument being made is that we should know "who" donates to PACs, Super-PACs, online ads, and online groups so we know their "true" motives. Initially, sounds great but it is very much like poisoning the well. I don't need to think about the position if I can dismiss it as a Kock or Mercer propaganda piece. I wonder, would that position apply in the US South in 1850's for anti-slavery political spending. Would you care that the person promoting anti-slave positions in the south would face consequences for their position by deanonymizing them? Can their message stand on it's own merits and why would it change today?
The point is that any message should be judged by its own merit and sometimes knowing who said the message is irrelevant. If the best you can do is dismiss any message because someone you don't like said it then you are intellectually lazy and lack critical thinking abilities.
Trump refused to implement the sanctions law
From your article: "Shortly before midnight (0500 GMT) on Monday, the Treasury Department released an unclassified “oligarchs” list, including 114 senior Russian political figures and 96 business people. .... the law mandated that the U.S. Treasury and State Departments, and intelligence agencies, compile a list of political figures and business people close to Putin’s government and network, for potential future sanctions. "
According to your own link the administration followed the law. I heard this same crap on NPR this morning. "They only followed the law to the bare minimum. The bare minimum is not following the law!". Bare minimum is more than Obama not enforcing immigration law. More double standards and more lies from the media.
Four Trump campaign and administration officials have been charged with serious crimes.
For lying either after the election or crimes long before the election. Which makes the special investigation moving beyond the original intent and your next point rather moot.
Donald Trump committed treason with Russia, and committed obstruction of justice in his cover-up.
The investigation about Trump Russian collusion only has arrests for things that never occurred during the election in which said collusion was supposed to happen. You know it's a witch because the scope has moved beyond "Trump Russia collusion during the election". Now, it's about "find any dirt and use that hopefully to impeach Trump when our team takes the congress". IOW, dirty politics and the same bullshit that has haunted every special investigation that has ever been convened.
There is most certainly a witch hunt because the original special investigation has moved well beyond "Trump Russian Collusion". Until the facts come out, the FBI, the special investigation, have had their reputation tarnished because of shit people like Strozk and Page.
You are a piece of shit anonymous coward pushing an agenda that gives zero shits about the rule of law when you brandish words like "treason" and "traitor" without giving a fuck about the fruit of the poison tree.
The point is, US police guns down its citizens... the US government slaughters its citizens.
If that is your point then I should fear black men more than the police.
why is the US so far down on the freedom index. Since you keep moving the goal posts
I am not moving the goal post. The only relevant example you brought up is people killed by the police. Yes, the chances of being killed is high if you are violent, criminal, break the law, and resist arrest. Where that happens skew the statistics. You say you lived in the US but obviously do not understand how each state carries out its own laws. I don't live in Chicago or plan to live there, so why should I care? You have failed to explain why I should care what happens in Chicago besides some report that analyzes aggregates that has no bearing on my life or place of living. You missed my point that I have the same means as the police and that means if someone threatens my life or liberty I will gun them down whether they are the government or not. I can do more and say more than most Europeans. I would rather live with the risks of having that freedom than the arbitrary definitions and enforcement of the government.
I don't think you have anything to base your speculation on the idea that greed is going to turn the poor irrelevant especially considering that the rich are no longer guaranteed rich like the royalty of old. The rich can become poor and the poor can become rich and their relationship is more symbiotic than predatory.
. Once robots can do everything that rich people need them to do, poor people will be irrelevant
I don't understand this logic. What makes rich people rich these days is selling products and services that a lot of people (rich, poor and middle) want. Bill Gates didn't make his billions by being an elitist thinking the poor is irrelevant. Even poor people purchased his products and services.
Robots streamline production to lower the costs on some product or service to be sold at more competitive prices.
More robots means cheaper products and services.
Therefore poor people are irrelevant?
What about, more products and services available to poor people?
You are missing the part of energy quotas. Each according to their need. The Federation is rather authoritarian and tyrannical with a secret police and near limitless power to the Federations ability to declare martial law. Who decides how much energy you can consume if you truly live in post-scarcity? We haven't even kicked the fossil fuel habit yet some believe that a few robots doing mundane tasks will be the equivalent of a society that can convert energy into matter on a whim yet still limits every citizens consumption of energy to yearly quotas?
Is the suggestion that we limit every citizens energy usage to a yearly quota because of a few robots? Ugh... even the Space commie society doesn't sound as Rosie as Picard made it. "betterment of mankind" but you can't use more than X energy btw section 31 is watching you.
Yikes.
The counting would only happen sometimes. If I was in trouble I would get my full name and the belt. Funny why using the full name would denote being in trouble. Never understood that one I just knew that if I heard my full name things were serious and I was probably in trouble.
Shit... Touche. We should organize our society after the lobsters.
If you happen to belong to the wrong ethnic group, you're not free to do things anyone is free to do in the US without fear of getting gunned down by government agents.
Again, this is demonstrably false. The media portrayal makes it looks like black men are being killed by police on mass. In reality, they are killing each other far more so. Because you have to make the distinction of "unlawful police killing". Out of the millions of police encounters out of the millions of people only a few end violently and even fewer are unjustified. You are taking media reports and forming your opinion on false partisan talking points. It is false.
you fail to address
No, I did not. Very few police encounters end in violence out of the millions of encounters. Fewer of those are unjustified.
"free speech" zones
Ok, this one I agree is bad but you are still able to protest but sometimes the place is restricted. Can you make your protest wherever you want? Can you block an ambulance to protest healthcare? Do you have equivalent in Europe? Can you protest any where you want in Europe?
economic freedom,
You are taking national averages and trying to extrapolate individual circumstance. The original point was "How am I less free than someone arrested for a tweet". If you don't want to be poor in the US do 3 things: graduate high school, get a full time job, and get married before you have children. Should I concern myself with the national economic freedom index if I did those 3 things and am not poor?
freedom of religion in practice
Who is arrested for practicing their religion? Give me specific examples.
Absolute freedom of speech ranks rather low on most people's requirements to feel, and be, free.
Anyone that thinks this is a fool and do not understand the importance of free speech. Don't get the wrong opinion, you maybe arrested for it.
I am a lot more free in Europe
You have failed to demonstrate it. All you demonstrated is that fools abound, including you.
Couple of points.
1, If I am able to defend myself without the government the government has the same means. I do not need the government to protect me from a mob and I do not need to worry about government complicity allowing mob rule. That means that the government has the same means.
2, Where I live, the national stats do not even come close to reality for "getting killed by police" and is in fact safer than in most of Europe. The stats are skewed by inner city gangs particularly like Chicago and Detroit. Maybe you don't understand how large and diverse the US is. Europe has begun to meddle in that kind of society and have already shown cracks and instability.
If that is your only example of how I am less free than the person arrested for a tweet then I would suggest that you have failed completely. It's very easy to reduce your risk with encounters with the police; not break law, be respectful, etc. Sure there are still bad examples but those are few and far between. The media portrayal is dismally out of sync with reality (Did you see or hear about the story of the guy in Vegas gun downed in a hotel on his knees hands up?) because they drive click bait for money. If you try to extrapolate what you hear in the media to national behavior then you are a fool. If you try to extrapolate national averages to the local reality then you are a fool.
I can say what I want and defend myself to say it and receive a fair trial. How am I not free or less free than those that are arrested for a tweet?
It doesn't matter what I think because it would be speculative as is what you think. Maybe you missed my point. "Even if the worst of the worst happens for climate change that will not end human civilization and it is debated if it will threaten health or stability and by how much. ". It's like claiming that New York City streets will be underneath 5 ft of horseshit if trends continue. Sure, it could happen but that was speculation as is what you are claiming will happen. 2c global temperature increase does not mean the end of the world or humanity. Get over it.
discontent masses, unstable countries, mass migrations, radicalization, nationalism and xenophobia
Don't we already have this? Oh no! More of the same. GG no re. Am I supposed to be concerned about this maybe happening in the future? Wow, so different. So dramatic. So what.
But corn and soy do not taste near as good as the pig. Sooooooo, Given the choice I take bacon flavored climate change. :D
No, supporting the ISS or not has nothing to do with supporting
Does NASA have a fixed budget? Is ISS part of that budget? If NASA removes ISS from their budget can they do other things with that money?
SLS
How many different rocket systems has NASA developed since the shuttle? Does that come out of the budget of NASA? If NASA doesn't have to develop a new rocket for whatever they need can they use that money for other things?
fair
Investment says nothing about return. I don't care what we got back because we already paid for it. Could we have gotten the same return for less investment if we ignored the international community? What matters is if we should continue paying in disproportionate levels for arguably minimal returns for high investment. If the partners involved are not committing equally in investment why should I care to continue supporting disproportionate investment with minimal returns?
piggy heaven
mmm. Where even the pig may eat bacon conscious free.
Even further, lets say lab grown beef becomes economically viable to replace 'real' beef. Would it be ethical to allow the extinction of the cow because it had become economically unsustainable? It cannot survive without humans because we artificially selected traits to service our needs over its own over thousands of years.
Life may suck for a cow but at least it has a life. Is a bad life better than no life?
If everyone does their part the problem of climate change will be gone in about a month! Give or take a few days.