It's definitely correct. The Patriot Act contained nothing to override the requirement for a FISA warrant. There would not, of course, be a SCOTUS ruling on this, since Obama abused his office to pressure the AG into not even bringing charges, and so we didn't even get to the step where some Bush legal hack would craft a half-baked theory about how FISA doesn't apply to Bush because of the Patriot Act, much less to the step where the SCOTUS would rule on such nonsense.
Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
It's definitely correct. The Patriot Act contained nothing to override the requirement for a FISA warrant. There would not, of course, be a SCOTUS ruling on this, since Obama abused his office to pressure the AG into not even bringing charges, and so we didn't even get to the step where some Bush legal hack would craft a half-baked theory about how FISA doesn't apply to Bush because of the Patriot Act, much less to the step where the SCOTUS would rule on such nonsense.
He didn't merely show it to him in a powerpoint presentation or on his iphone...
He continually sent him polling data for months throughout the campaign and election.
Now, that might not be illegal, but it is definitely collusion.
The answers are out there if you want to know them. There was no collusion and there was no obstruction. Mueller was allowed to run his investigation his way all the way to the end, and he could not find cause for a conviction or charge. I know its hard for some to accept but Trump colluded with no one. He won fair and square.
No I'm not.
Mueller's report lays out exactly what Manafort did; he gave Russian spies GOP polling data for PA, MI, WI, and MN (all states the IRA targeted with trolls). That's collusion.
Wrong.
You're trying to move the bar again...there's a debate whether or not the collusion is illegal, but there's no debate Manafort colluded with Russian spies. He absolutely, 100% did.
You even took pains to say that collusion wasn't illegal. Well, OK, but it's still collusion.
No it is not collusion or Mueller's report would have pointed that out. I give Mueller more credit to know collusion when he sees it than I do you.
Then why haven't you, or anyone, been able to answer them?
Why did Manafort collude with Russian spies by sharing polling data with them for PA, MI, WI, and MN for months during the campaign and election?
Why did Drumpf's Counsel reach out to Flynn when they learned Flynn was cooperating with Mueller?
Then how do you explain Manafort sharing polling data, for months, with Russian spies?
Then how do you explain Trump's Counsel dangling a pardon before Flynn when they learned Flynn had cooperated with the SC?
2 and a half years of investigation by 30 attorneys and staff and 40 million dollars says otherwise.
34 people and businesses were indicted.
The only reason he didn't indict trump was because of OLC guidelines.
How many times are you going to lie about this? Infinite, because if you told the truth, you'd be forced to come to terms with the fact that your judgment was so poor, you got conned.
Your ego is too fragile to handle that.
This is a goalpost shift, of course...because the allegation isn't that Trump colluded with Russia personally, the evidence shows that his campaign did on his behalf.
Sharing confidential GOP polling data for months with Russian spies connected to the IRA and the troll army that was targeting people in the same states whose polling data Manafort was sharing isn't collusion?
Then what is it?
Manaforte broke no laws and rules regarding the campaign. Showing data to someone is not colluding with them. Collusion takes action from both parties. And saying Flynn's a hero and a good American and should not be prosecuted is not "dangling a pardon".
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Because Mueller did not dispute what Barr said during his public statement
His report did point it out; that's why we're talking about it right now, dingus.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Lv has 30 million to do another investigation
Some Russian tech companies were indicted, why? I don't know because they will never have to show up in court. But two of the companies have demanded their day in court and Mueller blocked it. Why did he do that if their crimes were so apparent?. Some other folks were jailed for perjury having nothing to do with collusion. You are being dishonest by half and I think you know it.
The evidence does not show collusion or Mueller would have had to bring charges, and you keep saying Mueller didn't prosecute because of not being able to indict a sitting president but Mueller himself said that was not the case so why do you keep repeating a falsehood? Look up his clarifying statement through his spokesperson the days fallowing his speech.
As previously discussed, the crime decline started under Dinkins and continues to today. Giuliani was just one mayor along that road. And it was a crime decline that hit nearly all the big cities in the US in the same era, so crediting Giuliani makes particularly little sense. Just as an example, check out DC:
https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/homicidereport_0.pdf
Murders fell by about half in that period.
Or Boston:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Homicide_Rate_in_Boston.png
Or San Diego:
It isn't. In terms of murder rate, NYC stands at 3.39/100k:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
That's far below the national average of 5.30.
It also has low property crime, with a rate of 1448.59, which compares to a national average of 2,362.20.
To put it in perspective, if NYC were a state, its murder rate would rank closest to Iowa, which has a rate of 3.3. The dangerous places are places like Louisiana and Missouri.
What matters isn't my opinion, but the verifiable facts. However, since I form my opinions by consulting the verifiable facts, those are the same thing. By comparison, you're just pushing a naked opinion, with no facts to back it up.
That would be unwise. We have statistics about how people fair when alone and in need of immediate help. It's one of the reasons life expectancies are much higher in urban areas than rural ones. If you run into trouble in urban areas, you generally have people nearby who can help you, well-funded public services that can respond to your emergency quickly and with competence, and nearby trauma centers that can save your life. If you run into similar problems in rural areas, there's a good chance nobody will even know until your corpse starts to stink.
Sadly, yes. I've heard there are some nice spots, like Austin and parts of Miami, etc. But my experience was with nastier parts. Fortunately, there's little cause to travel there, other than to the tourist enclaves on the coasts -- much as can be said for must of Central America, come to think of it.