Docs show John Brennan suppressed intel showing Russia actually wanted Hillary to win

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,790
5,441
1,743
Katy, TX
//

ok, let me ask you this. Let's say it is an American citizen of Pakistani decent getting regular communications from someone overseas that the CIA thinks MIGHT be tied to Pakistani intelligence. No solid evidence to that effect, but should the FISA court allow the surveillance? Now I'm just speculating, but I'll be willing to bet that hundreds if not thousands of such instances have occurred since 9/11 where maybe only a handful turned out to be illicit. Now do you feel better about the CIA and FBI bending the rules on those, or should they follow the law to the T? And I wouldn't say I"m angry, just I can see this coming in the next 10 years.
For the FISA abuse we are talking about Carter Page, in this instance the CIA provided the FBI with documentation that Carter Page was a CIA asset. The FBI changed that document to say that he was not an asset of our IC in the submittal for the FISA warrant. That was illegal.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
For the FISA abuse we are talking about Carter Page, in this instance the CIA provided the FBI with documentation that Carter Page was a CIA asset. The FBI changed that document to say that he was not an asset of our IC in the submittal for the FISA warrant. That was illegal.
Then I assume I'll be reading about charges being brought against someone?
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
12,746
10,660
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
//

ok, let me ask you this. Let's say it is an American citizen of Pakistani decent getting regular communications from someone overseas that the CIA thinks MIGHT be tied to Pakistani intelligence. No solid evidence to that effect, but should the FISA court allow the surveillance? Now I'm just speculating, but I'll be willing to bet that hundreds if not thousands of such instances have occurred since 9/11 where maybe only a handful turned out to be illicit. Now do you feel better about the CIA and FBI bending the rules on those, or should they follow the law to the T? And I wouldn't say I"m angry, just I can see this coming in the next 10 years.
They should follow the law to the T. If there is something illicit going on that gives them cause to unmask the US citizen and take out a legal warrant to monitor them.

Your not weakening the intelligence agencies by doing it right. You are protecting the constitutional rights of all citizens. The fact your not livid because they were unmasking people with no reason is disturbing.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,790
5,441
1,743
Katy, TX
First, I’m not a Trump supporter. He’s a worthless individual that just happens to get most of his policy stances directionally correct, IMO. I could actually support a liberal over Trump if I felt that liberal wouldn’t lead us down an irreversible path to socialism. But that choice just isn’t available. So for the greater good of the country, Trump it is unless or until his crazy train gets too big.

But here’s the thing that leads me to believe the recent disclosures about the Russia investigations are not just a distraction. Most of the new releases of documents now give factual support to what has been mostly speculation up to this point. Rep Nunes has been saying since the spring of 2017 that he was aware of much of what is now showing to be true about the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA and NSC with regards to the Russia collusion fiasco and related investigations based on his review of confidential documents in his position on the House intel committee. Up until the recent releases he was unable to disclose the details of any such info until it became public by other means. The new released information is 100% consistent with his past allegations of illicit behavior by the named agencies and individuals. So while it may serve as a distraction, no reasonable person looking for truth can just dismiss the mounting fact pattern and just call it a manufactured distraction.

IMO, the illicit/illegal behavior by the Obama admin to take down a duly elected President in this regard is infinitely more troublesome than any of the alleged activities Trump is accused of, and in the end, more troubling than any disagreement on how to manage the pandemic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let's not overlook the fact that approx. 90% of the secret testimony released this week was approved for release last year (June) but held up by Schiff as it didn't fit the narrative he has been painting. The distraction isn't what is coming out now, it is everything that preceded this release.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
12,746
10,660
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
Ok here's the deal. You seen like someone who will normally support Trump over Biden. That's fine. Also, from what I've seen here you are someone that takes the virus seriously and see that it's something bigger than politics. I appreciate that and think you deserve credit for that viewpoint. I don't understand how a global pandemic has turned into a partisan fight, but that's where we are now. From a political standpoint that's a problem because there are a lot of people like you who aren't following blind ideology when it comes to a public health crisis. So there needs to be a distraction that makes sure people like you are back in line come November. Trump needs something to keep his base and casual supporters to rally around. And you kinda need it too because it's not easy to disagree with people you normally completely agree with on something that is as important as it gets.

So this is a well timed distraction. You can throw all the "evidence" you want but at the end of the day, the FBI and Justice Department were apolitical institutions. It wasn't that long ago that the left hated Comey because he delivered the election to Trump. It's kind of funny how the perception of that individual has changed in the last 4 years because of him trying to do the right thing and stay above partisan politics.

Be pissed about this if it makes you feel better about yourself. Personally it's something I'll forget about by next week. There will be dozens of things for people to try and manipulate us into getting outraged about by November so this really isn't a kill worth dying over.
If you can't see why the virus has become political you probably shouldn't vote. All the little dictator wanna be governor's are making it political.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
They should follow the law to the T. If there is something illicit going on that gives them cause to unmask the US citizen and take out a legal warrant to monitor them.

Your not weakening the intelligence agencies by doing it right. You are protecting the constitutional rights of all citizens. The fact your not livid because they were unmasking people with no reason is disturbing.
I think they had plenty of reason to unmask Flynn. IF he had been national security advisor to a president of the other party, you'd think so too.

And this from Fox News:

"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that in 2019, the Trump administration had 10,012 unmasking requests fulfilled; 16,721 requests fulfilled in 2018, and 9,529 requests fulfilled in 2017.
During 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, there were 9,217 unmasking requests fulfilled."
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
17,741
32,267
1,743
In Pokey's head
They should follow the law to the T. If there is something illicit going on that gives them cause to unmask the US citizen and take out a legal warrant to monitor them.

The fact your not livid because they were unmasking people with no reason is disturbing.
Welcome to the world of situational ethics ala democrats. Particularly persons who never served to protect the rights of the individual.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,685
24,561
1,743
Tulsa, OK
//

ok, let me ask you this. Let's say it is an American citizen of Pakistani decent getting regular communications from someone overseas that the CIA thinks MIGHT be tied to Pakistani intelligence. No solid evidence to that effect, but should the FISA court allow the surveillance? Now I'm just speculating, but I'll be willing to bet that hundreds if not thousands of such instances have occurred since 9/11 where maybe only a handful turned out to be illicit. Now do you feel better about the CIA and FBI bending the rules on those, or should they follow the law to the T? And I wouldn't say I"m angry, just I can see this coming in the next 10 years.
I'll say this. I think the FISA courts are an invaluable tool for intelligence gathering and national security, and if the government can use that power even a little bit responsibly then I'm not going to argue against it. BUT, if the government proves they aren't capable of using that power responsibly, as they did in the case of alleged Russian Collusion, then it might be time to take a closer look at whether we should keep it. I don't like that idea because it makes us less safe, but I certainly don't like the idea of a government willing to use that power against US citizens solely for partisan political reasons either...that is a whole lot more scary to me than a Pakistani American who may or may not have ties to Pakistani intelligence.

Please note that I am not saying the FISA courts need to go away now from this one incident, but I think it does show we need to pay a lot more attention to what's going on.....and certainly some investigations, maybe even prosecutions, need to happen to send a message that it won't be tolerated. And in the future, if the government, whether controlled by Dems or Reps, ever does something like this again, it's time to get rid of it. Period.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,268
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
What’s further, any moron understood that Trump’s position on NATO was NOT to get out of NATO, but make other NATO members step up to the plate, including potentially the addition of Ukraine. That’s certainly not a reason for Putin to support Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you think our relationship with our historical European allies is stronger now with Trump in office?? I guess I don't see it that way, but maybe I"m a moron.
Simple, simple, simple analysis. Our strongest foreign relationships are those where we foot the entire bill. Wonder why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,268
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
Exactly, they broke the law, they are responsible for their actions and the resulting condition of those agencies when they are brought to light.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Are we sure laws have been broken?? Have there been any charges even filed yet? Maybe I missed some headlines.
Let’s start at the very beginning of all this. A certain Secretary of State set up her own server with which she knowingly and illegally handled classified messages. Thus began the whole Russia collusion thingy once her misdeeds became public and her emails were hacked so she had to blame it on someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
I'll say this. I think the FISA courts are an invaluable tool for intelligence gathering and national security, and if the government can use that power even a little bit responsibly then I'm not going to argue against it. BUT, if the government proves they aren't capable of using that power responsibly, as they did in the case of alleged Russian Collusion, then it might be time to take a closer look at whether we should keep it. I don't like that idea because it makes us less safe, but I certainly don't like the idea of a government willing to use that power against US citizens solely for partisan political reasons either...that is a whole lot more scary to me than a Pakistani American who may or may not have ties to Pakistani intelligence.

Please note that I am not saying the FISA courts need to go away now from this one incident, but I think it does show we need to pay a lot more attention to what's going on.....and certainly some investigations, maybe even prosecutions, need to happen to send a message that it won't be tolerated. And in the future, if the government, whether controlled by Dems or Reps, ever does something like this again, it's time to get rid of it. Period.
See, you are presenting as fact that all of this was done for purely political reasons. I'm just not convinced of that yet. You have to admit that there was at least a ton of smoke around several key Trump associates. That stuff did not come out of thin air. I mean do you just completely dismiss what Manafort was doing?? And if it were all political and a setup, why did the Obama admin very early on warn the Trump team that there were concerns about Flynn (I'm not sure if that assertion has been disputed or not BTW).

I'll just leave it at this. The DOJ is now headed up by a complete Trump loyalist. I have to think if there were laws broken and there is REAL evidence of that, then indictments will be brought. And if that happens and there are convictions as a result, I have no issue with it. And THEN, we should have a serious look at the whole FISA process. As it stands, I'm going to assume that the Flynn unmasking, along with the tens of thousands of unmasking requests done by the Trump administration, are being asked for and granted based on legitimate concerns.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
Let’s start at the very beginning of all this. A certain Secretary of State set up her own server with which she knowingly and illegally handled classified messages. Thus began the whole Russia collusion thingy once her misdeeds became public and her emails were hacked so she had to blame it on someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So why has the evil Hillary not been locked up yet? I just don't understand how so many obvious criminals and arch enemies of the current administration enjoy such special treatment? Seems Trump would just direct Barr to lock her up. Oh yea, deep state and all that.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,576
4,173
743
50
//
This is where the argument goes off the rails. These agencies abused their power investigating US citizens. Some people are alarmed at such a thing, as we all should be, yet you are mad at them for being alarmed by it and wanting to prevent them from doing such a thing again. Plus what's good for Putin is secondary to what's good for liberty....authoritarian governments always have an easier time at espionage and counter-espionage than democratic ones.....doesn't mean we should strive for a more powerful government.

If you are truly concerned about these agencies, your anger SHOULD be directed at the people responsible for those abuses of power, those are the people who will ultimately be responsible for any neutering of our intelligence or law enforcement abilities. Those are the people to blame, yet you continue to give them a pass. You anger is misdirected and I can't possibly understand why.
ok, let me ask you this. Let's say it is an American citizen of Pakistani decent getting regular communications from someone overseas that the CIA thinks MIGHT be tied to Pakistani intelligence. No solid evidence to that effect, but should the FISA court allow the surveillance? Now I'm just speculating, but I'll be willing to bet that hundreds if not thousands of such instances have occurred since 9/11 where maybe only a handful turned out to be illicit. Now do you feel better about the CIA and FBI bending the rules on those, or should they follow the law to the T? And I wouldn't say I"m angry, just I can see this coming in the next 10 years.
In that case with a Pakistani receiving information they have potential qualifications to get the warrant. With the warrant used to spy on Trump it was all fabricated information. That's where they overstepped their bounds.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
12,746
10,660
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
I think they had plenty of reason to unmask Flynn. IF he had been national security advisor to a president of the other party, you'd think so too.

And this from Fox News:

"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that in 2019, the Trump administration had 10,012 unmasking requests fulfilled; 16,721 requests fulfilled in 2018, and 9,529 requests fulfilled in 2017.
During 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, there were 9,217 unmasking requests fulfilled."
Nope never saw a reason for Bush to do shit like this to Obama people when they were coming in. New Admin new foreign policy that's what the executive does. I may not have liked O but he won and I accepted it. His national security guy was free to follow O's bidding. Consequences of elections.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,268
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
I'll say this. I think the FISA courts are an invaluable tool for intelligence gathering and national security, and if the government can use that power even a little bit responsibly then I'm not going to argue against it. BUT, if the government proves they aren't capable of using that power responsibly, as they did in the case of alleged Russian Collusion, then it might be time to take a closer look at whether we should keep it. I don't like that idea because it makes us less safe, but I certainly don't like the idea of a government willing to use that power against US citizens solely for partisan political reasons either...that is a whole lot more scary to me than a Pakistani American who may or may not have ties to Pakistani intelligence.

Please note that I am not saying the FISA courts need to go away now from this one incident, but I think it does show we need to pay a lot more attention to what's going on.....and certainly some investigations, maybe even prosecutions, need to happen to send a message that it won't be tolerated. And in the future, if the government, whether controlled by Dems or Reps, ever does something like this again, it's time to get rid of it. Period.
See, you are presenting as fact that all of this was done for purely political reasons. I'm just not convinced of that yet. You have to admit that there was at least a ton of smoke around several key Trump associates. That stuff did not come out of thin air. I mean do you just completely dismiss what Manafort was doing?? And if it were all political and a setup, why did the Obama admin very early on warn the Trump team that there were concerns about Flynn (I'm not sure if that assertion has been disputed or not BTW).

I'll just leave it at this. The DOJ is now headed up by a complete Trump loyalist. I have to think if there were laws broken and there is REAL evidence of that, then indictments will be brought. And if that happens and there are convictions as a result, I have no issue with it. And THEN, we should have a serious look at the whole FISA process. As it stands, I'm going to assume that the Flynn unmasking, along with the tens of thousands of unmasking requests done by the Trump administration, are being asked for and granted based on legitimate concerns.
Remind me what Manafort had to do with Russia and collusion?

Just what facts or meaningful evidence would have been the predicate for a legitimate investigation into collusion? I’ll make it easy. Name one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,685
24,561
1,743
Tulsa, OK
See, you are presenting as fact that all of this was done for purely political reasons. I'm just not convinced of that yet. You have to admit that there was at least a ton of smoke around several key Trump associates. That stuff did not come out of thin air. I mean do you just completely dismiss what Manafort was doing?? And if it were all political and a setup, why did the Obama admin very early on warn the Trump team that there were concerns about Flynn (I'm not sure if that assertion has been disputed or not BTW).

I'll just leave it at this. The DOJ is now headed up by a complete Trump loyalist. I have to think if there were laws broken and there is REAL evidence of that, then indictments will be brought. And if that happens and there are convictions as a result, I have no issue with it. And THEN, we should have a serious look at the whole FISA process. As it stands, I'm going to assume that the Flynn unmasking, along with the tens of thousands of unmasking requests done by the Trump administration, are being asked for and granted based on legitimate concerns.
If the government ever accused you of a crime and a review finds that there were 18 serious errors or omissions in the evidence used to get warrants against you, I have no doubt that you would be convinced that your rights had been violated. And I would defend you the same as I am the Trump administration.

We now know that the smoke you are referring to was just the narrative being painted by the media and Dem party and there was never an acceptable level of actual evidence to support the FISA warrant.

Unfortunately, the people in DC are above the law IMO. Nobody of any importance will be held accountable for this. They (Dems and Reps) make you and I think the divide is between you and I when the actual divide is between us and them. As long as we continue to think that way, they continue to win.