GOP's Transcript Release Gambit Backfires Upon Actual Reading

I understand you get frustrated having to deal with truth.

 

Exactly. It has been proven Brennan lied during Congressional testimony, and yet he's a paid shill for NBC/MSNBC.

Says everything anyone needs to know about Brennan and NBC/MSNBC.

 

So.........since Page's testimony is a dead end in promoting the "deep state is out to get me" hysteria I see it's time for you to deflect. Well done.

 

Don't need Page's testimony to demonstrate that the FBI was "out to get him". Page simply confirms long held suspicions that that the top brass at the DOJ protected Clinton.

 

I haven't finished reading the Lisa Page transcripts, but, Rachel Maddow is absolutely terrible at spin. She's so over the top that she has actually no credibility whatsoever. Just check the YouTube broadcasts in the weeks before the election predicting a Crooked Hillary landslide.

Page actually confirmed that the Clinton investigation was shut down from the DOJ. So now we are one step closer to finding out that President Obama interfered with the investigation and obstructed justice.

Page also confirmed that the insurance policy investigation into Trump had no legal basis.

But according to Maddow, this is bad news for Republicans.

 

All the Left has left in their weapons tool box is spin. But to be fair to them they did successfully use spin for eight years to make all image and no substance Obama look somehow less than a total failure of a president; and that's fairly impressive. Anti-ethical, yes, but impressive.

 

I thought it was interesting that Gowdy managed to uncover that the counter intelligence investigation was bearing fruit two weeks in. The FBI attempting to “nail down” testimony of a witness to move forward with the investigation. Obviously the details were withheld from the commitee but that wasn’t what Gowdy was after. So pre- Mueller the FBI was already pursuing chargeable crimes.

 

Also, I get the impression from reading comments that some never received the ‘responsibility 101’ speech from their parents. Pointing out the behavior of someone else when “your” behavior is under question NEVER flys. You’re only a digging a deeper hole.

 

So..........you haven't read her testimony.

 

Correct. Gowdy was trying to smear Page by questioning the intent of the texts she sent. He failed miserably.

 

The abuse of power the the FBI DOJ nad Nueller have engaged in the kind of thing we see in a police state

Its small now but if allowed to continue the next incident will probably be worse

 

You almost got it right.

The abuse of power Trump has engaged in is the kind of thing we see in a police state.

Its small now but if allowed to continue the next incident will probably be worse.

 

What abuse of power? Is he wiretapping polical rivals? Reporters? Using the IRS to silence political groups? No that was all under obama

 

I think it's worth noting that while both Page and Strzok were subpoenaed they appeared voluntarily. In other words, the Repubs could have compelled them to answer questions unless DOJ attorneys had legitimate reasons for having them refuse to answer. At one point during Page's testimony there was some disagreement about her refusal to answer a question at the direction of FBI counsel.

Yet, when witnesses were called to testify in the House and Senate investigations in to Russia's involvement in our election a number of witnesses refused to answer questions without citing a valid reason. They said they weren't going to answer at the direction of the WH by making vague references to executive privilege without actually claiming the privilege. Repubs, who were in charge of the committees and had the sole power to force witnesses to answer declined to do so. They essentially left it up to the witnesses as to what questions they would answer. Which is why the Dems are now having to re-do so much of what was only superficially done by Repubs in their pursuit of protecting the Orange Fraud.

 

Your post perfectly illustrates why it's so difficult to have a fact based discussion with a Trumper. Time and effort ends up being wasted having to go back and correct the factually incorrect beliefs Trumpers base their assertions on. For example, Obama did not wiretap Trump. But because Trumpers views are formed within the right wing media's misinformation bubble they continue to hold on to debunked beliefs.

Justice Department affirms no evidence Obama wiretapped Trump

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...evidence-obama-wiretapped-trump-idUSKCN1BD0UO

How do Trumpers deal with factual refutations of their beliefs? They rely on false narratives like "fake news," putting all the facts that conflict with what they have been told to believe in a safe place where they don't have to deal with reality.

 

That’s cool but he did wiretap congress. And reporters and use the IRS to silence political groups

 

If you can provide any credible evidence Obama had anything to do with the IRS' treatment of both right wing and left wing groups then I'll be glad to read it.
Likewise with your assertion Obama wiretapped Congress (I hadn't heard that one).
I am aware of the case of James Risen who was not a political enemy but rather someone involved in protecting a source in a CIA leak case. Thus, your characterization methods were used "to silence" political opponents is incorrect and rejected.

 

I think it's obvious that Trump used the word "wiretap" as a euphemism for "spied on". Without a doubt, Trump, his campaign, his associates, his family, his transition team, were all spied upon using various intelligence methods including informants, foreign intelligence surveillance, unmasking, FISA warrants and other methods. So cut the spit with the debunking "wiretap". There's no denying he was spied on in hope of derailing his presidential campaign. The true extent to how thorough the spying has yet to be revealed.

 

Google is your friend.

 

It is a puzzlement. The release of Page and Strzok testimony, theNunez “intelligence report,” The DOJ Inspector General Report, and the Benghazi investigations have all been met with great enthusiasm from the Trump Party. In each instance, the party has identified two or three lines (in a hundred pages of documentation) that seem to make their “case.” These have been religiously underlined in red and fed back to the faithful.

Inevitably, a TV or Cable reporter simply reads directly from the entire documentation and turns the Trumpian triumph into disaster. This has happened again and again. Recently, Dr. Maddow has taken delight in reading directly from trial transcripts or investigative documentation that topples the belief that the Trump Party has uncovered a “gotcha.” What Invar enviably happens is that the “gotcha” gets them. Why is this phenomenon so entirely predictable?

It seems reasonable to conclude that in treacherous seas with hurricane winds blowing, even drowning man will grab at an anchor to save himself. Fair enough but what caused the hurricane and provided the anchor? The treacherous seas and the anchor are both results of carelessness and bad judgment, first about venturing into the storm, then desperately trying to extricate oneself from the disaster while creating a larger one.

The implements that create this predicament is the deep desire to find something, anything, against one’s opponents, to underline in red and share with the echo chamber. This speaks to reckless behavior in pursuit of rationalization no matter how bizarre. In the end, one must conclude the practitioners of this behavior are either reckless, uniformed, devoted to opinion not grounded in fact, or else baldfaced liars.

Eventually, as the truth emerges in glaring spotlights, the Trump Party is reduced to personal attacks on the messenger and name calling. One must think eventually some learning would kick in and the anchor grabbing would stop. Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

Interesting how reading a couple of lines on TV totally debunks a couple of different lines underlined in red.

 

As a matter of fact, Trump moved his transition team from Trump Tower to his golf course after being warned he was under surveillance by the Obama administration.

 

As I've said before. I think this is why the Trupsters are always angry. Somebody like FAUX feeds them some out of context quote so they think someone should do something. But alas when the context is complete the claims have no substance so nothing happens. I can see why they don't get it.

 

That was a waste of time.

'Clearly the president is wrong': House intel committee says it's seen 'no evidence' that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower

https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-wiretapped-trump-tower-evidence-intelligence-committee-2017-3

 

It's like you are totally denying known facts.

1) We know that George Papadopoulos was under surveillance and had FBI informants contacting him.
2) We know that they launched a counterintelligence investigation into Trump by July, 2016.
3) We know that Carter Page had FISA warrants on him.
4) We know that there were thousands of unmasking of voice conversations and emails of Trump associates and perhaps Trump himself.
5) We know that the FBI was in fact investigating Trump and denied it. Then used information paid for by the Obama administration, Crooked Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC from a foreign agent in a Russian dossier to launch a bogus investigation into Trump - Russia collusion.

If that's not spying I don't know what is.