Actual intelligence. The validity and susceptability of that intelligence to be fake was also noted for the courts. But that intelligence was also verified and independently corroborated through multiple other pieces of evidence for the courts as well. From "criticizing" and "bullying" to "fighting back." Whatever it takes for you to justify the actions of Trump's bullying via social media and deliberately attacking the various law enforcement institutions that threaten the criminal behavior of his associates and himself.
Trump is the first President to both warrant and earn a massive amount of criticism from previous intelligence officials (explicitly because of his behavior and attacks against multiple US law enforcement agencies and US allies). He is also the first President to use his political power to punish those critiques by revoking their security clearance. Something that he is explicitly doing also as a manner to distract from negative news. And no, I don't care to engage in the validity of the criticisms regarding police brutality against minorities. It happens. I just note that the same individuals who instinctively defend that brutality by doing things like, for example noting that they shoot more white people than black people, are also instinctively taking Trump's side when he attacks numerous US law enforcement institutions like the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ.
I’ve been saying that since the campaign trail. Why y’all keep taking the bait is beyond me. He’s a damn good troll. Trolled his way all the way to the White House. Should have ignored him when the campaign began. But no.....front page all day, every day. Thread after thread. Article after article. News segment after news segment. Non-stop flooding the airwaves, print media, and internet with his trolls, and the response to the trolls. Sad time in our history, really.
I read the news a lot. Like this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tics+-+Text)&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results How about you? Makes you wonder what Christopher Steele is worried about. "Obtained by Trump opposition" is not nearly the same as identifying who ordered it made and for what purpose. Does it get very tiring pushing those goalposts around?
Brennan was a Catholic with 25 years experience in the CIA and was a "fluent Arabic speaker" who had served both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Says the guy who EXPLICITLY just pushed the goalposts. For ****'s sake. You go from arguing that the information was not provided to the courts and then, when it is pointed out that the information was provided to the courts, you want to demand that the information should been presented in a different format.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...hillary-clinton-campaign-congress-fisa-court/ "According to Steele’s courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation of bits of “raw intelligence” that were “unverified” and that he passed along because they “warranted further investigation” — i.e., not because he could vouch for their truthfulness." Steele doesn't even stand behind his own report. You need to prove this all was verified. . Still waiting for Robert Mueller to come to the rescue, I see. Good luck with all that.
"Obtained by Trump opposition" is a rather selective and self serving non descriptive way of tiptoeing around the fact that the people who were behind bringing the unverified Steele dossier to the court are the same bunch who helped foster it and bring it to life.
How is his speech infringed by losing his security clearance Mr Legal? Go ahead, I love a show after breakfast.
So, CIA professionals don't "serve" administrations, per se. They are bureaucrats. They continue. They evidently have now figured out that they don't serve, as demonstrated now by mr Brennan who decided that his role included launching a soft coup against first the candidate, and now the president of the US. I suppose you believe that all that experience gained us what? This? Laughable.
A different format? Not at all unless you are referring to the self serving way in which the dossier was presented to the court.
You did not properly quote (or link) me here and thus, I had no notification of your posting. But I have already responded by noting that Brennan never alleged, nor do I endorse the claim, that revocation of Brennan's security clearance is a violation of his first amendment right to free speech. It might very well be such, but I don't have the time nor do I care enough to devote the energy to analyzing that particular legal question at the moment. It is however part of a broader approach by Trump to silence and attack criticism both from those who use their right to free speech and those who use the right to the press.
As if any Trump critic is anymore silenced than Trump! You poor babies just can't handle it when a Republican fights back against the lies smears and innuendos. You would have loved Jeb! You would have had that spineless bastard groveling before he even got the nomination.
Do you think the judges are stupid? And for the the purposes of the warrant how would it have made a difference if it was Clinton or Cruz who had paid for the research? You are the one moving goalposts lol.
Make up your mind.. Trump is losing money or gaining it.. We have discussed Consistent thought before... tsk tsk.
Partisan opposition research is a very different thing than legitimate and verifiable actual intelligence. Do you not know that?