So far I feel they are looking into things that have been hidden by the previous admins DOJ. And I'm absolutely OK with it. Nothing wrong with investigating wrong doing.
I agree with you there. But I'm not sure it's clear which CIA operative I'm talking about. I'm speaking of the whistleblower, not Page: "If a CIA operative spied on POTUS on behalf of or in cooperation with the Democratic Party, that’s some serious shade. It sounds treasonous or heroic depending on how ok you are with CIA working with a political party to push their respective agendas." You may not believe me, but I'd be pissed if the CIA coordinated with or spied for the republicans. I've been pretty consistent in saying that the intelligence community has wrongly had their hand in the cookie jar and I sincerely hope that Trump and/or the next POTUS exposes this and returns the IC to their intended roles. This whole nonchalant attitude about the FISA renewals by the FBI is about to get another layer added to it once the dots are connected back to Brennan (creep on a level with Trump). I watched about 4 hours of Horowitz's testimony and it was clear to any reasonable person, that while he said he could not find any hard documented bias and everyone interviewed denied it, the steps taken to circumvent the process were done with malicious intent. Why else would you falsify emails? Why else would you deceive the FISA judge? It's to further an agenda...ie: bias. I was having a family discussion over the holidays with a pretty far left family member. I thought it was hilarious when he said he could not understand how anyone could take the republicans seriously. I thought it was funny because that's how the right feels about the left. He hates Devin Nunes as much as I dislike Adam Schiff. And it is funny because both sides see polar opposites. It was a good conversation until it ended with him saying he didn't care if laws are broken, the end justify the means. And my response was: Yes I know. I've heard this from like minded people.
The entire system is that of checks and balances with the free press being at the center of keeping everyone in line with the rules, laws, and norms. So in a sense, in our democracy everyone is spying on everyone. There is motivation across the board to report wrongdoing. I have no problem with a CIA rep in the Trump admin reporting what they are doing wrong to the Democrats, and I would have no problem with a CIA rep reporting wrongdoing to the Republicans if it was a Dem admin. It’s kind of the point of our democracy. We keep each other in check and there’s never violence condoned by either side to stifle the right to wrongdoing being able to be aired to the American people. So the fact that you see the whistleblower as a “spy” tells me you view power in our democracy completely different than the framers did, and speaks to a large population in our country really craving a move towards autocracy.
"Malicious intent"? No more like "I like shortcuts that make my job easier and I assume we won't get caught because it's a systemic thing that happens regardless of political bias" intent. It's a problem that needs to be addressed. There should be more scrutiny and oversight on FISA applications in general.
I disagree with your last assessment. I don't believe the framers intended that our nation's spy network be used for politics. I have a feeling you really don't either, but then I don't I want to put words in your mouth. But you are correct in the divide of how the two sides see things so differently. I think everyone one agrees on that. If you really don't have a problem with a little help from the CIA. I'll remind you that the CIA, by law, is not allowed to carry out operations on it's citizens, which it sort of didn't..well, sort of ......if there is no coordination between the WB (CIA) and the Dems (Schiff, DNC, Biden.) Of course that can and most likely will be argued after (and if) the purported links to the WB are proven to be true. Of course the WB can have his own party affiliation and is free to associate with whom he chooses. But if he's "operating" by leaking, by asking questions outside his purview, by undermining the executive branch then the whole thing is F-'d up, IMO. And that's why I believe the WB is relevant. They can depose him behind closed doors. If there's nothing there, then I'm wrong about him and have not problem admitting it.
That's one way of sweeping it under the rug. You do know there may be a criminal referral right? There might not be one either...
You are conflating whistleblowing with "spying", and likely you want to direct the argument here to the Carter Page FISA warrant as evidence of said spying. Therefore conflating a CIA analyst working in the administration filling out a whistleblower complaint, and an actual warrant to issue surveillance on a US Citizen. I don't find this debate tactic as genuine to be honest. Under your premise since the AG, or deputy AG in this case has the ability to approve surveillance, they can never be involved with the Executive Branch at all because they have the power to issue SPYING on the administration. The fact is people who have the ability to issue surveillance on the administration will unavoidably be exposed to the administration. If the AG EVER approved of any indictments on any administration officials or even an investigation, they could be labeled as SPYS!! Regardless of their surveillance abilities, they absolutely still should have the ability to expose wrongdoing.... REGARDLESS of who they voted for as a citizen on the personal time. You are talking about treating the state as completely off limits to scrutiny, and oversight. I think your way of thinking is very dangerous for so many in country to be swayed into thinking that Trump should be treated as a monarch. Also it’s hardly spying if the person apparently being Spied on is going on Chris Cuomo and admitted publicly that they are doing what they are being investigated for doing by said SPYS.
The vendetta against the whistleblower has nothing to do with surveillance rights and everything to do with having a chilling affect on Trump potential future whistleblowers so Trump can be treated as more untouchable of an autocrat. It’s honestly disgusting to see fellow citizens crave this type of autocratic power for their supreme leader. The president is OUR elected civil servant. Not our King. He should be kept under a watchful eye by those who did and didn’t vote for him.
Don’t send your crooked lawyer to a foreign country to get dirt on a political rival.... Don’t employ crooked campaign campaign managers with ties to Russia. Trump is getting what he deserves.
That's always been a big differentiators between Republicans and Democrats. It's why all of the other stuff you describe is ok for them...when if the parties were switched they'd be infuriated. It's ok for the DoJ and IC to get involved in politics SO LONG AS IT WORKS TO THEIR DESIRED END. Even to the point where attempted murder was involved. Which is pretty scary I would think.
Nancy has the dotard slow stewing in his own little cesspool of self-made sin. A new level of unhinged has been unlocked. SAD.
I agree with most of what this post says. I'll defend myself by saying that I don't "crave this autocratic power for my supreme leader"....lol. I get the point you are trying to make though. There are intended institutional oversight powers that the IG, AG and Congress are granted. The CIA is NOT included on purpose. Like I previously said, if the WB really was just minding his own business, going about his job every day and folks are coming to him or openly discussing things in front of him to the point he's compelled to say something. I have no beef with that. Where it gets murky, and I believe needs some clarity, is the coordination with a political party. He didn't just go to congress. He sought out Schiff's staff and quite possibly Schiff himself. That's still ok by me sort of.... I'd probably do the same but I'd probably at least play it neutral and speak with both sides in the room. Here's the scenario that looks like complete bullish!t: If the WB has been working since the election to undermine or to "report" and did so from day one. Word is he was removed from a post for leaking. Word is he's CIA. Word is he's been involved with Biden and involved with Ukraine. It's at this point I believe someone needs to look into WTF is going on. It's not so benign. Note: I'm not saying all of the above is true. I don't know. But there's enough reported and enough shadiness demonstrated to this point that I think there's a 70/30 chance the relationship of the WB w/ the Dems. Let's say for shiz and giggles that my scenario plays out to be true. Would that bother you? This is an end justifies the means question, really.
Hillary’s emails. Benghazi. Crowd strike. Hunter Biden. Pizzagate. All of this **** got “reported” by Hannity, Rush, InfoWars, QAnon, et al. People are saying.
