https://thefederalist.com/2024...y-on-trump-campaign/

I'll let you make up your own mind. But is it OK that the "I" agencies spy on political opponents? Not in my America.

quote:

“ If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof that multiple US intelligence officials broke laws against spying and election interference.”

Yeah, a Substack seconded by the Federalist is the epitome of credibility...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

“ If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof that multiple US intelligence officials broke laws against spying and election interference.”

Yeah, a Substack seconded by the Federalist is the epitome of credibility...

It's coming out, whether you believe it or not. That said, NOTHING will happen to those with the levers of power.

It surprises me that obvious intelligent people are otherwise OK with the Government spying on political opposition.

And Substack is full of "right-wingers" Like Taibbi and Greenwald. Substack is just a parking lot for writers to sell their goods.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

“ If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof that multiple US intelligence officials broke laws against spying and election interference.”

Yeah, a Substack seconded by the Federalist is the epitome of credibility...

It's coming out, whether you believe it or not. That said, NOTHING will happen to those with the levers of power.

It surprises me that obvious intelligent people are otherwise OK with the Government spying on political opposition.

And Substack is full of "right-wingers" Like Taibbi and Greenwald. Substack is just a parking lot for writers to sell their goods.

I don't doubt that our Intelligence agencies asked their partners to keep an eye on known Russian sympathizers meeting with Russian intelligence. Like Manafort.

Its not okay in my America either!


.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
https://thefederalist.com/2024...y-on-trump-campaign/

I'll let you make up your own mind. But is it OK that the "I" agencies spy on political opponents? Not in my America.

Not much of a secret, they aren't supposed to spy domestically, but they can trade information with people who do.
Doesn't even necessarily have to include offshoring...

What’s unsaid is I’m sure they are doing the same to the democrats.

This is a continuation of J.E. Hoover.

The bureaucracy wants to have a hold on the loose cannon elected types.

Given how the elected types behave it may be logical, but is not the way the country is supposed to work.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
What’s unsaid is I’m sure they are doing the same to the democrats.

This is a continuation of J.E. Hoover.

The bureaucracy wants to have a hold on the loose cannon elected types.

Given how the elected types behave it may be logical, but is not the way the country is supposed to work.

But overturning an election you lost, or stopping vote counting because counting all the votes will hurt the kid of the guy who appointed you is?

First, where does it say anybody was wire-tapped?

Second, where does it say trump was wire-tapped?

Third, WTF is "Public and Racket?" The Federalist is being pretty careful to note that this is not their reporting.

Fourth, why would Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom participate in illegal wiretap activities involving a US presidential candidate?

Fifth, why would the CIA ask foreign countries to participate in such activities?

Sixth, you're going to have to come up with something way more credible than this bullshit to convince anybody but a trump cult member to believe it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
First, where does it say anybody was wire-tapped?

Second, where does it say trump was wire-tapped?

Third, WTF is "Public and Racket?" The Federalist is being pretty careful to note that this is not their reporting.

Fourth, why would Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom participate in illegal wiretap activities involving a US presidential candidate?

Fifth, why would the CIA ask foreign countries to participate in such activities?

Sixth, you're going to have to come up with something way more credible than this bullshit to convince anybody but a trump cult member to believe it.

It is just information. It isn't mine, it is just that, information. I thought this was a place to exchange information?

But I am asking myself, all the questions you asked me. Why?

in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

At this point it’s questionable reporting.

It could be true, it could be propaganda.

Are you denying that J Edgar Hoover kept dossiers on politicians? That he did things to ensure the FBI stayed at the top of the federal LE pile?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Ok, maybe it is an information that may or may not be propaganda
Fact is, we can al read it and make up our minds about what it is without attacking the messenger

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
At this point it’s questionable reporting.

It could be true, it could be propaganda.

Are you denying that J Edgar Hoover kept dossiers on politicians? That he did things to ensure the FBI stayed at the top of the federal LE pile?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

You'll need to point out to me where I said shit about J. Edgar Hoover... who died over 40 years ago.

I agree with you that it is either questionable reporting or propaganda. Which is kind of my point. trumptards thrive on questionable reporting and propaganda which is exactly what trump relies on. In other words, factually insupportable bullshit or...to use another word...lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
At this point it’s questionable reporting.

It could be true, it could be propaganda.

Are you denying that J Edgar Hoover kept dossiers on politicians? That he did things to ensure the FBI stayed at the top of the federal LE pile?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

You'll need to point out to me where I said shit about J. Edgar Hoover... who died over 40 years ago.

I agree with you that it is either questionable reporting or propaganda. Which is kind of my point. trumptards thrive on questionable reporting and propaganda which is exactly what trump relies on. In other words, factually insupportable bullshit or...to use another word...lies.

lets make a little wager, shall we? If its true you leave the ARPF for 30 days. If its fake news, I do the same?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
At this point it’s questionable reporting.

It could be true, it could be propaganda.

Are you denying that J Edgar Hoover kept dossiers on politicians? That he did things to ensure the FBI stayed at the top of the federal LE pile?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

You'll need to point out to me where I said shit about J. Edgar Hoover... who died over 40 years ago.

I agree with you that it is either questionable reporting or propaganda. Which is kind of my point. trumptards thrive on questionable reporting and propaganda which is exactly what trump relies on. In other words, factually insupportable bullshit or...to use another word...lies.

lets make a little wager, shall we? If its true you leave the ARPF for 30 days. If its fake news, I do the same?

Sure. Explain to me and everybody else who decides if it's true or not. You? I doubt we'll reach a concensus.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
At this point it’s questionable reporting.

It could be true, it could be propaganda.

Are you denying that J Edgar Hoover kept dossiers on politicians? That he did things to ensure the FBI stayed at the top of the federal LE pile?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

You'll need to point out to me where I said shit about J. Edgar Hoover... who died over 40 years ago.

I agree with you that it is either questionable reporting or propaganda. Which is kind of my point. trumptards thrive on questionable reporting and propaganda which is exactly what trump relies on. In other words, factually insupportable bullshit or...to use another word...lies.

lets make a little wager, shall we? If its true you leave the ARPF for 30 days. If its fake news, I do the same?

Sure. Explain to me and everybody else who decides if it's true or not. You? I doubt we'll reach a concensus.

Here's why I believe there to be meat on this stories bones. Both Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger have been working on the story.

Neither one are "Right wing whacko-jobs." In fact they both consider themselves Liberals.

They are both also, independent Journalists. They sell their work on Substack.

Here's the impetus, If their work is wrong, false or a con, they are out of work, their credibility is shot and nobody will buy their work off Substack any longer.

So their work almost is guaranteed to be accurate because they cannot afford it not to be.

quote:

Neither one are "Right wing whacko-jobs." In fact they both consider themselves Liberals.

You’re full of shit.

This Shellenberger dude is a rabid anti-environmentalist. Wrote a book about how bad progressives are for cities.

But the one claim that takes the cake is that the US government has in its possession, 15 UFO aircraft. Hahaha. These aliens can master traveling light years, but have real problems with the earth’s weather and crash. Kinda like a Cessna, huh?

quote:

why would Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom participate in illegal wiretap activities involving a US presidential candidate?

Lord, you cannot be that naive and truly have a law degree.

EVERY country on the plant has an interest in
EVERY US presidential candidate
AND those with the “abilities “-

will use whatever means available to acquire such information
( yes ,
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun)
as you noted

All politicians = Bad
Democrats/Socialists = REALLY bad.
GOP = Not as bad as Democrats and Socialists.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
https://thefederalist.com/2024...y-on-trump-campaign/

I'll let you make up your own mind. But is it OK that the "I" agencies spy on political opponents? Not in my America.

They have been doing it for years.

On everyone they think is against the government!

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
At this point it’s questionable reporting.

It could be true, it could be propaganda.

Are you denying that J Edgar Hoover kept dossiers on politicians? That he did things to ensure the FBI stayed at the top of the federal LE pile?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

You'll need to point out to me where I said shit about J. Edgar Hoover... who died over 40 years ago.

I agree with you that it is either questionable reporting or propaganda. Which is kind of my point. trumptards thrive on questionable reporting and propaganda which is exactly what trump relies on. In other words, factually insupportable bullshit or...to use another word...lies.

lets make a little wager, shall we? If its true you leave the ARPF for 30 days. If its fake news, I do the same?

Sure. Explain to me and everybody else who decides if it's true or not. You? I doubt we'll reach a concensus.

Here's why I believe there to be meat on this stories bones. Both Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger have been working on the story.

Neither one are "Right wing whacko-jobs." In fact they both consider themselves Liberals.

They are both also, independent Journalists. They sell their work on Substack.

Here's the impetus, If their work is wrong, false or a con, they are out of work, their credibility is shot and nobody will buy their work off Substack any longer.

So their work almost is guaranteed to be accurate because they cannot afford it not to be.

Yeah, that "liberal" Taibi doing election coverage for Real Clear Politics...

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

why would Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom participate in illegal wiretap activities involving a US presidential candidate?

Lord, you cannot be that naive and truly have a law degree.

EVERY country on the plant has an interest in
EVERY US presidential candidate
AND those with the “abilities “-

will use whatever means available to acquire such information
( yes ,
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun)
as you noted

Lord, you can't possibly be unable to read my post. I didn't say they don't have an interest. I said why would they participate in illegal wiretap activities in relation to someone that might very well end up, and in fact, did end up being the POTUS?

Wouldn't happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
At this point it’s questionable reporting.

It could be true, it could be propaganda.

Are you denying that J Edgar Hoover kept dossiers on politicians? That he did things to ensure the FBI stayed at the top of the federal LE pile?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.

It's not information.


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

You'll need to point out to me where I said shit about J. Edgar Hoover... who died over 40 years ago.

I agree with you that it is either questionable reporting or propaganda. Which is kind of my point. trumptards thrive on questionable reporting and propaganda which is exactly what trump relies on. In other words, factually insupportable bullshit or...to use another word...lies.

lets make a little wager, shall we? If its true you leave the ARPF for 30 days. If its fake news, I do the same?

Sure. Explain to me and everybody else who decides if it's true or not. You? I doubt we'll reach a concensus.

Here's why I believe there to be meat on this stories bones. Both Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger have been working on the story.

Neither one are "Right wing whacko-jobs." In fact they both consider themselves Liberals.

They are both also, independent Journalists. They sell their work on Substack.

Here's the impetus, If their work is wrong, false or a con, they are out of work, their credibility is shot and nobody will buy their work off Substack any longer.

So their work almost is guaranteed to be accurate because they cannot afford it not to be.

Yeah, that "liberal" Taibi doing election coverage for Real Clear Politics...

What you and others don't understand, or do understand just don't want to see is, Taibbi, Shellenberger and Greenwald all came form big liberal media. They all woke up and see what it has really turned into.

They are actually doing real journalism.

When Snowden decided to come out with his "Spying on America" story, he trusted those three to release the true story and not edit it to fit some agenda.

But you believe what you want. it must be terrible only opening your eyes to stories and opinion that fit your one sided ideological beliefs.

I would feel trapped to be so closed minded. I was at one time. I now have the ability to critically think for myself and read, do enough research to get the true lay of the land and not just believe what one side shoves down my throat.

I watch, listen to and read from so many sources that I find myself changing my mind on stuff I held dear, simply because I won't read something else with an open mind.


https://nymag.com/intelligence...-to-matt-taibbi.html

https://www.allsides.com/news-...greenwald-media-bias

https://www.huffpost.com/entry...6134e4b098174502afe4

All three have experienced an awakening. They were all liberal journalist who have seen things as they really are and refused to toe the liberal line. They have been kicked out of the liberal club.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

They are actually doing real journalism.

But you believe what you want. it must be terrible only opening your eyes to stories and opinion that fit your one sided ideological beliefs.

I would feel trapped to be so closed minded. I was at one time. I now have the ability to critically think for myself and read , do enough research to get the true lay of the land and not just believe what one side shoves down my throat.

I watch, listen to and read from so many sources that I find myself changing my mind on stuff I held dear, simply because I won't read something else with an open mind.

Seems to me the Federalist website is perfect for those who dwell in conspiracy theories, disinformation, propaganda and lies, and those special people who claim to be open-minded critical thinkers.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/federalist

The Federalist is featured on the AllSides Media Bias Chart™.

The Federalist is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Right.

The Federalist is an online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion. It was co-founded by Ben Domenech, a conservative writer and TV commentator, and Sean Davis. According to Domenech, the site has "a viewpoint that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment" and says it is dedicated to discussing "the philosophical underpinnings of the day's debate" instead of focusing on what he calls "the horserace or the personalities."

What a "Right" Rating Means
Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Right display media bias in ways that strongly align with conservative, traditional, or right-wing thought and/or policy agendas. A Right bias is the most conservative rating on the political spectrum.

Learn more about Right ratings
Details
The Federalist's Self-Proclaimed Bias
In September 2013, co-founder Ben Domenech, a conservative writer and TV commentator, wrote that The Federalist was inspired by the worldview of the original TIME magazine, which he described as "[leaning] to the political right, with a small-c conservatism equipped with a populist respect for the middle class reader outside of New York and Washington, and an abiding love for America at a time when snark and cynicism were not considered substitutes for smart analysis."

Domenech wrote that The Federalist would be informed by TIME's 1920s “list of prejudices” for the magazine, which included principles such as:

A belief that the world is round and an admiration of the statesman’s view of all the world.
A general distrust of the present tendency toward increasing interference by government.
A prejudice against the rising cost of government.
Faith in the things which money cannot buy.
A respect for the old, particularly in manners.
An interest in the new, particularly in ideas.

=================================================================

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ederalist_(website)#

The Federalist is an American conservative online magazine and podcast that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion, and publishes a newsletter.[1][2][3][4] The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013.[4]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.[5][6][7] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 United States presidential election, The Federalist made false claims that there had been large-scale election fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...demic_misinformation

COVID-19 pandemic misinformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...hange_misinformation

Climate change misinformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ng_the_2020_election

Falsehoods during the 2020 election

In May 2018, Damon Linker of The Week described The Federalist as "a leading disseminator of pro-Trump conspiracies and up-is-down, funhouse-mirror distortions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling and potential Trump involvement."

In 2020, former employee Robert Tracinski particularly blamed the publication's reputation for inaccuracy on co-founder Davis, who he said had a destructive "always be trolling" mindset.

Interestingly: Despite all the disinformation they spewed about the covid pandemic - "In 2020, The Federalist received at least $200,000 in COVID-19 relief funds from the Paycheck Protection Program".

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

why would Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom participate in illegal wiretap activities involving a US presidential candidate?

Lord, you cannot be that naive and truly have a law degree.

EVERY country on the plant has an interest in
EVERY US presidential candidate
AND those with the “abilities “-

will use whatever means available to acquire such information
( yes ,
in·for·ma·tion
/ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun)
as you noted

Lord, you can't possibly be unable to read my post. I didn't say they don't have an interest. I said why would they participate in illegal wiretap activities in relation to someone that might very well end up, and in fact, did end up being the POTUS?

Wouldn't happen.

i read it

"abilities"

those that do- will-

happens regularly--
EVEN by our allies

quote:

"abilities"

those that do- will-

It doesn't take imagination to know what Trump will do with "abilities". All we need to do is listen to what he says. But, imagination helps in getting the scope of it.

While it is illegal for US agencies to do warrant less tapping of communication of political figures in the US, it’s not illegal for foreign nations necessarily.

It has been reported in the past that various intel groups trade information that they can gather to their various partners who cannot. As an example, we could provide information to the French intel groups on their politicians that we obtain via DIA activities. They return the favor by giving our agencies information that they are constrained by law from collecting here themselves.

Remember that a lot of the Russiagate stuff came from foreign operatives…

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

"abilities"

those that do- will-

It doesn't take imagination to know what Trump will do with "abilities". All we need to do is listen to what he says. But, imagination helps in getting the scope of it.

weird.. "trump" wasn't accused of it - but obama was
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...ion-court-documents/

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

"abilities"

those that do- will-

It doesn't take imagination to know what Trump will do with "abilities". All we need to do is listen to what he says. But, imagination helps in getting the scope of it.

weird.. "trump" wasn't accused of it - but obama was
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...ion-court-documents/

Jared Kushner gave MBS U.S. intel on Saudis who had money stashed outside the Country, that he then used to extort $100 billion from them. Khashoggi was investigating that very transaction when he was butchered in a Saudi embassy.

Kushner's commission was apparently $2 billion.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
While it is illegal for US agencies to do warrant less tapping of communication of political figures in the US, it’s not illegal for foreign nations necessarily.

It has been reported in the past that various intel groups trade information that they can gather to their various partners who cannot. As an example, we could provide information to the French intel groups on their politicians that we obtain via DIA activities. They return the favor by giving our agencies information that they are constrained by law from collecting here themselves.

Remember that a lot of the Russiagate stuff came from foreign operatives…

Which is an entirely different thing than the US intelligence community asking other countries to wiretap a US presidential candidate.

The Master of Analogies strikes again.

And, please provide some sort of support for the statement that it's not illegal for foreign nations to wiretap in the US. Are you saying that a lack of jurisdiction prevents prosecution? Or, are you saying you think it is legal for Russia to tap your phone?

I think it’s not against foreign law to tap a phone line in an area not in their jurisdiction. Some countries may have banned it, but not most.

If it’s done in a different nation, does US law apply, and more so, how would we prosecute it?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I think it’s not against foreign law to tap a phone line in an area not in their jurisdiction. Some countries may have banned it, but not most.

If it’s done in a different nation, does US law apply, and more so, how would we prosecute it?

Doc, if they're tapping your phone line, it's US jurisdiction. You do live in the US, right?

Does a Nigerian who commits bank fraud in the US on-line get a pass because he's in Nigeria?

Your correct about the difficulties associated with prosecution....assuming there's no extradition process to rely on....which there would be with the European countries noted in the OP.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

"abilities"

those that do- will-

It doesn't take imagination to know what Trump will do with "abilities". All we need to do is listen to what he says. But, imagination helps in getting the scope of it.

weird.. "trump" wasn't accused of it - but obama was
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...ion-court-documents/

Rosen published highly classified information that he shouldn't have possessed, right? Not surprising that the government would engage in efforts to figure out how he came by it. They'd be derelict if they didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

"abilities"

those that do- will-

It doesn't take imagination to know what Trump will do with "abilities". All we need to do is listen to what he says. But, imagination helps in getting the scope of it.

weird.. "trump" wasn't accused of it - but obama was
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...ion-court-documents/

Rosen published highly classified information that he shouldn't have possessed, right? Not surprising that the government would engage in efforts to figure out how he came by it. They'd be derelict if they didn't.

Yep, sounds like a perfect reason to GET A WARRANT -- but, opps, they forgot that part

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

"abilities"

those that do- will-

It doesn't take imagination to know what Trump will do with "abilities". All we need to do is listen to what he says. But, imagination helps in getting the scope of it.

weird.. "trump" wasn't accused of it - but obama was
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...ion-court-documents/

Rosen published highly classified information that he shouldn't have possessed, right? Not surprising that the government would engage in efforts to figure out how he came by it. They'd be derelict if they didn't.

Yep, sounds like a perfect reason to GET A WARRANT -- but, opps, they forgot that part

Second line in your linked story:

In seeking a search warrant, the FBI called Fox News' James Rosen a "criminal co-conspirator," even though he isn't charged with any crime.