ADVERTISEMENT

WOW...Mueller Don't Play. He Quit School Because of Recess.....

Honestly the Feds win 95 percent of their cases, they have unlimited resources, they just ruin or threat to ruin people financially during the process. They get someone by the short hairs, and make them testify against the defendant, testimony doesn’t have to truthful, just composed.
 
Honestly the Feds win 95 percent of their cases, they have unlimited resources, they just ruin or threat to ruin people financially during the process. They get someone by the short hairs, and make them testify against the defendant, testimony doesn’t have to truthful, just composed.
Man this is a paper case....or that's what it is referred to. They don't need testimony. That's just an added component. The paper doesn't lie. The reason they win is because they don't take cases they can't win. In this case if the paper says you had millions of dollars of income unreported then so be it....lol. You pretty much broke the law. That's not someone setting you up. That's you getting caught....and they win about 98% of their cases. I am good friends with a federal agent who is retired now. He said it is nearly impossible to beat an indictment because the standard is so high, they pretty much have all the evidence they need to get a conviction. Most people try to plead out.

He said they won't even try to indict Trump unless there is a smoking gun and/or he is out of office. The FiSA warrant argument is beyond ridiculous. If you understood how hard it is to get a FISA warrant, never mind get it renewed you would laugh your ass off every time this argument was made to you.
 
Last edited:
If they didn’t need a witness, they wouldn’t have offered immunity for their star witness who was facing over a 100 years in jail. On the FISA warrant, it’s supposed to be very hard to get, that’s the rub, the FISA warrant on Trump didn’t meet those standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orly 1022
If they didn’t need a witness, they wouldn’t have offered immunity for their star witness who was facing over a 100 years in jail. On the FISA warrant, it’s supposed to be very hard to get, that’s the rub, the FISA warrant on Trump didn’t meet those standards.
Says who exactly? You? Yes the warrant met the standards and by the way anyone that knows how these warrants work, they expire and need to continuously be renewed. So that's just not gonna cut the mustard.

On the witness, they didn't want him. They want Manafort. That's the point of immunity.
 
Says who exactly? You? Yes the warrant met the standards and by the way anyone that knows how these warrants work, they expire and need to continuously be renewed. So that's just not gonna cut the mustard.

On the witness, they didn't want him. They want Manafort. That's the point of immunity.
CD were did you get your knowledge on how that warrant met the standard. Man I wish I was as brilliant as you.
 
If this guy was not on Trumps campaign, you would not even hear about this trial. It’s comical and the liberals are jerking off everyday about it.
 
Says who exactly? You? Yes the warrant met the standards and by the way anyone that knows how these warrants work, they expire and need to continuously be renewed. So that's just not gonna cut the mustard.

On the witness, they didn't want him. They want Manafort. That's the point of immunity.


You obviously don’t know the details of how THEY got the FISA warrants, to anyone who actually has followed the details of this story, you’ve just exposed yourself.
 
You obviously don’t know the details of how THEY got the FISA warrants, to anyone who actually has followed the details of this story, you’ve just exposed yourself.
I do know all the details of how the warrants were obtained and it is the silliest of Trump supporter arguments. I'm just being honest.
 
I do know all the details of how the warrants were obtained and it is the silliest of Trump supporter arguments, ,and you exposed yourself to anyone who a. I'm just being honest.

You don’t, and anyone who has followed the details knows that, there’s a lot of subjects discussed on this board that I don’t, but I’ve been following this closely.
 
Says who exactly? You? Yes the warrant met the standards and by the way anyone that knows how these warrants work, they expire and need to continuously be renewed. So that's just not gonna cut the mustard.

On the witness, they didn't want him. They want Manafort. That's the point of immunity.
Wait, you just stated “...anyone who knows how the warrants work...”

It doesn’t matter if they expire when the premise for said warrant was fraudulent in the first place.
 
If they didn’t need a witness, they wouldn’t have offered immunity for their star witness who was facing over a 100 years in jail. On the FISA warrant, it’s supposed to be very hard to get, that’s the rub, the FISA warrant on Trump didn’t meet those standards.
What FISA warrant on Trump?
 
What FISA warrant on Trump?
There was no FISA warrant on Trump. In their my the Deep State and Barrack Obama had surveillance Trump. Never mind there is absolutely zero evidence to support it. That's one of the many things Trumps puts out there like chum for his followers to regurgitate on message boards. Kind of like Obama was born in Kenya.
 
What FISA warrant on Trump?
I realize I’m covering two subjects in my answer, and it’s a little confusing. FISA warrants are supposed to be the hardest to get,it wasn’t done properly on the FISA warrant for Trump. Information is supposed to be verified, it wasn’t in this case, what makes this worse, is that they were using information Hillary paid for,(A POLITICAL OPPONENT). Think about that, they also hid from the judges, where the information came from. What is getting lost in this, is that Trump was right, when he said, he was being spied on.
 
I realize I’m covering two subjects in my answer, and it’s a little confusing. FISA warrants are supposed to be the hardest to get,it wasn’t done properly on the FISA warrant for Trump. Information is supposed to be verified, it wasn’t in this case, what makes this worse, is that they were using information Hillary paid for,(A POLITICAL OPPONENT). Think about that, they also hid from the judges, where the information came from. What is getting lost in this, is that Trump was right, when he said, he was being spied on.

Actually it is not confusing at all. What you don't understand is a federal judge determines what evidence is credible. Not partisan political parties. It doesn't matter who paid for evidence. What matters is the evidence. That's what you people on the right refuse to get through your heads. That is like me saying well all the information that leaked about Hillarys emails? That information shouldn't be used against the DNC because the Russians paid for it. Well, nobody cares if it is true. It makes absolutely zero difference who paid for what. Donna was delt with and others were. None of the right seemed concerned about where that info came from why this info? Because you are looking for a loophole to save a POS. That's why! But it doesn't exist.

If I am a political opponent of yours and paid to find the gun you shot someone with are you saying they won't consider it as evidence because I am your opponent? It's just wacky logic at best. The evidence is the evidence and we don't decide it's credibility for warrants. Federal judges do who by the way were republicans in this case....lol. So this is the silliest argument ever assembled.

Also learn the definition of being spied on. What the word spy means. These people represent the United States of Americas interest. If there is information that warrants a surveillance that is what they are going to do every time. They don't take the time to determine well we can't do it because his adversary is responsible for paying. The evidence is either credible or it is not credible. Then they will review it periodically....and based on what they are seeing discontinue the surveillance or continue. They continued it.
 
First of all, as I said they purposely withheld information to illegally obtain a FISA warrant, otherwise there’s no way it would have been approved, secondly the judges that signed off on these warrants, will probably be looked at, because even with the deception they fall short of the parameters, to obtain a FISA warrant.
 
No the judges won't "probably" be looked at. They followed the law and decided what they needed to decide. Withheld information? Nobody cares that Hillary paid for any information except the right who is trying to get a POS off on a loophole. What they care about is the credibility of the information. Because that's all the matters at the end of the day. Not who paid for it. So what? People can pay for what they want. Trump was looking to pay for information when his kid was at Trump tower right? What did Eric say? I LOVE IT if it is what you say it is. Now it is an issue because it is a way to get the POS off from his crimes. Sorry, try again.
 
No the judges won't "probably" be looked at. They followed the law and decided what they needed to decide. Withheld information? Nobody cares that Hillary paid for any information except the right who is trying to get a POS off on a loophole. What they care about is the credibility of the information. Because that's all the matters at the end of the day. Not who paid for it. So what?
If the judges knew they wouldn’t be able to approve the warrant.
 
When it comes to foxnews? Closed for business....lol. They have people on there that are in bed with Trump. How did you say it? They paid to share Trumps lawyer. Nope. Sorry.
 
When it comes to foxnews? Closed for business....lol. They have people on there that are in bed with Trump. How did you say it? They paid to share Trumps lawyer. Nope. Sorry.

You could read the article, look at the sources and make the determination,it will help you get up to speed on this subject, you’re a little behind
 
You’ve been B Sing all along, you don’t know the basic details.
I do know the basic details. I also know this lame argument. Listen very carefully because I am going to explain this where it can't be more abundantly clear. What the standard with Warrant are? Probable cause. That's all it is. Your argument that if the judges knew this who paid for it the Dossier it wouldn't be approved ignores this simple and basic standard. It doesn't matter. It's not political. It's a legal standard. A judge request the information they need if they don't see it on the application. The judge sets the standard and if it were important who paid for it they would request that. Since they didn't request it they don't care. Because every judge is given the same standard. PROBABLE CAUSE!

Thats all they need. Thats the only standard. Is there a probability that there is illegal activity happening. So they were well within that standard based on what was provided. The evidence doesn't even need corroboration. All it has to do is raise enough questions that suggest they need a warrant. Perhaps there are judges that would want to know who paid for the information or more about the origin of it. Well, it just so happened you didn't get that judge....lmao. So, you don't get to go back and say you should have gotten that judge. Too bad. The judge you got requested their own info....are you getting the picture?

To search anything or get the permission to search anything. You just need "probable cause". It isn't political. It is the judicial branch. They don't care about parties or who paid for what. It is a legal standard. Period. That's why nunes and the right are trying to bank on people that have a lack of knowledge to perpetrate this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You really don’t understand, but you could with a little effort, and a desire to know the truth, without that it doesn’t matter.
 
Help me what? The standard for warrants don't change. PROBABLE CAUSE....School time:

What is the standard for probable cause?

In Brinegar v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court defines probable cause as "where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul2
Please learn (3) things that you have decidedly forgotten out of convenience.

1.) The courts work on LEGAL STANDARDS not POLITICAL STANDARDS. Meaning it is of no consequence what political party stands to benefit from their decisions.

2.) The LEGAL standard was met for a FISA Warrant which is the most difficult warrant to obtain. Judges are much more critical and even using your own argument? We are talking about republicans that authorized this.

3.) Please learn that the legal standard for any warrant is PROBABLE CAUSE. That is all that is required. All a judge wants to for an officer of the court to convince him or her a crime is being committed. They don't care what political party they are or who paid for what information from what party. They just want to know why should I grant a warrant for surveillance. What has happened?

You have decided to completely ignore anything that was submitted as probable cause because of the hope that if a judge saw a certain political party paid for the information is preposterous. If the information was believable then they will grant the warrant.

It was believable which is why they found crimes.
 
Please learn (3) things that you have decidedly forgotten out of convenience.

1.) The courts work on LEGAL STANDARDS not POLITICAL STANDARDS. Meaning it is of no consequence what political party stands to benefit from their decisions.

2.) The LEGAL standard was met for a FISA Warrant which is the most difficult warrant to obtain. Judges are much more critical and even using your own argument? We are talking about republicans that authorized this.

3.) Please learn that the legal standard for any warrant is PROBABLE CAUSE. That is all that is required. All a judge wants to for an officer of the court to convince him or her a crime is being committed. They don't care what political party they are or who paid for what information from what party. They just want to know why should I grant a warrant for surveillance. What has happened?

You have decided to completely ignore anything that was submitted as probable cause because of the hope that if a judge saw a certain political party paid for the information is preposterous. If the information was believable then they will grant the warrant.

It was believable which is why they found crimes.


Admit it you’re clueless on how FISA warrants are supposed to work, or you just don’t know the facts, nothing else could explain what you’re posting.
 
First of all, as I said they purposely withheld information to illegally obtain a FISA warrant, otherwise there’s no way it would have been approved, secondly the judges that signed off on these warrants, will probably be looked at, because even with the deception they fall short of the parameters, to obtain a FISA warrant.
Wrong!! You got your "facts" all wrong, again. The dossier was not the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant for Carter Page. No matter how you and other right wingers twist the facts this investigation will continue.
 
I realize I’m covering two subjects in my answer, and it’s a little confusing. FISA warrants are supposed to be the hardest to get,it wasn’t done properly on the FISA warrant for Trump. Information is supposed to be verified, it wasn’t in this case, what makes this worse, is that they were using information Hillary paid for,(A POLITICAL OPPONENT). Think about that, they also hid from the judges, where the information came from. What is getting lost in this, is that Trump was right, when he said, he was being spied on.
It wasn't done properly? Says who? If Trump was spied on there must have been sufficient evidence that warranted it. Also, there was never a FISA warrant issued for Trump. It was Carter Page.
 
Wrong!! You got your "facts" all wrong, again. The dossier was not the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant for Carter Page. No matter how you and other right wingers twist the facts this investigation will continue.
That's just it. It's founded in an idea that you tell the FISA court something we feel would have made them say no to a warrant. It's bordering on pathetic because they act like the only evidence that can be credible is what they deem credible. Not a judge. These people are sadly incorrigible. They are trying to turn our legal system into their own political kingdom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cems52
Okay e
Wrong!! You got your "facts" all wrong, again. The dossier was not the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant for Carter Page. No matter how you and other right wingers twist the facts this investigation will continue.


Ok, enlightened me, tel me of this other evidence you know about.
 
It wasn't done properly? Says who? If Trump was spied on there must have been sufficient evidence that warranted it. Also, there was never a FISA warrant issued for Trump. It was Carter Page.

I understand, but it was used to spy on the Trump campaign, are you starting to get the picture ?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT