FISA Abuse by FBI

Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think that according to his religion, mankind will first devour life on this planet before moving on in spirit to the next and begin again. I wonder where mankind was about 300,000 years ago when we came here?

MoonBug would have one believe humans are cosmic locusts. It aligns well with US style libertarian-ism. Religious nuts always put themselves as God's chosen ones. Or in this case, the Devil's.
Click to expand...
I also told you my spiritual beliefs dictate we live in harmony with this planet, and we should be doing all we can to keep it clean. Do you disagree with this because I don't agree with the IPCC worst case scenario on CO2? Seems it is not enough to be on your side for conservation if it is not for your reasons, I find that amusing.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
I also told you my spiritual beliefs dictate we live in harmony with this planet, and we should be doing all we can to keep it clean. Do you disagree with this because I don't agree with the IPCC worst case scenario on CO2? Seems it is not enough to be on your side for conservation if it is not for your reasons, I find that amusing.
Click to expand...
Your statement in my sig line says otherwise.

Not only does your invented religion confirm the evil in your form of libertarian beliefs but you lie and deny saying it when convenient.

Narcissistic, chronic liars on this site are showing themselves to be disgusting in real life. Do you hit women like @ttystikk does?
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Your statement in my sig line says otherwise.

Not only does your invented religion confirm the evil in your form of libertarian beliefs but you lie and deny saying it when convenient.

Narcissistic, chronic liars on this site are showing themselves to be disgusting in real life. Do you hit women like @ttystikk does?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have sig lines hidden. I bet you snipped something out of context from this post I made:

I don't have to care one bit about CO2 to know that living in harmony with nature and my fellow man is the way to go. To the extent I care about CO2 it is because, you, my fellow man and brother, are concerned about it and I care for you. So I am aware of my energy consumption and see conservation as the easiest way to do something in the here and now. I know that better technologies are coming and I look forward to transitioning to them because I expect this will not be my last life on this planet, nor yours.

I would hope that conserving energy for reasons other than reducing CO2 is okay with you, but I sense it may not be. You seem to come at me from a place of anger, frustration, low patience, distrust and disregard. Sadly, this will not help you reach your goals like you could if you marshaled your love for the planet in a more positive manner that invited cooperation and teamwork. An 'us vs. them' attitude will not solve much, just distract. We are all of the same source energy but very individual in our attitudes. If we choose to love one another, we can get anything done because it will be in our collective interest to do so and it will feel right.

Alas, if we are unable to prevent destroying ourselves on this planet, there are other planets that we can inhabit in future lives. But I have a great love for this planet and hope to see our species find the balance needed for sustaining life here. Thanks for asking.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Sorry, I have sig lines hidden. I bet you snipped something out of context from this post I made:

I don't have to care one bit about CO2 to know that living in harmony with nature and my fellow man is the way to go. To the extent I care about CO2 it is because, you, my fellow man and brother, are concerned about it and I care for you. So I am aware of my energy consumption and see conservation as the easiest way to do something in the here and now. I know that better technologies are coming and I look forward to transitioning to them because I expect this will not be my last life on this planet, nor yours.

I would hope that conserving energy for reasons other than reducing CO2 is okay with you, but I sense it may not be. You seem to come at me from a place of anger, frustration, low patience, distrust and disregard. Sadly, this will not help you reach your goals like you could if you marshaled your love for the planet in a more positive manner that invited cooperation and teamwork. An 'us vs. them' attitude will not solve much, just distract. We are all of the same source energy but very individual in our attitudes. If we choose to love one another, we can get anything done because it will be in our collective interest to do so and it will feel right.

Alas, if we are unable to prevent destroying ourselves on this planet, there are other planets that we can inhabit in future lives. But I have a great love for this planet and hope to see our species find the balance needed for sustaining life here. Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...
As shown above, religious nuts filter out facts that conflict with their beliefs. They lie a lot too.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
I also told you my spiritual beliefs dictate we live in harmony with this planet, and we should be doing all we can to keep it clean. Do you disagree with this because I don't agree with the IPCC worst case scenario on CO2? Seems it is not enough to be on your side for conservation if it is not for your reasons, I find that amusing.
Click to expand...
Why do you spam us with the same global warming conspiracy theory as David duke?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Careful scrutiny of the following link will show it is an opinion piece by a former FBI special agent (article copied in entirety below link):

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/443741-jim-comeys-own-words-justify-bill-barrs-review

Attorney General William Barr has just blitzed former FBI Director James Comey on third down and there’s a feeling a sack is imminent.

Barr’s tasking of U.S. Attorney John Durham to review the “origins” of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign becomes the third examination of Comey and his special team, joining efforts by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Huber.

This is an entirely appropriate response to the fearful possibility that the FBI was misused by its past leadership for political purposes.

AG Barr understands well that the FBI is dead as an agency — undeserving of the nation’s trust — if it is commonly perceived to be a weapon for political vagaries rather than an impartial, objective enforcer of the rule of law so vital to the survival of democratic governance.

These three initiatives will either validate Comey’s claim that everything he and his team did was “by the book” or they will expose grievous abuses that will invite reforms to ensure this never happens again.

Early indicators are troubling and Comey, with three linebackers bearing down, is in full scramble mode. His own words do not instill confidence, as evidenced during his most recent media tour last week in which he catapulted stones at all who have offended him.

President Trump is “amoral,” a “chronic liar,” who “eats your soul in small bites,” according to Comey. He claims AG Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein lack inner strength and character, respectively.

This seems to be a purposeful, if questionable, strategy. The Mueller report largely has undercut any assertion by Comey that the counterintelligence investigation initiated during Comey's directorship was founded on solid legal predication.

So now Comey's game plan seems to be an appeal to emotion: We had to investigate the Trump campaign because he is such a terrible person and, as articulated by his investigator, Peter Strzok, someone who had to be “stopped.”

There’s a problem with that. FBI agents are not allowed to investigate individuals based on emotion or because they don’t like someone, or that someone has distasteful character traits. (For this, all politicians should be grateful.)

Comey’s insistent disgust with Trump, and his urging Americans to vote Democrat in last fall’s midterms, have produced legitimate concerns that his decisions as FBI director were influenced by personal animus and political biases.

In op-eds and in interviews, Comey has given new life to the concern that, for the first time in the FBI’s 100-plus years of history, partisan political operatives used the immense authority of the FBI to advance the political goals of one party at the expense of the other.

His highly charged words are in play and should be taken into account by Durham during his review of the origins of an unprecedented counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign.

Comey’s claim that he and his team did everything “by the book” also should invite scrutiny. He is controversial precisely because so many of his actions were not by the book.

Conducting any investigation — as Comey did — out of FBI headquarters, let alone the Director’s Office, is not by the book. It is so outside “the book” that current FBI Director Christopher Wray is implementing policy, according to reliable internal sources, that restores investigations exclusively to the field offices and prohibits headquarters — where the FBI most closely intersects with the flame of political D.C. — from ever conducting investigations again. Prudent, and good news for the country.

Comey said that running confidential human sources and undercover operatives is normal activity. It is, but under tight restrictions. Targeting U.S. citizens working for a presidential campaign with confidential sources, non-FBI undercover investigators, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) electronic surveillance, is not normal. It’s never been done before. There is no “book” for it.

This is where U.S. Attorney Durham has his work cut out for him. Did Comey and his team follow Attorney General Guidelines, which govern the proper use of these investigative techniques? A lot of digging is needed here.

In addition, experienced counterintelligence investigators will tell you that when there is an intersection of Russian intelligence operatives and a U.S. citizen, the normal “book” calls for the FBI to warn the American about Russian intelligence “tricks” and then obtain cooperation, to help learn even more about Russian objectives.

This traditional book was not followed by Comey’s team, nor were those courtesies extended to the Trump campaign. Instead, campaign members were immediately targeted for investigation. In light of Comey’s recent comments, we may now know why.

His infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, where he invented a new FBI authority to decline prosecution of a presidential candidate, only to then publicly excoriate her, was not by the book. His later decision, just days before America voted, to unnecessarily reopen an investigation that he had declined was not by the book either, and it caused a disruption to the election about which the Russians could only fantasize.

His decisions to reveal the existence of an FBI counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign during congressional testimony, his leaking of FBI materials to the press, and his post-firing book tour and media blitz are all unfamiliar behaviors for an FBI director. They definitely were not by the book.

For all of these reasons, there is growing concern, based on Comey’s own words and actions, that the FBI may have been hijacked by a partisan political operative. So the attorney general clearly is justified in his appointment of Durham.

The real FBI, the agents and analysts and support personnel who day in and day out truly conduct themselves “by the book,” want the trust of the American people restored in the FBI. It is a value we should all be fighting for.

Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal ofNewStreet Global Solutions, LLC.
Click to expand...
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Why did The Hill disavow this opinion piece? Perhaps they want to maintain their high rating for factual reporting, perhaps?

You should stop spamming us with right wing lies.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Why did The Hill disavow this opinion piece? Perhaps they want to maintain their high rating for factual reporting, perhaps?

You should stop spamming us with right wing lies.
Click to expand...
You poor thing. Sorry for victimizing you.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds said:
TLDNR

Message received no further response necessary ...return to right wing conspiracy websites to improve the experience of all of us
Click to expand...
Posting of opposing editorials that are on topic is encouraged. But that could involve reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top