First: Trump doesn't actually want to win the presidency, he's just running for publicity.

Second: Ok, so he won the primary, but he's too stupid to win.

Third: REEEEEEEE! He won! It was a vast, global conspiracy! (But see second comment above).

Fourth: 25th amendment, not competent!!!!!

Fifth: Ok, so maybe no collusion, but he's trying to sway the 2020 elections (but see first and second comment above).

Fifth: Impeach! The Democracy (snicker) must be saved!!!!

backintexas2013 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

This is going to be so bad for the Dems, and certain posters here haven't come to that realization yet. You've lost again

---

They will then avoid the thread. Look at how they have avoided fisa threads.

---

Nah, at least one of them has to keep earning that ShareBlue check.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

First: Trump doesn't actually want to win the presidency, he's just running for publicity.

Second: Ok, so he won the primary, but he's too stupid to win.

Third: REEEEEEEE! He won! It was a vast, global conspiracy! (But see second comment above).

Fourth: 25th amendment, not competent!!!!!

Fifth: Ok, so maybe no collusion, but he's trying to sway the 2020 elections (but see first and second comment above).

Fifth: Impeach! The Democracy (snicker) must be saved!!!!

---

Sixth: Oh ***** We don't control the senate! We're allowed to run a completely one sided hit job investigation but you better not dare respond by actually letting the defendant defend himself.

NSIAP: Heard about this on a snippet of Rush. This very solemn and sober process which could shake the republic to it's very core is.........well, secondary.

https://www.golf.com/news/2019/12/13/congressman-watches-presidents-cup-trump-impeachment/

C-SPAN cameras to the back right of the room caught Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La, streaming the livestream of the Presidents Cup from a laptop on his desk.

Much solemn. Complete prayerful.

That second meme "Coastal Impeachment Squad" is pretty powerful in its implications. It really does underscore the EC importance and the skewed power wielded by the Left coast.

SCOTUS just announced that it will hear the Trump Tax case...

Didn't you already post s tweet about this stuff?

MetoliusAg said:

---

The RWM, and Trump supporters, and Congressional R's will do and say anything for Dear Leader Trump, including flat-out denying reality like Lesko is doing. They're trying to destroy our country by making lying and dishonesty and corruption acceptable and normalized. But they've run into a big obstacle. The MSM, and the Dems, and tens of millions of true American patriots are standing directly in their way.

---

A Democrat supporter claiming this about Republicans could be the most ironic statement ever made. Congrats, your lack of self awareness and delusions are so impressive that I'm not even mad. Absolute and complete insanity, seek help!

backintexas2013 said:

---

Didn't you already post s tweet about this stuff?

---

He's just an old man yelling at the clouds, now

Met wants to impeach because he assumes something. Talk about lowering the bar.

Shhhhh.

He's just being a true american patriot. Let him go. Between the FISA report and the Impeachment sham poor Stephenville would be on suicide watch because of how badly his ass has been handed to him if he wasn't so delusional.

This is all the poor ******* has left. A rep saying something he disagrees with.

MetoliusAg said:

---

This is the guy that the MAGA crowd support, idolize, and worship:

Surely the American are better than this.

---

Americans are certainly better than any of the Democrat leadership, but I don't hear you calling for their impeachment.

"I want nothing. I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo". President Trump, answering Ambassador Gordon Sondland's 9/9/19 question, "What do you want from Ukraine?" according to Sondland's sworn testimony at the House impeachment inquiry. Grabien 11/20/19

Sondland confirms that the Ukraine scheme was a quid pro quo: the conditioning of official acts, a White House meeting and military aid, for something of great value to the President."

Adam Schiff minutes later to media during hearing break on Twitter 11/20/19.

You are being played. And lied to. And I am a little concerned you are going Unabomber on us.

Schiff lied about fisa. What would you call him?

What did Trump say that was not true? Except I would have used two dollar instead of three dollar bill.

Did you even read the IG report? About all the FBI "mistakes"? C'mon man. There is partisan and there is obsessive crazy.

Sorry guys, he doesn't respond to your comments. He just post what he's told.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

You are have now demonstrated you total lack of knowledge in this discussion. Do you even care to understand our laws and the protections in place to safeguard the civil rights of individuals?

The statute that created FISA Courts bars targeted electronic surveillance in the United States unless there is evidence that a foreign power or agent of a foreign power is involved. The dossier was presented as evidence to the FISA court. And we know that to be untrue as many have testified under oath including James Comey. Comey quote on the dossier - "unverified material" and "no way to corroborate this".

We either have a troll or a fool here.

---

It would be a boon to the future discussions in this forum's threads if DeepStaters became informed about what "verification" in a FISA warrant application actually means.

If you are truly interested in the Carter Page FISA warrant application facts, I suggest you read the entire article at the link below, because it contains several important points -- including addressing what you misrepresented about the Comey testimony.

I'll go ahead & excerpt the part of it that addresses FISA verification.

https://www.justsecurity.org/61861/note-fisa-verification/

Quote:

---

More fundamentally, though, much of the commentary claiming some clear breach of protocol in the Carter Page FISA simply misunderstands what it means to say that a FISA application has been "verified." It does not mean that every tip provided by a source has been independently corroborated.

Rather, "verification" refers to the process laid out in the so-called "Woods procedures," which require Justice Department officials to verify that representations made in a submission to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court match the information in the FBI's investigative files.

If the application relies upon a source for some claim, does the documentation in the case file support that the source actually said what the application presents the source as saying? In this case, then, "verification" would not mean the FBI had necessarily tracked down Steele's own sources to corroborate his reporting. Rather, it would require that someone "verify" that when the application summarized what Steele had told the FBI, it did so accurately.

This should, in a way, be a matter of common sense.

If the FBI had independently confirmed a tip from a source, after all, that independent confirmation would be in the application. Indeed, why would you rely on a source at all if you had been able to directly confirm their claims?

It would be fairly bizarre for the FBI to say "our own investigation has unearthed proof that our source's claims were true, but we're not going to make that proof part of our showing to the court." In this case, it seems as though the FBI was quite straightforward in telling the FISA Court that their reliance on Steele's information was based on his track record of providing reliable evidence in the past, not on having independently duplicated his reporting.

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the Court should not have been satisfied with this sort of second- or third-hand evidence, but it can't be reasonably argued that they didn't understand what the evidence was, or were tricked into thinking the FBI had extra secret evidence to support their claims. It is not so uncommon, after all, for intelligence investigations to involve information provided by foreign allies that the U.S. government cannot itself directly check.

If Israel tells the FBI about information reported by an undercover agent in a terror group, the FBI can check whether that intelligence is consistent with their other information, but will rarely be able to interview the mole directly. The question, as always, is not whether one has indisputable proof, but what level of credibility the agency ascribes to the varied types of information it has available.

---

I'll be glad to post additional links on FISA apps and rules (if anyone is interested) from experts like David Kris. He is one of the two or three most knowledgeable and hands-on experienced persons in the world in FISA law and FISA applications.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3036446/replies/54262729

Come on Met, you know that what you are posting is going to proven wrong again. Why do it?

Quote:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

A lot of the information in the Steele reports has been verified. But let's suppose for a moment that ex MI6 employee Steele was duped by all his sources and every piece of information provided to Steele by those sources had turned out to be RU disinformation. Even if that had happened -- and it didn't -- the FBI was still correct to get a FISA warrant and perform surveillance of Carter Page as part of its ongoing counterintelligence investigation into RU interference in the US election.

---

---

And you want us to believe that you know that Trump was demanding a QPQ?

^
|
Not even one of them had the courage nor the integrity to criticize Trump for aiming a petty, juvenile, insulting tweet at a 16-yr-old Swedish girl.

Derm must be mighty proud.

You should read that thread that I just linked. On page 5 I made this prediction...

Quote:

---

This thread will be bumped and someone will look silly again.
-FriscoKid 5/17/19 5:54p

---

bless your heart

dermdoc said:

---

What did Trump say that was not true? Except I would have used two dollar instead of three dollar bill.

Did you even read the IG report? About all the FBI "mistakes"? C'mon man. There is partisan and there is obsessive crazy.

---

Trump knows more about currency than you; two dollar bills are legal currency.

MetoliusAg said:

---

^
|
Not even one of them had the courage nor the integrity to criticize Trump for aiming a petty, juvenile, insulting tweet at a 16-yr-old Swedish girl.

Derm must be mighty proud.

---

I am proud because Trump stood up to the traditional lib ploy of USING "victims" as their spokespeople so that they supposedly can not be challenged. Look back over the last say 20 years. The Libs always do this. They did it with Michael J Fox. With that Fluke lady who lied about how much birth control cost. In the Kavanaugh hearings. In the Clarence Thomas hearings. Frankly, it is disgusting to use people like this for political gain,

Hell, nothing is lower than using poor people's health problems to help the federal government take over health care. Makes my blood boil.

And when poor Greta made herself a political figure she became fair game to be challenged. Just like the grown Trump children and their spouses, correct? To my knowledge, Barron Trump has made no political statements ,correct? So it is not an applicable analogy, correct? You are being played my friend.

Posting tweet after tweet. Starting to lose it. Next up calling everyone racist and then get banned.

MetoliusAg said:

---

^
|
This is your guy, Derm. That's quite a prize person you and your ilk have aligned with. What is it you admire about him most?

---

So you must love you some Joe Biden gaffes. And Obama's 57 states. And the dem congressman who thought Guam could tip over. And Sheila Jackson Lee. And Maxine Waters.

MetoliusAg said:

---

^
|
Not even one of them had the courage nor the integrity to criticize Trump for aiming a petty, juvenile, insulting tweet at a 16-yr-old Swedish girl.

Derm must be mighty proud.

---

I must have missed the part where Barron Trump dropped out of school to go chase media all over the world and inserting himself into policy discussions at the top level of world politics and diplomacy at major international conferences, the UN and so forth.

Can you please point me to your source material so I can familiarize myself with the young Trump's activities in such a role? I'd greatly appreciate it as my Google, Duck Duck Go and LexisNexis searches have turned up nothing.

Thanks ever so much in advance.

MetoliusAg said:

---

^
|
This is your guy, Derm. That's quite a prize person you and your ilk have aligned with. What is it you admire about him most?

---

And didn't you vote for Hillary? Like I said, c'mon man. The hypocrisy is surreal.