EatTheRich
President
Page, who according to the campaign had NO contact with the campaign?It's sad that you are still trying to white wash this, they lied to get FISA warrants on Page so they could spy on the rival parties campaign.
Page, who according to the campaign had NO contact with the campaign?It's sad that you are still trying to white wash this, they lied to get FISA warrants on Page so they could spy on the rival parties campaign.
Your definition of spying and mine are clearly different. They were looking for evidence that Carter Page was acting on behalf of the Russian government. You think that having picked up email from Page to someone still working on the campaign amounts to spying on the campaign. I disagree. If you have evidence that they then expanded into surveillance on anyone currently working on the campaign...where is it? If the surveillance was illegal, why hasn't Durham indicted anyone?Once again the evidence that Trumps campaign was spied on is an established fact. The poster below as usual ignores that and continues lying about, once again ignoring the evidence he begged for..... until he saw it..
Some people cannot deal with the fact that they have been lied to repeatedly since 2016 (probably since 2008, Obama was a f-cking terrible President) and chose...... to just keep lying.
Yes, I am sure you are told often that you can't fix a "stubborn ass-ole" like one who still lies and insists that Trumps campaign was not spied on.
They just can’t decide which lie to tell.Page, who according to the campaign had NO contact with the campaign?
It’s so ironic. FBI chief Comey got Trump elected by openly blabbing about the idiotic “Hillary’s emails” investigation while concealing the investigation into the Kremlin’s pro-Trump illegal election interference, but Trump cultists continue to screech that the FBI had it in for Trump.Your definition of spying and mine are clearly different. They were looking for evidence that Carter Page was acting on behalf of the Russian government. You think that having picked up email from Page to someone still working on the campaign amounts to spying on the campaign. I disagree. If you have evidence that they then expanded into surveillance on anyone currently working on the campaign...where is it? If the surveillance was illegal, why hasn't Durham indicted anyone?
While I took the Trump campaign at their word, that Page was no longer working for the campaign, it looks like it is possible that they lied. If they wanted to spy on the campaign, why wait until two weeks before the election? Seems too late to get info that would help Hillary...since they didn't turn anything up to release to the media, what did they accomplish?
Never mind the two Cease and Desist orders from the campaign...right?Page, who according to the campaign had NO contact with the campaign?
No really....Trump would have won if only people had heard the rumor that Joe Biden was supposed to get 10% of a company that Hunter was trying to get started...even though Joe wasn't a government official at the time.It’s so ironic. FBI chief Comey got Trump elected by openly blabbing about the idiotic “Hillary’s emails” investigation while concealing the investigation into the Kremlin’s pro-Trump illegal election interference, but Trump cultists continue to screech that the FBI had it in for Trump.
As always, the reality is the opposite of what they claim.
They live a completely fact-free existence. Nothing can penetrate their brainwashing. Truth is their mortal enemy.No really....Trump would have won if only people had heard the rumor that Joe Biden was supposed to get 10% of a company that Hunter was trying to get started...even though Joe wasn't a government official at the time.
@Sickofleft just can't let go of that bullshit and tries to make that evidence of something that happened in 2015, although he hasn't told us what that was either.
Yes, he did. Address the article.The IG report did not claim they were illegal
Great. You were both awarded lollipops for having the mentality of children? Congratulations!!!!It has nothing to do with the length of the case. The point is that the Abrams-related challengers won some of their challenges. While you just ignore that and pretend it isn’t so. You’re tedious.
Oh, so the judge was in on it, too?No, they claim to be preventing (nonexistent, as the facts show) fraud in order to reintroduce Jim Crow elections. The judge was limited to talking about what had been proven in court, not what was actually true.
At least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause, according to a newly declassified summary of a Justice Department assessment released Thursday by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).Yes, he did. Address the article.
Carter Page FISA warrant lacked probable cause, DOJ admits in declassified assessment
At least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause, according to a newly declassified summary of a Justice Department assessment released Thursday by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).www.foxnews.com
And I bet you feel the same way about the 61 lawsuits Trump and company brought to overturn 2020...right?Oh, so the judge was in on it, too?
Good God, the insanity!
Or the evidence that the election of 2020 was actually won by Trump. Right? Judges in 61 lawsuits said they had no evidence. Were the judges right? Did Trump lie?Deleted
I've corrected you on this about 10 times now. No more needed.The whole country saw him say "fight like hell or you won't have a country". So why did a riot happen minutes later?
They did NOT say that. They had no idea about the evidence, because they never looked at it, and I've corrected you on this about 10 times also.Or the evidence that the election of 2020 was actually won by Trump. Right? Judges in 61 lawsuits said they had no evidence. Were the judges right? Did Trump lie?
The only voting impropriety issue is millions of illegal aliens voting, and them brought in by Biden to vote Democrat.You should try reading posts instead of ranting and repeating things that have already been addressed.
For the third time, a quote from the opinion:
“This is a voting rights case that resulted in wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation and culminated in what is believed to have been the longest voting rights bench trial in the history of the Northern District of Georgia,” Jones wrote.”
Federal judge rules against Stacey Abrams group in voting rights lawsuit
Fair Fight Action, which first filed the suit in 2018, had argued that Georgia's rules are discriminatory and unconstitutional.
www.nbcnews.com
Plaintiffs won some of their claims and lost some. Your winger tunnel vision leads you to obsess only over the last claim addressed by the judge.
Was it fair to refer to the law as Jim Crowe 2.0? Of course. The law was designed to limit voting of blacks and other likely Dem voters. Don’t you know that?
I posted at least one judge's written opinion that the Trump team failed to present evidence. Several were dismissed for hearsay evidence. Care for more?They did NOT say that. They had no idea about the evidence, because they never looked at it, and I've corrected you on this about 10 times also.
You lied. I posted the video.I've corrected you on this about 10 times now. No more needed.
Damn. Are you Rainman?Great. You were both awarded lollipops for having the mentality of children? Congratulations!!!!
Now what are you feelings on these FACTS as proven in court?
Plaintiffs have not provided direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, was confused about voter registration status."
Jim Crow in steroids.....but cannot provide evidence of "a voter" anywhere that was disenfranchised. You are so humiliated you've yet to address it despite this being the 9th time you've been asked.
“Have not provided direct evidence” is not synonymous with “cannot provide evidence.” In fact it strongly implies that they have provided indirect evidence, and therefore that the lack of direct evidence represents witness intimidation rather than an absence of voter suppression.Great. You were both awarded lollipops for having the mentality of children? Congratulations!!!!
Now what are you feelings on these FACTS as proven in court?
Plaintiffs have not provided direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, was confused about voter registration status."
Jim Crow in steroids.....but cannot provide evidence of "a voter" anywhere that was disenfranchised. You are so humiliated you've yet to address it despite this being the 9th time you've been asked.