#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Clintons have history of using FBI to target opposition
yes
Side Score: 37
|
no
Side Score: 84
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Your theory that the FBI is a branch of the Democrat Party is indicative of mental health issues. According to the Republicans, the media, academia and now law enforcement are all corrupt and biased against them. Everybody who discovers any negative facts about the Republicans is corrupt and biased. What a strange coincidence. Side: no
1
point
1
point
1
point
3
points
The Clintons are GONE! Trump WON! They are? Her fake dossier is still there glowing in the dark from her toxicity as we speak, and not but a few weeks ago she was still on her book tour. Just last week she was on a rewards show reading from the trash Trump book. Why can't you cons accept the facts! We've fully accepted that he is President. A year later and libs still have not. Side: yes
"Her fake dossier was originally started BY THE REPUBLICANS. I guess when they found out where it was going they gave it up! Others saw that it should not be. The toxicity is now drifting around DC (which must mean Dodge City because so many conservatives are "getting the hell out" before the fecal matter hits the rotary air mover! We Democrats accept the fact that he is President, by way of Gerrymandering and Russian/conservative propaganda. A year later we "libs" are still trying to get our elections FAIR again! (While "HE does Putin's work for him")!, as McCain said! Side: yes
1
point
No, I mean the Republican's who didn't like Trump or want him elected. (There WERE many). Would you rather American politicians be "cozy" with the Clintons and Obamas, or the Russians and other authoritarian, (dictatorial), governments around the world? I think you enjoy the fact that some are "doing Putin's "work" for him". Somewhere you said you did your duty for your country ... which country? If you like the way Putin "settles" with those who protest his ways why don't you go there? I'm sure he has insurance for his patriotic countrymen ... as long as they like "his ways". Side: yes
1
point
No, I mean the Republican's who didn't like Trump or want him elected You want to know the amazing part Al? The left claims Republicans made it. You ask which Republicans, and you get nerry a peep. They must be magic unicorn Republicans that no one knows the names of... Hillary or the DNC could easily give a name or leak a name to the press, but it doesn't happen. Why? They're full of shit. It's like all of those anonymous sources the media has but never gives names to. Anyone can say it's anonymous or that an unnamed person exists or did something. It doesn't make it real. Side: yes
1
point
ask which Republicans, and you get nerry a peep The Washington Free Beacon (mostly funded by Paul Singer) hired Fusion GPS in September 2015 to do research on Republican Presidential candidates including Trump. Side: no
1
point
1)Your article calls it an accusation rather than a fact. I can accuse Obama of being a reptilian, but you do the math. 2)Why would someone hire Fusion GPS, then run away from the investigation? Because it was a nothing burger? 3)The fact that Hillary kept funding it and the FBI used some unverifiable opposition research to spy on the opposition candidate is beyond reproach. Any future Republican could do the same to destroy any Democrat opponent. 4)If this is the standard, a banana republic, the Trump team should go after Obama and Hillary Clinton with a vengeance using the same ethics and methods they used on him but on them. Side: no
1
point
Your article calls it an accusation rather than a fact. That is a misreading - though the article could definitely have been worded more strongly/clearly. It references a NYT article that says "Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier" ref Not accusation, not allegation. The NYT piece says where they got the info - the Free Beacon itself: "The Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee on Friday that it had retained the firm." And the Beacon has a public page explaining same. Why would someone hire Fusion GPS, then run away from the investigation? The Beacon didn't "run away", they stopped funding the research when Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee. The fact that Hillary kept funding it and the FBI used some unverifiable opposition research to spy on the opposition candidate is beyond reproach. 1) How is Hillary funding opposition research that was started by Republicans "beyond reproach"? 2) The FBI did not spy on the Trump administration. 3) They relied on corroborated information - the Republican memo itself says that the FBI investigation into Carter Page was triggered by the Papadopoulos info and that the application for the FISA warrant wasn't filed until after Page had left the administration. The warrant was renewed 3 times, each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Page lived in Moscow for years, gave documents to Russian intelligence (wittingly or unwittingly), called himself an "informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin" - a previous FISA warrant was issued on Page in 2014, before the dossier and before Trump ran for office. That the FBI thought they needed to surveil this guy and the FISA court agreed is not shocking to me and is definitely not "beyond reproach". If this is the standard It isn't, and it is sad that Trump et.al. has convinced you that it is... Side: yes
1
point
The Beacon didn't "run away", they stopped funding the research when Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee It seems to me that if they took the time to do the research, and thought he was a Russian agent or colluding with Russia, they would not have just quit funding it and scurried off. Side: no
1
point
The degree to which they (the Beacon) thought he was tied to Russia at that point is not public, but, otherwise, that is exactly what happened. Simpson did not answer the question directly, but it seems likely that with what they had already found, they went to the Dems and sold them on the idea of continuing the funding. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
3
points
1
point
sad that Trump et.al. has convinced you that it is... He hasn't convinced me of anything. I simply gave you a moment to imagine what it feels like for the person you support to be targeted by banana republic type politics. Imagine if in 7 years, in theory, Trump was about to leave office, and your Democrat candidate was a target of the FBI while Trump was still in power, and there was a dossier provided by Ted Cruz to a FISA court to spy on Keith Ellison.... Side: no
1
point
3
points
Nunes memo: Justice Department's FISA application never disclosed Steele dossier's ties to Clinton Side: no
1
point
never disclosed Steele dossier's ties to Clinton And apparently the wording was deliberately misleading. The note says it was politically motivated but does not specifically say (nor need to say) that it was tied to Hillary or DNC. So their memo tells you that it doesn't disclose ties to Clinton while knowing full well that it did say it was politically motivated. Will Republicans be upset at being deliberately misled, or once a sheeple always a sheeple? Side: yes
1
point
1
point
3
points
1
point
3
points
That would depend on what the footnote was and what it said. There's a difference between a footnote and coming out and saying Steele has ties to Hillary Clinton oppositon research. If it doesn't say something to that effect, it remains unethical, dishonest and possibly illegal. Show me what the footnote looked like and said, otherwise you are using lots of assumptions to try and make a case. Side: no
1
point
That would depend on what the footnote was and what it said. Why do you think Republicans didn't tell you what it said? coming out and saying Steele has ties to Hillary Clinton oppositon research From a FISA court perspective, the important thing to relay is that the information may be politically biased, not who it is for. If it doesn't say something to that effect, it remains unethical, dishonest and possibly illegal. Silliness. And, the Republicans know it is silliness because they haven't worked with the DOJ to see if any charges are warranted, or even any change in procedures (ref) - instead, they made it seem like the footnote didn't exist at all. Show me what the footnote looked like and said. If I were a betting man, I would wager that the footnote is in the Dem memo - hopefully the President agrees to release it. Side: yes
3
points
From a FISA court perspective, the important thing to relay is that the information may be politically biased, not who it is for. 1)You don't know a FISA court's perspective. Typically their dealings aren't public information. 2)You don't know that the footnote said "politically biased". For all I know there was just the word "political" or a symbol or a "P" or something less. Side: no
1
point
You don't know a FISA court's perspective. I know a regular court's perspective, and it is certainly reasonable to provide the relevant info (political motivation), while not revealing underlying irrelevant details. You don't know that the footnote said "politically biased". We already know that the Republican memo was deceptive - it is now just a question of how plainly. Side: yes
3
points
I know a regular court's perspective, and it is certainly reasonable to provide the relevant info (political motivation), while not revealing underlying irrelevant details Seeing that a FISA court is much more secretive, we don't know that it works exactly like a regular court. We also do not know how politically motivated one is or is not. That is why the court of public opinion will be big on this one. If the left loses this narrative they may lose a lot more. Side: no
3
points
1
point
It looks to me like Nunes was honest about saying there was a "footnote". He only finally admitted it when Dems called them basically liars, and reporting had already found out the truth. Their memo says the court was not told about ties to Clinton, when the court actually was told of political motivation - this a is plainly deliberate omission. If I were a Republican, I would be pissed at the amateurish unforced error here. They went way out of their way to use a process that had never been used before in history, only to release a 3.5 page doc that doesn't support any of their prior claims and would undoubtedly eventually be shown to be inaccurate and partisan. what the footnote is or what it does or doesn't say verbatum. Just waiting for the President to allow its release - do you think he will? Side: yes
4
points
Their memo says the court was not told about ties to Clinton Maybe it wasn't, and we don't know that it was. when the court actually was told of political motivation We don't know exactly what that footnote says. I would be rather surprised if it actually said the words "political motivation". this a is plainly deliberate omission. Welcome to politics. The left would omit in a heartbeat if it was spinning a political narrative. If I were a Republican, I would be pissed at the amateurish unforced error here. I don't root for anything. I destroyed Bush in debates when he was President and still do because he failed. I didn't root for Obama to fail because I don't root for America to fail. Rooting against your plane's pilot is insanity. Debating his successes or failures after the fact is another matter. Side: no
1
point
4
points
If it was in reasonable and obvious form, yes, but I don't know that. Meaning? Most of the ways credit card companies trap victims is by actual words on their actual statements. They know the wording is twisted, they know that the words are present, and they know the words are in fine print. They also do not plan on victims understanding their wording or looking at unobvious fine print. Is it in a form meant for deception? Is it present at all? Is it presented in a kryptic way? Is it obvious, transparent, and to the point? I don't have that data available to me. Side: no
1
point
4
points
They went way out of their way to use a process that had never been used before in history, only to release a 3.5 page doc This is only the first of many memos that are coming out. If this memo is a nothing burger, the left sure is spending a lot of time and effort trying to debunk it. Side: no
1
point
This is only the first of many memos that are coming out. The first phase deals with FISA abuse - meaning this is all they had in the way of FISA abuse - meaning Trump/Trump Tower/Trump administration were never illegally surveilled. the left sure is spending a lot of time and effort Did you see all the effort the right (and the Russians) spent hyping it?? Side: yes
4
points
Trump/Trump Tower/Trump administration were never illegally surveilled I know this much. Trump loved that tower so much that he wanted to just live there rather than the whitehouse. When surveillance allegedly happened, he got his ass out of there. Illegal and unethical are two different words with two different meanings. Just because eating dog crap isn't illegal, that doesn't make it ethical or rational. Side: no
1
point
1
point
When surveillance allegedly happened, he got his ass out of there. Trump said he would move to White House in Dec ref, and did so in January. ------ "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" 4:35 AM - Mar 4, 2017 Side: yes
4
points
1
point
1)Well, we know that he was under surveillance. No - we know that he wasn't. The memo is about Carter Page who had already left the campaign. So, Trump, Trump Tower, the Trump administration, etc. were not surveilled. 2)How did he know? We both know the answer to this... He likely misunderstood the info, or didn't care to make sure what the facts were at all. So was it McCarthyism? No. Side: yes
4
points
1)Well, we know that he was under surveillance. No - we know that he wasn't. The memo is about Carter Page who had already left the campaign. So, Trump, Trump Tower, the Trump administration, etc. were not surveilled. Later in the same month, CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Paul Manafort in 2016–17, either during or after his tenure with the Trump campaign. On November 7, 2016, Louise Mensch reported[7] in the right-leaning[8] Heat Street, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had twice sought Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants in connection with its investigation of the Trump campaign's links to Russia. According to Mensch, the first request for a warrant which "named Trump" was denied in June 2016 and, a second, more "narrowly drawn" request was granted in October 2016. Mensch wrote that this warrant gave "counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of 'U.S. persons' in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia," and to "look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons". Mensch further claimed that the October warrant was granted in "connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server [in Trump Tower] and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank," and that "it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any 'US person' connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men." Mensch's article cited reports from two anonymous "sources with links to the counter- intelligence community." On January 19, The New York Times published an article[9] with the print headline "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides".[9][a][10] The article was published online with the title "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrumpTowerwiretapping_allegations Side: no
1
point
5
points
FBI Used News Articled Sourced By Steele To Corroborate His Dossier. FBI Knew Steele Was Being Paid By DNC, Hillary Clinton, Chose Not To Tell The Court. Without The Steele Dossier, FBI Wouldn’t Have Sought the Warrant To Spy On Carter Page. FBI Spied On Trump’s Associate For Nearly a Year. FBI Dismissed Steele As a Source Soon After It Secured The Initial FISA Warrant. FBI Did Not Tell The Court It Had Dismissed Steele. DOJ Official’s Wife Was Getting Paid By Fusion GPS. Side: no
1
point
FBI Used News Articled Sourced By Steele To Corroborate His Dossier. This is also a likely attempt to mislead by the Republican memo. "One reason that kind of stuns me is obviously is the information I got from Christopher Steele was information that the FBI already had," said Michael Isikoff, the reporter of the Yahoo story mentioned in the memo. That the application cites the article does not mean the article was used to corroborate info they already had. It is also important to note: "Isikoff said his resulting story did not rely solely on what Steele told him." - so there could be info in the article that corroborates the Steele info and was not sourced to Steele himself. FBI Knew Steele Was Being Paid By DNC, Hillary Clinton, Chose Not To Tell The Court. As we've already discussed, this is a deliberate misleading - as the application does indicate a political motivation for the dossier. Without The Steele Dossier, FBI Wouldn’t Have Sought the Warrant To Spy On Carter Page. The FBI also got a FISA warrant on Page in 2014 before the dossier existed. Page lived in Moscow for years, gave documents to Russian intelligence (wittingly or unwittingly), called himself an "informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin", etc. ref FBI Spied On Trump’s Associate For Nearly a Year. Former associate. FBI Dismissed Steele As a Source Soon After It Secured The Initial FISA Warrant. Steele thought the FBI was not taking the information seriously enough, and that the public needed to know - and the election was a week away - so, he gave info to Mother Jones. Because of the leak, he was no longer used by the FBI (presuming the memo is not again misleading.) This says nothing about the accuracy of the info. FBI Did Not Tell The Court It Had Dismissed Steele. The dismissal is not relevant info for the court on whether to surveille Carter Page. The connection to the earlier news article might be relevant (depending on point 1), but we don't know whether that was made known to the court. DOJ Official’s Wife Was Getting Paid By Fusion GPS. and...? Side: yes
4
points
3
points
As I read your story, I was thinking it, and then Nunes said it at the end of the story. "A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign," Nunes said on "Fox & Friends." Side: no
1
point
A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know A FISA warrant is not a tool for "letting the American people know" anything - it is a classified court document. His memo was a way of "letting the American people know" a deception. Side: yes
3
points
Said memo implies that the FISA court was not informed that Steele had ties to Clinton opposition research, and received a warrant without telling this detail. Saying "there was a footnote that implied it might be political" doesn't tell me what the footnote was, what it looked like, or what it said. Thus, seeing the memo says the FISA court was not informed of Steele's relationship to Clinton, I assume for now that the FISA warrant was obtained by deceptive and unethical means. In order to change my mind, I would need to see the footnote and know exactly what it said, and it would have to reveal that Steele had ties to Clinton opposition research. If the Democrat memo flat out said the footnote said Steele's relationship to Clinton, then I would have to consider it, but I have not seen that memo. Then, if Republicans said that was false, I'd need to consider that too. For now I see corruption and deception on the left's part. What makes this even more convincing is I've seen the way the Clintons have played politics for decades now, and it is very devisive, very vendictive, and very dark. Prior to Obama or Trump, the Clintons brought one thing to mind: destroying people and people disappearing or dying. And this fits with every other chapter of their political history. Destroying opponents is what the Clintons do best and have always done best. This isn't all that much different than what she tried to do even to Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders when running against them. I think her attempts on him (Obama)were pulled back only because he was in the tribe and she thought he could be used as a catapult to her own future guarantee of a Presidency. Get a black man in and a woman comes next. We know about her tactics on Obama and Sanders per wikileaks. She doesn't deny any of it either. Of course Assange is known for always being correct, having the cards, not bluffing, and unloading information in boatloads if anyone calls him a liar, so she was well suited to not deny his claims. And I'll tell you what the final clue has always been when concerning corruption with the Clintons. When the liberal press suddenly hates leaks or transparency, and/or starts trying to suppress leaks. Remember reading wikileaks is illegal listen to us with Chris Cuomo? And remember all throughout Trump's first year? Leak leak leak leak, and the liberal press happily tossed out classified information etc. Suddenly they think a memo is a danger to national security and/or don't want to see classified information... when pigs fly... Side: no
1
point
Said memo implies that the FISA court was not informed that Steele had ties to Clinton opposition research, and received a warrant without telling this detail. Exactly, and it implies this due to purposeful deception since it was made know to the court that the research was politically motivated. Saying "there was a footnote that implied it might be political" No one said that the footnote implied it might be political - they all say that the footnote does say that the dossier was politically motivated. (The early reporting phrases it "paid for by a political entity", but hopefully we will see in 5 days.) I assume for now that the FISA warrant was obtained by deceptive and unethical means. If it does say that it was "paid for by a political entity" or similar, would you agree that the Republican memo was misleading? the way the Clintons have played politics for decades now Yea, paying a million dollars for opposition research that they DIDN'T USE - they must be geniuses... When the liberal press suddenly hates leaks or transparency, and/or starts trying to suppress leaks. Dem are pushing for more info to be released, not less... and not deliberately omitting relevant info. see FBI response Side: yes
3
points
the way the Clintons have played politics for decades now Yea, paying a million dollars for opposition research that they DIDN'T USE - they must be geniuses She was ready to use any means necessary to take down Obama and Sanders. We know this for a fact. She also tried to destroy all of Bill's accusers with vindictive and sociopathic techniques. This is a woman who found it funny that she got a child molester off from his charges while knowing he was guilty. This is a woman who seems to have no empathy or concern for Benghazi and Waco victims in any normal, human way. This is a woman who runs a "foundation" that is sketchy at best that shows the appearance of pay for play and is worth billions. This is a woman who's husband has Chinagate and Whitewater on his hands. This is a woman who says she was broke when she left the whitehouse but is now magically worth a quarter of a billion dollars. I saw Hillary as corrupt, evil, vendictive, and pathological well before Trump was even in the picture. I didn't trust her then. I trust her less now. Where Hillary is, there's always smoke and always opposition destroyed. I doubt it is a coincidence. Side: no
She was ready to use any means necessary to take down Obama and Sanders. We know this for a fact. No we don't. You literally just made it up. She also tried to destroy all of Bill's accusers with vindictive and sociopathic techniques. Oh shut up you total fucking liar. Clinton's three rape accusers were ALL discovered to be lying when their claims were investigated by the FBI. You are such a whopping great liar that the only explanation is that you are ill mentally. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
She was ready to use any means necessary to take down Obama and Sanders. We know this for a fact. No we don't. You literally just made it up. The DNC & Clinton made sure Sanders could not win. Clinton planned out a character assassination of Obama where the claim would be made that he was a cocaine user and a Muslim. Remember her wikileaked emails? Side: no
1
point
This is a completely different claim to the one you are defending. I claimed she would use any means neccessary to destroy someone to win. She did. The one you are defending alleges that Clinton was prepared to have Sanders murdered. I did not mention murder. You made that up to avoid that I proved you wrong, but it will not work. I schooled you plain and simple. Side: no
1
point
Obama the Muslim narrative- https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/wikileaks-democrats-obama-muslim/index.html Rigged against Bernie Sanders- http://observer.com/2016/07/ Side: no
1
point
1
point
A bubble? I fell over in hysterics when Maddow released Trump's tax returns, Cuomo told me that reading wikileaks was illegal, I found out Tim Allen's show had to be canceled because "it was triggering liberals", and they didn't want Roseanne's show to manifest because she might play a Trump supporter... I watch CNN, MSNBC, andFox News. The best way to find the truth is to listen to the apologetics version and the bloodythirsty version. The truth usually is inbetween. The problem is, no one can escape liberal media, academia, Hollywood, ESPN, etc. Escaping Fox News is easy. So leftists tend to stay one side minded with the bloodthirsty version which is overexaggerated and sometimes false and with no hearing of the other side. I always hear both sides. That's the enigma of being conservative in a culture that is run by liberals. Sadly, leftists aren't typically going to ever hear the Republican side or counter arguments to anything even if they're right. I watched the msm attack Mark Levin like mad one week, calling him a conspiracy theorist because he came up with a timeline of events and conclusion on NSA surveillance. What made it funny was he came out and quoted every source. His source was them. Everything on his timeline and every single claim was from the liberal media. They are so far gone that if the narrative doesn't fit, they'll call their own stories' claims and sources lies (inadvertantly of course). I watch simply out of morbid amusement anymore. What batch of horseshit will Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo come up with this week? What vile thing will they try to spin or defend this week? Oh, I can't wait. Side: no
1
point
Would you rather American politicians be "cozy" with the Clintons and Obamas, or the Russians Neither. and other authoritarian, (dictatorial), governments around the world This is why I didn't vote Hillary. Her campaign was bought and paid for by foreign oligarchs. Why do you think that is? Side: yes
5
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|