******Official politics thread ******

[rebeccablack]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The establishment FISA report clears the FBI with 17 "unbiased" random mistakes being made all in Trump's disfavor.

That's a 0.000000762939% chance of actually happening.

are all 17 mistakes actually unique events? did 1 mistake cause another, etc? was each mistake seriously some kind of 50/50 binary? because that literally isnt a thing that exists unless youre flipping coins

there also may have been a bias at play that wasnt actually anti-trump.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mad isn’t the right word. It simply further confirms.

They got it wrong and they included

17 mistakes all against trump
0 evidence that pointed to innocence, which he was, added in

Come on. Let’s be realistic here.

I'm confused. Like what was the purpose (official, not sinister shadow) of the report? To evidence offences commited?

If so why would it evidence lack of offences he did not commit?

You need to explain to me, cos I can imagine how mistakes in evidencing a crime would be way more likely to slip in than mistakes evidencing 'commiting' innocence?

I'm not trying to gotcha you and i have no dog so there isn't really a way to countergotcha me, i just need details of how the report was meant to work so i can understand the discussion.

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by rebeccablack [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

are all 17 mistakes actually unique events? did 1 mistake cause another, etc? was each mistake seriously some kind of 50/50 binary? because that literally isnt a thing that exists unless youre flipping coins

there also may have been a bias at play that wasnt actually anti-trump.

We have them right here. The mistakes and oversights are simply overwhelming when you mount them all up.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-c...a-fisa-report/

Then you also consider that

No exculpatory evidence added.
No warnings to trumps campaign which is usually not the norm

Again the chance of no bias against Trump campaign is essentially 0.

[feniin]

0.000000762939% chance this isn't some /pol/ hoax you're spreading.

[rebeccablack]

does it really matter?

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm confused. Like what was the purpose (official, not sinister shadow) of the report? To evidence offences commited?

If so why would it evidence lack of offences he did not commit?

You need to explain to me, cos I can imagine how mistakes in evidencing a crime would be way more likely to slip in than mistakes evidencing 'commiting' innocence?

I'm not trying to gotcha you and i have no dog so there isn't really a way to countergotcha me, i just need details of how the report was meant to work so i can understand the discussion.

Sure. What was the point of the fisa warrant and spying on trump? Is that what you are asking?

Hamstring Trump of course. Lord over the president and make decisions without ever being elected by the people.

The next part is more my personal speculation. I think the above is more firm.

My opinion about Trump, the establishment and intelligence community is that the scandals are a way to keep an ineffective trump presidency around. Scandals that they help push through creating investigations based off faulty info and fisa warrants filled with all sorts of biased errors. I also point to the fact that they reopened that investigation into Hillary’s emails again 1 week before voting. I suspect they helped get trump elected because he’d be easier to control. Hillary vs intelligence community could have been a power struggle they didn’t want to bother with.

Imagine if the fbi started an investigation into Obama’s birth based off faulty foreign info and rumors. Think about the shoe on the other foot, what that would be like. Maybe that will give some perspextive.

[Jimjam]

No, i'm not asking for the subtext reason of hamstringing trump, thats obvious. I was wondering what its official purpose was for.

The link above was somewhat useful in clearing that up but honestly its one piece in the puzzle and i'm not familiar with the intricacies of recent US politics.

I don't see how investigating other presidents would be shoe on other foot? It sounds like sensible procedure?

[rebeccablack]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imagine if the fbi started an investigation into Obama’s birth based off faulty foreign info and rumors. Think about the shoe on the other foot, what that would be like. Maybe that will give some perspextive.

i think it probably wouldnt have resulted in 36 indictments and i doubt he would have fired the head of the fbi over it, but sure

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, i'm not asking for the subtext reason of hamstringing trump, thats obvious. I was wondering what its official purpose was for.

The link above was somewhat useful in clearing that up but honestly its one piece in the puzzle and i'm not familiar with the intricacies of recent US politics.

I don't see how investigating other presidents would be shoe on other foot? It sounds like sensible procedure?

I guess it’s not a good comparison seeing how Obama the democrat elites are in bed with the intelligence community. It’s not realistic to consider his campaign could be spied on by liberal elites when they were embedded with them. It was a bad comparison, I apologize. I don’t really have a good comparison, all I can point out is that they did a horrible globalist abuse of privacy and authority to try to destroy a nationalistic candidate the people love. All through a shitty fisa warrant based on overwhelming bias and mistakes to push it through.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't see how investigating other presidents would be shoe on other foot? It sounds like sensible procedure?

In fact as POTUS has to be a born US cit (right?), I'd be really suprised if no investigation took place if rumours of wrongbirth were flying around. You think it would be a part of thr process of swearing in to prove your identity.