Here you go.
"CNN, for instance,
reported that the FBI used information in the Steele memos to obtain approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, who Trump had said was a key adviser on national security issues.
Presumably, the FBI had verified the information before it could cite it in court."
FALSE very little of the Steele dossier has been verified. So basically the FBI used an unverified dossier to illegally get surveillance on a private US citizen, which in turn lead to the unmasking of Trump campaign officials illegally.
I have yet to see one shred of incriminating collusion information that has come from the illegal surveillance.
First, and I cant' believe I'm saying this, Alf should emulate your willingness to engage in factual discussion.
Second, the quote you made begins with "presumably", does it not? That suggests that some independent verification should have been conducted, which I think you agree with even if it's the WaPo.
Third, how do you know the information wasn't verified? Are there leaks about the FBI investigation?
Fourth, you make a pretty black and white conclusion that the surveillance was illegal. That's a double standard. If a FISA warrant was issued and it caught up russian intelligence operatives working with the Trump campaign, that's not illegal -- that's why we have a national intelligence service.
Fifth, I believe the topic at hand is whether the Clintons were bribed to get the uranium business sale approved. I do not contend that paying for information for a political candidate is illegal, unless the information is illegally obtained, which opens the door to all kinds of stuff.
All I hear Syster and others screaming about is Donald Jr. met with a Russian hoping to get dirt on Hillary. But from my research meeting with a Russian and receiving information from a Russian is not against the law.
If there is a quid pro quo, like paying Russian operatives for information (Hillary, DNC, Fusion GPS) then you have a crime.
Where's the quid pro quo?
I have not "screamed" about Donald Jr. meeting with anyone. I've "screamed"
that he denied that and there's plain documentary proof that is apparently substantiated by eyewitness accounts and potentially a recording.
I think you're right about one thing: Meeting with someone to get dirt is not a crime. "Colluding" is not in itself a crime, either. But "colluding' to steal information about a political opponent is, and a coverup is also. (see Watergate). Knowingly assisting and encouraging a foreign power to steal American data sounds like a crime to me.
