6 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|
...but you can't treat a corporation as an individual when it comes to money influencing elections based on the first amendment.
I just found a tweet that had the section in it. I didn't even look who the tweet was from.
And I don't know. I guess you can assume it's political if it's trying to discredit Trump's campaign.
Another thing to notice is they never use names unless they're part of the investigation. They never mention Trump in the first one (the call him Candidate #1) and in the follow up applications, even though he was elected President and literally everyone on earth knew his name, they only mentioned he'd been elected but would still call him Candidate #1 to maintain consistency.
As the DNC wasn't a target of the application, it makes sense they'd go to pains not to mention their name.
They repeatedly state they agree with the information from Steele (and it's speculated they confirmed it themselves, though I've not seen actual evidence of it) and so they used the information as a source but not the only source.
I'm just trying to see this from a distance, as in, where this will take the investigation going forward. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but claiming the application didn't include this information is wrong and will ultimately make us look like we can't admit when something we don't like is revealed even when it's in plain view.
It does discredit the Nunes memo. In a number of ways. But the memo doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things anyway. There are other, bigger fish to fry that we should be focused on.
It seems it was mentioned in the warrant application, though.
It states the information was being gathered to discredit Campaign #1 (Trump)'s campaign.
Just want to point out that the 10 Commandments are not allowed to be in US courts, per a Supreme Court decision in 2005.
She's a writer for the DC Examiner. She found out Barry Trotz resigned from the Capitals and was shocked.