Posted on Jan 30, 2018
FBI officials review surveillance memo, could not cite 'any factual inaccuracies': source
1.46K
26
17
4
4
0
FBI
DOJ
Intelligence
Security
Law
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
An unnamed source? According to our POTUS, an unnamed source means that someone just made it up and it is therefore fake news. Don't believe anything that comes from an unnamed source.....that's per the Donald himself.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
Hahaha, the great thing about this story and all the responses is -- it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. In a day or two, you will most likely be able to read the memo for yourself. And once it's public, then we'll get some on-the-record named sources telling us about the lack of inaccuracies in it.
(3)
(0)
LTC David Brown
Yes indeed, and why shouldn’t people know? Following the memo will be the Inpesctor General report, not good for DOJ and the ever circling of the mulberry bush looking for hafalumps.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Hate being "first". The problem with this isn't that it came from Fox, it's the fact it's the SAME ol "sources" that are never outright named people. Not taking sides on this, being there are three "truths" and depending on your political slant, it'll dictate where your "truth" will "lie". I'm withholding judgement until the dems have their "memo" released, compared and contrasted with the GOP's side. Both will swear to high heaven theirs is the "most correct", and their favorite news outlets will have all the "credible" experts, pundits, (only Fox will have Hannity who will take it to the next level of absurd), and more "unnamed sources" to come forward. I said Fox with Hannity being dude can make some weird mess up, but Shep and Chris I actually listen to. Both call it like it is, and for some reason are the two most hated journalists I see on conservative news. Maddow is a stretch in her own, but no one gets the mass hate to me like Shep and Chris. Red or Blue pill, the choice is yours.
(3)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint - Actually you're spot on with this, but it asks many who are still wrapped around the current "safety net" of the two to actually open their minds to a third. As service members we don't like change ourselves, but we actually excel in it. One of the traits that makes us "better" in some ways than the rest. I'd welcome a third party provided it's not a "bought" party that is only there to continue the inaction we've seen for the longest time. I wouldn't be open to it if it's sole purpose was to stop someone from making it into any office. We have enough of that now with what we have. It works SO well.
Even with a third party, one issue that has dogged the two party system (and not just in the US) is well actual representation OF and FOR the people, BY the people, and WITH the people. That hasn't happened unless you're in the donor class with the current last names of Clinton, Bush, Koch, or Sorros, or another mega-player in that class. There is hardly anyone in congress that I will openly say represents me, my values, or my beliefs. I'm not available for lobbyists at the moment. Too broke. Term limits will hinder them the same way it hinders the two party. If there is no incentive to actually work, when it goes wrong, there is no real means of removal and you can always blame the other party of convience, why not sit back and collect almost $200k a year? I'd do it, and so would most.
The three branches of government are the same that while each wants to play the "independant of the other game", none are. When someone is named to be a judge, it's not just their name that goes up, it's their political affiliation that preceedes them. When you vote for a legislator, you're voting for a GOP, a DEM, if lucky a TRUE independant. Benie and Paul are not TRUE independants. Bernie is confused and Paul is a Republican with weird clothes. When voting for President, its the same thing. In Trumps case, he's floated around in all three political "parties" and scored at a time when the GOP was at it's weakest in decades. Let's be real, there were a LOT of better suited and professional candidates running in the A group than Trump. He was the one who made everyone laugh at a time when it was needed, and everyone hated anyting named Clinton.
Midterms are going to bring change. There is no doubt on that, and I think that is why there is a mass exodus in congress now of Republicans. The old excuse of "spending more time with family" is actually becoming a reality, and in some cases for folks who should remain in office, and those who should be gone remaining. Midterms will not be "better", it'll just change who is "in charge" wile brining in more of the same. Pelosi and Schumer aren't the answers anymore than Ryan and McConnell have turned out to be.
Dilly Dilly!!!
Even with a third party, one issue that has dogged the two party system (and not just in the US) is well actual representation OF and FOR the people, BY the people, and WITH the people. That hasn't happened unless you're in the donor class with the current last names of Clinton, Bush, Koch, or Sorros, or another mega-player in that class. There is hardly anyone in congress that I will openly say represents me, my values, or my beliefs. I'm not available for lobbyists at the moment. Too broke. Term limits will hinder them the same way it hinders the two party. If there is no incentive to actually work, when it goes wrong, there is no real means of removal and you can always blame the other party of convience, why not sit back and collect almost $200k a year? I'd do it, and so would most.
The three branches of government are the same that while each wants to play the "independant of the other game", none are. When someone is named to be a judge, it's not just their name that goes up, it's their political affiliation that preceedes them. When you vote for a legislator, you're voting for a GOP, a DEM, if lucky a TRUE independant. Benie and Paul are not TRUE independants. Bernie is confused and Paul is a Republican with weird clothes. When voting for President, its the same thing. In Trumps case, he's floated around in all three political "parties" and scored at a time when the GOP was at it's weakest in decades. Let's be real, there were a LOT of better suited and professional candidates running in the A group than Trump. He was the one who made everyone laugh at a time when it was needed, and everyone hated anyting named Clinton.
Midterms are going to bring change. There is no doubt on that, and I think that is why there is a mass exodus in congress now of Republicans. The old excuse of "spending more time with family" is actually becoming a reality, and in some cases for folks who should remain in office, and those who should be gone remaining. Midterms will not be "better", it'll just change who is "in charge" wile brining in more of the same. Pelosi and Schumer aren't the answers anymore than Ryan and McConnell have turned out to be.
Dilly Dilly!!!
(1)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Sgt Wayne Wood - If you had a open mind perhaps you could recognize low rent propaganda tactic being used by Fox.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint - We'll find out when the Democrat party splits in two.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Wayne Wood
SSG Warren Swan on this we agree... our system is well & truly broken. When our ‘representatives’ are more concerned with factional gains than representing their constituants then something needs to change.
Term limits? More political parties? There are many options.
1stSgt Nelson Kerr i’ve been ignoring you (not blocking) for some time now. You’re not blocked so you can post your insipid drivel. You have not disappointed.
Term limits? More political parties? There are many options.
1stSgt Nelson Kerr i’ve been ignoring you (not blocking) for some time now. You’re not blocked so you can post your insipid drivel. You have not disappointed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google