|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
GRRRRRR.....you're so close. But your stubbornness just won't let you embrace reason.
Law enforcement, but only if they have probably cause to investigate a crime. There are people who are professional investigators, bound by oath, with skin in the game, to objectively serve justice.
That was not Steele's job. Steele's job was to dig up dirt on Trump. That is precisely what he was hired to do. Asking how you find an objective source for that is pure stupidity. As if it was ever possible that Steele would report back to Clinton that Trump was "clean as a whistle".
Regardless of the motives of those who hired him, if the evidence is damning, it's damning. Unless you can prove he fabricated the evidence, then it doesn't matter if the evidence came from Steele, Fox News, or Trump's mother-in-law. It's still evidence.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
The bias becomes extremely relevant if you found out that before he started his shift, the cop was offered money to impugn a black person
What if the report of a black man with a smoking gun is corroborated by others? Do you automatically assume they're all in on the conspiracy?
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
Fine. Let a judge hear both sides. Let a neutral arbiter of the law weigh the facts and make a decision. But the Steele dossier was used to secure a surveillance warrant on Carter Page WITHOUT the court knowing of its financial and political bias.
So says Nunes. Why is he suddenly the arbiter of truth? The same guy who ran to WH in the middle of the night to report to DJT about the investigation of him. Doesn't seem like an objective person to me.
Just curious - did you read the dems reply to the Nunes memo?
|