for a warrant. does that give the president ammunition that there was, in fact, no collusion? take a step back and start with memo number one. memo one attacks the fisa court warrant process in relation to carter page and challenges it saying that it used information that may have been politically motivated. well, using politically motivated or biased information in a warrant has never been grounds to invalidate either a fisa warrant or warrant in regular federal or state court. that s memo one. memo one creates no legal grounds for challenging the fisa court process. so memo two starts from a place of being unnecessary, because it challenges a memo that was legally ineffective to begin with. all memo two does is say the entire process was done in accordance with fisa law, which we already knew. we already knew that, because memo one fails to bring up any legal impropriety with the fisa warrant process. does it say it may have included
rob: what do you say to the accusation? it is a booby-trapped. the memo was not debunked, just the beginning of a long-standing investigation into the abuse of the fisa warrant process which everyone forgets the democrat national committee in conjunction to the hillary clinton campaign front of the fake dossier the lead to the approval of borderline illegal surveillances. in simple terms hillary funded it and obama knew there was no way president obama did not know about this. national security meetings about it, it was his political party that helped steer money and it was not an insignificant amount, $160,000, i look forward to the ig report, a lot of investigating. it would be lovely to have a nonpartisan report. over to you, what do democrats say? when you look at this democrats all voted to not release the republican memo and republicans on the flipside unanimously voted to release the democrat memo.
who would have to hold the president accountable if he were to fire mueller by tainting their perception of the fbi. i know you can t talk about the fisa warrant process, but let me just read something that was in the new york times today and see if we can get in the weeds a little bit. i think our viewers understand this issue pretty well. so, the new york times reported today in a story called secret memo hints at new target rod rosenstein. the new york times reporting the memo s contention is fbi and justice department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge. so, an fbi source stopped me right there and said, if someone failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge, they d get thrown out, that that alone would never happen. that a fisa warrant is only granted when the person applying for a warrant adequately explains to intelligence court judge. so, let me read the rest of the sentence. it goes on to say, in seeking a warrant for s
fisa warrant process which involves russian agents or intelligence who are talking to americans and picked up incidentally, that s completely legal. we don t know that either. tucker: two things real quick, we don t know that any of this took place under fives actually, there are other ways they could have done it. mr. comey should not have said this but he said that as far as he was concerned, it was not tucker: something could be legal as you found out and still be wrong, seemingly unethical. here s the last point i m going to make. shouldn t liberals defend the principle that the u.s. government should not be spying on its own citizens without really good reason and you should never do it to your political opponents?s? absolutely we have to be consistent but you re using the expression we have evidence that there s been spying on citizens when the only spying that we know about is incidentally picking up an american talking to a russian agent. tucker: it s still spying.n
that s wrong. we also have to assume that the fisa warrant process which involves russian agents or intelligence who are talking to americans and picked up incidentally, that s completely legal. we don t know that either. tucker: two things real quick, we don t know that any of this took place under fives actually, there are other ways they could have done it. mr. comey should not have said this but he said that as far as he was concerned, it was not tucker: something could be legal as you found out and still be wrong, seemingly unethical. if here s the last point i m going to make. shouldn t liberals defend the principle that the u.s. government should not be spying on its own citizens without really good reason and you should never do it to your political opponents? absolutely we have to be consistent but you re using the expression we have evidence that there s been spying on citizens when the only spying that we know about is incidentally picking up an american talking