Jack Smith Illegally Spied On Senators

[gatomontes99]

The depth of depravity in the Biden admin is just infinite. 

 

[LinkSoul60]

43 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The depth of depravity in the Biden admin is just infinite. 

 

Obviously, it's a prerequisite of the job.

Edited October 7, 2025 by LinkSoul60

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

The depth of depravity in the Biden admin is just infinite. 

 

Only a FOOL believes Patel has ANY integrity.

Obviously a warrant was obtained to investigate the FAKE EC Voter slates. And Ron Johnson played a MAJOR ROLE.

So which is it gato? You're ignorant about the FAKE EC Voter Slates, or LYING about Smith not having A WARRANT? 

[gatomontes99]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Only a FOOL believes Patel has ANY integrity.

Obviously a warrant was obtained to investigate the FAKE EC Voter slates. And Ron Johnson played a MAJOR ROLE.

So which is it gato? You're ignorant about the FAKE EC Voter Slates, or LYING about Smith not having A WARRANT? 

I think it's option 3: you are trying to using name calling and false bravado to hide that you are desperately inferior in your debate skills.

 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

The depth of depravity in the Biden admin is just infinite. 

 

Is it your position that political figures should not be subject to investigation when they are reasonably suspected of criminal activity? 

This is exactly like the bogus claim that Obama spied on Trump. When in fact the FBI was spying on Russian intelligence operatives--and it just so happens that the Trump campaign kept contacting them. You know, to super secretly share totally casual information. 🙄

[Nationalist]

Oh my. Jack Smith is in deep doo-doo and the local Libbies are trying to defend him. Im shocked. Shocked I tell you.

"Its his job."

"He had a warrant."

"RUSSIA!!!"

LOL...well say good-bye to ol' jack.

[gatomontes99]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Is it your position that political figures should not be subject to investigation when they are reasonably suspected of criminal activity? 

This is exactly like the bogus claim that Obama spied on Trump. When in fact the FBI was spying on Russian intelligence operatives--and it just so happens that the Trump campaign kept contacting them. You know, to super secretly share totally casual information. 🙄

If they were spying on Russian operatives then why did they make up intelligence that they used to get a warrant to tap phone lines to Trump's staff? You cant just make shit up. 

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

If they were spying on Russian operatives then why did they make up intelligence that they used to get a warrant to tap phone lines to Trump's staff? You cant just make shit up. 

Apparently you can just make shit up.

You drink so much from the fever swamp that it's hard to tell what you're taking about, but assuming it's Page and Manafort, and by "'they" you mean the FBI, that simply didn't happen. The FBI didn't manufacture intelligence and the was no political operation.

That's why the inspector general report found no evidence of political influence on the investigation--let alone involvement by Obama. It's why Trump's "Durham investigation" resulted in nothing but some procedural finger wagging. 

And you have to be 7 kinds of crazy to think that Manafort and Page didn't deserve to be investigated. They were indeed found to be working with the Russians 

Random shit you read on Twitter is not news. Unplug from the algorithm and give your brain a scrub.

Edited October 7, 2025 by Hodad

[Legato]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Apparently you can just make shit up.

 

You being the expert.

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's why the inspector general report found no evidence of political influence on the investigation--let alone involvement by Obama.

It was the CIA and the CIA hid the evidence. So, no, no one could find the evidence. 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

And you have to be 7 kinds of crazy to think that Manafort and Page didn't deserve to be investigated.

Manafort, yes. Page, fu k no. The CIA had their "friends" (Australian ambassador I believe) feed Carter Page fake information and then used the fake info Carter was told as a reason to spy on him.

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Oh my. Jack Smith is in deep doo-doo and the local Libbies are trying to defend him. Im shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Warranted surveillance is COMPLETELY LEGAL whether you like it or not. Duh

You believe Congressmen are above the law? Completely IGNORANT about Abscam?  LMAO

 

2 hours ago, Legato said:

You being the expert.

You HAVING NO EVIDENCE, just ^BULLSHIT.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Warranted surveillance is COMPLETELY LEGAL whether you like it or not. Duh

Not if the warrants are gained under false pretenses.

[robosmith]

56 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Not if the warrants are gained under false pretenses.

You believe YOU CAN PROVE the FAKE EC Voting slates didn't exist? LMAO

Smith had COPIES. Duh

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You believe YOU CAN PROVE the FAKE EC Voting slates didn't exist? LMAO

Smith had COPIES. Duh

Why do you bring that up? The warrant said they organized J6.

[Hodad]

15 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It was the CIA and the CIA hid the evidence. So, no, no one could find the evidence. 

 

Manafort, yes. Page, fu k no. The CIA had their "friends" (Australian ambassador I believe) feed Carter Page fake information and then used the fake info Carter was told as a reason to spy on him.

The FBI got the FISA warrant and tapped Page's phone. 

Page was also meeting with the Russians--and catching the attention of our intelligence services--looong before the FISA warrant. Before he was even on the campaign. Giving them information. Lying about those meetings. And they knew he had been actively recruited by the Russians.

It may have been shoddy, corner-cutting, lazy paperwork in that warrant application. That's a fair criticism. But did Page merit investigation based on what intelligence knew about his activities? Absolutely. 

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

The FBI got the FISA warrant and tapped Page's phone. 

Page was also meeting with the Russians--and catching the attention of our intelligence services--looong before the FISA warrant. Before he was even on the campaign. Giving them information. Lying about those meetings. And they knew he had been actively recruited by the Russians.

It may have been shoddy, corner-cutting, lazy paperwork in that warrant application. That's a fair criticism. But did Page merit investigation based on what intelligence knew about his activities? Absolutely. 

My friend married a Russian. Maybe he should be surveillance as well. 

[robosmith]

20 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why do you bring that up? The warrant said they organized J6.

Part of J6 was presenting FAKE EC Voter slates.

J6 was all about delaying the EC Vote certification and trying to get a CONTINGENT ELECTION.

Do you STILL NOT know what that is? LMAO 

TRY to KEEP UP.

[gatomontes99]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Part of J6 was presenting FAKE EC Voter slates.

J6 was all about delaying the EC Vote certification and trying to get a CONTINGENT ELECTION.

Do you STILL NOT know what that is? LMAO 

TRY to KEEP UP.

Delaying a vote to verify all votes were properly tabulated is against the law? I don't think so. 

[Hodad]

On 10/8/2025 at 7:16 AM, gatomontes99 said:

My friend married a Russian. Maybe he should be surveillance as well. 

Does he have access to national intelligence information and did he marry a well known Russian intelligence operative? Because if those two things are true, yeah, probably. 

[Hodad]

On 10/8/2025 at 2:17 PM, gatomontes99 said:

Delaying a vote to verify all votes were properly tabulated is against the law? I don't think so. 

Should probably go without saying, but yeah, delaying the vote through violent insurrection is, indeed, against the law.

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Should probably go without saying, but yeah, delaying the vote through violent insurrection is, indeed, against the law.

There was no deadly insurrection. There was a riot that lead to an unarmed female rioter getting shot. But there was zero evidence that suggested any government organizational efforts behind the riot. 

[Hodad]

27 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

There was no deadly insurrection. There was a riot that lead to an unarmed female rioter getting shot. But there was zero evidence that suggested any government organizational efforts behind the riot. 

A. I said violent not deadly (though it certainly was deadly)

B. Participants are on camera touting the  intent to overthrow the government. 

C. Insurrection does not require "government organizational efforts," but there certainly were multiple efforts to organize and instigate, including the sitting POTUS.

D. No matter what you want to call it, any attempt to delay the view certification through violence was illegal--which was your absurd question. 

Edited October 10, 2025 by Hodad

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

A. I said violent not deadly (though it certainly was deadly)

B. Participants are on camera touting the  intent to overthrow the government. 

C. Insurrection does not require "government organizational efforts," but there certainly were multiple efforts to organize and instigate, including the sitting POTUS.

D. No matter what you want to call it, any attempt to delay the view certification through violence was illegal--which was your absurd question. 

But, you proved my point. Since you agreed the government wasn't involved, then investigating government officials wasn't necessary. So, now look at the timing. 

Nov 15, 2023 - Trump announces his intent to run

Nov 18, 2023 - Jack Smith is appointed special council to investigate stolen documents

April 13, 2024 - Jack Smith decides to spy on nearly a dozen senators

Why would the phone calls of senators three years after J6  matter to an investigation that was supposed to be about documents Trump had? 

Because they weren't investigating a crime, they were investigating the man, looking for a crime. 

[Hodad]

17 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

But, you proved my point. Since you agreed the government wasn't involved, then investigating government officials wasn't necessary. So, now look at the timing. 

Nov 15, 2023 - Trump announces his intent to run

Nov 18, 2023 - Jack Smith is appointed special council to investigate stolen documents

April 13, 2024 - Jack Smith decides to spy on nearly a dozen senators

Why would the phone calls of senators three years after J6  matter to an investigation that was supposed to be about documents Trump had? 

Because they weren't investigating a crime, they were investigating the man, looking for a crime. 

Don't be ridiculous. "The government" being involved is not the same as people in government being involved. 

Bob Mendez's crimes are not "the government's" crimes. Right?

Absolutely those people in government who could be reasonably connected to planning J6 should have been investigated. They don't get a pass just because they in office. 

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Don't be ridiculous. "The government" being involved is not the same as people in government being involved. 

Bob Mendez's crimes are not "the government's" crimes. Right?

Absolutely those people in government who could be reasonably connected to planning J6 should have been investigated. They don't get a pass just because they in office. 

Given that you are accusing them of using their power to overthrow an election, yes there would have to be some sort of government involvement in J6 to open an investigation into them. To open an investigation into their involvement only after Trump announced his run again shows that it was a malicious use of law.