Questions the Left or Right Refuse to Answer...

You've got many problems, with reading comprehension trending upwards.
"The so-called dossier formed only a small part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia...National security experts who have reviewed the document say that even the parts that aren't blacked out contain more than enough information to provide a judge reason to rule that the FBI had probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of Russia..."

You said that already... and still haven't answered the question:

In the Russia investigation where the FBI went to the FISA courts to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page, were the FISA judges informed that the Steele dossier (used as evidence to get the warrant) was unverified and was paid for by the Clinton campaign?

There, I've bolded the question part of the sentence. Comprendo?

To the extent that it's even relevant, now that I've helped you understand that it was a small part of the evidence used to secure the warrant:
"...how could anyone here know what happened in a FISA court?"

We can know based on testimony of the people who were there. The answer, of course, is no, they weren't told. That much has been stated by everyone involved. It was also stated that the bulk of the FISA warrant was the dossier. The FISA was turned down 3 times prior to the dossier. What changed? The dossier...

Care to back those assertions up?

Well that went as I suspected it would, no answer. A simple yes or know is what I was looking for. The correct answer is NO, the FISA courts were not told that the dossier was not verified and that it was paid for by the Clinton campaign.


Lets try another easy one...

If Trump had a secret server in Trump Tower that he used for government business but claimed it was all personal, the deleted 33,000 emails that were sopoenaed, would that be considered obstruction of justice or would that be no big deal because he claimed all the emails he deleted were just personal. Lets say he also wiped the server clean so that not even the FBI could find anything on it. A problem or no?

Rick wrote: Well that went as I suspected it would, no answer.

You got two answers, you just didn't like them.

1. How do we know those details about FIS hearings?
2. The question is irrelevant because the dossier was a minor part of the evidence used to secure the warrant.

Rick wrote: Lets try another easy one...

If Trump had a secret server in Trump Tower that he used for government business but claimed it was all personal, the deleted 33,000 emails that were sopoenaed, would that be considered obstruction of justice or would that be no big deal because he claimed all the emails he deleted were just personal. Lets say he also wiped the server clean so that not even the FBI could find anything on it. A problem or no?

From "the deleted 33,000 emails that were sopoenaed (sic)" it sounds like your hypothetical involves obstruction of justice. However, a sitting president can't be indicted according to DoJ protocols. That's why the idiot king didn't get indicted for the behavior detailed in the Mueller Report.

Brandon wrote:

Rick wrote: Well that went as I suspected it would, no answer.

You got two answers, you just didn't like them.

1. How do we know those details about FIS hearings?
2. The question is irrelevant because the dossier was a minor part of the evidence used to secure the warrant.

Rick wrote: Lets try another easy one...

If Trump had a secret server in Trump Tower that he used for government business but claimed it was all personal, the deleted 33,000 emails that were sopoenaed, would that be considered obstruction of justice or would that be no big deal because he claimed all the emails he deleted were just personal. Lets say he also wiped the server clean so that not even the FBI could find anything on it. A problem or no?

From "the deleted 33,000 emails that were sopoenaed (sic)" it sounds like your hypothetical involves obstruction of justice. However, a sitting president can't be indicted according to DoJ protocols. That's why the idiot king didn't get indicted for the behavior detailed in the Mueller Report.

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask if he would be indicted, I asked if that would be considered obstruction of justice and would that be a big deal to you. It's an easy yes or no on both.

There are no easy yes or nos to the braindead...

Just a reminder to anyone willing to challenge me with a question you wouldn't expect me to answer, please feel free to do so. I will not deflect and I will answer the question directly. I'm not afraid.

This is what I can't stand about politicians who are asked questions they don't want to answer... they always deflect to something else or give an answer that is so vague that it doesn't tell us anything about what they really think.