Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Dog, I capitalize Shitstain. I feel the man deserves that much respect. I suppose that your boy Shitstain's Birtherism has already served its purpose: to attract people like y'all. I also notice you say he's an asshole and Jeff says he hates his boy Shitstain more even than I do. Y'all are really too funny.

It's good you are showing President Stain the proper respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Good lemming

Good non-answer.

What was it that you said about the birther bullshit?

You certainly shared your thoughts.

Do tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

LOL.  If I ever got in earshot it’s “Hey you motherfucker” to him...

I don’t know. Do you think he went that far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saxdog said:

It's good you are showing President Stain the proper respect.

Dog didn't even capitalize president and he's complaining about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Dog likes him too.

CLEAN meant to say that, he's just occasionally dyslexic ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would proudly tell Trump to get off my property if he ever showed up here. And I'd tell him to never, ever return, and as law enforcement personel would no doubt be present, I'd have a perfect right to have him arrested for illeagal trespass should he ever try to step on my property again...

 Of course, he would never come to an actual working class shit hole county where people are scrounging for jobs at minimum wage, and driving over an hour each way to get jobs that pay $12 PH.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Drippies, what is 'the "we'll get the bastard this time" outrage of the week? 

What's the score so far? Something like 398,765 to zero isn't it?

Hey, have I ever told you not to underestimate Trump? Yeah, I probably did. 

Excuse the interruption, carry on with your fantasies. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could always reminisce and  relive the excitement that followed the release of Fire and Fury. Good ole days, huh?  Trump was toast. I wonder how many of you had to scratch your heads for a second and think "what's he talking about?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Hey Drippies, what is 'the "we'll get the bastard this time" outrage of the week? 

What's the score so far? Something like 398,765 to zero isn't it?

Hey, have I ever told you not to underestimate Trump? Yeah, I probably did. 

Excuse the interruption, carry on with your fantasies. 

 

I don't think it is a matter of underestimating Trump.  I think the problem is underestimating the percentage of people that are uniquely stupid and passionate enough to still support and vote for him.   Sad, but that will probably result in a second term for "S"hitstain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Oh boy another person who denigrates the review of papers by peers.

If you haVe a better system than peer review, toss it in.

NOTE: Tom Ray denies the results of peer review in at least two ways The first is in gun violence research. The second regards the history during the founding father era, when they confiscated guns along political lines.

If Mr. Ray is true to Libertarian form, he will deny the peer reviewed results on global warming. 

 

 

But getting back to the thread topic, I gotta comment. Shirley,, the AG is obstructing justice, on the telly. Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Hey Drippies, what is 'the "we'll get the bastard this time" outrage of the week? 

What's the score so far? Something like 398,765 to zero isn't it?

Hey, have I ever told you not to underestimate Trump? Yeah, I probably did. 

Excuse the interruption, carry on with your fantasies. 

Fraudulent University fined & closed down, fraudulent use of his charity exposed, Campaign Chairman imprisoned, National Security Director sentenced. Personal Attourney sentenced after calling your hero a liar, a thief & a cheat. Sued by a porn star he had an affair with while his wife was at home with a newborn.

Seems you are the one living a fantasy. This isn’t about points, it’s about dignity & you and Trimp have so little left you’re trying to change the subject.

Carry on, fantasy boy. Anyone with pride would be sick of “winning” by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

If you haVe a better system than peer review, toss it in.

NOTE: Tom Ray denies the results of peer review in at least two ways The first is in gun violence research. The second regards the history during the founding father era, when they confiscated guns along political lines.

If Mr. Ray is true to Libertarian form, he will deny the peer reviewed results on global warming. 

 

 

But getting back to the thread topic, I gotta comment. Shirley,, the AG is obstructing justice, on the telly. Just sayin'

Barr is running interference for Trump Inc as was Whitaker and Sessions before him.

Think the level will be revealed in the redacted Mueller report.

At end of the day I think Dems will be forced to sue to have the full report reviewed to confirm the level of redaction is justified they will get to see the report just before the 2020 election.

Winning isn’t Winning when you’re swirling down the plug hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Good non-answer.

What was it that you said about the birther bullshit?

You certainly shared your thoughts.

Do tell.

From the begining I said that I believed Obama was born in Hawaii and was the letitimate president.

I also speculated that Obama issued the pdf version of his birth certificate deliberately spin up the birthers much like Sol spun you and the rest of his lemmings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

From the begining I said that I believed Obama was born in Hawaii and was the letitimate president.

I also speculated that Obama issued the pdf version of his birth certificate deliberately spin up the birthers much like Sol spun you and the rest of his lemmings.

Thought provoking alterations of your past!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Thought provoking alterations of your past!  

I got to hand it to you. You repeated the lie so often that it did became true if only in the minds of your lemmings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I got to hand it to you. You repeated the lie so often that it did became true if only in the minds of your lemmings.

Do you really think that people don’t remember what you wrote?  Give it a few more years before Doggy Styling it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Do you really think that people don’t remember what you wrote?  Give it a few more years before Doggy Styling it. 

Refresh their memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Refresh their memories.

The thread is still there. I bumped it for you. Show us where you said that Obama was trying to spin up the birthers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The thread is still there. I bumped it for you. Show us where you said that Obama was trying to spin up the birthers. 

I don't have time to go through the entire thread but from the first few pages...

70, 89, 160, 231, 247, 341, 366

If there is some post you would like to direct our attention to please do, after all you're the accuser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't have time to go through the entire thread but from the first few pages...

70, 89, 160, 231, 247, 341, 366

If there is some post you would like to direct our attention to please do, after all you're the accuser.

So you can’t cite a post. What a shock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

So you can’t cite a post. What a shock. 

461

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

So you can’t cite a post. What a shock. 

Not unless Hannity or Limbaugh spoon feed it to him first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dog said:

461

And yet in post 462....

  On 1/7/2016 at 9:54 PM, Olsonist said:

 

On 1/7/2016 at 5:56 PM, Dog said:

Sol, you're so fucking good at digging up old threads find one where I questioned Obama's citizenship. Find one where I questioned that Obama's eligibility to be president. You pretend be guided by facts, well get some or shut the fuck up asshole...GO.

Old threads aren't necessary. This one will do.

 

On 7/7/2011 at 10:54 AM, Dog said:

Just hypothetically now...Suppose the name on the certificate issued by Hawaii is not Obama but Soetoro. It’s not clear what name was used at his birth but he switched to Obama, or perhaps back to Obama, in 1982 and just perhaps it never was updated in Hawaii. And, just speculation here, suppose the Whitehouse manipulated the document to change the name to Obama to avoid any embarrassment.

On 7/7/2011 at 11:22 AM, Dog said:

May be all wrong and if Hawaii issues the original we should know, but the real point here is that it does not follow logically that doubt about the certificate provided by the Whitehouse is the same as doubt about Obama's country of birth.

 

Maybe Mr. Fab can draw that up for us.

On 5/9/2012 at 1:56 PM, Dog said:

I think the case for the possible forgery of the birth certificate can be considered on its own merits.

You like to couch your Birtherism in clever hypotheticals and conditionals. No matter. Cleverness or lack thereof won't retract what you've already s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checking in for a friend. He heard that collusion was a Dem problem now and that a lot of intelligence community types are playing the Nuclear Attack Drill and hiding under their desks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

And yet in post 462....

 

Old threads aren't necessary. This one will do.

 

You like to couch your Birtherism in clever hypotheticals and conditionals. No matter. Cleverness or lack thereof won't retract what you've already s

Clever hypothicals and conditionals? You mean like...."I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is the legitimate president of the United States". 

Fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Clever hypothicals and conditionals? You mean like...."I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is the legitimate president of the United States". 

Fuck off.

So you were lying when you said the below quote? And you admit it? 

I think the case for the possible forgery of the birth certificate can be considered on its own merits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dog said:

461

Wow, you actually did say that. Interesting hypothetical there, but congrats on actually supporting something with a cite.  

Now how about explaining the hypothetical you posed, which I cited in post 462?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So you were lying when you said the below quote? And you admit it? 

I think the case for the possible forgery of the birth certificate can be considered on its own merits.

No I was speculating that Obama was toying with the birthers...Good lemming though

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

No I was speculating that Obama was toying with the birthers...Good lemming though

Conspiracy theorists always believe their over-determinate batshittery makes them more insightful than the masses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Conspiracy theorists always believe their over-determinate batshittery makes them more insightful than the masses.

That sums up this thread nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

That sums up this thread nicely.

Your participation, yes. How many times have you thrown about "lemming"? how about your Ohr cospiracy?

anyways - you'll never fucking learn. you'll die a stupid bitter old man, so rot in hell asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Your participation, yes. How many times have you thrown about "lemming"? how about your Ohr cospiracy?

anyways - you'll never fucking learn. you'll die a stupid bitter old man, so rot in hell asshole.

You think he'll make it to "old"?.... I was thinking bitter, intellectually crippled thirty something.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dog said:

No I was speculating that Obama was toying with the birthers...Good lemming though

except the part about Soetoro.  You never got around to explaining that hypothetical....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

except the part about Soetoro.  You never got around to explaining that hypothetical....  

What about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

What about it?

That's a thought provoking question, but different than the one you raised about Soetoro.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting twitter thread.  I think you can click on this and see the timeline in 30 tweets.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

No I was speculating that Obama was toying with the birthers...Good lemming though

Y'know how five year olds will often say, when they drop or spill something: "I -meant- to do that"

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Barr is running interference for Trump Inc as was Whitaker and Sessions before him.

Think the level will be revealed in the redacted Mueller report.

At end of the day I think Dems will be forced to sue to have the full report reviewed to confirm the level of redaction is justified they will get to see the report just before the 2020 election.

Winning isn’t Winning when you’re swirling down the plug hole.

I follow ya, and I agree.  But the AG is now publicly obstructing justice...which is chilling.

Do we need Rosenstein in a jump suit or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Y'know how five year olds will often say, when they drop or spill something: "I -meant- to do that"

-DSK

What about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Interesting twitter thread.  I think you can click on this and see the timeline in 30 tweets.

I doubt that Dog will click on your link, therefore, from Seth Abramson's twittter feed:

 

 

(THREAD) So much disinformation is being spread about the Mueller investigation—in some cases with uncritical repetition by the media—that it's time for some clarifications before the conspiracy theories Trump and Barr are selling become gospel. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ In June 2016, American intelligence received intel from allied intelligence agencies—that is, we received information intended to safeguard U.S. national security from our longtime allies—indicating that Trump aides were having suspicious overseas conversations with Russians.

2/ When we learned CIA director Brennan had gotten such intel, the reports that came to us had plenty of euphemisms—that is, Western intel agencies were likely doing intercepts, so they had *some* sense of the content of such Trump-Russia conversations, not just their occurrence.

3/ Because it's illegal for a campaign to receive any financial or in-kind value from foreign nationals, and because any clandestine Trump-Russia meetup would therefore give the Kremlin blackmail material over the Trump campaign—the threat of revealing the meeting—a probe ensued.

4/ It was a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal probe, so it wasn't necessarily intended to produce criminal charges—though that can happen as a consequence of what starts as a counterintelligence

5/ Separate from the intel received from Western intel agencies in June 2016, which intel apparently continued to be received into July 2016, U.S. intelligence knew that one of the men involved, Carter Page, had previously been suspected of being a Russian spy—with good reason.

6/ In a pre-2016 probe, Page was found to have procured info at the request of Kremlin spies, and then, after U.S. intel approached him and told him this, a) it was unclear whether he knew he'd been dealing with spies, but also b) he *continued calling himself a Kremlin adviser*.

7/ Another man U.S. intel began looking at, Paul Manafort, was known to have worked on Putin's behalf in Ukraine for many years, so here too there was Russia-related information already held on one of the individuals Western intel agencies were saying was having secret meetings.

8/ In July 2016, U.S. intelligence received *additional* intel from the Australians—which they'd been holding onto for 60 to 90 days—that George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that he'd been in contact with a Kremlin agent who said the Kremlin had stolen Clinton emails.

9/ *Of course* U.S. intelligence was going to look into these claims—it'd be malpractice not to. But what U.S. intelligence *also* did was make sure that the fact of its probe *did not leak*, so there would be no concern that U.S. intelligence was getting involved in an election.

10/ Again, *for the duration of the Trump campaign's existence*, the fact of a *federal counterintelligence probe* into certain members of that campaign *did not leak*. Indeed, not only did it *not* leak, the feds *lied to the NYT* in October 2016 by saying no such probe existed.

11/ There *should* have been a *massive* investigation into why U.S. intelligence *lied* to the New York Times in October 2016 about the existence of a probe of the Trump campaign, rather than simply saying it would neither confirm nor deny that. It *chose* to mislead Americans.

12/ Meanwhile, even as U.S. intelligence was lying to American media to protect Trump, we have *ample* evidence that rogue FBI agents in the New York field office were threatening to *illegally leak intel about the Clinton case* if FBI director Comey didn't agree to *reopen* it.

13/ So if you're counting at home, that's *two* systematic attempts to protect Trump and harm Clinton by federal entities *before* Election Day. Neither has ever been investigated, and needless to say Attorney General Barr has *no* interest in looking into either of those things.

14/ In the summer of 2016, federal law enforcement received *another* tranche of intelligence: in this case from the former Russia desk chief for MI6—an allied intelligence agency—who'd *repeatedly* worked with the FBI on past investigations and was considered a *trusted source*.

15/ That man's name was Christopher Steele. Steele went to someone he knew at the FBI from prior joint work, Bruce Ohr, and told him he had *raw intel* from sources he had developed in Russia when he was at MI6. *No one* told him to go to the FBI—he decided on doing so *himself*.

16/ Steele gave his raw intel to the FBI in the *very same spirit* of coordination between allied intelligence agencies that he had exhibited in *many* years at MI6 (note that Steele's reputation as a spy was *so* good that the MI6 tasked him with *training other British spies*).

17/ Aha! you might say. Surely *this* is the point at which the FBI does something to hurt Trump pre-election, which assault on democracy AG Barr is now upset about!

And the answer is...

...no! The FBI *also* buried the intel Steele gave them for the *entirety of the campaign*.

18/ Steele was mystified that the FBI was doing nothing with his intel—which he estimated to be 85% accurate, suggesting it was strong but still unprocessed—and so he chose, on his own, to get in touch with media. A turning point for Steele was U.S. intelligence lying to the NYT.

19/ So Steele believed his intel was *deliberately* being buried by US intelligence agencies—and his fears were *proven true* in the ten days before Election Day, when those agencies lied to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe rather than having no comment.

20/ At some point *after* Page had left the Trump campaign, and *without* leaking to anyone the existence of a counterintelligence investigation, the feds secured a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant on Page *partially* using the raw intel they had from Steele.

21/ Remember that the feds *also* had past information on Page and *also* had other information from allied intelligence agencies and *also* had information about Trump's National Security Advisory Committee talking to Kremlin agents (Papadopoulos) in *addition* to the raw intel.

22/ But more importantly, *it was just a damn warrant*—not a conviction. The FISA court almost *never* denies a warrant application, and the standard of proof required is essentially an elevated form of probable cause—a low standard—because a U.S. citizen is involved. That's key.

‏23/ In other words, federal law enforcement had *way* more than the evidence it needed to secure a surveillance warrant on the (post-Trump campaign, remember!) Carter Page. And yes, it transparently indicated to the FISA court the origin of Steele's work and his raw intelligence.

24/ So what the hell—you may ask—is Barr talking about in referencing "spying" on Trump's "campaign"? And why is he talking about *that*, not anti-Clinton leaks from the NYC FBI field office or anti-Clinton lies told to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe?

25/ So far, the *only* even *possible* event Barr could be referring to is a claim by George Papadopoulos—a *self-identified* "Kremlin intermediary" during the Trump campaign who was *secretly trying to set up a clandestine Trump-Putin summit*—involving a man named Stefan Halper.

26/ Halper, who has cooperated with the FBI in the past, allegedly met Papadopoulos in summer 2016 to try to learn about Papadopoulos' conversations with Kremlin agents—conversations that *definitely happened* and that *allied intelligence agencies* told U.S. intelligence about.

27/ So, *at worst*, while U.S. intelligence was carefully and studiously protecting the fact of a well-founded counterintelligence probe against certain Trump aides (not Trump) it had a cooperator talk to a Trump aide who was then acting—per its sources—as a Kremlin intermediary.

28/ In other words, U.S. intelligence was *doing its job*.

They *weren't* doing their job when they leaked details of the Clinton case; they *weren't* doing their job when they lied to the NYT; they *weren't* doing their job in burying Steele's intel—but they did their job here.

29/ So of *course*, what's the *one thing* Trump's handpicked AG wants to investigate? The thing US intelligence did *right* in the pre-election period.

This should distress all law-abiding Americans who love our democracy and our rule of law—because it's *chillingly* political.

30/ Meanwhile, Barr *also* undercut DOJ regs by opining on obstruction—a probe *Trump* initiated by his own conduct in 2017—when it wasn't his place to do so. And *now* he's going to distract attention from Mueller's findings with—it sure seems—an unwarranted new Special Counsel.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lifted Tack said:

I doubt that Dog will click on your link, therefore, from Seth Abramson's twittter feed:

 

 

(THREAD) So much disinformation is being spread about the Mueller investigation—in some cases with uncritical repetition by the media—that it's time for some clarifications before the conspiracy theories Trump and Barr are selling become gospel. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ In June 2016, American intelligence received intel from allied intelligence agencies—that is, we received information intended to safeguard U.S. national security from our longtime allies—indicating that Trump aides were having suspicious overseas conversations with Russians.

2/ When we learned CIA director Brennan had gotten such intel, the reports that came to us had plenty of euphemisms—that is, Western intel agencies were likely doing intercepts, so they had *some* sense of the content of such Trump-Russia conversations, not just their occurrence.

3/ Because it's illegal for a campaign to receive any financial or in-kind value from foreign nationals, and because any clandestine Trump-Russia meetup would therefore give the Kremlin blackmail material over the Trump campaign—the threat of revealing the meeting—a probe ensued.

4/ It was a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal probe, so it wasn't necessarily intended to produce criminal charges—though that can happen as a consequence of what starts as a counterintelligence

5/ Separate from the intel received from Western intel agencies in June 2016, which intel apparently continued to be received into July 2016, U.S. intelligence knew that one of the men involved, Carter Page, had previously been suspected of being a Russian spy—with good reason.

6/ In a pre-2016 probe, Page was found to have procured info at the request of Kremlin spies, and then, after U.S. intel approached him and told him this, a) it was unclear whether he knew he'd been dealing with spies, but also b) he *continued calling himself a Kremlin adviser*.

7/ Another man U.S. intel began looking at, Paul Manafort, was known to have worked on Putin's behalf in Ukraine for many years, so here too there was Russia-related information already held on one of the individuals Western intel agencies were saying was having secret meetings.

8/ In July 2016, U.S. intelligence received *additional* intel from the Australians—which they'd been holding onto for 60 to 90 days—that George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that he'd been in contact with a Kremlin agent who said the Kremlin had stolen Clinton emails.

9/ *Of course* U.S. intelligence was going to look into these claims—it'd be malpractice not to. But what U.S. intelligence *also* did was make sure that the fact of its probe *did not leak*, so there would be no concern that U.S. intelligence was getting involved in an election.

10/ Again, *for the duration of the Trump campaign's existence*, the fact of a *federal counterintelligence probe* into certain members of that campaign *did not leak*. Indeed, not only did it *not* leak, the feds *lied to the NYT* in October 2016 by saying no such probe existed.

11/ There *should* have been a *massive* investigation into why U.S. intelligence *lied* to the New York Times in October 2016 about the existence of a probe of the Trump campaign, rather than simply saying it would neither confirm nor deny that. It *chose* to mislead Americans.

12/ Meanwhile, even as U.S. intelligence was lying to American media to protect Trump, we have *ample* evidence that rogue FBI agents in the New York field office were threatening to *illegally leak intel about the Clinton case* if FBI director Comey didn't agree to *reopen* it.

13/ So if you're counting at home, that's *two* systematic attempts to protect Trump and harm Clinton by federal entities *before* Election Day. Neither has ever been investigated, and needless to say Attorney General Barr has *no* interest in looking into either of those things.

14/ In the summer of 2016, federal law enforcement received *another* tranche of intelligence: in this case from the former Russia desk chief for MI6—an allied intelligence agency—who'd *repeatedly* worked with the FBI on past investigations and was considered a *trusted source*.

15/ That man's name was Christopher Steele. Steele went to someone he knew at the FBI from prior joint work, Bruce Ohr, and told him he had *raw intel* from sources he had developed in Russia when he was at MI6. *No one* told him to go to the FBI—he decided on doing so *himself*.

16/ Steele gave his raw intel to the FBI in the *very same spirit* of coordination between allied intelligence agencies that he had exhibited in *many* years at MI6 (note that Steele's reputation as a spy was *so* good that the MI6 tasked him with *training other British spies*).

17/ Aha! you might say. Surely *this* is the point at which the FBI does something to hurt Trump pre-election, which assault on democracy AG Barr is now upset about!

And the answer is...

...no! The FBI *also* buried the intel Steele gave them for the *entirety of the campaign*.

18/ Steele was mystified that the FBI was doing nothing with his intel—which he estimated to be 85% accurate, suggesting it was strong but still unprocessed—and so he chose, on his own, to get in touch with media. A turning point for Steele was U.S. intelligence lying to the NYT.

19/ So Steele believed his intel was *deliberately* being buried by US intelligence agencies—and his fears were *proven true* in the ten days before Election Day, when those agencies lied to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe rather than having no comment.

20/ At some point *after* Page had left the Trump campaign, and *without* leaking to anyone the existence of a counterintelligence investigation, the feds secured a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant on Page *partially* using the raw intel they had from Steele.

21/ Remember that the feds *also* had past information on Page and *also* had other information from allied intelligence agencies and *also* had information about Trump's National Security Advisory Committee talking to Kremlin agents (Papadopoulos) in *addition* to the raw intel.

22/ But more importantly, *it was just a damn warrant*—not a conviction. The FISA court almost *never* denies a warrant application, and the standard of proof required is essentially an elevated form of probable cause—a low standard—because a U.S. citizen is involved. That's key.

‏23/ In other words, federal law enforcement had *way* more than the evidence it needed to secure a surveillance warrant on the (post-Trump campaign, remember!) Carter Page. And yes, it transparently indicated to the FISA court the origin of Steele's work and his raw intelligence.

24/ So what the hell—you may ask—is Barr talking about in referencing "spying" on Trump's "campaign"? And why is he talking about *that*, not anti-Clinton leaks from the NYC FBI field office or anti-Clinton lies told to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe?

25/ So far, the *only* even *possible* event Barr could be referring to is a claim by George Papadopoulos—a *self-identified* "Kremlin intermediary" during the Trump campaign who was *secretly trying to set up a clandestine Trump-Putin summit*—involving a man named Stefan Halper.

26/ Halper, who has cooperated with the FBI in the past, allegedly met Papadopoulos in summer 2016 to try to learn about Papadopoulos' conversations with Kremlin agents—conversations that *definitely happened* and that *allied intelligence agencies* told U.S. intelligence about.

27/ So, *at worst*, while U.S. intelligence was carefully and studiously protecting the fact of a well-founded counterintelligence probe against certain Trump aides (not Trump) it had a cooperator talk to a Trump aide who was then acting—per its sources—as a Kremlin intermediary.

28/ In other words, U.S. intelligence was *doing its job*.

They *weren't* doing their job when they leaked details of the Clinton case; they *weren't* doing their job when they lied to the NYT; they *weren't* doing their job in burying Steele's intel—but they did their job here.

29/ So of *course*, what's the *one thing* Trump's handpicked AG wants to investigate? The thing US intelligence did *right* in the pre-election period.

This should distress all law-abiding Americans who love our democracy and our rule of law—because it's *chillingly* political.

30/ Meanwhile, Barr *also* undercut DOJ regs by opining on obstruction—a probe *Trump* initiated by his own conduct in 2017—when it wasn't his place to do so. And *now* he's going to distract attention from Mueller's findings with—it sure seems—an unwarranted new Special Counsel.

We're gonna need a humdinger of a distraction from that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lifted Tack said:

I doubt that Dog will click on your link, therefore, from Seth Abramson's twittter feed:

 

 

(THREAD) So much disinformation is being spread about the Mueller investigation—in some cases with uncritical repetition by the media—that it's time for some clarifications before the conspiracy theories Trump and Barr are selling become gospel. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ In June 2016, American intelligence received intel from allied intelligence agencies—that is, we received information intended to safeguard U.S. national security from our longtime allies—indicating that Trump aides were having suspicious overseas conversations with Russians.

2/ When we learned CIA director Brennan had gotten such intel, the reports that came to us had plenty of euphemisms—that is, Western intel agencies were likely doing intercepts, so they had *some* sense of the content of such Trump-Russia conversations, not just their occurrence.

3/ Because it's illegal for a campaign to receive any financial or in-kind value from foreign nationals, and because any clandestine Trump-Russia meetup would therefore give the Kremlin blackmail material over the Trump campaign—the threat of revealing the meeting—a probe ensued.

4/ It was a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal probe, so it wasn't necessarily intended to produce criminal charges—though that can happen as a consequence of what starts as a counterintelligence

5/ Separate from the intel received from Western intel agencies in June 2016, which intel apparently continued to be received into July 2016, U.S. intelligence knew that one of the men involved, Carter Page, had previously been suspected of being a Russian spy—with good reason.

6/ In a pre-2016 probe, Page was found to have procured info at the request of Kremlin spies, and then, after U.S. intel approached him and told him this, a) it was unclear whether he knew he'd been dealing with spies, but also b) he *continued calling himself a Kremlin adviser*.

7/ Another man U.S. intel began looking at, Paul Manafort, was known to have worked on Putin's behalf in Ukraine for many years, so here too there was Russia-related information already held on one of the individuals Western intel agencies were saying was having secret meetings.

8/ In July 2016, U.S. intelligence received *additional* intel from the Australians—which they'd been holding onto for 60 to 90 days—that George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that he'd been in contact with a Kremlin agent who said the Kremlin had stolen Clinton emails.

9/ *Of course* U.S. intelligence was going to look into these claims—it'd be malpractice not to. But what U.S. intelligence *also* did was make sure that the fact of its probe *did not leak*, so there would be no concern that U.S. intelligence was getting involved in an election.

10/ Again, *for the duration of the Trump campaign's existence*, the fact of a *federal counterintelligence probe* into certain members of that campaign *did not leak*. Indeed, not only did it *not* leak, the feds *lied to the NYT* in October 2016 by saying no such probe existed.

11/ There *should* have been a *massive* investigation into why U.S. intelligence *lied* to the New York Times in October 2016 about the existence of a probe of the Trump campaign, rather than simply saying it would neither confirm nor deny that. It *chose* to mislead Americans.

12/ Meanwhile, even as U.S. intelligence was lying to American media to protect Trump, we have *ample* evidence that rogue FBI agents in the New York field office were threatening to *illegally leak intel about the Clinton case* if FBI director Comey didn't agree to *reopen* it.

13/ So if you're counting at home, that's *two* systematic attempts to protect Trump and harm Clinton by federal entities *before* Election Day. Neither has ever been investigated, and needless to say Attorney General Barr has *no* interest in looking into either of those things.

14/ In the summer of 2016, federal law enforcement received *another* tranche of intelligence: in this case from the former Russia desk chief for MI6—an allied intelligence agency—who'd *repeatedly* worked with the FBI on past investigations and was considered a *trusted source*.

15/ That man's name was Christopher Steele. Steele went to someone he knew at the FBI from prior joint work, Bruce Ohr, and told him he had *raw intel* from sources he had developed in Russia when he was at MI6. *No one* told him to go to the FBI—he decided on doing so *himself*.

16/ Steele gave his raw intel to the FBI in the *very same spirit* of coordination between allied intelligence agencies that he had exhibited in *many* years at MI6 (note that Steele's reputation as a spy was *so* good that the MI6 tasked him with *training other British spies*).

17/ Aha! you might say. Surely *this* is the point at which the FBI does something to hurt Trump pre-election, which assault on democracy AG Barr is now upset about!

And the answer is...

...no! The FBI *also* buried the intel Steele gave them for the *entirety of the campaign*.

18/ Steele was mystified that the FBI was doing nothing with his intel—which he estimated to be 85% accurate, suggesting it was strong but still unprocessed—and so he chose, on his own, to get in touch with media. A turning point for Steele was U.S. intelligence lying to the NYT.

19/ So Steele believed his intel was *deliberately* being buried by US intelligence agencies—and his fears were *proven true* in the ten days before Election Day, when those agencies lied to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe rather than having no comment.

20/ At some point *after* Page had left the Trump campaign, and *without* leaking to anyone the existence of a counterintelligence investigation, the feds secured a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant on Page *partially* using the raw intel they had from Steele.

21/ Remember that the feds *also* had past information on Page and *also* had other information from allied intelligence agencies and *also* had information about Trump's National Security Advisory Committee talking to Kremlin agents (Papadopoulos) in *addition* to the raw intel.

22/ But more importantly, *it was just a damn warrant*—not a conviction. The FISA court almost *never* denies a warrant application, and the standard of proof required is essentially an elevated form of probable cause—a low standard—because a U.S. citizen is involved. That's key.

‏23/ In other words, federal law enforcement had *way* more than the evidence it needed to secure a surveillance warrant on the (post-Trump campaign, remember!) Carter Page. And yes, it transparently indicated to the FISA court the origin of Steele's work and his raw intelligence.

24/ So what the hell—you may ask—is Barr talking about in referencing "spying" on Trump's "campaign"? And why is he talking about *that*, not anti-Clinton leaks from the NYC FBI field office or anti-Clinton lies told to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe?

25/ So far, the *only* even *possible* event Barr could be referring to is a claim by George Papadopoulos—a *self-identified* "Kremlin intermediary" during the Trump campaign who was *secretly trying to set up a clandestine Trump-Putin summit*—involving a man named Stefan Halper.

26/ Halper, who has cooperated with the FBI in the past, allegedly met Papadopoulos in summer 2016 to try to learn about Papadopoulos' conversations with Kremlin agents—conversations that *definitely happened* and that *allied intelligence agencies* told U.S. intelligence about.

27/ So, *at worst*, while U.S. intelligence was carefully and studiously protecting the fact of a well-founded counterintelligence probe against certain Trump aides (not Trump) it had a cooperator talk to a Trump aide who was then acting—per its sources—as a Kremlin intermediary.

28/ In other words, U.S. intelligence was *doing its job*.

They *weren't* doing their job when they leaked details of the Clinton case; they *weren't* doing their job when they lied to the NYT; they *weren't* doing their job in burying Steele's intel—but they did their job here.

29/ So of *course*, what's the *one thing* Trump's handpicked AG wants to investigate? The thing US intelligence did *right* in the pre-election period.

This should distress all law-abiding Americans who love our democracy and our rule of law—because it's *chillingly* political.

30/ Meanwhile, Barr *also* undercut DOJ regs by opining on obstruction—a probe *Trump* initiated by his own conduct in 2017—when it wasn't his place to do so. And *now* he's going to distract attention from Mueller's findings with—it sure seems—an unwarranted new Special Counsel.

Yeah all completely believable from the guy who wrote this...

image.png.b402034a361daa40c9ed6ba84c86fe9e.png

Team Mueller disagrees with his conclusion... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Yeah all completely believable from the guy who wrote this...

image.png.b402034a361daa40c9ed6ba84c86fe9e.png

Team Mueller disagrees with his conclusion... 

Which one of those paragraphs is inaccurate, and what source disputes it/them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Which one of those paragraphs is inaccurate, and what source disputes it/them?  

Not saying any of them are in a vacuum not true. I'm pointing out that the lens is distorted... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

23 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Team Mueller disagrees with his conclusion... 

It's a source of constant fascination that Trumpalos choose overreachng lies - because of course they haven't read the report and so don't know Team Mueller's views - when they could choose fact to dispute conclusions they dislike. MB can't say "not proven" he says "disagress" without any proof. @Dog has to come up with a bizarre conspiracy theory, he can't just admit that maybe Trump was investigated because he's a bumbling idiot that constantly acts like he's guilt. And constantly interferes like he's guilty. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Not saying any of them are in a vacuum not true. I'm pointing out that the lens is distorted... 

 

It's a matter of the difference between facts and opinion.  Facts are facts.  No lens changes that.  Opinions can be clouded. Lets look at 20, for example.

Quote

20/ At some point *after* Page had left the Trump campaign, and *without* leaking to anyone the existence of a counterintelligence investigation, the feds secured a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant on Page *partially* using the raw intel they had from Steele.

The author is saying that happened. He is not saying that he thinks it happened.  He is stating a fact. What is his opinion about it?  I don't know, because he does not say it here. Is it factual?  That is the only relevant question. There is no lens for that question.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It's a matter of the difference between facts and opinion.  Facts are facts.  No lens changes that.  Opinions can be clouded. Lets look at 20, for example.

The author is saying that happened. He is not saying that he thinks it happened.  He is stating a fact. What is his opinion about it?  I don't know, because he does not say it here. Is it factual?  That is the only relevant question. There is no lens for that question.  

 

It's the "partially" bit that is not known to be fact. That is opinion (how would he know). From other sources (also opinion) the bulk FISA warrant was based on the now known to be false Steele report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

There is no lens for that question.  

 

 

There is always a lens for those who were never taught to question assumptions and use logic.

 

 

SafariScreenSnapz002.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

It's the "partially" bit that is not known to be fact. That is opinion (how would he know). From other sources (also opinion) the bulk FISA warrant was based on the now known to be false Steele report.

Chief Inspector Nunes got the FISA warrant declassified and publicized, did he not?  That was when we were having hearings about the bold new evidence that was going to be a humdinger of all humdingers.  Until we saw what was actually done.  And Chief Inspector Nunes looked like a buffoon.  Again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:

From the begining I said that I believed Obama was born in Hawaii and was the letitimate president.

I always thought that was Bill Clinton though I never heard it put quite that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

It's a source of constant fascination that Trumpalos choose overreachng lies - because of course they haven't read the report and so don't know Team Mueller's views - when they could choose fact to dispute conclusions they dislike. MB can't say "not proven" he says "disagress" without any proof. @Dog has to come up with a bizarre conspiracy theory, he can't just admit that maybe Trump was investigated because he's a bumbling idiot that constantly acts like he's guilt. And constantly interferes like he's guilty. 

I find it amusing that you would say that on page 179 of a thread the premise of which is Trump's guilty and all that needs to happen is for us to find out what it is he's guilty of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

I find it amusing that you would say that on page 179 of a thread the premise of which is Trump's guilty and all that needs to happen is for us to find out what it is he's guilty of.

Are you surprised trump is guilty of an, as yet, unnamed crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 7:46 PM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Hey Drippies, what is 'the "we'll get the bastard this time" outrage of the week? 

What's the score so far? Something like 398,765 to zero isn't it?

Hey, have I ever told you not to underestimate Trump? Yeah, I probably did. 

Excuse the interruption, carry on with your fantasies. 

 

Speaking of your fantasies:
image.png.092b15b5ff0866588f514870b629dcf0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mike G said:

 

 

It’s just mind blowing.  I can imagine him telling the military the same thing.  Have we had a more morally bankrupt, corrupt, cretinous lout as POTUS ever?  Don’t know the history of those before 1900 but find it hard to imagine

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The sad part is how few people in the rightwing care enough to do anything.

Oh, they do something. They celebrate!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. I long for the good old days of, say, Richard Nixon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sean said:

Unbelievable. I long for the good old days of, say, Richard Nixon.

Nixon wasn't senile.  I'd take this demented little don over tricky dick any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasher said:

Nixon wasn't senile.  I'd take this demented little don over tricky dick any day.

No, but he was a mean drunk. Trump is a mean person and getting worse by the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

No, but he was a mean drunk. Trump is a mean person and getting worse by the day.

That is the point, I'd rather have this incompetent in charge rather than someone just as malevolent who had a brain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sean said:

Unbelievable. I long for the good old days of, say, Richard Nixon.

LBJ was a complete shit for expanding the Vietnam war 100 fold. Nixon was an equal shit for prolonging it, indeed illegally negotiating with North Vietnam to prolong it, and then illegally expanding it into Laos and Cambodia. (Obama was similarly stupid but not quite to the shit level for surging in Afghanistan, thinking it like Vietnam could be won.) BTW, the Vietnam war was about 10 times worse for us than Iraq+Afghanistan combined.

Not much to long for there. If you want to long for something, long for something boring like Ford or Carter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

LBJ was a complete shit for expanding the Vietnam war 100 fold. Nixon was an equal shit for prolonging it, indeed illegally negotiating with North Vietnam to prolong it, and then illegally expanding it into Laos and Cambodia. (Obama was similarly stupid but not quite to the shit level for surging in Afghanistan, thinking it like Vietnam could be won.) BTW, the Vietnam war was about 10 times worse for us than Iraq+Afghanistan combined.

Not much to long for there. If you want to long for something, long for something boring like Ford or Carter.

Jimmy wanted an energy plan.  How prescient was that?  President Carter believed in human rights.  What a wuss.  He let the shah fall.  He cleaned up the mess the right left him.  And then the left attacked him and gave us Raygun.  

Let's be clear.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy backed the Shah. I think he thought it was big boy Presidential continuity stuff, but he backed him. His first foreign trip included Iran. I'm not sure why, but it did. After the Shah was deposed, he admitted the Shah for treatment. I'm a big Carter fan but he made those choices and Iran humiliated him/us for it and a bunch of other things too. (Then they got that shit Reagan who backed Iraq in the Iran/Iraq border war who then sent an Exocet into our destroyer ...)

It was a mess. I don't think Teddy Kennedy challenged Carter from the left but rather from the old guard. The humiliation of the hostage crisis wasn't the left's doing. Reagan was the sort of entertainment the elk want. That wasn't the left's fault. Not going to blame this on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess my attempts at wry sarcasm aren't working too well around here these days. Lighten up fellas. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's brain doesn't need the introduction of alcohol.... if ferments it's own. it's a festering cauldron. of yeasts, and sugars and grains, and starches...

Satan beware when that keg be tapped. You may have met your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

 

I guess my attempts at wry sarcasm aren't working too well around here these days. Lighten up fellas. 

It's another era. Go watch Cabaret again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

 

I guess my attempts at wry sarcasm aren't working too well around here these days. Lighten up fellas. 

Nixon does seem kind of quaint now.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

LBJ was a complete shit for expanding the Vietnam war 100 fold. Nixon was an equal shit for prolonging it, indeed illegally negotiating with North Vietnam to prolong it, and then illegally expanding it into Laos and Cambodia. (Obama was similarly stupid but not quite to the shit level for surging in Afghanistan, thinking it like Vietnam could be won.) BTW, the Vietnam war was about 10 times worse for us than Iraq+Afghanistan combined.

Not much to long for there. If you want to long for something, long for something boring like Ford or Carter.

Thing was, LBJ & Tricky Dicky both did some good things, and some really really shitty things.  They both wanted to kill males- my family, my friends, and me, for what? It was weirdly personal. Now Viet Nam is making cool trimarans. I’m trying to figure if Trump has done anything redeeming.  Ford was boring- Carter saw the future, and few wanted to be a part of it.  He was a control freak,   But more’s the pity.  I think it’s a mistake to call Trump dumb.  He just applies his intelligence incredibly intensely with withering focus in the strangest places.  I’m wandering.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a mistake to call Shitstain smart. He is a force of nature, I'll grant that. He's smarter than his elk. That's not hard. But he hasn't gotten anything right. My brother who hates him wants to give him some credit for China. No. China is a huge problem but fucking that up is even worse than leaving it alone. Shitstain is fucking that up and so the political will that will be needed to address it will have already been spent.

Yes, LBJ and Nixon were not completely one sided disasters. Nixon had so much talent but he couldn't master himself. Both suffered from great man syndrome. Carter did too. They thought they needed to make something of the job. Ford just didn't want to fuck things up. H was that about wrapping up the Cold War (Eastern European nukes) but the Gulf War, Somalia, Panama were stupid.

I don't think Reagan got anything right. We went from the greatest creditor nation in history to the greatest debtor nation ever in 10 years. Backing Saddam was stupid. Backing the Contras was stupid. Trickle down was stupid. Did he get anything right? Republicans heap praise on him (an airport, an aircraft carrier and the biggest building in DC) for being around when the the USSR was falling apart. Wow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never understood the worship of Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

If you're going to go back to the 70s, go for the good stuff.

think he's thinking Weimar.... good partys there until the bell tolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I think it's a mistake to call Shitstain smart. He is a force of nature, I'll grant that. He's smarter than his elk. That's not hard. But he hasn't gotten anything right. My brother who hates him wants to give him some credit for China. No. China is a huge problem but fucking that up is even worse than leaving it alone. Shitstain is fucking that up and so the political will that will be needed to address it will have already been spent.

Yes, LBJ and Nixon were not completely one sided disasters. Nixon had so much talent but he couldn't master himself. Both suffered from great man syndrome. Carter did too. They thought they needed to make something of the job. Ford just didn't want to fuck things up. H was that about wrapping up the Cold War (Eastern European nukes) but the Gulf War, Somalia, Panama were stupid.

I don't think Reagan got anything right. We went from the greatest creditor nation in history to the greatest debtor nation ever in 10 years. Backing Saddam was stupid. Backing the Contras was stupid. Trickle down was stupid. Did he get anything right? Republicans heap praise on him (an airport, an aircraft carrier and the biggest building in DC) for being around when the the USSR was falling apart. Wow.

Raygun was an actor that the right now calls great.  Of course he was was senile, a perfect entrance for the don.

It is hard for power not to corrupt.  That is why the founder's did the balance of power thing.  Today, the power lies more with the money and the government is their pawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bridhb said:

Never understood the worship of Reagan.

He was a movie star (B), so he had recognizable face and voice that reminded people of "The good old days" when "America was great".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bridhb said:

Never understood the worship of Reagan.

As far as I could tell, the worship of Reagan centered around his emotional buzz, and he was great at that because he was really good, and I mean really good, at reading and then playing his audience, right in the moment, no matter how long the moment was.  Even the Iran Contra thing played perfectly to his audience emotionally- the rationals, the taking responsibility.  Think about the story of the waist gunner and B17 pilot in WW2- when he told it, hard bitten reporters who were there bought into it, and it wasn’t until the next day or so that the cynical started realizing there was no way the story made anything but emotional sense.  Think back to his raising tax speech- people wallowed in it, even if they didn’t like it.  The Space shuttle disaster speech got me going.  Silver tongued devil is the old school phrase.  Even his angry moments were perfect- tear down this wall!  If you thought about what he was shoveling, it didn’t work.  But he did define the romantic conservatism of his time.  Now it’s angry populist conservatism.  And we’ve got Trump shoveling away.......

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooopsie,  the gift that keeps on giving........

Axios:

DOJ won't unseal Manafort records due to several "ongoing investigations"

Paul Manafort
 
Paul Manafort. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia argued in a court filing Monday that the Washington Post's request to release sealed and redacted records related to Paul Manafort's case should be rejected because of the existence of several "ongoing investigations."

"The redactions at issue were undertaken and approved recently — from December 2018, through March 2019. No material changes have occurred in these past months. Although the Special Counsel has concluded his work, he has also referred a number of matters to other offices. The ongoing investigations that required redactions — many of which were already being conducted by other offices — remain ongoing."
 

The big picture: A redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report is expected to be released on Thursday morning. But even with Mueller technically concluding his 2-year probe last month, it's become clear that his team has farmed out many of the investigative threads they uncovered to other offices.

  • Just last week, former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig was indicted in D.C.'s district court for making false statements in an investigation stemming from Mueller's probe.
  • Lobbyist Sam Patten was also sentenced in D.C. last week after he pleaded guilty to helping steer Ukrainian money into Trump's inaugural committee.

Among the other confirmed cases that began with Mueller and have been picked up by other offices:

  • The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Southern District of New York has interviewed members of Trump's inner circle in its investigation of hush money payments, which remains ongoing even after Michael Cohen's sentencing.
  • Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone is expected to go on trial in November after being indicted for allegedly lying about his communications with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks.
  • Former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates has had his sentencing delayed 5 times as he continues to cooperate with prosecutors in "several ongoing investigations."
  • Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn also had his sentencing delayed, as he is expected to testify in a Virginia case involving his former lobbying partner later this summer.

The bottom line: Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi tells Politico: "The Mueller report was just the first step. What these recent events show me is that Robert Mueller has created an army of acolytes and those soldiers are now embedded in the Justice Department, Eastern District of Virginia, Southern District of New York and Washington D.C. These acolytes are trained, they’re hungry and they’re determined."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 9:25 AM, Mrleft8 said:
On 4/13/2019 at 8:54 AM, bridhb said:

Never understood the worship of Reagan.

He was a movie star (B), so he had recognizable face and voice that reminded people of "The good old days" when "America was great".....

He played a cowboy on TV and fought Commies in the Screen Actors Guild. He was the perfect President for a people who think TV is more important than real life.

I was in the Navy during the Reagan years and most of the guys I knew and worked with thought he was a dumbass, easily manipulated by crooked friends. But he ACTED like the kind of President many Americans wanted.

 

On 4/13/2019 at 11:27 AM, Amati said:

As far as I could tell, the worship of Reagan centered around his emotional buzz, and he was great at that because he was really good, and I mean really good, at reading and then playing his audience, right in the moment, no matter how long the moment was...    ...    ...  The Space shuttle disaster speech got me going.  Silver tongued devil is the old school phrase.  ...    ...    ...

 

 

I guess if you completely overlook the content, then yeah "silver tongued devil" is apt. I just never got over the "trees cause air pollution" bullshit, it never really got much better

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

He played a cowboy on TV and fought Commies in the Screen Actors Guild. He was the perfect President for a people who think TV is more important than real life.

I was in the Navy during the Reagan years and most of the guys I knew and worked with thought he was a dumbass, easily manipulated by crooked friends. But he ACTED like the kind of President many Americans wanted.

 

 

I guess if you completely overlook the content, then yeah "silver tongued devil" is apt. I just never got over the "trees cause air pollution" bullshit, it never really got much better

-DSK

IIRR, There is great passage in Oliver Sach’s book ‘The man who mistook his Wife For a Hat’ where a bunch of hospitalized dyslexics were watching a speech of Reagan’s on tv and laughing their asses off.  Since completely understanding the speech was difficult because of the depths of their dyslexia, Sachs asked why the mirth?  The answer was because the body language was shouting to them that Reagan was lying, outrageously.

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Mistook-His-Wife/dp/0684853949/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=241930725521&hvdev=t&hvlocphy=9033781&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=b&hvrand=14855858795792540477&hvtargid=kwd-5339422514&keywords=the+man+who+mistook+his+wife+for+hat&qid=1555421119&s=gateway&sr=8-1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess much the same could be said about Trump.  My neighbors, who are loyal Trump supporters, watched his "reality" show religiously.  When he ran this time, he was "a great business man, just what this country needs" after the nightmare of Obama.  His bankruptcies were "smart business".  I find it hilarious that his trademarked "your fired" phrase presented him as such a strong leader and he has yet to be able to fire someone to their face.  They bought into the "smart people don't pay taxes" so are not bothered that he never presented his tax history even after promising to do so.  They voted for the lame ass man on TV, and are still convinced (along with about 40% of voters) that they got that TV genius.  I don't think anything will change their minds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Ooopsie,  the gift that keeps on giving........

Axios:

DOJ won't unseal Manafort records due to several "ongoing investigations"

Paul Manafort
 

Paul Manafort. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia argued in a court filing Monday that the Washington Post's request to release sealed and redacted records related to Paul Manafort's case should be rejected because of the existence of several "ongoing investigations."

"The redactions at issue were undertaken and approved recently — from December 2018, through March 2019. No material changes have occurred in these past months. Although the Special Counsel has concluded his work, he has also referred a number of matters to other offices. The ongoing investigations that required redactions — many of which were already being conducted by other offices — remain ongoing."
 

The big picture: A redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report is expected to be released on Thursday morning. But even with Mueller technically concluding his 2-year probe last month, it's become clear that his team has farmed out many of the investigative threads they uncovered to other offices.

  • Just last week, former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig was indicted in D.C.'s district court for making false statements in an investigation stemming from Mueller's probe.
  • Lobbyist Sam Patten was also sentenced in D.C. last week after he pleaded guilty to helping steer Ukrainian money into Trump's inaugural committee.

Among the other confirmed cases that began with Mueller and have been picked up by other offices:

  • The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Southern District of New York has interviewed members of Trump's inner circle in its investigation of hush money payments, which remains ongoing even after Michael Cohen's sentencing.
  • Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone is expected to go on trial in November after being indicted for allegedly lying about his communications with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks.
  • Former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates has had his sentencing delayed 5 times as he continues to cooperate with prosecutors in "several ongoing investigations."
  • Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn also had his sentencing delayed, as he is expected to testify in a Virginia case involving his former lobbying partner later this summer.

The bottom line: Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi tells Politico: "The Mueller report was just the first step. What these recent events show me is that Robert Mueller has created an army of acolytes and those soldiers are now embedded in the Justice Department, Eastern District of Virginia, Southern District of New York and Washington D.C. These acolytes are trained, they’re hungry and they’re determined."

A friend told me...

So, that pretty well spells out NO COLLUSION.........:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trump admin is dripping all over the place.  This time the Secretary of Interior (Again!).  Seems like Trump got rid of one grifter only to replace him with another.

Perhaps the solution is just to not approve any of Trump’s cabinet nominees.  Judges as well he can’t be doing any better with them in fact likely worse.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/16/trumps-new-interior-secretary-is-now-under-investigation.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

The trump admin is dripping all over the place.  This time the Secretary of Interior (Again!).  Seems like Trump got rid of one grifter only to replace him with another.

Perhaps the solution is just to not approve any of Trump’s cabinet nominees.  Judges as well he can’t be doing any better with them in fact likely worse.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/16/trumps-new-interior-secretary-is-now-under-investigation.html

It's amazing he has any confirmed cabinet members left, I thought the whole bunch was Acting. No wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carson and Chao are apparently in a coma so that’s pretty much the same thing as acting..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy Duh!-Vos is still not running the Edumacation Dept, int she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  McConnell and his Senate apparently will confirm anyone with pulse.  This group of nominees must be undeads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon is now taking per-orders for the Mueller Report. Get yours now!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6928053/Mueller-report-released-four-color-coded-cut-outs-pre-order-Amazon.html

Mueller report will be released with four color-coded cut outs that will give the reason for its redaction and is already available for pre-order on Amazon.

Color Code Key:

Red: Redacted because of classified/security information.

Blue: Redacted because of Trump's collusion.

Green: Redacted because of Trump's conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Black: Redacted because it shows Trump is a thoughtless moron.

  • Like 3