Dog

Evidence of collusion?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

As soon as Chief Inspector Nunes pinches some off for you to regurgitate, I’ll discuss it. And mock you for it. Again. 

We've noticed your interest in mocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the over/under that Trump will testify under oath?

Share this post


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

We've noticed your interest in mocking.

 

Some make it easy to mock them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:
On 27/01/2018 at 6:14 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Get ready to watch the Clown Car do an abrupt U-Turn now that the texts show Stzrok and Page considered a special prosecutor to look into Madame She Devil's email use. 

Unfortunately they weren't the ones to make that call.

That was hilariously quick! :lol: 

When they leak cherry-picked messages between Page & Stzrok that discuss the possibility of Hillary getting off without being charged "we learn" that is obviously the case and Loretta Lynch knew that.

When they leak other messages between Page & Stzrok that discuss the possibility of considering a special prosecutor to look into Hillary, "we learn" that is obviously not the case as the people discussing the situation are not Loretta Lynch.

YCMTSU!

Share this post


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

Sol sure seems to be interested in discussing me rather than the evidence.

I think he sounds worried. I think he should be worried. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think he sounds worried. I think he should be worried. 

I went home with a waitress, 

The way I always do, 

How was I to know, 

Sol was with the Russians too. 

Share this post


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

I think he sounds worried. I think he should be worried. 

Irony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2018 at 7:30 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

That's him.  Nothing gets past him.  Especially facts.

  I picked the wrong clip, maybe...

   

 

Share this post


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

  I picked the wrong clip, maybe...

   

 

Given the choice of using a clip from one of the classic slapstick S eller movies, you equate Mueller"s  Russian pursuit as a farce.

Share this post


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

Given the choice of using a clip from one of the classic slapstick S eller movies, you equate Mueller"s  Russian pursuit as a farce.

You don't even have a passing acquaintance with reality, do you warbird? You high or just an unfortunate sufferer of early onset dementia? 

Share this post


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

You don't even have a passing acquaintance with reality, do you warbird? You high or just an unfortunate sufferer of early onset dementia? 

They are not exclusive conditions. Don't forget heavy metal poisoning and being brought up as female by the Sisters Of Divine Ontology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Andrew McCabe has resigned. What could have prompted that?

Share this post


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

Apparently Andrew McCabe has resigned. What could have prompted that?

a political purge?

Share this post


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

Apparently Andrew McCabe has resigned. What could have prompted that?

Such a thought provoking question.  Many people are saying it.  People are very angry. This I can tell you.  Belief me.  

Blue lives matter, until their service conflicts with the Pride of the GOP.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And wasn't he supposed to qualify for full retirement in March?

Share this post


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

And wasn't he supposed to qualify for full retirement in March?

good thing you guys hounded him out in the name of justice.

Traitorous cunts, the lot of you. Everyday Dog you find a way to be more despicable, more odious, more mendacious, more craven in your defense of Trump. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

he didn't "quit".  he stepped aside

full retirement intact

does that somehow make the Republicans less craven? Is McCabe less worthy of respect because he wasn't willing to put up with one more month of bullshit?

Share this post


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

he didn't "quit".  he stepped aside

full retirement intact

I'm not sure what "stepping aside" means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
6 minutes ago, hermetic said:

he didn't "quit".  he stepped aside

full retirement intact

does that somehow make the Republicans less craven? Is McCabe less worthy of respect because he wasn't willing to put up with one more month of bullshit?

I got no problem with the guy

he had a couple of idiots working for him though

Share this post


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

I got no problem with the guy

he had a couple of idiots working for him though

I've no idea is they are, or are not, idiots. Most people look like stupid fucks in text messages and I can't be bothered to wade through that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seemed like a good place as any to park this.

The Trump admin has notified Congress that sanctions bill won't be implemented at this time

Source: Politico Reporter/Twitter

The Trump admin has notified Congress that last year’s bipartisan Russia sanctions bill is serving as a “deterrent” and as such, specific sanctions aren’t needed at this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

This seemed like a good place as any to park this.

The Trump admin has notified Congress that sanctions bill won't be implemented at this time

Source: Politico Reporter/Twitter

The Trump admin has notified Congress that last year’s bipartisan Russia sanctions bill is serving as a “deterrent” and as such, specific sanctions aren’t needed at this time. 

Well, who woulda forecast that one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Well, who woulda forecast that one?

Bought and paid for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acting like an emperor alert.  Acting like an emperor alert.  Wait.  Nah, that guy's gone now.  It's all good.  

Share this post


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

This seemed like a good place as any to park this.

The Trump admin has notified Congress that sanctions bill won't be implemented at this time

Source: Politico Reporter/Twitter

The Trump admin has notified Congress that last year’s bipartisan Russia sanctions bill is serving as a “deterrent” and as such, specific sanctions aren’t needed at this time. 

What we need is for TM to explain how this is good for the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

What we need is for TM to explain how this is good for the US.

As soon as the right puts out a justification, he'll be along to preach it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As soon as the right puts out a justification, he'll be along to preach it.

The mimeograph is down again, he's working with a bad dialup connection, and all three of the tires on his car are flat. Life sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even new FBI Director Wray, who is indisputably American, says that Chief Inspector Nunes' report is a bunch of Doggy Stylin. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371599-fbi-chief-told-white-house-not-to-release-nunes-memo-because-it-has

Quote

FBI Director Christopher Wray has reportedly warned the White House against releasing the classified GOP House Intelligence Committee memo, saying that some of the information in the document is inaccurate.

A source familiar with the situation informed Bloomberg that Wray told the White House that the memo "paints a false narrative." Republican lawmakers say the memo provides proof that the Department of Justice abused a surveillance program to unfairly target a member of the Trump campaign.

Wray met with House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), whose staff authored the memo, on Sunday to review the document. Nunes reportedly told Wray to flag information in the document that was inaccurate or could endanger national security.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chief Inspector Nunes cherry picked.  

Quote

 

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/371636-fbi-warns-it-has-grave-concerns-about-material-omissions-of-fact-in

Whoopsies.

So, um...when can we expect the first indictments?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading that article, I noticed the one about gowdy planning on turning his house seat into a judgeship

wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hermetic said:

reading that article, I noticed the one about gowdy planning on turning his house seat into a judgeship

wow

The tenth committee chair to bail out.  Hard core.  Those guys have to be under an enormous amount of pressure to sell out and swallow an immense amount of BS.  Not everybody can do that.  I know I couldn't do it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Chief Inspector Nunes cherry picked.  

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/371636-fbi-warns-it-has-grave-concerns-about-material-omissions-of-fact-in

Whoopsies.

So, um...when can we expect the first indictments?  

Indictments?? Wray could be in Gitmo a decade before indictment. He's not an American like us, at minimum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the staffer who wrote the memo is still as inept as he used to be.

"The congressional staffer who wrote the controversial memo for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) was once benchslapped by a federal judge for “ineptitude.”

Kash Patel, a top Nunes staffer and senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, traveled to London last summer to question the former British spy who wrote the Trump-Russia dossier.

Patel and another Nunes staffer, Doug Presely, went on the research mission without notifying the U.S. embassy or British government.

They also failed to inform the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) or GOP Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), who took over the panel’s Russia probe after Nunes stepped aside over ethics concerns.

The pair, along with intel committee staffers Damon Nelson and Andrew House, wrote most of the memo the White House and House Republicans claims exposes FBI wrongdoing and justifies ending the special counsel investigation into Russian campaign interference.

Patel was issued a rare “order of ineptitude” in 2016 by U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, who faulted the lawyer’s handling of the prosecution of Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, who was accused of trying to support ISIS.

“If the pretentious lawyers from ‘main’ justice knew what they were doing — or had the humility to ask for help from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas,” Hughes wrote, “it would not have taken three days, seven telephone calls, three voicemail messages and one snippy electronic message for them to indirectly ask the court for assistance in ordering a transcript.”

The judge told the ABA Journal that he couldn’t discuss the order because the case was still pending, but Hughes thought his benchslap was clear.

“If the order is not self-explanatory, I failed,” Hughes said.

The judge admonished Patel from the bench after he arrived in court, shortly after a flight, without proper attire.

“You’re not a member of the trial team,” Hughes said. “It’s been going on for a month or so and you haven’t been here, have you?”

“And where is your tie?” the judge said. “Where is your suit?”

Hughes then demanded Patel’s passport to prove he’d just arrived from an overseas flight, and he asked why he had been chosen to participate if there were other prosecutors nearby in the U.S. Attorney’s office.

“What is the utility to me and to the people of America to have you fly down here at their expense, eat at their expense and stay at their expense when there are plenty of capable people over there, in this room plus over there?” Hughes said. “You’re just one more nonessential employee from Washington.”

“You don’t add a bit of value, do you?” the judge added.

Other lawyers said they’d never an attorney slapped so hard from the bench.

“It is just a slap in the face, is what it is,” South Texas law professor Geoffrey Corn told the Houston Chronicle. “When you are a judge, you get the prerogative of saying what you feel and putting it in a Ruling of Ineptitude. I’ve never seen anything like that.”

The Washington Post described the spectacle as “a Texas-size bollocking over proper attire, wasting taxpayer money and spying for the bureaucrats in Washington.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/lawyer-drafted-nunes-memo-brutally-slapped-judge-order-ineptitude/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This little story is shaping up nicely. A formal admonishment of "Ineptitude" is going to look good stamped on this memo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time this memo stuff is said and done, Rep. Nunes may have to recuse himself. 

Again. 

And if the White House really was involved in its preparation, Dog’s title might come to fruition, albeit somewhat differently than he may have hoped. 

Share this post


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

By the time this memo stuff is said and done, Rep. Nunes may have to recuse himself. 

Again. 

And if the White House really was involved in its preparation, Dog’s title might come to fruition, albeit somewhat differently than he may have hoped. 

Nunes needs to go to a nunnery. He has no balls left, he may as well devote his life to something meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring it and bring the Democratic response too...time for some transparency finally.

Share this post


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

Bring it and bring the Democratic response too...time for some transparency finally.

Right. Donald Trump inserts himself into the middle of an investigation in the hope he diffuses it. I can't wait until a Democrat tries to pull that crap.

Share this post


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

“You don’t add a bit of value, do you?” the judge added.

Heh. And ouch.

I've seen where judges basically told a lawyer, "Quit acting stupid and wasting my time" when they're trying something far-fetched.

Never saw, "Quit being stupid" before. Apparently the judge didn't think it was an act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Top FBI officials were aware for at least a month before alerting Congress that emails potentially related to an investigation of Hillary Clinton had emerged during a key stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign, according to text messages reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had learned about the thousands of emails by Sept". 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-officials-delayed-telling-congress-of-clinton-emails-discovered-before-2016-election-1517450265

 

FEINSTEIN: Why was it necessary to announce 11 days before a presidential election that you were opening an investigation on a new computer without any knowledge of what was in that computer. Why didn't you just do the investigation as you would normally, with no public announcement?

COMEY: Great question, Senator, thank you. (On) October 27, the investigative team that had finished the investigation in July focused on Secretary Clinton's emails asked to meet with me. So I met with them that morning, late morning in my conference room and they laid out for me what they could see from the metadata on this fella (former congressman) Anthony Weiner's laptop that had been seized in an unrelated case.

What they could see from the metadata was that there were thousands of Secretary Clinton's emails on that device including what they thought might be the missing emails from her first three months as secretary of state. 

 

Odd that Andrew McCabe would know about the emails on Weiner's computer in September but Comey claims he only briefed on them on October 27. Odd that if the FBI had these emails weeks earlier that, according to Comey's congressional testimony, the FBI hadn't accessed them or procured a warrant to access them by October 27.

Share this post


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

Heh. And ouch.

I've seen where judges basically told a lawyer, "Quit acting stupid and wasting my time" when they're trying something far-fetched.

Never saw, "Quit being stupid" before. Apparently the judge didn't think it was an act.

Tough to live with that especially when everyone else in town knows how you were dressed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report is out and the evidence is very evidentiary evidence, and is very strong evidence of evidence.

27544638_1847461035266484_67032225353716

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

release the memo on Friday at 5pm

then have the fcc shut down all television for the weekend.   except fox

 

edit:  then shut the gov't down again on monday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, hermetic said:

release the memo on Friday at 5pm

then have the fcc shut down all television for the weekend.   except fox

 

edit:  then shut the gov't down again on monday

I'm sure the Trumpistas are working on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

By the time this memo stuff is said and done, Rep. Nunes may have to recuse himself. 

Again. 

And if the White House really was involved in its preparation, Dog’s title might come to fruition, albeit somewhat differently than he may have hoped. 

Nunes and his team are masters of legal procedures. 

 

 

Share this post


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

"Top FBI officials were aware for at least a month before alerting Congress that emails potentially related to an investigation of Hillary Clinton had emerged during a key stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign, according to text messages reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had learned about the thousands of emails by Sept". 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-officials-delayed-telling-congress-of-clinton-emails-discovered-before-2016-election-1517450265

 

FEINSTEIN: Why was it necessary to announce 11 days before a presidential election that you were opening an investigation on a new computer without any knowledge of what was in that computer. Why didn't you just do the investigation as you would normally, with no public announcement?

 

 

Odd that Andrew McCabe would know about the emails on Weiner's computer in September but Comey claims he only briefed on them on October 27. Odd that if the FBI had these emails weeks earlier that, according to Comey's congressional testimony, the FBI hadn't accessed them or procured a warrant to access them by October 27.

I bet you are right.   McCabe sat on the emails, not even looking to see I’d they were duplicates, until absentee voting started.  It was a plot to poison the Clinton Campaign.   Or worse yet, he knew for weeks they were duplicates but released them just in time to poison the election anyway,    This conspiracy stuff sure is interesting, I’m glad you explained it to me,

 

Share this post


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

Is there any evidence of collusion identified in the memo?

Other than the use by the FBI of Democratic opposition research to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign members?

Share this post


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

Other than the use by the FBI of Democratic opposition research to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign members?

So what?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corrupt, seditious fake news media's collective heads are exploding....Now we have learned that there was in fact a coup attempt by the Democrats and their co-conspirators in the Obama White House, the Clinton campaign, and the upper echelons of the FBI, NSA and Justice Department. Looks like they committed the crimes, of corruption, sedition, and possibly treason .... Individually and collectively, Obama, Hillary, her husband, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Podesta, Rhodes, Rice, Lynch, Strzok, Page, Ohr, his wife, Weissman, Simpson, Steele. They created the Russian Collusion Fairy Tale by pushing the phony dossier which was funded by Hillary, which led to phony FISA warrants, which led to the illegal unmasking of US citizens, which led to spying on the Trump campaign, which led to the phony Russian collusion story and continued witch hunt. ... Lock them all up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

So what?  

Is the use by a government agency of one campaign's opposition research to to spy on the other campaign not evidence of collusion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is the use by a government agency of one campaign's opposition research to to spy on the other campaign not evidence of collusion?

Not when that point isn't cherry picked and Doggy Styled. 

By the way. 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372043-memo-papadopoulos-info-triggered-fbis-russia-investigation

Share this post


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

Not when that point isn't cherry picked and Doggy Styled. 

By the way. 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372043-memo-papadopoulos-info-triggered-fbis-russia-investigation

Did they use that to obtain the FISA Warrant?  Because to date the charges of Lying and obstruction were based on wire taps of general Flynn and Popadopolous.  

Share this post


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

Not when that point isn't cherry picked and Doggy Styled. 

By the way. 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372043-memo-papadopoulos-info-triggered-fbis-russia-investigation

A fact remains a fact whether you apply a meaningless label to it or not.  We have more evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign and our own government than we have of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Sometimes evidence like this warrants a special prosecutor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Did they use that to obtain the FISA Warrant?  Because to date the charges of Lying and obstruction were based on wire taps of general Flynn and Popadopolous.  

The guilty pleas by Flynnn & Papadopolous were because they lied. You can't doggy style that - they plead guilty because they were caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much swirl - it's tough to keep what's known separate from speculation and opinion.  

Am I correct in understanding that Page 1st hit the FBI's radar when the 2013 Russian bust occurred?   Is it correct to say that the FBI was triggered to action when Page was named as part of Trump's campaign?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Did they use that to obtain the FISA Warrant?  Because to date the charges of Lying and obstruction were based on wire taps of general Flynn and Popadopolous.  

 The relevant question is whether the information is credible, but irrespective of that, all you have here is a bunch of inference stacking of cherry picked information.  Pure Doggy style bullshit.  

Lies of omission are still lies.  

Share this post


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

A fact remains a fact whether you apply a meaningless label to it or not.  We have more evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign and our own government than we have of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Sometimes evidence like this warrants a special prosecutor.

All you have to do is show some evidence, which you haven't done yet.  You can repeat your bullshit all you want but it won't become factual by stroking it enough times.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So much swirl - it's tough to keep what's known separate from speculation and opinion.  

Am I correct in understanding that Page 1st hit the FBI's radar when the 2013 Russian bust occurred?   Is it correct to say that the FBI was triggered to action when Page was named as part of Trump's campaign?  

You are supposed to overlook the 2013 stuff and forget about that.  From that firm and honest foundation, you were supposed to start building with inferences stacked upon each other.  

And whatever you do, you were supposed to stay focused on this stuff instead of Mr. Mueller's proximity to the Oval Office.  

Please make a note of it.  

Share this post


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

 The relevant question is whether the information is credible, but irrespective of that, all you have here is a bunch of inference stacking of cherry picked information.  Pure Doggy style bullshit.  

Lies of omission are still lies.  

You mean like this?  Source - the FEMA 9069 Declaration and Release Form
 

Quote

 

I understand that, if I intentionally make false statements or conceal any information in an attempt to obtain disaster aid, it is a

violation of federal and State laws, which carry severe criminal and civil penalties, including a fine up to $250,000, imprisonment, or

both (18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, and 3571).

 

 

Share this post


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

You are supposed to overlook the 2013 stuff and forget about that.  From that firm and honest foundation, you were supposed to start building with inferences stacked upon each other.  

And whatever you do, you were supposed to stay focused on this stuff instead of Mr. Mueller's proximity to the Oval Office.  

Please make a note of it.  

Funny aside - I was asking in earnest - I *think* I've got that right, but, is there something I'm missing that would dispute my understanding? 

Share this post


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

 The relevant question is whether the information is credible, but irrespective of that, all you have here is a bunch of inference stacking of cherry picked information.  Pure Doggy style bullshit.  

Lies of omission are still lies.  

Drip...drip...drip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Funny aside - I was asking in earnest - I *think* I've got that right, but, is there something I'm missing that would dispute my understanding? 

Yeah.  Carter Page has been a FISA topic since 2013, and the Russia investigation started with Papadopolous, not Page.  

This is moronic stuff by political blowhards.  None of this stuff has anything to do with the Special Counsel's investigation.  There is no "there" there.  There isn't even anything identified as being from Steele that is identified as being incorrect.  It's pure bullshit.  Cherry picking information, and stacking inference upon inference, meant to do nothing but distract people from the Mueller investigation.  

Share this post


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

Is the use by a government agency of one campaign's opposition research to to spy on the other campaign not evidence of collusion?

No, it isn’t unless the Democrats did it for the FBI or the FBI asked the Democrats to do it. Collusion requires an act of intentional cooperation, not circumstantial alignment of goals.

Share this post


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

Yeah.  Carter Page has been a FISA topic since 2013, and the Russia investigation started with Papadopolous, not Page.  

This is moronic stuff by political blowhards.  None of this stuff has anything to do with the Special Counsel's investigation.  There is no "there" there.  There isn't even anything identified as being from Steele that is identified as being incorrect.  It's pure bullshit.  Cherry picking information, and stacking inference upon inference, meant to do nothing but distract people from the Mueller investigation.  

So was this a renewal of a FISA from 2013 or a new one once he joined the Trump team?  Just because he was on the Radar doesn’t automatically mean  he was under a FISA warrant from 2013.

Share this post


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

So was this a renewal of a FISA from 2013 or a new one once he joined the Trump team?  Just because he was on the Radar doesn’t automatically mean  he was under a FISA warrant from 2013.

How does anyone know without seeing the warrants?  If you stack enough assumptions and inferences together, you will always be able to find something dastardly.  In this case, even the memo debunks that wrt Page, by noting that it was Papadop that got the investigation kicked off.  

You got over promised and under delivered on this stuff.  Note who has been telling you about it, and hold them responsible the next time they try to get you worked up over nothing.  This was an embarrassment.  I'd have been fired if I put out work product like that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Round Two” is going to be a humdinger. It’s going to be every bit as good as that hearing with the “New Benghazi Evidence.”  Next time, it won’t be just Nunes’ opinions! There may even be some evidence!

Share this post


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

No, it isn’t unless the Democrats did it for the FBI or the FBI asked the Democrats to do it. Collusion requires an act of intentional cooperation, not circumstantial alignment of goals.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Drip...drip...drip... 42 pages of circumstantial...

If you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any.

Share this post


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

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Drip...drip...drip... 42 pages of circumstantial...

If you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any.

Never said it wasn't evidence. I simply pointed out that it wasn't evidence of collusion. Quite a different argument and one you clearly don't have an answer for. 

Once again, you're projecting an argument I didn't make onto my post so you can pretend to have a point... Something you complain about when others do it to you. 

If you didn't have double standards, you wouldn't be you Dog. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You are supposed to overlook the 2013 stuff and forget about that.  From that firm and honest foundation, you were supposed to start building with inferences stacked upon each other.  

And whatever you do, you were supposed to stay focused on this stuff instead of Mr. Mueller's proximity to the Oval Office.  

Please make a note of it.  

Can we overlook the part where Trump said his campaign was under surveillance and everybody was running around shouting no no no no no no no no no no!

Share this post


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

You are supposed to overlook the 2013 stuff and forget about that.  From that firm and honest foundation, you were supposed to start building with inferences stacked upon each other.  

And whatever you do, you were supposed to stay focused on this stuff instead of Mr. Mueller's proximity to the Oval Office.  

Please make a note of it.  

Can we overlook the part where Trump said his campaign was under surveillance and everybody was running around shouting no no no no no no no no no no!

Can we overlook the part where he blamed Obama?

Can we overlook the lies in Nunes "memo" about the origins of suspicion? And about Comey's testimony?

Can we overlook the already-on-the-table guilty pleas?

Can we overlook the more-than-a-year long squealing about how there is no collusion, no evidence of collusion, no Trump connections to Russia of any kind?

Seems to me like you're trying to sweep everything under the rug except those few bits helping you believe that President Trump and his cronies are not criminals and traitors.

One of the two is going off a cliff: either the US Constitution and our democracy, or Trump and his supporters. Which would you choose?

-DSK

Share this post


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

Can we overlook the part where Trump said his campaign was under surveillance and everybody was running around shouting no no no no no no no no no no!

When did he say that his campaign was under surveillance?  Could you provide the quote of what he actually said?  

Share this post


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

Can we overlook the part where Trump said his campaign was under surveillance and everybody was running around shouting no no no no no no no no no no!

Actually, that's not true.

1- Trump said that Obama ordered spying on him personally

2- "Everybody was saying" that some people suspected of spying for the Russians were under surveillance and Trump just happened to step into the circle

If politician or political group has to lie all the time, they most probably are not worthy of support

Think about it

-DSK

Share this post


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

Actually, that's not true.

1- Trump said that Obama ordered spying on him personally

2- "Everybody was saying" that some people suspected of spying for the Russians were under surveillance and Trump just happened to step into the circle

If politician or political group has to lie all the time, they most probably are not worthy of support

Think about it

-DSK

The tweet

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

 

Share this post


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

The tweet

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

enemies

If that candidate has Russian spies working in his campaign, then hell yes. What you see as "libby-rull Democrat-influenced bias against Trump" is actually the US intel community doing it's fucking job protecting the country from enemies.

So, you've picked sides. If you hate democracy and constitutional rule of law, why didn't you fucking move instead of supporting Russian puppets?

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The tweet

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

 

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Share this post


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

All you have to do is show some evidence that Trump said that his campaign was under surveillance and your post will be accurate.    

 

 Wiretapping is not surveillance?   Since when?   

 

Share this post


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

 Wiretapping is not surveillance?   Since when?   

 

Campaign.  Not Trump Tower.  If the Minister of Information gets to play word games to sling his bullshit, I get to play word games to watch him spin.  

Share this post


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

Campaign.  Not Trump Tower.  If the Minister of Information gets to play word games to sling his bullshit, I get to play word games to watch him spin.  

Everyone is playing word games.  I wish Mueller would wrap this up and let the chips fall where they may.  I’m to the point with Trump and his tweets that even I wish he would fucking resign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites