Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

I would of and have been driving in those conditions, the mast would not be in the water. 

an inland sea boy? No f'ing way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

an inland sea boy? No f'ing way. 

You assume several things.  That I only have sailed on  LM and that we never get big winds and waves on that inland sea.  

Read up on captain outrageous Ted Turner doing the Mac race.  He thought much like you did.   

Is it common nope, but high winds driving rain and big waves do happen on LM and Huron 

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

House Republicans just voted to release the Nunes memo. Should be fun! 

They also voted to not release the democratic response.  I find that wrong 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

House Republicans Vote to Release Secret Memo on Russia Probe

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/release-the-memo-vote-house-intelligence-republicans.html

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, apparently disregarding Justice Department warnings that their actions would be “extraordinarily reckless,” voted Monday evening to release a contentious secret memorandum said to accuse the department and the F.B.I. of misusing their authority to obtain a secret surveillance order on a former Trump campaign associate.

The vote threw fuel on an already fiery partisan conflict over the investigations into Russia’s brazen meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Republicans invoked a power never before used by the secretive committee to effectively declassify the memo that they had compiled. Democrats called the three-and-a half-page document a dangerous effort to build a narrative to undercut the department’s ongoing Russia investigation, using cherry-picked facts assembled with little or no context.

What comes next was less clear. Under the obscure House rule invoked by the committee, President Trump now has five days to review the document and decide whether to try to block it from going public. The White House has repeatedly indicated that it wants the memo out, but Mr. Trump’s Justice Department had been working to slow or block its release.

The memo, which was made available to all members of the House, is said to contend that officials from the two agencies were not forthcoming to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge. Republicans accuse the agencies of failing to disclose that the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign helped finance research that was used to obtain a warrant for surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser. The research presented to the judge was assembled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele.

The memo is not limited to actions taken by the Obama administration, though. The New York Times reported on Sunday that the memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a top Trump appointee, signed off an application to extend the surveillance of Mr. Page shortly after taking office last spring. The renewal shows that the Justice Department under Mr. Trump saw reason to believe that Mr. Page was acting as a Russian agent.

The inclusion of Mr. Rosenstein’s action in the memo could expose him to a torrent of criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from conservatives in the media who have seized on the surveillance to argue that the Russia investigation may have been tainted from the start. Mr. Rosenstein is overseeing that investigation because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. It was Mr. Rosenstein who appointed Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel.

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

They also voted to not release the democratic response.  I find that wrong 

I have a feeling that memo will become public shortly. 

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

You assume several things.  That I only have sailed on  LM and that we never get big winds and waves on that inland sea.  

Read up on captain outrageous Ted Turner doing the Mac race.  He thought much like you did.   

Is it common nope, but high winds driving rain and big waves do happen on LM and Huron 

i've sailing the inland seas. Mn boy, and the water is cold. they get nasty for sure. but you don't get enough practice. like you say, it's not common. Watch some of the west coast videos where the boat is surfing for 36 hours at a shot. You get LOTS of practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

i've sailing the inland seas. Mn boy, and the water is cold. they get nasty for sure. but you don't get enough practice. like you say, it's not common. Watch some of the west coast videos where the boat is surfing for 36 hours at a shot. You get LOTS of practice.

You haven’t got a clue.  Like I said read up on Ted Turner on his Mac race experience.  Most drivers will tell you it’s harder to drive the wave patterns on LM in heavy weather than the big swells you get in the ocean. I’ve driven in both.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

i've sailing the inland seas. Mn boy, and the water is cold. they get nasty for sure. but you don't get enough practice. like you say, it's not common. Watch some of the west coast videos where the boat is surfing for 36 hours at a shot. You get LOTS of practice.

You haven’t got a clue.  Like I said read up on Ted Turner on his Mac race experience.  Most drivers will tell you it’s harder to drive the wave patterns on LM in heavy weather than the big swells you get in the ocean. I’ve driven in both.  

Take it to SAILING Anarchy, gentlemen. You can't fight in here, this is the goddam War Room!

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have written this ending.

House Intelligence Committee Votes to Release FBI Memo, Dem Says

Last edited Mon Jan 29, 2018, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Daily Beast

he House Intelligence Committee’s Republican majority voted Monday to release an explosive memo alleging abuses by the FBI agents investigating collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, the panel’s senior Democrat said. “According to the majority, the FBI is under investigation and the Department of Justice," Rep. Adam Schiff said. He said Republicans voted to release their memo but not release a report by Democrats on the same subject. He called Republicans' vote a partisan move designed to hamper the Russia investigation. 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I could have written this ending.

House Intelligence Committee Votes to Release FBI Memo, Dem Says

Last edited Mon Jan 29, 2018, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Daily Beast

he House Intelligence Committee’s Republican majority voted Monday to release an explosive memo alleging abuses by the FBI agents investigating collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, the panel’s senior Democrat said. “According to the majority, the FBI is under investigation and the Department of Justice," Rep. Adam Schiff said. He said Republicans voted to release their memo but not release a report by Democrats on the same subject. He called Republicans' vote a partisan move designed to hamper the Russia investigation. 
 

That's not what they are doing.

But even if it is, that's not illegal.  

Every Congress does that.  

It's a nothing burger.  

 

In other news:

 

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

That's not what they are doing.

But even if it is, that's not illegal.  

Every Congress does that.  

It's a nothing burger.  

 

In other news:

 

I certainly wouldn't call it a nothingburger when the threat of ethics complaints abounds, as well as DOJ threats over the damage to National Security by the release of the memo.

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

I certainly wouldn't call it a nothingburger when the threat of ethics complaints abounds, as well as DOJ threats over the damage to National Security by the release of the memo.

I bet Faux News gets an advance copy. Hannity is stroking one out as we speak.

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

I certainly wouldn't call it a nothingburger when the threat of ethics complaints abounds, as well as DOJ threats over the damage to National Security by the release of the memo.

I look forward to seeing the investigatory prowess of Chief Inspector Nunes.  Supposedly, it is focused on the FISA warrant for Carter Page.  The DOJ has already said that there was nothing wrong with the FISA process in this case, and Carter Page did so much talking already that he cooked his own goose.  I expect the report to be pure hand lotion for True Believers.  Long on cherry picking and assumptions, short on facts, references and context.  

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

The NYT story can be corroborated, but it will never remove the doubt of the Faithful.  Not that this doubt is "reasonable".  

E6159FAC-04D7-41F2-80B2-5EFD8225D54C.png

9555AEC0-12B2-4110-8892-4A29AD8AA243.jpeg

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

I look forward to seeing the investigatory prowess of Chief Inspector Nunes.  Supposedly, it is focused on the FISA warrant for Carter Page.  The DOJ has already said that there was nothing wrong with the FISA process in this case, and Carter Page did so much talking already that he cooked his own goose.  I expect the report to be pure hand lotion for True Believers.  Long on cherry picking and assumptions, short on facts, references and context.  

I hope a brave Democrat reads their memo into the record tomorrow, they can't stop that and it isn't a crime. Besides, it will be good to have two sides to this story.

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

I certainly wouldn't call it a nothingburger when the threat of ethics complaints abounds, as well as DOJ threats over the damage to National Security by the release of the memo.

have sessions or wray indicated that the doj / fbi have concerns to national security?

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

That's not what they are doing.

But even if it is, that's not illegal.  

Every Congress does that.  

It's a nothing burger.  

 

In other news:

 

Such is class.

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

I could have written this ending.

House Intelligence Committee Votes to Release FBI Memo, Dem Says

Last edited Mon Jan 29, 2018, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Daily Beast

he House Intelligence Committee’s Republican majority voted Monday to release an explosive memo alleging abuses by the FBI agents investigating collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, the panel’s senior Democrat said. “According to the majority, the FBI is under investigation and the Department of Justice," Rep. Adam Schiff said. He said Republicans voted to release their memo but not release a report by Democrats on the same subject. He called Republicans' vote a partisan move designed to hamper the Russia investigation. 
 

"With regards to the House Democrats’ call for a vote to publicly release immediately an alleged new memo by Rep. Adam Schiff, it is crucial to note that the House Democrats did not offer the majority members of the Committee any opportunity whatsoever to review this memo prior to tonight’s vote for its immediate declassification and release. I, for one, (1) haven’t seen the Schiff memo; (2) have no idea what it says; (3) am not aware of it being made available to anyone in the House before now; and ([4]) can’t confirm it even actually exists yet. The opposite is true for the FISA abuse memo that was made available to House members the week before last".  Lee Zeldin 

 

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

"With regards to the House Democrats’ call for a vote to publicly release immediately an alleged new memo by Rep. Adam Schiff, it is crucial to note that the House Democrats did not offer the majority members of the Committee any opportunity whatsoever to review this memo prior to tonight’s vote for its immediate declassification and release. I, for one, (1) haven’t seen the Schiff memo; (2) have no idea what it says; (3) am not aware of it being made available to anyone in the House before now; and ([4]) can’t confirm it even actually exists yet. The opposite is true for the FISA abuse memo that was made available to House members the week before last".  Lee Zeldin 

 

Well you need to vote on it before you read it has worked for them in the past. 

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

Well you need to vote on it before you read it has worked for them in the past. 

This shit again? 

Enlighten us TM, how many hearings and debates on the Bill and it’s language actually took place? Was it more than zero?

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

This shit again? 

Enlighten us TM, how many hearings and debates on the Bill and it’s language actually took place? Was it more than zero?

Ask Pelosi she made the comment. 

 

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

Ask Pelosi she made the comment. 

 

New York Times:

In June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days — its longest markup in two decades. It considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes. The full Senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days before passing it on Dec. 24, 2009.

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

New York Times:

In June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days — its longest markup in two decades. It considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes. The full Senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days before passing it on Dec. 24, 2009.

Oh please it’s a comment that she made that deserves to be mocked.  

Just like the multitude of comments made by Trump and GW  That are repeated endlessly by posters on this site   

 

 

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

Oh please it’s a comment that she made that deserves to be mocked.  

Just like the multitude of comments made by Trump and GW  That are repeated endlessly by posters on this site   

 

 

Then use the correct font. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
13 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I bet Faux News gets an advance copy. Hannity is stroking one out as we speak.

Gorka- fox news commentator - claims to have seen a copy of the still classified memo already. So  either he's lying, or Republicans only give a shit about classified documents and security when it's politically expedient. Based on the whores on this board, I'm going to go with the latter.

when did he leave the white house?

he probably saw it before the wh gave to nunes way back when

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

"With regards to the House Democrats’ call for a vote to publicly release immediately an alleged new memo by Rep. Adam Schiff, it is crucial to note that the House Democrats did not offer the majority members of the Committee any opportunity whatsoever to review this memo prior to tonight’s vote for its immediate declassification and release. I, for one, (1) haven’t seen the Schiff memo; (2) have no idea what it says; (3) am not aware of it being made available to anyone in the House before now; and ([4]) can’t confirm it even actually exists yet. The opposite is true for the FISA abuse memo that was made available to House members the week before last".  Lee Zeldin 

 

In all fairness, Adam Schiff said this morning that they are vetting their memo w/the Intel Oversight committee to ensure that it doesn't contain any inappropriate disclosures before deciding to release it themselves.   As I said in another post on this topic - time will tell if either memo ends up being more than a fart in a tempest - I suspect much "you suck" than objective fact in both cases.  

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

Oh please it’s a comment that she made that deserves to be mocked.  

Just like the multitude of comments made by Trump and GW  That are repeated endlessly by posters on this site   

So, the point is Nancy said something stupid.  And, it has no real bearing on reality and the discussion, other than to mock someone.

Why do you practice that for which you hold others in contempt?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, this is interesting. My favorite bit - “Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel.”

Second Trump-Russia dossier being assessed by FBI

Exclusive: memo written by former journalist Cody Shearer independently sets out some of the allegations made by ex-spy Christopher Steele

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-cody-shearer-memo

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

Well then, this is interesting. My favorite bit - “Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel.”

Second Trump-Russia dossier being assessed by FBI

Exclusive: memo written by former journalist Cody Shearer independently sets out some of the allegations made by ex-spy Christopher Steele

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-cody-shearer-memo

We have a new public enemy number one.  

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

So, the point is Nancy said something stupid.  And, it has no real bearing on reality and the discussion, other than to mock someone.

Why do you practice that for which you hold others in contempt?

 

Maybe he expects more from a Senator than he does from the discredit the poster to distract from the substance type morons that post here.

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

Well then, this is interesting. My favorite bit - “Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel.”

Second Trump-Russia dossier being assessed by FBI

Exclusive: memo written by former journalist Cody Shearer independently sets out some of the allegations made by ex-spy Christopher Steele

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-cody-shearer-memo

So a memo written by a former Clinton aid that corroborates a memo paid for by the Clinton campaign is compelling evidence huh. OK good luck with that...

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

Everyone but you, the members of the Trump faithful, knows there is no proof of anything that would be strong enough. He could shoot someone on live TV in cold blood and you'd defend it. 

It's religion to you, not reality.

He has a point - Shearer's background doesn't impart much confidence in his objectivity.  It'll be interesting to see what Mueller comes up with at the conclusion of the investigation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

i give him 6 weeks.  Rosenstein will get 2. Unless they use Valentine's day as a catalyst for a 2-fer.

St. Valentine's day massacre...... Has a certain nostalgic ring to it......

Some like it hot.

image.png.887fae1261c9170ae4f76d991f0a1f68.png

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

He has a point - Shearer's background doesn't impart much confidence in his objectivity.  It'll be interesting to see what Mueller comes up with at the conclusion of the investigation. 

Credibility of the source aside, it’s quite a coincidence that two sources came up with some of the same stuff independently. 

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

Maybe he expects more from a Senator than he does from the discredit the poster to distract from the substance type morons that post here.

If discrediting what someone has to say is an attack on the speaker or poster made by morons, as you suggest in 3921, what would you call what you said about Shearer in 3922?  

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

I do not think that Rep. Nunes has been compromised by the Russians, but it is a thought provoking question.  Many people are saying it, this I can tell you, belief me.  

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

I do not think that Rep. Nunes has been compromised by the Russians, but it is a thought provoking question.  Many people are saying it, this I can tell you, belief me.  

Hell, Trump had a Russian asset for National Security Adviser, so anything is possible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

R's are saying the FBI is biased as they used oppo research to get a FISA warrent. Even if it was just a part of the evidence provided its tainted the whole as the Judge was not aware a part of the evidence was opposition funded.

D's are going with there was a lot of other material and the dossier was just a part.

Goto 1:50 to get to Q's

 

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

If discrediting what someone has to say is an attack on the speaker or poster made by morons, as you suggest in 3921, what would you call what you said about Shearer in 3922?  

So I made a statement of fact in 3922 (common ties to the same material) and that equates to discrediting Shearer? How so?

 

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

So I made a statement of fact in 3922 (common ties to the same material) and that equates to discrediting Shearer? How so?

 

You discredited the Shearer memo by attacking its author instead of its content.  You are attacking the author and his associations, not the substance of his work. Is that not exactly what you were complaining about in the prior post?   

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

You discredited the Shearer memo by attacking its author instead of its content.  You are attacking the author and his associations, not the substance of his work. Is that not exactly what you were complaining about in the prior post?   

As a statement of fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how any of this memo crap affects mueller - he'll continue to conclusion

he saw the idiot fibbies tweets and got rid of them

he has certainly seen the underlying data that the repubs used to create the memo

he and his team would certainly recognize any facts that arose solely out of questionable tactics would not be admissible in court, and they wouldn't use them there

and he was surely aware that the doj ig was conducting an investigation, and therefore would leave doj issues to the doj

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clove Hitch said:

Hell, Trump had a Russian asset for National Security Adviser, so anything is possible. 

Whether or not Rep. Nunes is a Russian asset is irrelevant because he recused himself from the investigation and has nothing whatsoever to do with it and is not interfering with it in any way while he lets the investigation run its course without trying to obstruct Mueller in any way shape or form because he recused and is staying recused.

kinda

Recused.

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

you don't see the republicans using it, as they are right now, to discredit the whole process?

You don't see@Dog  talking about a political witchhunt and a politicized FBI?

@Dog is a moron, but he's just repeating the themes the base are being fed.

exactly - go read up on the latest RWNM conspiracy theories - I believe it goes something like this:

Hillary paid a guy to get dirt on Trump

The guy talked to the Russians, got something about pee

The "politicized" FBI (texts as evidence) used this bogus info to get a FISA warrant on a nice guy.

Nice guy did some stuff, involving Russians and emails

Mueller is appointed.

 

By calling into question the original justification for the FISA warrant - they believe they can get the whole thing to close up shop and go home.

 

Of course, they mis-equate criminal proceedings and allowable evidence and a political investigation ala impeachment.

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

I did not suggest that you were not making a statement of fact.  I suggested that you were making an ad hominem attack right after complaining of ad hominem attacks. 

One more mention of ad hominem and you get egg roll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

exactly - go read up on the latest RWNM conspiracy theories - I believe it goes something like this:

Hillary paid a guy to get dirt on Trump

The guy talked to the Russians, got something about pee

The "politicized" FBI (texts as evidence) used this bogus info to get a FISA warrant on a nice guy.

Nice guy did some stuff, involving Russians and emails

Mueller is appointed.

 

By calling into question the original justification for the FISA warrant - they believe they can get the whole thing to close up shop and go home.

 

Of course, they mis-equate criminal proceedings and allowable evidence and a political investigation ala impeachment.

Maddow had a bit last night about part of this.

They busted some shady Russian bankers, and basically bugged the BINDERS they gave the guys with some paperwork when they left.  The feds overheard comments about

working on a potential asset (American) for the purpose of getting information. The asset turned out to be Carter Page.  The fisa warrant was gotten based on that information, and this was before Page was part of the Trump team.

She also said it had to be renewed every 90 days.

Now, it's me speculating here, but I'm guessing that the issue is that once Page became part of the election team of Trump, that information wasn't passed to the judge during the renewal.

I tried to find the video of her bit, but can't seem to locate it.

So I'm paraphrasing a bit.

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

exactly - go read up on the latest RWNM conspiracy theories - I believe it goes something like this:

Hillary paid a guy to get dirt on Trump

The guy talked to the Russians, got something about pee

The "politicized" FBI (texts as evidence) used this bogus info to get a FISA warrant on a nice guy.

Nice guy did some stuff, involving Russians and emails

Mueller is appointed.

 

By calling into question the original justification for the FISA warrant - they believe they can get the whole thing to close up shop and go home.

 

Of course, they mis-equate criminal proceedings and allowable evidence and a political investigation ala impeachment.

Meanwhile you're attempting to dismiss inconvenient facts as theories to avoid confronting them but they're not going away.

Bill and Loretta's tarmac meeting during the Clinton investigation matter...Conspiracy theory?

Coney's drafting of Hillary's exoneration months before the conclusion of the investigation matter. ...Conspiracy theory?

The editing of the memo to remove references to Obama's use of Hillary's  insecure server. ...Conspiracy theory?

The prosecutors deferring to the investigator on the decision to press charges. ...Conspiracy theory?

The Stzrok/Page texts. ...Conspiracy theory?

Ohr's meetings with Fusion GPS (where his wife worked) ...Conspiracy theory?

The use of Democratic "opposition research" to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. ...Conspiracy theory?

And on and on....

Go on run along to you safe place, we'll let you know when it's safe to come out.

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

Meanwhile you're attempting to dismiss inconvenient facts as theories to avoid confronting them but they're not going away.

Bill and Loretta's tarmac meeting during the Clinton investigation matter...Conspiracy theory?

Coney's drafting of Hillary's exoneration months before the conclusion of the investigation matter. ...Conspiracy theory?

The editing of the memo to remove references to Obama's use of Hillary's  insecure server. ...Conspiracy theory?

The prosecutors deferring to the investigator on the decision to press charges. ...Conspiracy theory?

The Stzrok/Page texts. ...Conspiracy theory?

Ohr's meetings with Fusion GPS (where his wife worked) ...Conspiracy theory?

The use of Democratic "opposition research" to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. ...Conspiracy theory?

And on and on....

Go on run along to you safe place, we'll let you know when it's safe to come out.

individual facts, are facts

linking them together into a far fetched narrative?

There's a term for that. Hmmm, what is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at the Neuz tonight and it seems the FBI and Justice have gone over everybody's heads, and appealed directly to John Kelly, and Kelly is reported to be against releasing it. If he's willing to put his job on the line for it I predict it won't be. 

 

 Working for malignant narcissist is about the most difficult thing one can do in normal life, and Kelly is one of the few people capable of doing that job due to successfully navigating those shoals at least a few times during his long and distinguished career. It is unlikely Trump will be willing to sacrifice him for this cheap shit stunt, and Kelly's departure would only crank up the heat...and maybe with Kelly "outside of the tent pissing in", to borrow from Honest Abe.  

 

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

Looked at the Neuz tonight and it seems the FBI and Justice have gone over everybody's heads, and appealed directly to John Kelly, and Kelly is reported to be against releasing it. If he's willing to put his job on the line for it I predict it won't be. 

 

 Working for malignant narcissist is about the most difficult thing one can do in normal life, and Kelly is one of the few people capable of doing that job due to successfully navigating those shoals at least a few times during his long and distinguished career. It is unlikely Trump will be willing to sacrifice him for this cheap shit stunt, and Kelly's departure would only crank up the heat...and maybe with Kelly "outside of the tent pissing in", to borrow from Honest Abe.  

 

Trump is ready to sacrifice anybody anytime as long as he survives. Loyalty is a one-way street.

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

I don't see how any of this memo crap affects mueller

you don't see the republicans using it, as they are right now, to discredit the whole process?

I doubt that mueller cares what the repubs scream about.

he either has evidence or he doesn't - that's what he cares about

he'll let the ig worry about any fbi / doj issues

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

Wow. So the Magnitsky Act was named for an Attorney named Sergei Magnitsky who represented William Browder, once the biggest western stockholder in Russia as head of the Hermitage Fund. His Moscow offices were looted by Russian security forces and trumped up charges of tax evasion cost him $31million after his efforts identifying systemic Russian corruption. Sergie Magnitsky was killed in a Russian jail cell, and another lawyer Nikolai Gorkhov fell from a fourth floor window "while trying to move a bathtub" the day before he was to appear in court while representing Browder before Preet Bharara who you will remember was abruptly fired by Trump last year, and this case quietly settled for a pittance.

The Moscow tax office that took the money from the Hermitage Fund is headed by Olga Stepanov, the Moscow. She is married to Vladien Stepanov who heads Arivust, a trust centered in a Cyprus bank that was shut down by US Treasury because of tax fraud/illegal money/money laundering suspicion. Guess where the stolen money ended up? In Arivust's accounts.

Natalia Vesselnitskaya represents Prevezon, the group that apparently made this theft happen. Prevezon is headed by Denis Katsyv, son of Petr Katsyv the VP of Russia's state run rail system. Vesselnitskaya was initially barred from entering the US because of her role in representing the company that was buying NY real estate using stolen money. 

And Paul Manafort, the disgraced and bankrupt head of Trump's team was part of the meeting with Natalia and Donny Jr do discuss "restarting adoptions from Russia" which was code for getting the Magnitsky Act repealed.

Putin's rage at the Magnitsky Act was well known, and this provides ample opportunity, motive and means to inveigle themselves into the Trump campaign. This is a powerful financial Russian motive to sway the US 2016 election, and the stifling of Preet Bharara's case is just one benefit the Russians have enjoyed from their efforts.

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

Wow. So the Magnitsky Act was named for an Attorney named Sergei Magnitsky who represented William Browder, once the biggest western stockholder in Russia as head of the Hermitage Fund. His Moscow offices were looted by Russian security forces and trumped up charges of tax evasion cost him $31million after his efforts identifying systemic Russian corruption. Sergie Magnitsky was killed in a Russian jail cell, and another lawyer Nikolai Gorkhov fell from a fourth floor window "while trying to move a bathtub" the day before he was to appear in court while representing Browder before Preet Bharara who you will remember was abruptly fired by Trump last year, and this case quietly settled for a pittance.

The Moscow tax office that took the money from the Hermitage Fund is headed by Olga Stepanov, the Moscow. She is married to Vladien Stepanov who heads Arivust, a trust centered in a Cyprus bank that was shut down by US Treasury because of tax fraud/illegal money/money laundering suspicion. Guess where the stolen money ended up? In Arivust's accounts.

Natalia Vesselnitskaya represents Prevezon, the group that apparently made this theft happen. Prevezon is headed by Denis Katsyv, son of Petr Katsyv the VP of Russia's state run rail system. Vesselnitskaya was initially barred from entering the US because of her role in representing the company that was buying NY real estate using stolen money. 

And Paul Manafort, the disgraced and bankrupt head of Trump's team was part of the meeting with Natalia and Donny Jr do discuss "restarting adoptions from Russia" which was code for getting the Magnitsky Act repealed.

Putin's rage at the Magnitsky Act was well known, and this provides ample opportunity, motive and means to inveigle themselves into the Trump campaign. This is a powerful financial Russian motive to sway the US 2016 election, and the stifling of Preet Bharara's case is just one benefit the Russians have enjoyed from their efforts.

All coincidental.  Nothing to see, here.  Move along.

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

Wow. So the Magnitsky Act was named for an Attorney named Sergei Magnitsky who represented William Browder, once the biggest western stockholder in Russia as head of the Hermitage Fund. His Moscow offices were looted by Russian security forces and trumped up charges of tax evasion cost him $31million after his efforts identifying systemic Russian corruption. Sergie Magnitsky was killed in a Russian jail cell, and another lawyer Nikolai Gorkhov fell from a fourth floor window "while trying to move a bathtub" the day before he was to appear in court while representing Browder before Preet Bharara who you will remember was abruptly fired by Trump last year, and this case quietly settled for a pittance.

The Moscow tax office that took the money from the Hermitage Fund is headed by Olga Stepanov, the Moscow. She is married to Vladien Stepanov who heads Arivust, a trust centered in a Cyprus bank that was shut down by US Treasury because of tax fraud/illegal money/money laundering suspicion. Guess where the stolen money ended up? In Arivust's accounts.

Natalia Vesselnitskaya represents Prevezon, the group that apparently made this theft happen. Prevezon is headed by Denis Katsyv, son of Petr Katsyv the VP of Russia's state run rail system. Vesselnitskaya was initially barred from entering the US because of her role in representing the company that was buying NY real estate using stolen money. 

And Paul Manafort, the disgraced and bankrupt head of Trump's team was part of the meeting with Natalia and Donny Jr do discuss "restarting adoptions from Russia" which was code for getting the Magnitsky Act repealed.

Putin's rage at the Magnitsky Act was well known, and this provides ample opportunity, motive and means to inveigle themselves into the Trump campaign. This is a powerful financial Russian motive to sway the US 2016 election, and the stifling of Preet Bharara's case is just one benefit the Russians have enjoyed from their efforts.

I don't think there is any disputing that Vesselnitskaya used the prospect of supplying dirt on Hillary as pretext for getting a meeting with Tump campaign officials and then pitching repeal of the Magnitsky act.

The act however remains in place and has even been used by the Trump administration to sanction Russians.

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

I don't think there is any disputing that Vesselnitskaya used the prospect of supplying dirt on Hillary as pretext for getting a meeting with Tump campaign officials and then pitching repeal of the Magnitsky act.

The act however remains in place and has even been used by the Trump administration to sanction Russians.

President Trump acting on a law? Wow

I'm curious, Dog. When, how, where, what, has Trump enforced sanctions on Russia? All the news I see is how he is NOT doing so. Can you give some examples?

Also, on a personal note- go sailing or play some music or something. You haven't made any classic wisecracks in more than a month, your sense of humor is conspicuously absent. Go grab some joy in your life. I apologize for the personal intrusion.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Dog, whatever. Trump hasn't exactly had a lot of freedom to maneuver on Russian sanctions because, well, Russia helped get him elected and the world knows it.

I'm pretty interested, though, in the Putin-Magnitsky- Manafort angle, though, as brokered by several intermediaries including Vesselnitskaya. Especially how it fits in with Trump's actions wrt Preet B.

"Preet Bharara’s dismissal came as his office was probing Fox News after it allegedly failed to inform shareholders about numerous settlements in sexual harassment and assault cases. The dismissal also came less than a week after government watchdog groups sent a letter to the Manhattan prosecutor’s office asking for an investigation into whether President Trump violated a clause of the Constitution barring federal employees from receiving benefits from foreign governments. In addition, Preet Bharara was one of 18 U.S. officials barred from entering Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin was reportedly angered by Bharara’s prosecution of Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout."

 

Let's not forget the ties the Trump administration has to banking in Cyprus. Wilbur fucking Ross. He had invested 400 million Euro into the Bank of Cyprus in 2014 and became Vice Chairman of the institution of higher laundering when US Treasury considered it a haven for Russian oligarchs parking and cleaning their rape-the-state profits. At Board Meetings he would have come in contact with former KGB official and Putin ally Vladimir Strzhalkovsky who was a depositor turned boardmember. 

What was the angle? Well, the Russians needed to launder some $$, and the Bank of Cyprus, Oligarch Savings and loans, had purchased 450 Million Euro worth of assets in 2008, and then sold them to Russian banker/consultant/Putin ally Artem Avetisyan for 8 million. Wow... A loss of 442 million euro in 6 years! You can hide a LOT of ill gotten gains that way.

Also during Ross' tenure, the Bank of Cyprus gave Alfa Bank (Russia's largest private bank) more generous repayment terms and duration than originally negotiated to give the Russian bank more time to pay back 57million Euro used to purchase Ukranian assets.  

 

More financial opportunities if you let the foxes loose in the henhouse. Get the US Treasury out of the way, and Cypriot banks get freedom to maneuver.

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

Sure Dog, whatever. Trump hasn't exactly had a lot of freedom to maneuver on Russian sanctions because, well, Russia helped get him elected and the world knows it.

 

I'm not really impressed by the Trump as a Putin puppet argument because, frankly he has not behaved like one.

In response to Russian  meddling in the Ukraine the Trump administration expanded sanctions on Russian companies and individuals. This caused Russia to expel American diplomats and led to Trump expelling Russian diplomats and closing 3 facilities.

The Trump administration sold missile defense systems and LNG to Poland to counter a military threat from and economic dependence  on Russia.

 The Trump administration has committed to an expansion of international energy sales in part to counter Russian influence.

Trump bombed an airfield in Syria occupied by Russians. He gave them a heads up but still pissed them off.

More recently the Trump administration has sold arms to the Ukraine.

Are these the actions of a Russian puppet?  By comparison Obama of the "reset", "more flexibility after the election" and "Uranium one" looks like the Putin puppet.

 

 

Edit...I forgot the sale of missile defense systems to Romania.

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

I'm not really impressed by the Trump as a Putin puppet argument because, frankly he has not behaved like one.

In response to Russian  meddling in the Ukraine the Trump administration expanded sanctions on Russian companies and individuals. This caused Russia to expel American diplomats and led to Trump expelling Russian diplomats and closing 3 facilities.

The Trump administration sold missile defense systems and LNG to Poland to counter a military threat from and economic dependence  on Russia.

 The Trump administration has committed to an expansion of international energy sales in part to counter Russian influence.

Trump bombed an airfield in Syria occupied by Russians. He gave them a heads up but still pissed them off.

More recently the Trump administration has sold arms to the Ukraine.

Are these the actions of a Russian puppet?  By comparison Obama of the "reset", "more flexibility after the election" and "Uranium one" looks like the Putin puppet.

It’s the loss of American prestige and influence, that’s the reward Putin wanted. And received.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

It’s the loss of American prestige and influence, that’s the reward Putin wanted. And received.

Given the choice I suspect he would prefer 20% of America's uranium.

Link to post
Share on other sites