Jump to content

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

This is probably the most reasonable description of the situation that I've heard.  I'll add that in his arrogance, Trump probably does think that what he's doing is good for the country, and that if it's good for the top 1% - it'll be good for everyone else.  I think that he's been too insulated from reality his entire life to understand what he doesn't know - and thinks that those things aren't worthy of his time.  That realization doesn't make him a good President, or even a good leader, but, it does paint a much different picture than that of a person who's trying intentionally to subvert US interests for the benefit of the Russian government. 

Mostly agree with you and phillysailor, though I disagree with the portion I bolded.  IMHO he doesn't give a simple shit about anyone not in that 1%.  He has shown his views on the inferiority of genes in some populations and I truly believe in the superiority of his genes (and everyone else who shares his views/wealth).  To him, all of us are substandard and not to considered.

President Trump holds forth on superior genes.

  • Like 2
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

 

Exclusive: Trump asked Rosenstein if he was 'on my team'

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein visited the White House in December seeking President Donald Trump's help. The top Justice Department official in the Russia investigation wanted Trump's support in fighting off document demands from House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. 

But the President had other priorities ahead of a key appearance by Rosenstein on the Hill, according to sources familiar with the meeting. Trump wanted to know where the special counsel's Russia investigation was heading. And he wanted to know whether Rosenstein was "on my team." 

The episode is the latest to come to light portraying a President whose inquiries sometimes cross a line that presidents traditionally have tried to avoid when dealing with the Justice Department, for which a measure of independence is key. The exchange could raise further questions about whether Trump was seeking to interfere in the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is looking into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia and obstruction of justice by the White House. 

At the December meeting, the deputy attorney general appeared surprised by the President's questions, the sources said. He demurred on the direction of the Russia investigation, which Rosenstein has ultimate authority over now that his boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has recused himself. And he responded awkwardly to the President's "team" request, the sources said.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

This blows the Republicans theory all to hell.

Controversial FBI agent co-wrote initial draft of explosive Comey letter reopening Clinton email pro

Source: CNN

Controversial FBI agent co-wrote initial draft of explosive Comey letter reopening Clinton email probe 

Washington (CNN)Emails obtained by CNN show the FBI agent at the center of a Capitol Hill storm played a key role in a controversial FBI decision that upended Hillary Clinton's campaign just days before the 2016 election: the letter to Congress by then-FBI Director James Comey announcing the bureau was investigating newly discovered Clinton emails. 

The new revelation about FBI agent Peter Strzok comes as Republicans accuse him of being sympathetic to Clinton while seeking to undermine Donald Trump during the heat of the 2016 campaign season. 

Strzok, who co-wrote what appears to be the first draft that formed the basis of the letter Comey sent to Congress, also supported reopening the Clinton investigation once the emails were discovered on disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop, according to a source familiar with Strzok's thinking. The day after Strzok sent his draft to his colleagues, Comey released the letter to Congress, reigniting the email controversy in the final days of the campaign. 

... snip 

This new information reveals a more complicated portrait of Strzok than many of his critics have painted in public. Republicans have seized on text messages between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were often critical of Trump, to characterize the two -- who were having an extramarital affair -- as part of an effort to go easy on Clinton and get tough with Trump. 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You mentioned the uranium one bullshit, did you not?  Pure Doggy Style.  

You called me a liar but can't cite the lie. "Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others". Fuck you are a dick.

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

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

There is another act demanding sanctions that Trump is refusing to act on. Passed by 98% of Congress.

Repealing the Magnitsky Act requires buying off a significant number of Congress-critters. Just having Trump refuse to implement the law only requires buying him off.

Russian influence appears to be working as well as Putin could expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BREAKING: Transcript of House Intel Committee debate on Nunes Memo released

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180129.pdf 

(this document is marked as "Unclassified"wink.gif 
 
THE CHAIRMAN: Do any members wish to be heard? 

MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, I seek permission to address the committee. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Schiff, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

MR. SCHIFF: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I want t.o begin by expressing my alarm at where we are in this committee. 

I have served on the committee for 10 years now. This is the first time we have sought to declassify highly sensitive information for a political reason. It is, I think, a terrible line to cross. 

The memoranda which the majority will seek to make public today contains any number of misleading representations and factual problems. 

The FBI has sought to appear before our committee to have an opportunity to fully inform members of the underlying circumstances and address any concerns that members have before we take the step -- which the Department of Justice has, I think, all too accurately described as extraordinarily reckless -- to publicly release classified information that affects investigative equities and could 
potentially reveal sources and methods. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

He still doesn't get it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/donald-trump-rod-rosenstein-december-meeting/

Washington (CNN)Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein visited the White House in December seeking President Donald Trump's help. The top Justice Department official in the Russia investigation wanted Trump's support in fighting off document demands from House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.

But the President had other priorities ahead of a key appearance by Rosenstein on the Hill, according to sources familiar with the meeting. Trump wanted to know where the special counsel's Russia investigation was heading. And he wanted to know whether Rosenstein was "on my team."
****
At the December meeting, the deputy attorney general appeared surprised by the President's questions, the sources said. He demurred on the direction of the Russia investigation, which Rosenstein has ultimate authority over now that his boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has recused himself. And he responded awkwardly to the President's "team" request, the sources said.
"Of course, we're all on your team, Mr. President," Rosenstein told Trump, the sources said. It is not clear what Trump meant or how Rosenstein interpreted the comment.
The Justice Department declined to comment for this story. The White House did not comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dog said:

You called me a liar but can't cite the lie. "Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others". Fuck you are a dick.

Actually, just as "Given the choice I suspect he would prefer 20% of America's uranium" isn't explicitly saying Hillary gave away US uranium rights to Russia;  "Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others" isn't explicitly calling you a liar.

You are getting upset with Sol for playing the exact same word games you are. That you haven't yet realised that is fucking hilarious! :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Looks like "Heart Eyes", to me!!  I bet he boinked her....

Kushner:
Nikki! You're gonna pork Nikki Haley!

Trump:
Pork?

Kushner:
You're gonna hump her brains out, aren't you?

Trump:
Jared, I anticipate a deeply religious experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Looks like "Heart Eyes", to me!!  I bet he boinked her....

Dude on her left does not look happy. Somewhere between angry and pained.

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

You called me a liar but can't cite the lie. "Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others". Fuck you are a dick.

You are the one bringing up debunked bullshit stories.  Don't want to be called out for your Doggy Style, don't keep bringing up bullshit stories.  

The complaint department is in the basement of Comet Ping Pong in DC, Captain Bullshit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours 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.

 

9 hours 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.

SO, Dog. If we now agree that Putin and the oligarchs had motive to sway our elections, and we now understand they had utilized the means to do so, are you at all concerned about the numerous contacts between senior Trump administration officials that went unreported to the FBI and on Security Clearance filings? Consider, if you will, how many times Jared had to be prompted to remember dozens more contacts that initially were "forgotten." Or how Sessions conveniently "forgot" putting a stop to Papadopolous's overt efforts to inspire collusion with Vesselnitskaya? Does Manfort's offer to run Trump's campaign for free suggest he had ulterior motives? Are you interested in how he was intending to profit from the relationship? 

One of very few, and certainly  the most significant major concession the Trump campaign required of the platform developed at the 2016 GOP National Convention was that language condemning Russia or enacting sanctions on Russian arms sales to limit profit from the invasion of the Ukraine. Isn't that a bit... awkward?

Any patriot would want to be reassured that, despite all this smoke, there ain't fire down below. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Nunes work with the White House to develop the memo?  He wouldn't develop work product that he got from the White House, only to pretend to release it to the White House and act like he reported on something, would he?  Well, yeah, he tried that last year with the unmasking report.  

 

Wouldn't that be obstruction of justice?  Would his immunity as a legislator cover such work on his part?  

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

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

You called me a liar but can't cite the lie. "Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others". Fuck you are a dick.

You are the one bringing up debunked bullshit stories.  Don't want to be called out for your Doggy Style, don't keep bringing up bullshit stories.  

The complaint department is in the basement of Comet Ping Pong in DC, Captain Bullshit.

 

It’s all part of a vast Secret Society conspiracy......

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

You are the one bringing up debunked bullshit stories.  Don't want to be called out for your Doggy Style, don't keep bringing up bullshit stories.  

The complaint department is in the basement of Comet Ping Pong in DC, Captain Bullshit.  

Uranium One is not debunked, it's real, I didn't lie, You're the liar...You're a dick.

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

Uranium One is not debunked, it's real, I didn't lie, You're the liar...You're a dick.

I know you are but what am I, makes it’s way into the Doggy Style lexicon. Boo Hoo. Take it to Comet Ping Pong and tell the complaint department in the basement.  Uranium One is not a scandal. It’s Doggy Styling bullshit. That’s why normal people moved on from it. 

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

This is interesting.

The conspiracy theories surrounding FBI agent Peter Strzok may have just taken a big blow

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/5/16737350/peter-strzok-clinton-emails-fbi-trump-scandal-mueller

The texts were much more scandalous before we started seeing them. 

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

 

 

SO, Dog. If we now agree that Putin and the oligarchs had motive to sway our elections, and we now understand they had utilized the means to do so, are you at all concerned about the numerous contacts between senior Trump administration officials that went unreported to the FBI and on Security Clearance filings? Consider, if you will, how many times Jared had to be prompted to remember dozens more contacts that initially were "forgotten." Or how Sessions conveniently "forgot" putting a stop to Papadopolous's overt efforts to inspire collusion with Vesselnitskaya? Does Manfort's offer to run Trump's campaign for free suggest he had ulterior motives? Are you interested in how he was intending to profit from the relationship? 

One of very few, and certainly  the most significant major concession the Trump campaign required of the platform developed at the 2016 GOP National Convention was that language condemning Russia or enacting sanctions on Russian arms sales to limit profit from the invasion of the Ukraine. Isn't that a bit... awkward?

Any patriot would want to be reassured that, despite all this smoke, there ain't fire down below. 

One more time....I have no problem with Mueller's investigation and if he finds an improper relationship with Russians by all means he should bring charges. I don't believe that's going to happen, I think it far more likely he'll find obstruction or some illegal business practices.

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

Uranium One is not debunked, it's real, I didn't lie, You're the liar...You're a dick.

You realise that you're the only one actually calling someone a liar, right? :rolleyes:

Which is more more upsetting to you, Dog - that Sol is stealing your weasel wording schtick... or that he's better at it than you are?

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

Hope Hicks just grew a very big problem indeed.

"In Mr. Corallo’s account — which he provided contemporaneously to three colleagues who later gave it to The Times — he told both Mr. Trump and Ms. Hicks that the statement drafted aboard Air Force One would backfire because documents would eventually surface showing that the meeting had been set up for the Trump campaign to get political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians. 

According to his account, Ms. Hicks responded that the emails “will never get out” because only a few people had access to them. Mr. Corallo, who worked as a Justice Department spokesman during the George W. Bush administration, told colleagues he was alarmed not only by what Ms. Hicks had said — either she was being naïve or was suggesting that the emails could be withheld from investigators — but also that she had said it in front of the president without a lawyer on the phone and that the conversation could not be protected by attorney-client privilege."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/trump-russia-hope-hicks-mueller.html 

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

The Times piece is really good. Maggie Haberman (one of four on the byline) is one hell of a journalist, has been throughout this saga.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/trump-russia-hope-hicks-mueller.html

excerpt -

What is already clear is that, as Mr. Trump’s aides and family members tried over 48 hours to manage one of most consequential crises of the young administration, the situation quickly degenerated into something of a circular firing squad. They protected their own interests, shifted blame and potentially left themselves — and the president — legally vulnerable.

The latest witness to be called for an interview about the episode was Mark Corallo, who served as a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team before resigning in July. Mr. Corallo received an interview request last week from the special counsel and has agreed to the interview, according to three people with knowledge of the request.

Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.

In a statement on Wednesday, a lawyer for Ms. Hicks strongly denied Mr. Corallo’s allegations.

“As most reporters know, it’s not my practice to comment in response to questions from the media. But this warrants a response,” said the lawyer, Robert P. Trout. “She never said that. And the idea that Hope Hicks ever suggested that emails or other documents would be concealed or destroyed is completely false.”

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

One more time....I have no problem with Mueller's investigation and if he finds an improper relationship with Russians by all means he should bring charges. I don't believe that's going to happen, I think it far more likely he'll find obstruction or some illegal business practices.

Sounds just like Slappy Malarkey Hillary again Man's BS about being an independent. If you didn't vote for tRump, and you would welcome charges in the Russian thing, Why do you constantly support the unsupportable, and why do you seemingly object to finding malfeasance on some other grounds?

Trump is a liar, a misogynist, a con  man, a crook and woefully unfit for office. Yet you consistently defend him. I wonder if you would elucidate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Remodel said:

Sounds just like Slappy Malarkey Hillary again Man's BS about being an independent. If you didn't vote for tRump, and you would welcome charges in the Russian thing, Why do you constantly support the unsupportable, and why do you seemingly object to finding malfeasance on some other grounds?

Trump is a liar, a misogynist, a con  man, a crook and woefully unfit for office. Yet you consistently defend him. I wonder if you would elucidate.

I don't believe I do support the unsupportable. I think it more likely your hate has caused you to believe every act of this government is unsupportable. If you can provide an example of my supporting what you believe to be the unsupportable I'll respond.

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

Trump is a liar, a misogynist, a con  man, a crook and woefully unfit for office.

and that's his good side :D

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

The Times piece is really good. Maggie Haberman (one of four on the byline) is one hell of a journalist, has been throughout this saga.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/trump-russia-hope-hicks-mueller.html

excerpt -

What is already clear is that, as Mr. Trump’s aides and family members tried over 48 hours to manage one of most consequential crises of the young administration, the situation quickly degenerated into something of a circular firing squad. They protected their own interests, shifted blame and potentially left themselves — and the president — legally vulnerable.

The latest witness to be called for an interview about the episode was Mark Corallo, who served as a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team before resigning in July. Mr. Corallo received an interview request last week from the special counsel and has agreed to the interview, according to three people with knowledge of the request.

Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.

In a statement on Wednesday, a lawyer for Ms. Hicks strongly denied Mr. Corallo’s allegations.

“As most reporters know, it’s not my practice to comment in response to questions from the media. But this warrants a response,” said the lawyer, Robert P. Trout. “She never said that. And the idea that Hope Hicks ever suggested that emails or other documents would be concealed or destroyed is completely false.”

Yup. They are pretty good at cutting through the Doggy Style distractions and getting to the heart of the story. 

No wonder good Americans who don’t support Trump are working so hard to discredit Muelle’s investigation before he can report. 

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

You realise that you're the only one actually calling someone a liar, right? :rolleyes:

Which is more more upsetting to you, Dog - that Sol is stealing your weasel wording schtick... or that he's better at it than you are?

I cited the  Uranium One deal as one of several examples of the Obama administration's cooperation with the Russians. To which Sol said...

"No matter how many times it has been debunked, Dog will still try to repeat-until-true.  Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others, I guess. Doggy Style".

Fact is I did not "repeat-until-true", what I said was simply true, and Sol, disingenuous fuck that he is, chose to  misrepresented it. He is right about people who do not prioritize truth though.

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

I cited the  Uranium One deal as one of several examples of the Obama administration's cooperation with the Russians. To which Sol said...

"No matter how many times it has been debunked, Dog will still try to repeat-until-true.  Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others, I guess. Doggy Style".

Fact is I did not "repeat-until-true", what I said was simply true, and Sol, disingenuous fuck that he is, chose to  misrepresented it. He is right about people who do not prioritize truth though.

This reminds me of that famous defense -

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

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

I cited the  Uranium One deal as one of several examples of the Obama administration's cooperation with the Russians. To which Sol said...

-SNIP-

I understood the Obama-era decision to allow Russian investors to purchase 51% of Uranium One's stock as the result of a fairly extensive committee-level decision over 7 departments of the government that the sale did not pose a security risk to the United States. This was government operating without interference by Hillary or other senior executives... just the US bureaucracy at work. None of the uranium was exported without license by the NRC, and none was tracked as going to Russia. Some went to Canada and some went to Europe for processing, but that is SOP for this commodity.

You characterize this decision by the US bureaucracy to not interfere with Russian money investing in the US market because there was no security risk as "one of several examples of the Obama administration's cooperation with the Russians." You are disingenuous at best, and falsifying the record/disseminating fake news at the worst. You seem to be intelligent, but partisan, so I think you are spreading fake news. 

This is not a "cite" which proves your point. This is a "cite" which proves you are just short of a liar. Your pattern of spreading fake news tells me that you are comfortable with lying. 

Edited by phillysailor
didn't like how I phrased the conclusion
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

I cited the  Uranium One deal as one of several examples of the Obama administration's cooperation with the Russians. To which Sol said...

"No matter how many times it has been debunked, Dog will still try to repeat-until-true.  Some folks just don't prioritize facts and truth as much as others, I guess. Doggy Style".

Fact is I did not "repeat-until-true", what I said was simply true, and Sol, disingenuous fuck that he is, chose to  misrepresented it. He is right about people who do not prioritize truth though.

Yet none of that is actually calling you a liar. In the same way as you raising the Uranium One deal is not the same as you saying that Hillary's actions (or lack thereof) constitutes corruption. Perhaps people think that it is implied by the way you & Sol say those things, but he is giving himself the same wiggle room you are by not being explicit.

He's mocking you by playing your game and beating you at it. That you cannot (or most likely just will not) concede that fact is what makes it funny. So please do continue flailing about. Sol is playing you like a fiddle and your response of puffing up your chest in faux outrage is just making it funnier.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sean said:

This reminds me of that famous defense -

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Bill got some pleasure before the defending became necessary.   Dog doesn’t even know he’s being screwed by his master.  

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

I understood the Obama-era decision to allow Russian investors to purchase 51% of Uranium One's stock as the result of a fairly extensive committee-level decision over 7 departments of the government that the sale did not pose a security risk to the United States. This was government operating without interference by Hillary or other senior executives... just the US bureaucracy at work. None of the uranium was exported without license by the NRC, and none was tracked as going to Russia. Some went to Canada and some went to Europe for processing, but that is SOP for this commodity.

You characterize this decision by the US bureaucracy to not interfere with Russian money investing in the US market because there was no security risk as "one of several examples of the Obama administration's cooperation with the Russians." You are disingenuous at best, and falsifying the record/disseminating fake news at the worst. You seem to be intelligent, but partisan, so I think you are spreading fake news. 

This is not a "cite" which proves your point. This is a "cite" which proves you are just short of a liar. Your pattern of spreading fake news tells me that you are comfortable with lying. 

the issue is that the sale of uranium one to rosatom (not "russian investors") was sold to the congress by the admin and the nrc stating that none of the uranium pulled from us soil would ever leave us shores.  that was the promise broken in order to get russia's (not "russian investors") help in iran

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

Yet none of that is actually calling you a liar. In the same way as you raising the Uranium One deal is not the same as you saying that Hillary's actions (or lack thereof) constitutes corruption. Perhaps people think that it is implied by the way you & Sol say those things, but he is giving himself the same wiggle room you are by not being explicit.

He's mocking you by playing your game and beating you at it. That you cannot (or most likely just will not) concede that fact is what makes it funny. So please do continue flailing about. Sol is playing you like a fiddle and your response of puffing up your chest in faux outrage is just making it funnier.

Keep that up and you will get the Spicoli:

”you dick!”

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

One more time....I have no problem with Mueller's investigation and if he finds an improper relationship with Russians by all means he should bring charges. I don't believe that's going to happen, I think it far more likely he'll find obstruction or some illegal business practices.

News Flash: A whole bunch of Trumpites have already pled guilty to improper relationship(s) with Russia.

Where you been?

You can keep saying "Where is the evidence" but a heck of a lot of it has already been put on the table. You can only pretend to be asleep for the first dozen of so times, after this it's pretty blatant that you are pretending your fairy castle in the sky is real and asking the rest of us to admire your flying pony. And of course getting mad when that shit falls down flat.

-DSK

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

News Flash: A whole bunch of Trumpites have already pled guilty to improper relationship(s) with Russia.

Where you been?

You can keep saying "Where is the evidence" but a heck of a lot of it has already been put on the table. You can only pretend to be asleep for the first dozen of so times, after this it's pretty blatant that you are pretending your fairy castle in the sky is real and asking the rest of us to admire your flying pony. And of course getting mad when that shit falls down flat.

-DSK

But....they only plead guilty to "lying" to the FBI.

Which is no biggie, everyone does it but the corrupt FBI only goes after trump. Wait for the memo, that'll open your eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VhmSays said:
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

News Flash: A whole bunch of Trumpites have already pled guilty to improper relationship(s) with Russia.

Where you been?

You can keep saying "Where is the evidence" but a heck of a lot of it has already been put on the table. You can only pretend to be asleep for the first dozen of so times, after this it's pretty blatant that you are pretending your fairy castle in the sky is real and asking the rest of us to admire your flying pony. And of course getting mad when that shit falls down flat.

-DSK

But....they only plead guilty to "lying" to the FBI.

Which is no biggie, everyone does it but the corrupt FBI only goes after trump. Wait for the memo, that'll open your eyes.

Y'know, I don't watch Fox at home, but it's often on in the background some places I go. Car repair waiting room, for example. And it's really odd what they're doing now. They have this text banner saying "No Collusion With Russia" that scrolls across the screen a lot. Even during a sports commentary program, which I thought was really weird. Maybe subliminal messaging isn't pounding it in hard enough to stick, lately? I mean, except for guys like Dog...............

 

2 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Here's the problem. The shitter has gotten so messy that they're so busy cleaning it that dinner is burning on the stove. I fear this isn't going to end well for any of us. Yikes.

?? It's gonna end up great for Putin. And the swamp critters that can get away with their millions before the train wreck we all know is coming.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2018-01-29

 

Transcripts from Maddow's show.

They were looking into Carter Page for a while.

 

Three years ago this week, in 2015, Justice Department, the U.S. attorney`s 
office in the southern district of New York, they made a dramatic 
announcement. They had arrested a guy who appeared to be a random bank 
employee. He was picked up by FBI agents at a shopping center in 
Riverdale, New York. Nobody really knew what he was getting arrested for 
at the time. But it turned out, according to his subsequent indictment and 
trial and conviction, that that random bank employee who they arrested at a 
shopping center in 2015, he turned out to be a key figure in an active 
Russian spy ring.

This was the headline from the press release they put out. Attorney 
general, Manhattan U.S. attorney and FBI announced charges against Russian 
spy ring in New York City, aspiring, attempted to collect economic 
intelligence and recruit New York City residents as intelligence sources. 
Attorney General Eric Holder said at the time, these charges demonstrate 
our firm commitment to combating attempts by covert agents to illegally 
gather intel and recruit spies within the United States, will use every 
tool at our disposal to identify and hold accountable foreign agents 
operating inside this country no matter how deep their cover.

So, three people were charged in this indictment at the cover for two of 
them was that they work for the Russian government. One of them worked at 
the Russian mission to the United Nations, to the U.N. in New York. One of 
them works as a trade representative for the Russian government. But the 
third guy in this spy ring, the one who they actually picked up at that 
shopping center despite his deep cover his cover was that he worked at a 
Russian bank at their branch office in New York City.

The two guys who were running their spy ring here in New York while 
purportedly having normal Russian government jobs, those guys actually 
escaped back to Moscow before the FBI could swoop in on them. The third 
guy, the guy whose cover was working in a bank, he`s the one who actually 
got arrested. He got put on trial, he got convicted, and he ended up 
serving a pretty good chunk of time in federal prison in Ohio. They only 
sent him back to Moscow this past spring.

And one of the spy movie Inspector Gadget details from that court case is 
that the FBI fed these Russian guys in this Russian spy ring, they fed them 
documents that had bugs in them, that had listening devices. So, the spy 
rings operating in New York City, these Russian guys are trying to 
cultivate American assets who will give them sensitive or secret or stolen 
information which they`ll then convey home to Moscow, right? This is pure 
spying stuff.

Well, the FBI cotton to what they were doing and they trapped them 
basically. They arranged to give these guys documents that seemed awesome 
that seemed like super juicy stuff that they would want to feed home to 
Moscow center. But the FBI gave them these documents in binders, and the 
FBI had put little microphones inside the binders.

So, these Russian guys from the spy ring, they`ve brought this booty, this 
loot, this info they thought they had extracted from their American assets, 
they didn`t know would have come from the FBI, they didn`t know had 
listening devices in it. They brought those binders full of documents into 
the rezidentura, into the Russian government`s facilities in New York so 
they could convey at home through secure channels to Moscow. But even 
though they were in a secure facility inside the Russian government 
building, the FBI was listening the whole time to everything they were 
saying because they had bugs in the binders.

These guys were unaware that they were being bugged. They had no idea they 
had been found out they thought they were in a secure facility speaking to 
each other about their operations and so they spoke totally freely about 
how they were running their spy ring, about their strategy, about the 
American assets that they were recruiting, including someone the FBI 
described as, quote, a male working as a consultant in New York City.

Quote: Male one first met the Russian spy defendant in January 2013 at an 
energy symposium in New York City. During this initial meeting, defendant 
gave him his business card and two email addresses. Over the following 
months, male one and the defendant exchanged emails about the energy 
business and met on occasion in person, with male one providing the 
defendant with male one`s outlook on the current and future of the energy 
industry. Male one also provided documents to the defendant about the 
energy business.

So, these Russian guys, right, two of them working as Russian government 
employees and one of them working as a Russian bank employee – so spy 
ring, and they`re trying to recruit American assets. And they got one. 
They got male one they got this American energy consultant guy who was 
happily shoveling them information, giving them documents, communicating 
with them regularly, meeting with them in person.

In the course of the FBI`s investigation into this Russian spy ring that 
was operating in New York, the FBI even paid a visit to male one, to this 
American guy who was successfully being recruited by Russian spies. And we 
later found out his name. His name was Carter Page. The same Carter Page 
who later turned up as one of the five named foreign policy advisors to the 
Donald Trump for president campaign.

“The Washington Post” reported in April that the Justice Department had 
obtained a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page as early as 
the summer of 2016. And that was a remarkable thing to learn about a 
presidential campaign, right? Presidential candidate has as a announced 
foreign policy advisor somebody who the Justice Department has under 
surveillance on the basis of the fact that the Justice department was able 
to convince a judge that there was reason to believe that guy was a foreign 
agent, right?

From that initial “Washington Post” reporting on them getting a FISA 
warrant for Carter Page, quote: The government`s application for the 
surveillance order targeting Carter Page included a lengthy declaration 
that laid out the basis for believing he was an agent of the Russian 
government and that he knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence 
activities on behalf of Moscow.

So, the Justice Department laid out that case about Carter Page in the 
summer of 2016 to get a warrant to surveil him. Those warrants were 
granted initially and apparently renewed every 90 days thereafter. You 
have to keep bringing it back before a judge. You have to keep renewing it 
for 90 days, 90 days, and then 90 days, and then 90 days and then 90 days, 
and eventually the Obama administration turns into the Trump 
administration.

And even though this warrant had been renewed multiple times since it was 
initially applied for and granted by a judge, eventually the person who had 
to sign off on the next application to renew that warrant was a Trump 
appointee. It was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. And that is 
reportedly the basis on which Republicans in Congress and the Trump White 
House are now going to go after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who 
oversees the Mueller investigation at the Justice Department and who is the 
one remaining figure overseeing the Russia investigation who the president 
hasn`t fired or tried to fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump attacks Fox will they lose their viewership or will he lose the presidency?

8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

They have this text banner saying "No Collusion With Russia" that scrolls across the screen a lot. Even during a sports commentary program, which I thought was really weird. Maybe subliminal messaging isn't pounding it in hard enough to stick, lately? I mean, except for guys like Dog...............

When Trump turns on the TV he expects them to be defending him 24/7, and they oblige. 

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

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2018-01-29

 

Transcripts from Maddow's show.

They were looking into Carter Page for a while.

 

<SNIP>

“The Washington Post” reported in April that the Justice Department had 
obtained a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page as early as 
the summer of 2016. And that was a remarkable thing to learn about a 
presidential campaign, right? Presidential candidate has as a announced 
foreign policy advisor somebody who the Justice Department has under 
surveillance on the basis of the fact that the Justice department was able 
to convince a judge that there was reason to believe that guy was a foreign 
agent, right?

From that initial “Washington Post” reporting on them getting a FISA 
warrant for Carter Page, quote: The government`s application for the 
surveillance order targeting Carter Page included a lengthy declaration 
that laid out the basis for believing he was an agent of the Russian 
government and that he knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence 
activities on behalf of Moscow.

So, the Justice Department laid out that case about Carter Page in the 
summer of 2016 to get a warrant to surveil him. Those warrants were 
granted initially and apparently renewed every 90 days thereafter. You 
have to keep bringing it back before a judge. You have to keep renewing it 
for 90 days, 90 days, and then 90 days, and then 90 days and then 90 days, 
and eventually the Obama administration turns into the Trump 
administration.

And even though this warrant had been renewed multiple times since it was 
initially applied for and granted by a judge, eventually the person who had 
to sign off on the next application to renew that warrant was a Trump 
appointee. It was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. And that is 
reportedly the basis on which Republicans in Congress and the Trump White 
House are now going to go after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who 
oversees the Mueller investigation at the Justice Department and who is the 
one remaining figure overseeing the Russia investigation who the president 
hasn`t fired or tried to fire.

If this a complete and accurate telling of the story ( and given that it was on Madcow's show - that's questionable to me) - that's incredibly damning, and makes ya wonder if anyone in the Trump campaign had ever considered actually vetting who was working w/em - or if Page was supposed to be a conduit. 

 

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

If this a complete and accurate telling of the story ( and given that it was on Madcow's show - that's questionable to me) - that's incredibly damning, and makes ya wonder if anyone in the Trump campaign had ever considered actually vetting who was working w/em - or if Page was supposed to be a conduit. 

 

Sean just posted this in the "changing memo" thread....

 

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Carter Paige has been on the intelligence community radar since 2013 -

Former Trump Aide Carter Page Was on U.S. Counterintelligence Radar Before Russia Dossier 

Court documents, testimony show foreign-policy adviser was known to authorities as early as 2013

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-trump-aide-carter-page-was-on-u-s-counterintelligence-radar-before-russia-dossier-1517486401

Excerpt-

Carter Page, who served as a foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign, was known to U.S. counterintelligence officials for years before he became a prominent figure in a dossier of unverified research about the future president’s ties to Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oppo research is done to dig up verifiable information that can be used against an opponent. "Dirt" in other words is gold if it can be backed with facts. 

Opposition research against trump was so worrisome it had to be brought to the attention of the FBI. The dossier was released after the election not before when it could have done some damage.

Much of the information has checked out and some can't unless the Russian government helps.

This dossier was used as a part of information given to a judge to renew a FISA against a known collaborator.

The R's point out that as the Dossier was oppo research it is suspect. Its use makes the whole investigation suspect. Those who used it clearly had it for Trump and are suspect as well. Its use as a part of evidence requires a purge at the FBI and removal of Rosenstein.

Rosenstein signed off on the FISA renewal, appointed Mueller and “is from Baltimore” Trump suspects.

Therefore Rosenstein and Mueller are biased and need to go.

The cherry on top is the cherrypicked messages of 2 FBI agents showing political bias against Trump.

Whats better than stacking the top of the FBI and DOJ with your own men who when the elections come around will back up anything you claim about your opponents.

With all the supposed bias and corruption already present why did the opposite happen in the last election.

 

 

 

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

as I remember from when this story first came out last spring, this is not an accurate re-telling

people thought Page & Flynn were loopy back in 2016. Remember this is when Trump really  couldn't hire anyone with credentials in his campaign?

yeah.   page is a kook - worked for an investment bank in moscow for a few years.  got fired and tried to start his own energy investment firm in his mom's basement.

I remember that he definitely got caught up in the rochester  spy sting, but seem to remember the fibbies thought he was just a kook, not a spook.

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

yeah.   page is a kook - worked for an investment bank in moscow for a few years.  got fired and tried to start his own energy investment firm in his mom's basement.

I remember that he definitely got caught up in the rochester  spy sting, but seem to remember the fibbies thought he was just a kook, not a spook.

He studied in Moscow as a Navy midshipman in 1991, worked there for three years in the 2000s and then in 2013 was caught up in a spy ring. Let off as a kook.

When in 2016 that kook was secretly meeting officials in Russia including the deputy prime minister as a part of the presidential campaign would that have set off any flags at the FBI?

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

maybe.

what was the secret meeting about?

 

Adoption, no doubt....:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hermetic said:

maybe.

what was the secret meeting about?

 

No idea...it was secret.

He lied about it till under oath in the house investigation. Also came out that the campaign was informed about and briefed on the meetings.

But he really is a kook..feel free to wade through his testimony. I'm not doing that for you

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

No idea...it was secret.

He lied about it till under oath in the house investigation. Also came out that the campaign was informed about and briefed on the meetings.

But he really is a kook..feel free to wade through his testimony. I'm not doing that for you

it's too painful to read through

hard to believe that all this fighting is going on over surveillance of this nut 

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

hard to believe that all this fighting is going on over surveillance of this nut 

he's the mcguffin.

if he told the same rambling story he gave to congress, mueller's people surely laughed and moved on

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

it's too painful to read through

hard to believe that all this fighting is going on over surveillance of this nut 

Its not about this guy, its about a piece of evidence used to renew the FISA. Not if the evidence was good or just a part of a bunch but that the evidence came from opposition research. 

Its ultimately about Rosenstein and Mueller.

If opposition research was used for evidence the investigation is biased and therefore can be dismissed. 

Nunes has been working on these 4 pages for sometime. The president is about to be interviewed. Correation is not causation but the stink is strong on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dems certainly paid for the dossier (I also recall reading that the work for it was initially contracted by some Repubs who were trying to dig up dirt on Trump during the primaries, but they then dropped it once he became candidate Trump - but can't find a reference to that now). But my understanding is that Steele brought it himself to the US intelligence community due to his concerns about those in the Trump circle. If that's the case, surely it shouldn't matter who paid for it.

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

The Dems certainly paid for the dossier (I also recall reading that the work for it was initially contracted by some Repubs who were trying to dig up dirt on Trump during the primaries, but they then dropped it once he became candidate Trump - but can't find a reference to that now). But my understanding is that Steele brought it himself to the US intelligence community due to his concerns about those in the Trump circle. If that's the case, surely it shouldn't matter who paid for it.

You are letting logic creep in, remember its us vs them.

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

Its not about this guy, its about a piece of evidence used to renew the FISA. Not if the evidence was good or just a part of a bunch but that the evidence came from opposition research. 

Its ultimately about Rosenstein and Mueller.

If opposition research was used for evidence the investigation is biased and therefore can be dismissed. 

Nunes has been working on these 4 pages for sometime. The president is about to be interviewed. Correation is not causation but the stink is strong on this one.

not sure that playing the fruit of the poisonous tree card is going to help the repubs in the long game

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Its not about this guy, its about a piece of evidence used to renew the FISA. Not if the evidence was good or just a part of a bunch but that the evidence came from opposition research. 

Its ultimately about Rosenstein and Mueller.

If opposition research was used for evidence the investigation is biased and therefore can be dismissed. 

Nunes has been working on these 4 pages for sometime. The president is about to be interviewed. Correation is not causation but the stink is strong on this one.

I would think the “dossier evidence”, as you suggest, was part of a larger presentation. The fact that they’ve been watching this guy for years is telling. It’s quite possible, if not likely, that they could have gotten the renewal without the dossier bit. The public needs to know the whole story or none of it. Nunes and most of his Republican colleagues are trying to use this small piece of a much larger picture to lay the groundwork for some nefarious shit coming down the pike. Despicable imo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If relevant portions of the dossier info were verified, would a national security issue leading to investigation be considered fruits of a poison tree? 

I’d think the rules for starting or continuing observation / surveillance of a national security risk would be different than those used to justify starting criminal investigations.

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

If relevant portions of the dossier info were verified, would a national security issue leading to investigation be considered fruits of a poison tree? 

I’d think the rules for starting or continuing observation / surveillance of a national security risk would be different than those used to justify starting criminal investigations.

good question

unfortunately the answers are in the fisa application, and we'll never see those

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I expect is for the report to only mention the evidence from the dossier, and when we get the rest of the story, i.e. the "con-text", we'll find out that the request for a warrant was based on much more than just the evidence from the dossier.  

Con

dr_evil.jpg?w=750

Text.  

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

I doubt it's a fact that fibbies have been "watching this guy for years"

he got caught up in 2013 and dismissed as a nut, then nothing until 2016

Good point. It was, however, a renewal. How many, if any, prior consecutive renewals would be good to know. 

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

I doubt it's a fact that fibbies have been "watching this guy for years"

he got caught up in 2013 and dismissed as a nut, then nothing until 2016

Good point. It was, however, a renewal. How many, if any, prior consecutive renewals would be good to know. 

I think I read the initial fisa warrant was late 2016, then renewed in the spring of 2017

the renewal is the one which might cause rosenstein to be booted off the team

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

I think I read the initial fisa warrant was late 2016, then renewed in the spring of 2017

the renewal is the one which might cause rosenstein to be booted off the team

Do we know what evidence was proffered to obtain the original warrant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:
34 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I think I read the initial fisa warrant was late 2016, then renewed in the spring of 2017

the renewal is the one which might cause rosenstein to be booted off the team

Do we know what evidence was proffered to obtain the original warrant?

no.  the two memo's won't provide the fisa apps

I would assume only the fisa court and the president can release them

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

I a little less than three years you'll get your chance...

I suspect you’re right, but one can hope. I do worry, however, that in the event of an early departure the cure (Pence) could be worse than the disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyers for Rick Gates withdraw from Russia case

Quote

 

Lawyers Shanlon Wu, Walter Mack and Annemarie McAvoy said in a two-page motion that they would explain the reasons for their abrupt move in documents filed under seal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

 

“The document speaks for itself,” McAvoy told POLITICO, declining further comment.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/01/lawyers-for-rick-gates-withdraw-from-russia-case-383422

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

Gates is either out of money or committing a(nother) crime.  

Pretty sure his legal defense will end up being covered somehow, to make sure he is well represented by the Best People.  

He seems to be committing the crime of cooperating with the law. Tick tick tick

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

He seems to be committing the crime of cooperating with the law. Tick tick tick

I can't tell.  They might have split because he wasn't cooperating in the process, or doing what he promised to do.  Hard telling.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I can't tell.  They might have split becaus he wasn't cooperating in the process, or doing what he promised to do.  Hard telling.  

 

One of my good mates,Charlie's favorite saying is: "Hard Telling, Not Knowing"??!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyers hate it when their clients lie to them. They want to be the ones who obfuscate the truth...

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

The Dems certainly paid for the dossier (I also recall reading that the work for it was initially contracted by some Repubs who were trying to dig up dirt on Trump during the primaries, but they then dropped it once he became candidate Trump - but can't find a reference to that now). But my understanding is that Steele brought it himself to the US intelligence community due to his concerns about those in the Trump circle. If that's the case, surely it shouldn't matter who paid for it.

How does anyone forget something this funny?

On 1/12/2017 at 7:23 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I guess I'm the only one who is amused by the fact that the anti-Trump PAC in question was Rubio's Baby Got PAC.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites