BrooksBearLives said:
How's this nutjob **** going? Rifle? Doc? You okay, guys?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barrs-handpicked-prosecutor-tells-inspector-general-he-cant-back-right-wing-theory-that-russia-case-was-us-intelligence-setup/2019/12/04/17e084dc-16a9-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html
The IG report exonerated Peter Strzok. Trump owes him an apology.riflebear said:Strzok - is that you?BrooksBearLives said:
TLDR.
Trump has committed impeachable crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Joe Trailerpark in Pennsylvania's understanding of that doesn't make it any less of a fact.
Probably a wise decision to save it for later. When it blows up in your face (i.e. impeachment fails badly and indictments of Obama admin officials start rolling in), you might want to come back and read it then.BrooksBearLives said:TLDR.whiterock said:I spent a couple of hours Saturday with a member of Congress. Pelosi is in a huge bind here. This is a disaster. Her base demands it, but independents and/or battleground districts/states are not buying it. The gamble was that the hearings would move the needle. In fact, polling has moved against them across the board....no GOP support, and all the districts they recaptured in 2018 mid-terms and several battleground states won by POTUS are seething at Democrats for doing nothing but going after Trump. As it stands now, the House flips and Trump builds on his 2016 victory. We're talking Trump with 6-point margins ahead of the field throughout the Great Lakes states he won last time. And public polls are widely showing Trump pollin mid-30's with blacks. That's by itself fatal. Dems cannot mathematically win if a GOP candidate gets double digit support in the black communityBrooksBearLives said:whiterock said:you're going to be disappointed on impeachment. It's by design a bi-partisan process, meaning you have to convince the other side. In this case, you haven't, because you can't, because A) the only direct evidence (from Ambassador Sondland) exonerates POTUS of the charge, B) there's nothing wrong with withholding aid (happens all the time) for any number of reasons, C) withholding evidence pending resolution of corruption is statutory grounds for doing so, D) the involvement of US officials in the apparent corruption is an aggravating factor, and E) the Democrats have already established precedent that obtaining derogatory information from foreign sources is acceptable campaign activity (see Dossier, Steele; and Chalupa, Alexandra).BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
Whatever the SpyGate Plotters or Mueller thought his SC investigation was going to do, what it **ACTUALLY** did was STRIP AWAY the hoax justification for the SPYING ON TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN.
The stripping away of that hoax cover story for all of the spying on Trump's campaign...and his transition team...and then his Presidency itself....is what DIRECTLY LED to this FISA IG report we are are now waiting for to be released.
I think you're going to be really disappointed, won't admit it, and then slip further down the rabbit hole to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Meanwhile, our President gets away with trampling the constitution because of supporters like you.
Not interested in social contract where law exonerates you (see Clinton govt emails under subpoena) and contrives against me (see the entire Russiagate affair and now Ukrainegate).
So tired of arguing about it, too. You guys are living in a dream world if you think we are on board for this nonsense.
Lol. We know Republicans, after years of accusing the Democrats of worshipping Obama, have completely sold out to the cult of Trump.
No way he's forced out by the Senate -despite his VERY OBVIOUS guilt.
But he will be impeached by the House because he IS guilty. And no BS investigations into Fusion GPS will change the fact that he is corrupt and got caught extorting Ukraine for political help.
So you can believe your truth. That's what social justice warriors do. But you've lost the argument with independents because you have no case, and you've lost your argument with Republicans because we're sick & tired of the double standard.
And you are wrong about "BS investigations. " DOJ/OIG claims rampant bias and malfeasances did not corrupt the investigations into Trump and his campaign. But, exactly as I predicted above, Durham disagrees, in no small part because the origins of the fraud lie outside DOJ. (link)
Horowitz has a stellar reputation, so I will give him benefit of the doubt that his conclusions are seeking to retain punishment in-house....retirements, reassignments, reprimands....in order to maintain public confidence in the DOJ and FBI. To say that such a viewpoint is out of touch is a bit of an understatement. Partisan bureaucrats in the Obama administration usurped the powers of their office to contrive an investigation of a candidate of an opposing political party, and when that failed, they doubled down to contrive an investigation of a sitting POTUS, despite that at every step all the information uncovered was consistently exculpatory. That will not pass without retribution. Nor should it.
THAT is why Pelosi is tilting at the impeachment windmill. If does it, she pays a huge price in 2020; but if she doesn't, it will massively dispirit her base. So the play here is to keep the crazies (like you) fired up for 2020 and hope she can win back enough of the independents. In the meantime, it is a distraction ploy from the release of the DOJ/OIG report which allows Democrats to portray the looming Durham investigation as just part of Trump's corruption of government. Problem is, it isn't working.....
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-blasts-fbi-over-intrusive-probe-of-trump-campaign-in-wake-of-fisa-report?fbclid=IwAR1ChgxJM58EwMSS4Tekn9sssj9DZ0dlBA-EbL1QLZDSBPfxYPH1KRgu6e8
Trump has committed impeachable crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Joe Trailerpark in Pennsylvania's understanding of that doesn't make it any less of a fact.
Dude, you are living in a dream world. Take a moment and familiarize yourself with the details.cinque said:The IG report exonerated Peter Strzok. Trump owes him an apology.riflebear said:Strzok - is that you?BrooksBearLives said:
TLDR.
Trump has committed impeachable crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Joe Trailerpark in Pennsylvania's understanding of that doesn't make it any less of a fact.
Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
What about the email where Don Jr was offered the "support of Russia and it's government for [his] father" and enthusiastically accepted, is that intel? Or how about the email Butina's bf sent claiming he helped set up "a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [Republican] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]", would that count as intel as well? Perhaps you think Manafort's strategy meetings with a known Russian intel operative while other Russian operatives ran an info-op in support of Trump is just a strange coincidence? None of that intel came from Steele either (although it is consistent with the broad strokes of what he alleged, especially Manafort), so I don't need his reporting to tell me what is plain to see, which is that Trump/Republicans engaged in some seriously suspicious behavior involving contacts with Russians in relation to the 2016 campaign, and that behavior undoubtedly deserved/s further investigation.whiterock said:Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
Just bedrock professionalism: 2nd hand reporting is not intelligence. You do not bring something back tot he station like the Steele Dossier, write it up, and hit the send button for direct dissem to the intel community. You don't waste your time on it at all. The Steele dossier is entirely 3rd & 4th hand stuff at best. and then there is the sensationalism of it. Read a few thousand raw intel reports. Then read the steele dossier. It's the difference between reading a science textbook at a comic book.
Intel is when your source SAT IN THE MEETING and then gave you the details on the meeting. If your source TALKED TO SOMEONE who sat in the meeting, the results of the meeting are not intelligence...the intelligence is the reaction of the person your source talked to. You cannot just take a 2nd hand (or worse) account of a meeting and write it up as though your source was in the meeting.
Steele allegedly got abouty $750K for the Dossier. I cannot wait for the Democrats to hurry up & get their nominee. I know folks abroad. I can make a few phone calls & trips. I can write a dossier on anyone, and I mean anyone. Just tell me who. What a great business opportunity!!!
HuMcK said:What about the email where Don Jr was offered the "support of Russia and it's government for [his] father" and enthusiastically accepted, is that intel? Or how about the email Butina's bf sent claiming he helped set up "a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [Republican] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]", would that count as intel as well? Perhaps you think Manafort's strategy meetings with a known Russian intel operative while other Russian operatives ran an info-op in support of Trump is just a strange coincidence? None of that intel came from Steele either (although it is consistent with the broad strokes of what he alleged, especially Manafort), so I don't need his reporting to tell me what is plain to see, which is that Trump/Republicans engaged in some seriously suspicious behavior involving contacts with Russians in relation to the 2016 campaign, and that behavior undoubtedly deserved/s further investigation.whiterock said:Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
Just bedrock professionalism: 2nd hand reporting is not intelligence. You do not bring something back tot he station like the Steele Dossier, write it up, and hit the send button for direct dissem to the intel community. You don't waste your time on it at all. The Steele dossier is entirely 3rd & 4th hand stuff at best. and then there is the sensationalism of it. Read a few thousand raw intel reports. Then read the steele dossier. It's the difference between reading a science textbook at a comic book.
Intel is when your source SAT IN THE MEETING and then gave you the details on the meeting. If your source TALKED TO SOMEONE who sat in the meeting, the results of the meeting are not intelligence...the intelligence is the reaction of the person your source talked to. You cannot just take a 2nd hand (or worse) account of a meeting and write it up as though your source was in the meeting.
Steele allegedly got abouty $750K for the Dossier. I cannot wait for the Democrats to hurry up & get their nominee. I know folks abroad. I can make a few phone calls & trips. I can write a dossier on anyone, and I mean anyone. Just tell me who. What a great business opportunity!!!
Yawn. I get it. You know lots of rich powerful corrupt people. Big whoop. You can still be wrong. And you are.whiterock said:Probably a wise decision to save it for later. When it blows up in your face (i.e. impeachment fails badly and indictments of Obama admin officials start rolling in), you might want to come back and read it then.BrooksBearLives said:TLDR.whiterock said:I spent a couple of hours Saturday with a member of Congress. Pelosi is in a huge bind here. This is a disaster. Her base demands it, but independents and/or battleground districts/states are not buying it. The gamble was that the hearings would move the needle. In fact, polling has moved against them across the board....no GOP support, and all the districts they recaptured in 2018 mid-terms and several battleground states won by POTUS are seething at Democrats for doing nothing but going after Trump. As it stands now, the House flips and Trump builds on his 2016 victory. We're talking Trump with 6-point margins ahead of the field throughout the Great Lakes states he won last time. And public polls are widely showing Trump pollin mid-30's with blacks. That's by itself fatal. Dems cannot mathematically win if a GOP candidate gets double digit support in the black communityBrooksBearLives said:whiterock said:you're going to be disappointed on impeachment. It's by design a bi-partisan process, meaning you have to convince the other side. In this case, you haven't, because you can't, because A) the only direct evidence (from Ambassador Sondland) exonerates POTUS of the charge, B) there's nothing wrong with withholding aid (happens all the time) for any number of reasons, C) withholding evidence pending resolution of corruption is statutory grounds for doing so, D) the involvement of US officials in the apparent corruption is an aggravating factor, and E) the Democrats have already established precedent that obtaining derogatory information from foreign sources is acceptable campaign activity (see Dossier, Steele; and Chalupa, Alexandra).BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
Whatever the SpyGate Plotters or Mueller thought his SC investigation was going to do, what it **ACTUALLY** did was STRIP AWAY the hoax justification for the SPYING ON TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN.
The stripping away of that hoax cover story for all of the spying on Trump's campaign...and his transition team...and then his Presidency itself....is what DIRECTLY LED to this FISA IG report we are are now waiting for to be released.
I think you're going to be really disappointed, won't admit it, and then slip further down the rabbit hole to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Meanwhile, our President gets away with trampling the constitution because of supporters like you.
Not interested in social contract where law exonerates you (see Clinton govt emails under subpoena) and contrives against me (see the entire Russiagate affair and now Ukrainegate).
So tired of arguing about it, too. You guys are living in a dream world if you think we are on board for this nonsense.
Lol. We know Republicans, after years of accusing the Democrats of worshipping Obama, have completely sold out to the cult of Trump.
No way he's forced out by the Senate -despite his VERY OBVIOUS guilt.
But he will be impeached by the House because he IS guilty. And no BS investigations into Fusion GPS will change the fact that he is corrupt and got caught extorting Ukraine for political help.
So you can believe your truth. That's what social justice warriors do. But you've lost the argument with independents because you have no case, and you've lost your argument with Republicans because we're sick & tired of the double standard.
And you are wrong about "BS investigations. " DOJ/OIG claims rampant bias and malfeasances did not corrupt the investigations into Trump and his campaign. But, exactly as I predicted above, Durham disagrees, in no small part because the origins of the fraud lie outside DOJ. (link)
Horowitz has a stellar reputation, so I will give him benefit of the doubt that his conclusions are seeking to retain punishment in-house....retirements, reassignments, reprimands....in order to maintain public confidence in the DOJ and FBI. To say that such a viewpoint is out of touch is a bit of an understatement. Partisan bureaucrats in the Obama administration usurped the powers of their office to contrive an investigation of a candidate of an opposing political party, and when that failed, they doubled down to contrive an investigation of a sitting POTUS, despite that at every step all the information uncovered was consistently exculpatory. That will not pass without retribution. Nor should it.
THAT is why Pelosi is tilting at the impeachment windmill. If does it, she pays a huge price in 2020; but if she doesn't, it will massively dispirit her base. So the play here is to keep the crazies (like you
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-blasts-fbi-over-intrusive-probe-of-trump-campaign-in-wake-of-fisa-report?fbclid=IwAR1ChgxJM58EwMSS4Tekn9sssj9DZ0dlBA-EbL1QLZDSBPfxYPH1KRgu6e8
Trump has committed impeachable crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Joe Trailerpark in Pennsylvania's understanding of that doesn't make it any less of a fact.
Or you could wait & read it 12 months from now when you're trying to figure out how Trump won again and recaptured the House.
LOL and then Adam Schiff turned it in to the FBI. He listened and then did the exact right thing. This was an example of MORAL behavior. Jesus you suck at this.riflebear said:HuMcK said:What about the email where Don Jr was offered the "support of Russia and it's government for [his] father" and enthusiastically accepted, is that intel? Or how about the email Butina's bf sent claiming he helped set up "a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [Republican] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]", would that count as intel as well? Perhaps you think Manafort's strategy meetings with a known Russian intel operative while other Russian operatives ran an info-op in support of Trump is just a strange coincidence? None of that intel came from Steele either (although it is consistent with the broad strokes of what he alleged, especially Manafort), so I don't need his reporting to tell me what is plain to see, which is that Trump/Republicans engaged in some seriously suspicious behavior involving contacts with Russians in relation to the 2016 campaign, and that behavior undoubtedly deserved/s further investigation.whiterock said:Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
Just bedrock professionalism: 2nd hand reporting is not intelligence. You do not bring something back tot he station like the Steele Dossier, write it up, and hit the send button for direct dissem to the intel community. You don't waste your time on it at all. The Steele dossier is entirely 3rd & 4th hand stuff at best. and then there is the sensationalism of it. Read a few thousand raw intel reports. Then read the steele dossier. It's the difference between reading a science textbook at a comic book.
Intel is when your source SAT IN THE MEETING and then gave you the details on the meeting. If your source TALKED TO SOMEONE who sat in the meeting, the results of the meeting are not intelligence...the intelligence is the reaction of the person your source talked to. You cannot just take a 2nd hand (or worse) account of a meeting and write it up as though your source was in the meeting.
Steele allegedly got abouty $750K for the Dossier. I cannot wait for the Democrats to hurry up & get their nominee. I know folks abroad. I can make a few phone calls & trips. I can write a dossier on anyone, and I mean anyone. Just tell me who. What a great business opportunity!!!
Wait. Now you give a **** about lying? You support Donald Trump.Doc Holliday said:Fox called his ass out and said he was never invited.HuMcK said:
He's a liar. He also lied about playing college basketball.
I'm glad you keep praying before sending these by saying "Jesus".BrooksBearLives said:LOL and then Adam Schiff turned it in to the FBI. He listened and then did the exact right thing. This was an example of MORAL behavior. Jesus you suck at this.riflebear said:HuMcK said:What about the email where Don Jr was offered the "support of Russia and it's government for [his] father" and enthusiastically accepted, is that intel? Or how about the email Butina's bf sent claiming he helped set up "a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [Republican] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]", would that count as intel as well? Perhaps you think Manafort's strategy meetings with a known Russian intel operative while other Russian operatives ran an info-op in support of Trump is just a strange coincidence? None of that intel came from Steele either (although it is consistent with the broad strokes of what he alleged, especially Manafort), so I don't need his reporting to tell me what is plain to see, which is that Trump/Republicans engaged in some seriously suspicious behavior involving contacts with Russians in relation to the 2016 campaign, and that behavior undoubtedly deserved/s further investigation.whiterock said:Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
Just bedrock professionalism: 2nd hand reporting is not intelligence. You do not bring something back tot he station like the Steele Dossier, write it up, and hit the send button for direct dissem to the intel community. You don't waste your time on it at all. The Steele dossier is entirely 3rd & 4th hand stuff at best. and then there is the sensationalism of it. Read a few thousand raw intel reports. Then read the steele dossier. It's the difference between reading a science textbook at a comic book.
Intel is when your source SAT IN THE MEETING and then gave you the details on the meeting. If your source TALKED TO SOMEONE who sat in the meeting, the results of the meeting are not intelligence...the intelligence is the reaction of the person your source talked to. You cannot just take a 2nd hand (or worse) account of a meeting and write it up as though your source was in the meeting.
Steele allegedly got abouty $750K for the Dossier. I cannot wait for the Democrats to hurry up & get their nominee. I know folks abroad. I can make a few phone calls & trips. I can write a dossier on anyone, and I mean anyone. Just tell me who. What a great business opportunity!!!
How do you justify McCabe & Comey arguing w/ the CIA about wanting to include the Dossier to the FISA when they were told it was bogus but they kept pushing for it to be used?BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Fox called his ass out and said he was never invited.HuMcK said:
He's a liar. He also lied about playing college basketball.
The investigation was already under way when the Steele Dossier came to the fore. It's right there in black and white. You can't say it started it, because it was already happening.
You're either lying or just woefully misinformed.
Y'know, your "he's dumb and inexperienced" argument isn't really playing like you think it would. And that would hold water RIGHT UP UNTIL HE SHARED IT WITH PAUL MANAFORT AND WENT THROUGH WITH IT ANYWAY.riflebear said:I'm glad you keep praying before sending these by saying "Jesus".BrooksBearLives said:LOL and then Adam Schiff turned it in to the FBI. He listened and then did the exact right thing. This was an example of MORAL behavior. Jesus you suck at this.riflebear said:HuMcK said:What about the email where Don Jr was offered the "support of Russia and it's government for [his] father" and enthusiastically accepted, is that intel? Or how about the email Butina's bf sent claiming he helped set up "a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [Republican] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]", would that count as intel as well? Perhaps you think Manafort's strategy meetings with a known Russian intel operative while other Russian operatives ran an info-op in support of Trump is just a strange coincidence? None of that intel came from Steele either (although it is consistent with the broad strokes of what he alleged, especially Manafort), so I don't need his reporting to tell me what is plain to see, which is that Trump/Republicans engaged in some seriously suspicious behavior involving contacts with Russians in relation to the 2016 campaign, and that behavior undoubtedly deserved/s further investigation.whiterock said:Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
Just bedrock professionalism: 2nd hand reporting is not intelligence. You do not bring something back tot he station like the Steele Dossier, write it up, and hit the send button for direct dissem to the intel community. You don't waste your time on it at all. The Steele dossier is entirely 3rd & 4th hand stuff at best. and then there is the sensationalism of it. Read a few thousand raw intel reports. Then read the steele dossier. It's the difference between reading a science textbook at a comic book.
Intel is when your source SAT IN THE MEETING and then gave you the details on the meeting. If your source TALKED TO SOMEONE who sat in the meeting, the results of the meeting are not intelligence...the intelligence is the reaction of the person your source talked to. You cannot just take a 2nd hand (or worse) account of a meeting and write it up as though your source was in the meeting.
Steele allegedly got abouty $750K for the Dossier. I cannot wait for the Democrats to hurry up & get their nominee. I know folks abroad. I can make a few phone calls & trips. I can write a dossier on anyone, and I mean anyone. Just tell me who. What a great business opportunity!!!
The point is Don Jr was a private citizen who has NEVER been in politics - I think he gets. pass on knowing what to do and what not to w/ people coming to him w/ information at that time. You may not like that but it's just a fact.
The only person who 'sucks' at this is you Libs who literally ignore every piece of evidence that shows wrongdoing and corruption on your side. It's scary & sad.
It doesn't matter. They would have gotten the FISA either way. You're arguing about things that literally didn't matter. They could have gotten the FISA court approval either way. You know how we know that? Because the report said so.riflebear said:How do you justify McCabe & Comey arguing w/ the CIA about wanting to include the Dossier to the FISA when they were told it was bogus but they kept pushing for it to be used?BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Fox called his ass out and said he was never invited.HuMcK said:
He's a liar. He also lied about playing college basketball.
The investigation was already under way when the Steele Dossier came to the fore. It's right there in black and white. You can't say it started it, because it was already happening.
You're either lying or just woefully misinformed.
Then when the 2 being investigated under Trump showed they were exhonerated they held that info from the FISA court and kept getting warrants. Like it or not, that is a CRIME and why some think Comey & McCabe are still in trouble for signing the warrants knowing the evidence already showed they were innocent. That is flat out scary as a US Citizen - and something Hoover did in the past. Make up evidence and leave out evidence to go after people.
Not only that - Carter was a CIA agent who was giving our govt Russian info and they held back that info also in the FISA. And George even warned our govt about the Russians yet they kept spying on them when they already knew they were innocent. That is the only reason why I think someone could be in serious trouble - we will see. We have a long way to go.
I haven't been debating that, I don't know everything that happened in the tower but I do know Manafort was already under FBI investigation when he joined Trump's team. You think they would have warned the GOP President about this, right? Even Barr and most normal human beings in our govt believe they should have notified the President that there were Russians trying to contact people in his campaign. They warned Dems when there were spies - why not Trump. We've been over this 1000 times. You are going back to a Trump Tower meeting but completely ignoring this IG report. Sorry, but Mueller is gone - lets face reality & the facts that we are dealing w/ now. Last time I checked Trump Jr was proven 100% innocent and nothing happened. Move on.BrooksBearLives said:Y'know, your "he's dumb and inexperienced" argument isn't really playing like you think it would. And that would hold water RIGHT UP UNTIL HE SHARED IT WITH PAUL MANAFORT AND WENT THROUGH WITH IT ANYWAY.riflebear said:I'm glad you keep praying before sending these by saying "Jesus".BrooksBearLives said:LOL and then Adam Schiff turned it in to the FBI. He listened and then did the exact right thing. This was an example of MORAL behavior. Jesus you suck at this.riflebear said:HuMcK said:What about the email where Don Jr was offered the "support of Russia and it's government for [his] father" and enthusiastically accepted, is that intel? Or how about the email Butina's bf sent claiming he helped set up "a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [Republican] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]", would that count as intel as well? Perhaps you think Manafort's strategy meetings with a known Russian intel operative while other Russian operatives ran an info-op in support of Trump is just a strange coincidence? None of that intel came from Steele either (although it is consistent with the broad strokes of what he alleged, especially Manafort), so I don't need his reporting to tell me what is plain to see, which is that Trump/Republicans engaged in some seriously suspicious behavior involving contacts with Russians in relation to the 2016 campaign, and that behavior undoubtedly deserved/s further investigation.whiterock said:Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
Just bedrock professionalism: 2nd hand reporting is not intelligence. You do not bring something back tot he station like the Steele Dossier, write it up, and hit the send button for direct dissem to the intel community. You don't waste your time on it at all. The Steele dossier is entirely 3rd & 4th hand stuff at best. and then there is the sensationalism of it. Read a few thousand raw intel reports. Then read the steele dossier. It's the difference between reading a science textbook at a comic book.
Intel is when your source SAT IN THE MEETING and then gave you the details on the meeting. If your source TALKED TO SOMEONE who sat in the meeting, the results of the meeting are not intelligence...the intelligence is the reaction of the person your source talked to. You cannot just take a 2nd hand (or worse) account of a meeting and write it up as though your source was in the meeting.
Steele allegedly got abouty $750K for the Dossier. I cannot wait for the Democrats to hurry up & get their nominee. I know folks abroad. I can make a few phone calls & trips. I can write a dossier on anyone, and I mean anyone. Just tell me who. What a great business opportunity!!!
The point is Don Jr was a private citizen who has NEVER been in politics - I think he gets. pass on knowing what to do and what not to w/ people coming to him w/ information at that time. You may not like that but it's just a fact.
The only person who 'sucks' at this is you Libs who literally ignore every piece of evidence that shows wrongdoing and corruption on your side. It's scary & sad.
You could say Don Jr. didn't know any better. You can't say that about Paul Manafort who was there -and who Don lied about being there until he was shown proof he was lying and then "suddenly remembered."
You are ****ing stupid if you actually believe this *****
I noticed - you completely ignored this. You do know THIS IS what is being debated right now. The Mueller investigation is over. Quit trying to spin this and ignore the criminality and corruption from Obama down to his corrupt leadership in our govt agencies. If someone has been following this as closely as you have an you don't care about any of this then I can't help you. You've proven your partisanship goes beyond any ethics or morals you had left. I feel sorry for you - honestly. Now, back to the real debate - I dare you to read the entire IG report and come back and say no big deal.riflebear said:How do you justify McCabe & Comey arguing w/ the CIA about wanting to include the Dossier to the FISA when they were told it was bogus but they kept pushing for it to be used?BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Fox called his ass out and said he was never invited.HuMcK said:
He's a liar. He also lied about playing college basketball.
The investigation was already under way when the Steele Dossier came to the fore. It's right there in black and white. You can't say it started it, because it was already happening.
You're either lying or just woefully misinformed.
Then when the 2 being investigated under Trump showed they were exhonerated they held that info from the FISA court and kept getting warrants. Like it or not, that is a CRIME and why some think Comey & McCabe are still in trouble for signing the warrants knowing the evidence already showed they were innocent. That is flat out scary as a US Citizen - and something Hoover did in the past. Make up evidence and leave out evidence to go after people.
Not only that - Carter was working for the CIA & was cooperating at every step and they held back that info also in the FISA. And George even warned our govt about the Russians yet they kept spying on them when they already knew they were innocent. That is the only reason why I think someone could be in serious trouble - we will see. We have a long way to go but if this was the GOP doing it against a Dem President and his staff the press would have imploded in shock 3 years ago. Instead they kept feeding these lies in a press loop to go after our President and make America think he was a Russian agent. It's beyond pathetic and sickening.
The difference between us and you libs is if I found out Lyndsey Graham and Barr and GOP/Bush did this to Obama I would be pissed off and want people to face consequences. Libs flat out don't care and that's again - scary and sad.
You're kidding, right? You seriously don't think anyone warned Trump about Manafort?riflebear said:I haven't been debating that, I don't know everything that happened in the tower but I do know Manafort was already under FBI investigation when he joined Trump's team. You think they would have warned the GOP President about this, right? Even Barr and most normal human beings in our govt believe they should have notified the President that there were Russians trying to contact people in his campaign. They warned Dems when there were spies - why not Trump. We've been over this 1000 times. You are going back to a Trump Tower meeting but completely ignoring this IG report. Sorry, but Mueller is gone - lets face reality & the facts that we are dealing w/ now. Last time I checked Trump Jr was proven 100% innocent and nothing happened. Move on.BrooksBearLives said:Y'know, your "he's dumb and inexperienced" argument isn't really playing like you think it would. And that would hold water RIGHT UP UNTIL HE SHARED IT WITH PAUL MANAFORT AND WENT THROUGH WITH IT ANYWAY.riflebear said:I'm glad you keep praying before sending these by saying "Jesus".BrooksBearLives said:LOL and then Adam Schiff turned it in to the FBI. He listened and then did the exact right thing. This was an example of MORAL behavior. Jesus you suck at this.riflebear said:HuMcK said:What about the email where Don Jr was offered the "support of Russia and it's government for [his] father" and enthusiastically accepted, is that intel? Or how about the email Butina's bf sent claiming he helped set up "a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [Republican] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]", would that count as intel as well? Perhaps you think Manafort's strategy meetings with a known Russian intel operative while other Russian operatives ran an info-op in support of Trump is just a strange coincidence? None of that intel came from Steele either (although it is consistent with the broad strokes of what he alleged, especially Manafort), so I don't need his reporting to tell me what is plain to see, which is that Trump/Republicans engaged in some seriously suspicious behavior involving contacts with Russians in relation to the 2016 campaign, and that behavior undoubtedly deserved/s further investigation.whiterock said:Comey knew it was BS the moment he read it. Any intel professional could see that....Ned & First Reader simple.riflebear said:
How many libs on here (many in this thread) kept saying the Dossier was real 2-3 years ago and mocking Trump for pee pee tapes, etc. Oops
Also many libs mocked Nunes - he was right all along too.
Just bedrock professionalism: 2nd hand reporting is not intelligence. You do not bring something back tot he station like the Steele Dossier, write it up, and hit the send button for direct dissem to the intel community. You don't waste your time on it at all. The Steele dossier is entirely 3rd & 4th hand stuff at best. and then there is the sensationalism of it. Read a few thousand raw intel reports. Then read the steele dossier. It's the difference between reading a science textbook at a comic book.
Intel is when your source SAT IN THE MEETING and then gave you the details on the meeting. If your source TALKED TO SOMEONE who sat in the meeting, the results of the meeting are not intelligence...the intelligence is the reaction of the person your source talked to. You cannot just take a 2nd hand (or worse) account of a meeting and write it up as though your source was in the meeting.
Steele allegedly got abouty $750K for the Dossier. I cannot wait for the Democrats to hurry up & get their nominee. I know folks abroad. I can make a few phone calls & trips. I can write a dossier on anyone, and I mean anyone. Just tell me who. What a great business opportunity!!!
The point is Don Jr was a private citizen who has NEVER been in politics - I think he gets. pass on knowing what to do and what not to w/ people coming to him w/ information at that time. You may not like that but it's just a fact.
The only person who 'sucks' at this is you Libs who literally ignore every piece of evidence that shows wrongdoing and corruption on your side. It's scary & sad.
You could say Don Jr. didn't know any better. You can't say that about Paul Manafort who was there -and who Don lied about being there until he was shown proof he was lying and then "suddenly remembered."
You are ****ing stupid if you actually believe this *****
What? YOu were the one making the argument that this report said something that it didn't. YOU were the one who was wrong. I was just pointing it out. I never brought up Obama once. You're the obsessed one who can't stop talking about it.riflebear said:I noticed - you completely ignored this. You do know THIS IS what is being debated right now. The Mueller investigation is over. Quit trying to spin this and ignore the criminality and corruption from Obama down to his corrupt leadership in our govt agencies. If someone has been following this as closely as you have an you don't care about any of this then I can't help you. You've proven your partisanship goes beyond any ethics or morals you had left. I feel sorry for you - honestly. Now, back to the real debate - I dare you to read the entire IG report and come back and say no big deal.riflebear said:How do you justify McCabe & Comey arguing w/ the CIA about wanting to include the Dossier to the FISA when they were told it was bogus but they kept pushing for it to be used?BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Fox called his ass out and said he was never invited.HuMcK said:
He's a liar. He also lied about playing college basketball.
The investigation was already under way when the Steele Dossier came to the fore. It's right there in black and white. You can't say it started it, because it was already happening.
You're either lying or just woefully misinformed.
Then when the 2 being investigated under Trump showed they were exhonerated they held that info from the FISA court and kept getting warrants. Like it or not, that is a CRIME and why some think Comey & McCabe are still in trouble for signing the warrants knowing the evidence already showed they were innocent. That is flat out scary as a US Citizen - and something Hoover did in the past. Make up evidence and leave out evidence to go after people.
Not only that - Carter was working for the CIA & was cooperating at every step and they held back that info also in the FISA. And George even warned our govt about the Russians yet they kept spying on them when they already knew they were innocent. That is the only reason why I think someone could be in serious trouble - we will see. We have a long way to go but if this was the GOP doing it against a Dem President and his staff the press would have imploded in shock 3 years ago. Instead they kept feeding these lies in a press loop to go after our President and make America think he was a Russian agent. It's beyond pathetic and sickening.
The difference between us and you libs is if I found out Lyndsey Graham and Barr and GOP/Bush did this to Obama I would be pissed off and want people to face consequences. Libs flat out don't care and that's again - scary and sad.
You literally make no sense.BrooksBearLives said:What? YOu were the one making the argument that this report said something that it didn't. YOU were the one who was wrong. I was just pointing it out. I never brought up Obama once. You're the obsessed one who can't stop talking about it.riflebear said:I noticed - you completely ignored this. You do know THIS IS what is being debated right now. The Mueller investigation is over. Quit trying to spin this and ignore the criminality and corruption from Obama down to his corrupt leadership in our govt agencies. If someone has been following this as closely as you have an you don't care about any of this then I can't help you. You've proven your partisanship goes beyond any ethics or morals you had left. I feel sorry for you - honestly. Now, back to the real debate - I dare you to read the entire IG report and come back and say no big deal.riflebear said:How do you justify McCabe & Comey arguing w/ the CIA about wanting to include the Dossier to the FISA when they were told it was bogus but they kept pushing for it to be used?BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:Fox called his ass out and said he was never invited.HuMcK said:
He's a liar. He also lied about playing college basketball.
The investigation was already under way when the Steele Dossier came to the fore. It's right there in black and white. You can't say it started it, because it was already happening.
You're either lying or just woefully misinformed.
Then when the 2 being investigated under Trump showed they were exhonerated they held that info from the FISA court and kept getting warrants. Like it or not, that is a CRIME and why some think Comey & McCabe are still in trouble for signing the warrants knowing the evidence already showed they were innocent. That is flat out scary as a US Citizen - and something Hoover did in the past. Make up evidence and leave out evidence to go after people.
Not only that - Carter was working for the CIA & was cooperating at every step and they held back that info also in the FISA. And George even warned our govt about the Russians yet they kept spying on them when they already knew they were innocent. That is the only reason why I think someone could be in serious trouble - we will see. We have a long way to go but if this was the GOP doing it against a Dem President and his staff the press would have imploded in shock 3 years ago. Instead they kept feeding these lies in a press loop to go after our President and make America think he was a Russian agent. It's beyond pathetic and sickening.
The difference between us and you libs is if I found out Lyndsey Graham and Barr and GOP/Bush did this to Obama I would be pissed off and want people to face consequences. Libs flat out don't care and that's again - scary and sad.
Obama corrupt. ***** With this President, you call OBAMA corrupt? You're broken.
cinque said:If you're expecting Durham to be able to do what Horowitz could not, prepare yourselves to be disappointed:Doc Holliday said:They're both connected to each other. Durham is reviewing the bulk of the crime.fubar said:
So you guys are expecting to be vindicated on Monday? Or will that happen with Durham's report?
Oh and Trump was vindicated when Mueller couldn't produce evidence of collusion.
Even the prosecutor personally selected by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the Russia probe couldn't find evidence to back up right-wing conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tapped in May to examine the origins of the Russia inquiry, said he doesn't have evidence to back up the allegation that the FBI planted an informant to "spy" on the Trump campaign.
He reportedly told that to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Justice Department's independent watchdog, who is carrying out a separate investigation from Durham. Horowitz's long-awaited report on the Russia probe is expected on Monday.
Reports have suggested the inspector general's report will criticize the FBI's handling of some matters relating to the Russia probe, including the alleged falsification of a document by an FBI attorney in the wiretapping of a former Trump aide.
But Horowitz is also expected to broadly say the FBI met the bar to launch the investigation, and that federal law enforcement did not pursue the probe because of political bias against Trump.
The report is also supposed to discredit this idea that the FBI placed informants or spies within the Trump campaign. Trump and his GOP allies have claimed that law enforcement illegally "spied" on the campaign so it could launch an investigation to damage Trump. They argue that this makes the entire Russia investigation illegitimate, or in the president's parlance, "a hoax."
Barr is so out of order, here. He's a literal shill for Trump at this point.riflebear said:cinque said:If you're expecting Durham to be able to do what Horowitz could not, prepare yourselves to be disappointed:Doc Holliday said:They're both connected to each other. Durham is reviewing the bulk of the crime.fubar said:
So you guys are expecting to be vindicated on Monday? Or will that happen with Durham's report?
Oh and Trump was vindicated when Mueller couldn't produce evidence of collusion.
Even the prosecutor personally selected by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the Russia probe couldn't find evidence to back up right-wing conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tapped in May to examine the origins of the Russia inquiry, said he doesn't have evidence to back up the allegation that the FBI planted an informant to "spy" on the Trump campaign.
He reportedly told that to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Justice Department's independent watchdog, who is carrying out a separate investigation from Durham. Horowitz's long-awaited report on the Russia probe is expected on Monday.
Reports have suggested the inspector general's report will criticize the FBI's handling of some matters relating to the Russia probe, including the alleged falsification of a document by an FBI attorney in the wiretapping of a former Trump aide.
But Horowitz is also expected to broadly say the FBI met the bar to launch the investigation, and that federal law enforcement did not pursue the probe because of political bias against Trump.
The report is also supposed to discredit this idea that the FBI placed informants or spies within the Trump campaign. Trump and his GOP allies have claimed that law enforcement illegally "spied" on the campaign so it could launch an investigation to damage Trump. They argue that this makes the entire Russia investigation illegitimate, or in the president's parlance, "a hoax."
Oh good god BBL. Your boys tried to get Trump and they failed and you're butthurt because you know Democrats can't beat him.BrooksBearLives said:Barr is so out of order, here. He's a literal shill for Trump at this point.riflebear said:cinque said:If you're expecting Durham to be able to do what Horowitz could not, prepare yourselves to be disappointed:Doc Holliday said:They're both connected to each other. Durham is reviewing the bulk of the crime.fubar said:
So you guys are expecting to be vindicated on Monday? Or will that happen with Durham's report?
Oh and Trump was vindicated when Mueller couldn't produce evidence of collusion.
Even the prosecutor personally selected by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the Russia probe couldn't find evidence to back up right-wing conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tapped in May to examine the origins of the Russia inquiry, said he doesn't have evidence to back up the allegation that the FBI planted an informant to "spy" on the Trump campaign.
He reportedly told that to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Justice Department's independent watchdog, who is carrying out a separate investigation from Durham. Horowitz's long-awaited report on the Russia probe is expected on Monday.
Reports have suggested the inspector general's report will criticize the FBI's handling of some matters relating to the Russia probe, including the alleged falsification of a document by an FBI attorney in the wiretapping of a former Trump aide.
But Horowitz is also expected to broadly say the FBI met the bar to launch the investigation, and that federal law enforcement did not pursue the probe because of political bias against Trump.
The report is also supposed to discredit this idea that the FBI placed informants or spies within the Trump campaign. Trump and his GOP allies have claimed that law enforcement illegally "spied" on the campaign so it could launch an investigation to damage Trump. They argue that this makes the entire Russia investigation illegitimate, or in the president's parlance, "a hoax."
You realize that Vladeck tweet cuts both ways.BrooksBearLives said:Barr is so out of order, here. He's a literal shill for Trump at this point.riflebear said:cinque said:If you're expecting Durham to be able to do what Horowitz could not, prepare yourselves to be disappointed:Doc Holliday said:They're both connected to each other. Durham is reviewing the bulk of the crime.fubar said:
So you guys are expecting to be vindicated on Monday? Or will that happen with Durham's report?
Oh and Trump was vindicated when Mueller couldn't produce evidence of collusion.
Even the prosecutor personally selected by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the Russia probe couldn't find evidence to back up right-wing conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tapped in May to examine the origins of the Russia inquiry, said he doesn't have evidence to back up the allegation that the FBI planted an informant to "spy" on the Trump campaign.
He reportedly told that to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Justice Department's independent watchdog, who is carrying out a separate investigation from Durham. Horowitz's long-awaited report on the Russia probe is expected on Monday.
Reports have suggested the inspector general's report will criticize the FBI's handling of some matters relating to the Russia probe, including the alleged falsification of a document by an FBI attorney in the wiretapping of a former Trump aide.
But Horowitz is also expected to broadly say the FBI met the bar to launch the investigation, and that federal law enforcement did not pursue the probe because of political bias against Trump.
The report is also supposed to discredit this idea that the FBI placed informants or spies within the Trump campaign. Trump and his GOP allies have claimed that law enforcement illegally "spied" on the campaign so it could launch an investigation to damage Trump. They argue that this makes the entire Russia investigation illegitimate, or in the president's parlance, "a hoax."
This is Barr's Goebbels act: make declarative statements unsupported by any facts that have the veneer of authority. He's nothing if not predictable.BrooksBearLives said:Barr is so out of order, here. He's a literal shill for Trump at this point.riflebear said:cinque said:If you're expecting Durham to be able to do what Horowitz could not, prepare yourselves to be disappointed:Doc Holliday said:They're both connected to each other. Durham is reviewing the bulk of the crime.fubar said:
So you guys are expecting to be vindicated on Monday? Or will that happen with Durham's report?
Oh and Trump was vindicated when Mueller couldn't produce evidence of collusion.
Even the prosecutor personally selected by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the Russia probe couldn't find evidence to back up right-wing conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tapped in May to examine the origins of the Russia inquiry, said he doesn't have evidence to back up the allegation that the FBI planted an informant to "spy" on the Trump campaign.
He reportedly told that to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Justice Department's independent watchdog, who is carrying out a separate investigation from Durham. Horowitz's long-awaited report on the Russia probe is expected on Monday.
Reports have suggested the inspector general's report will criticize the FBI's handling of some matters relating to the Russia probe, including the alleged falsification of a document by an FBI attorney in the wiretapping of a former Trump aide.
But Horowitz is also expected to broadly say the FBI met the bar to launch the investigation, and that federal law enforcement did not pursue the probe because of political bias against Trump.
The report is also supposed to discredit this idea that the FBI placed informants or spies within the Trump campaign. Trump and his GOP allies have claimed that law enforcement illegally "spied" on the campaign so it could launch an investigation to damage Trump. They argue that this makes the entire Russia investigation illegitimate, or in the president's parlance, "a hoax."
