Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,185
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 25, 2018 7:59:23 GMT -5
The website cited by Rep. Schiff and Sen. Feinstein: securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/publications/methodology-hamilton-68-dashboardIn a nutshell: it tracks 600 Twitter accounts that serially retweet stories put out by RT and Sputnik. Some unknown number of these may be bots. Take your pick at which is scariest: - Russians have at least 600 Twitter accounts pushing the Russian perspective on world news.
- RT and Sputnik are rapidly becoming the most beloved news outlets in America because they're doing the job the US MSM simply won't do.
- Two of the most powerful politicians in CA aren't happy that the Russians are doing the job the US MSM won't do, and are appealing to Twitter and Facebook to nip the whole thing in the bud.
The scariest to me is actually conservatives pushing a lie as truth. That somehow spying on people that joined his campaign is spying on Trump himself. That seems to be the difference of most liberals to most conservatives. When we are confronted with bad behavior in non conservatives, for the most part we reject it quickly and move on. When confronted with bad behavior by Manafort, Page. etc. it seems most of you have decided its all about Trump not them. That somehow if you wanted to spy on Trump you would spy on these people instead of Trump himself, Kushner, etc. That is scary.
There maybe some extreme flaws in that dossier and how it got created. But my understanding is it wasn't the only thing used to get the warrant. Whether people like it or not, Mueller found enough on Manafort to charge him. Which points to spying on him as a good thing. Conservatives were all on Hillary's case for supporting and keeping Wasserman. Which made sense. What does not make sense is that conservatives are not on Donald's ass for hiring Manafort, Flynn, etc. Instead of the proper view that he was stupid to do so, Trump supporters and conservatives want to paint him as a victim instead of a man who picks bad employees even when warned not to.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 25, 2018 8:12:52 GMT -5
If you don't know what the "memo" is, it's essentially underlying information from Senate Judiciary members Lindsay Graham and Chuck Grassley investigators to the DOJ explaining the referral of Christopher Steele, who was paid by the DNC to use Russian agents to fabricate a document which was then very likely used to obtain a previously rejected FISA court warrant to spy on President Trump, for criminal prosecution. It does indeed seem that there was a "palace coup" environment within the FBI, DOJ, and possibly other elements of the intelligence community. The very best case, ultimate benefit-of-the-doubt scenario at this point is that they spied on Trump and used a phony Russia investigation as a smoke screen to cover it up. At worst, they were trying to actually remove a duly elected President from office. Though the best case scenario would still be the worst scandal in American history. For a less right wing biased take on the 'memo' (which Nunes refuses to let even the Senate investigative committee see):
FBI and Department of Justice officials have complained that they have not been able to view the memo, and Democrats say the document is a misleading attempt by Nunes and other Republicans to cast doubt on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, possible collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-house-memo-shocking-facts-or-misleading-hype/ar-AAv89VQ
Dems who have seen the 'memo' claim it's greatly over inflated and have made their own 'memo' refuting all the GOP's 'memo' points which they say they will release if Nunes actually gets off his ass and releases his. (I suspect Nunes is dragging his feet because he knows the case he creates in the memo is weak).
And for other GOP flimflammery, Johnson, the Wisconsin congressperson who claimed knowledge of the super secret anti Trump FBI spy ring, has walked that comment back, probably because it's also horse shit. www.washingtonexaminer.com/ron-johnson-now-says-he-doesnt-know-what-his-informant-meant-by-fbi-anti-trump-secret-society-meetings/article/2646941
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 25, 2018 8:15:05 GMT -5
Real reason why we keep having these 'bombshell' blasts from the far right: Mueller subpoenas Bannon,
Nunes produces spin memo;
Mueller interviews Sessions,
Johnson claims secret society in FBI;
Mueller calls in the President,
then what does GOP do... — Adam Schiff (@repadamschiff) January 24, 2018
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jan 25, 2018 9:41:17 GMT -5
Real reason why we keep having these 'bombshell' blasts from the far right: Mueller subpoenas Bannon,
Nunes produces spin memo;
Mueller interviews Sessions,
Johnson claims secret society in FBI;
Mueller calls in the President,
then what does GOP do... — Adam Schiff (@repadamschiff) January 24, 2018 Exactly. Distract and deflect.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 25, 2018 10:08:20 GMT -5
The website cited by Rep. Schiff and Sen. Feinstein: securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/publications/methodology-hamilton-68-dashboardIn a nutshell: it tracks 600 Twitter accounts that serially retweet stories put out by RT and Sputnik. Some unknown number of these may be bots. Take your pick at which is scariest: - Russians have at least 600 Twitter accounts pushing the Russian perspective on world news.
- RT and Sputnik are rapidly becoming the most beloved news outlets in America because they're doing the job the US MSM simply won't do.
- Two of the most powerful politicians in CA aren't happy that the Russians are doing the job the US MSM won't do, and are appealing to Twitter and Facebook to nip the whole thing in the bud.
The scariest to me is actually conservatives pushing a lie as truth. That somehow spying on people that joined his campaign is spying on Trump himself. That seems to be the difference of most liberals to most conservatives. When we are confronted with bad behavior in non conservatives, for the most part we reject it quickly and move on. When confronted with bad behavior by Manafort, Page. etc. it seems most of you have decided its all about Trump not them. That somehow if you wanted to spy on Trump you would spy on these people instead of Trump himself, Kushner, etc. That is scary.
There maybe some extreme flaws in that dossier and how it got created. But my understanding is it wasn't the only thing used to get the warrant. Whether people like it or not, Mueller found enough on Manafort to charge him. Which points to spying on him as a good thing. Conservatives were all on Hillary's case for supporting and keeping Wasserman. Which made sense. What does not make sense is that conservatives are not on Donald's ass for hiring Manafort, Flynn, etc. Instead of the proper view that he was stupid to do so, Trump supporters and conservatives want to paint him as a victim instead of a man who picks bad employees even when warned not to.
The Steele dossier is presently the only evidence viewable to the public, and it concerns Pres. Trump personally. Furthermore, the texts between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page (which I realize you don't consider definitive evidence of anything, but supposing you did) suggest a conspiracy targeting Pres. Trump himself. As for Pres. Trump being "stupid" to hire Mr. Manafort, Mr. Flynn, et al., Mr. Flynn's wrongdoing occurred after Pres. Trump hired him, and Mr. Manafort's wrongdoing took an FBI investigation to uncover. Manafort was "the guy to hire"; he had extensive experience working for both parties, and a good reputation. Besides this, having contact with Russians was considered to be an asset before bashing Russia became a means to an end and the Red Scare of 2016 started.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2018 10:21:55 GMT -5
Remember though that former President Obama "warned" Trump to not hire Flynn, believing him unsuitable for a high-level post. The Obama administration had fired him, reportedly over mismanagement and temperament issues. Flynn's ties to Russia were also a concern. Instead, the Trump administration barely bothered vetting him.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,177
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2018 10:27:28 GMT -5
... Furthermore, the texts between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page (which I realize you don't consider definitive evidence of anything, but supposing you did) suggest a conspiracy targeting Pres. Trump himself. ... FBI investigations do tend to "target" individuals believed to having been engaged in criminal wrongdoings. I look forward to reading final reports which should help clarify if people were "conspiring" or doing their job.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 25, 2018 10:28:20 GMT -5
RT and Sputnik are rapidly becoming the most beloved news outlets in America because they're doing the job the US MSM simply won't do. what job might that be? telling outright lies and fabrications designed to undermine democracy? yeah, the MSM won't do that. and i, personally, am grateful for that. Reporting on stories that threaten various organs of the so-called "deep state" establishment and their media proxies. Primarily their investments in undermining the Trump presidency, but also US government propaganda on foreign policy (with an emphasis on Syria and Turkey). There's no shortage of Americans crying out about the same problems, including senators, congressmen (from both parties), retired generals and senior officials, and others whose loyalty to the US is unquestionable. The US "Big Five"--who control 95% of print and TV media in the US--simply won't give them the time of day, with the occasional exception of FOX, that has its own agenda and won't tolerate meaningful critiques of neoconservative foreign policy.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,388
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2018 10:29:54 GMT -5
Remember though that former President Obama "warned" Trump to not hire Flynn, believing him unsuitable for a high-level post. The Obama administration had fired him, reportedly over mismanagement and temperament issues. Flynn's ties to Russia were also a concern. Instead, the Trump administration barely bothered vetting him.Like this guy: Trump’s 24-year-old drug policy appointee to step down by month’s end
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 25, 2018 10:31:42 GMT -5
Remember though that former President Obama "warned" Trump to not hire Flynn, believing him unsuitable for a high-level post. The Obama administration had fired him, reportedly over mismanagement and temperament issues. Flynn's ties to Russia were also a concern. Instead, the Trump administration barely bothered vetting him. I suppose they're regretting it now, aren't they? ... Furthermore, the texts between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page (which I realize you don't consider definitive evidence of anything, but supposing you did) suggest a conspiracy targeting Pres. Trump himself. ... FBI investigations do tend to "target" individuals believed to having been engaged in criminal wrongdoings. I look forward to reading final reports which should help clarify if people were "conspiring" or doing their job. Indeed. I was responding to Optimist's claim, "The scariest to me is actually conservatives pushing a lie as truth. That somehow spying on people that joined his campaign is spying on Trump himself."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2018 10:37:11 GMT -5
Remember though that former President Obama "warned" Trump to not hire Flynn, believing him unsuitable for a high-level post. The Obama administration had fired him, reportedly over mismanagement and temperament issues. Flynn's ties to Russia were also a concern. Instead, the Trump administration barely bothered vetting him.Like this guy: Trump’s 24-year-old drug policy appointee to step down by month’s endLike...pretty much everybody. It could almost be argued that being named by Trump will be a career-killer for anyone in the future.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2018 11:24:15 GMT -5
what job might that be? telling outright lies and fabrications designed to undermine democracy? yeah, the MSM won't do that. and i, personally, am grateful for that.
v: Reporting on stories that threaten various organs of the so-called "deep state" establishment and their media proxies. Primarily their investments in undermining the Trump presidency, but also US government propaganda on foreign policy (with an emphasis on Syria and Turkey).
i think the media does an adequate job of this if you look in the right places. and by "right" i don't mean the free range, unvetted, utterly unprofessional blogging that you mean. there is so little truth in your sources that they are virtually useless for providing REAL information on the issues you are concerned with.
or to put it another way: you say tomaytoe i say tomahtoe.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2018 11:25:39 GMT -5
Like...pretty much everybody. It could almost be argued that being named by Trump will be a career-killer for anyone in the future. he either has no idea what he is doing, or he is intentionally trying to destroy the government.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2018 11:27:54 GMT -5
Like...pretty much everybody. It could almost be argued that being named by Trump will be a career-killer for anyone in the future. he either has no idea what he is doing, or he is intentionally trying to destroy the government. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 25, 2018 12:12:00 GMT -5
what job might that be? telling outright lies and fabrications designed to undermine democracy? yeah, the MSM won't do that. and i, personally, am grateful for that. v: Reporting on stories that threaten various organs of the so-called "deep state" establishment and their media proxies. Primarily their investments in undermining the Trump presidency, but also US government propaganda on foreign policy (with an emphasis on Syria and Turkey). i think the media does an adequate job of this if you look in the right places. and by "right" i don't mean the free range, unvetted, utterly unprofessional blogging that you mean. there is so little truth in your sources that they are virtually useless for providing REAL information on the issues you are concerned with. or to put it another way: you say tomaytoe i say tomahtoe. Our disagreements over which resources are professional, unprofessional, reliable, unreliable, biased, unbiased, REAL, and unREAL are indeed quite legendary.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 25, 2018 12:17:59 GMT -5
The scariest to me is actually conservatives pushing a lie as truth. That somehow spying on people that joined his campaign is spying on Trump himself. That seems to be the difference of most liberals to most conservatives. When we are confronted with bad behavior in non conservatives, for the most part we reject it quickly and move on. When confronted with bad behavior by Manafort, Page. etc. it seems most of you have decided its all about Trump not them. That somehow if you wanted to spy on Trump you would spy on these people instead of Trump himself, Kushner, etc. That is scary.
There maybe some extreme flaws in that dossier and how it got created. But my understanding is it wasn't the only thing used to get the warrant. Whether people like it or not, Mueller found enough on Manafort to charge him. Which points to spying on him as a good thing. Conservatives were all on Hillary's case for supporting and keeping Wasserman. Which made sense. What does not make sense is that conservatives are not on Donald's ass for hiring Manafort, Flynn, etc. Instead of the proper view that he was stupid to do so, Trump supporters and conservatives want to paint him as a victim instead of a man who picks bad employees even when warned not to.
The Steele dossier is presently the only evidence viewable to the public, and it concerns Pres. Trump personally. Furthermore, the texts between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page (which I realize you don't consider definitive evidence of anything, but supposing you did) suggest a conspiracy targeting Pres. Trump himself. As for Pres. Trump being "stupid" to hire Mr. Manafort, Mr. Flynn, et al., Mr. Flynn's wrongdoing occurred after Pres. Trump hired him, and Mr. Manafort's wrongdoing took an FBI investigation to uncover. Manafort was "the guy to hire"; he had extensive experience working for both parties, and a good reputation. Besides this, having contact with Russians was considered to be an asset before bashing Russia became a means to an end and the Red Scare of 2016 started. Manafort had a FISA warrant against him way back in 2014 when he was the subject of an investigation into work done by a consulting firm for the former ruling party of Ukraine. This article from 2014 (which anyone on Trump's team could have googled) refers to him as the Urkaine mystery man and describes his connections in that part of the world. www.politico.com/story/2014/03/paul-manafort-ukraine-104263. A little bit more vetting could have revealed something about Manafort's murky financial dealings:
Manafort bought four properties in New York City between 2006 and 2013 using shell companies and paid the full amount due for each property. Later, between 2012 and 2017, NBC News reported that Manafort borrowed $13 million against those properties. $6.5 million out of that amount came this year from a bank run by a Trump campaign economic adviser. www.businessinsider.com/mueller-trump-russia-money-laundering-doj-manafort-2017-9
If Trump's campaign had done even a little bit of vetting they could have seen his unusual financial dealings and close relationship with Russia and questioned whether he was the right guy to bring into their campaign, even if they didn't know about the 2014 FISA warrant and all the details of the loose financial transactions.
The RWM would like us to believe that the FBI made up problems with Manafort in order to wire tap Trump during the campaign - but there were legitimate concerns about Manafort way before the election that a diligent campaign would have discovered with only a little googling. It made the FBI doubly suspicious when Manafort came on board the campaign and Trump starting making all those pro-Russia comments. Assuming Manafort is the only one who might have been unusually close with Russia, Trump could have avoided all his problems by just hiring someone else.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 25, 2018 12:54:21 GMT -5
The Steele dossier is presently the only evidence viewable to the public, and it concerns Pres. Trump personally. Furthermore, the texts between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page (which I realize you don't consider definitive evidence of anything, but supposing you did) suggest a conspiracy targeting Pres. Trump himself. As for Pres. Trump being "stupid" to hire Mr. Manafort, Mr. Flynn, et al., Mr. Flynn's wrongdoing occurred after Pres. Trump hired him, and Mr. Manafort's wrongdoing took an FBI investigation to uncover. Manafort was "the guy to hire"; he had extensive experience working for both parties, and a good reputation. Besides this, having contact with Russians was considered to be an asset before bashing Russia became a means to an end and the Red Scare of 2016 started. Manafort had a FISA warrant against him way back in 2014 when he was the subject of an investigation into work done by a consulting firm for the former ruling party of Ukraine. This article from 2014 (which anyone on Trump's team could have googled) refers to him as the Urkaine mystery man and describes his connections in that part of the world. www.politico.com/story/2014/03/paul-manafort-ukraine-104263. A little bit more vetting could have revealed something about Manafort's murky financial dealings:
Manafort bought four properties in New York City between 2006 and 2013 using shell companies and paid the full amount due for each property. Later, between 2012 and 2017, NBC News reported that Manafort borrowed $13 million against those properties. $6.5 million out of that amount came this year from a bank run by a Trump campaign economic adviser. www.businessinsider.com/mueller-trump-russia-money-laundering-doj-manafort-2017-9
If Trump's campaign had done even a little bit of vetting they could have seen his unusual financial dealings and close relationship with Russia and questioned whether he was the right guy to bring into their campaign, even if they didn't know about the 2014 FISA warrant and all the details of the loose financial transactions.
The RWM would like us to believe that the FBI made up problems with Manafort in order to wire tap Trump during the campaign - but there were legitimate concerns about Manafort way before the election that a diligent campaign would have discovered with only a little googling. It made the FBI doubly suspicious when Manafort came on board the campaign and Trump starting making all those pro-Russia comments. Assuming Manafort is the only one who might have been unusually close with Russia, Trump could have avoided all his problems by just hiring someone else.
You say "If Trump's campaign had done even a little bit of vetting..." as though they didn't. Mr. Manafort was hired on well before extensive connections in Russia and the Ukraine were a bad thing. Russia only officially became an enemy after Al Assad handed the US-backed forces in Syria their arses in 2016 (shortly before Russian diplomats were ousted from the US), humiliating the kingmakers in the US DoD and neocons in Washington. The new McCarthyism only started when "Russian collusion" became the Democratic cause celebre in the late stages of the 2016 election. Mr. Manafort predated all that. As for allegations of shady economic dealings, does Pres. Trump strike you as the kind of man who'd turn down a Washington mover and shaker because of allegations of shady economic dealings? I suppose if he was worried one of his subordinates might out-shady himself.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 25, 2018 13:24:51 GMT -5
Manafort had a FISA warrant against him way back in 2014 when he was the subject of an investigation into work done by a consulting firm for the former ruling party of Ukraine. This article from 2014 (which anyone on Trump's team could have googled) refers to him as the Urkaine mystery man and describes his connections in that part of the world. www.politico.com/story/2014/03/paul-manafort-ukraine-104263. A little bit more vetting could have revealed something about Manafort's murky financial dealings:
Manafort bought four properties in New York City between 2006 and 2013 using shell companies and paid the full amount due for each property. Later, between 2012 and 2017, NBC News reported that Manafort borrowed $13 million against those properties. $6.5 million out of that amount came this year from a bank run by a Trump campaign economic adviser. www.businessinsider.com/mueller-trump-russia-money-laundering-doj-manafort-2017-9
If Trump's campaign had done even a little bit of vetting they could have seen his unusual financial dealings and close relationship with Russia and questioned whether he was the right guy to bring into their campaign, even if they didn't know about the 2014 FISA warrant and all the details of the loose financial transactions.
The RWM would like us to believe that the FBI made up problems with Manafort in order to wire tap Trump during the campaign - but there were legitimate concerns about Manafort way before the election that a diligent campaign would have discovered with only a little googling. It made the FBI doubly suspicious when Manafort came on board the campaign and Trump starting making all those pro-Russia comments. Assuming Manafort is the only one who might have been unusually close with Russia, Trump could have avoided all his problems by just hiring someone else.
You say "If Trump's campaign had done even a little bit of vetting..." as though they didn't. Mr. Manafort was hired on well before extensive connections in Russia and the Ukraine were a bad thing. Russia only officially became an enemy after Al Assad handed the US-backed forces in Syria their arses in 2016 (shortly before Russian diplomats were ousted from the US), humiliating the kingmakers in the US DoD and neocons in Washington. The new McCarthyism only started when "Russian collusion" became the Democratic cause celebre in the late stages of the 2016 election. Mr. Manafort predated all that. As for allegations of shady economic dealings, does Pres. Trump strike you as the kind of man who'd turn down a Washington mover and shaker because of allegations of shady economic dealings? I suppose if he was worried one of his subordinates might out-shady himself. Manafort had more than 'connections' prior to the campaign. Which is why there was a FISA warrant on him in 2014.
Of course I understand why Trump got along with him and hired him. I'm not faulting Trump for that. What I'm trying to correct is the false narrative in RWM that the government had no interest in Manafort at all prior to him joining the election, and then was only pretending to be interested in Manafort's activities so they could get a FISA warrant which was really intended to spy on Trump.
The government was fairly sure, in 2014, that Manafort was laundering money for the Russians, which made him a good blackmail candidate, and it should be obvious why that's a problem. Enough of a problem they were able to get another FISA warrant in 2016. Evidently, they did discover enough questionable activity about Manafort because he's currently facing trial.
That was never about spying on Trump.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2018 16:00:10 GMT -5
The Steele dossier is presently the only evidence viewable to the public, and it concerns Pres. Trump personally. Furthermore, the texts between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page (which I realize you don't consider definitive evidence of anything, but supposing you did) suggest a conspiracy targeting Pres. Trump himself.
only if you are inclined to believe such a conspiracy existed before reading those texts.
as far as i can tell those folks are just haters. they spent a fair amount of time blasting Sanders too. and Clinton. they just seem to like to talk a lot of crap about people.
so, your accusation (and that of the right wing spin machine in which you appear to spend a lot of time) rings about as true as this one:
"there is a tacit conspiracy at YMAM targeting candidate Trump himself".
edit: it should be mentioned that this exchange took place BEFORE he was president. so, it should read CANDIDATE Trump.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2018 16:02:53 GMT -5
Mr. Manafort was hired on well before extensive connections in Russia and the Ukraine were a bad thing.
wow. i didn't realize that he was 150 years old. he doesn't look a day over 100.
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Jan 25, 2018 16:43:33 GMT -5
I think you meant right-OFF-center.........
Not sure what ur point is? Do the texts that they found prove anything?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,388
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2018 18:06:57 GMT -5
Seems that secret society claim is falling apart. Sen. Johnson backs off 'secret society' claimThe chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee acknowledged Thursday that a reference made between two FBI employees of a "secret society" could have been said in jest as opposed to evidence of an anti-Donald Trump plot. "It's a real possibility," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, told CNN. Republicans have seized on the exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok, which was sent after the 2016 presidential election, as potential evidence of an anti-Trump bias at the agency. Strzok was a member of the team investigating Hillary Clinton's email server and, later, a member of Robert Mueller's special counsel team looking into Russia's attempted interference in the 2016 election. Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday about the "secret society" reference, Johnson suggested bias and potential corruption "at the highest levels of the FBI." Sen. Johnson backs off 'secret society' claim
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2018 19:03:01 GMT -5
Our disagreements over which resources are professional, unprofessional, reliable, unreliable, biased, unbiased, REAL, and unREAL are indeed quite legendary. not really. we rarely argue over SOURCES. that is because i am generally the person that challenges your sources. and since they are often zerohedge and your church, it ends right there. i am not going to troll through those sites. you rarely, if ever, challenge mine. and that is understandable, given the quality/dogmatism differential. if i can't verify something i assert*, i don't post it. whereas you just post shit. you really don't care about journalism. you only care about putting your world view out there. you have this in common with RT and a few other propaganda outfits. your contempt for consensus truth, for fact checking, and for vetting stories has been noted many times. but not as often as your opinion is similarly challenged as without basis. but let's just be frank- you actually rarely even cite sources. it is pure opinion, much of which is religiously informed. and that is fine. just don't pretend for a second that your Truth has any meaning or basis to anyone who doesn't follow your Truth. it doesn't. there is a collective truth that is secular, non-dogmatic, and subjected to constant scrutiny and challenge. you want no part of that, and that is fine. but that is why i won't argue with you any more. i won't argue with dogma. you go right ahead and follow all of that. whatever winds your clock. but it won't wind mine. *a couple of major failures of mine were failures to do ENOUGH verification. when that happened, i apologize. ttbomk, you have NEVER apologized for getting it wrong, which i add to the long list of reasons i can't discuss things with you any more.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2018 19:05:23 GMT -5
Seems that secret society claim is falling apart. Sen. Johnson backs off 'secret society' claimThe chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee acknowledged Thursday that a reference made between two FBI employees of a "secret society" could have been said in jest as opposed to evidence of an anti-Donald Trump plot. "It's a real possibility," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, told CNN. Republicans have seized on the exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok, which was sent after the 2016 presidential election, as potential evidence of an anti-Trump bias at the agency. Strzok was a member of the team investigating Hillary Clinton's email server and, later, a member of Robert Mueller's special counsel team looking into Russia's attempted interference in the 2016 election. Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday about the "secret society" reference, Johnson suggested bias and potential corruption "at the highest levels of the FBI." Sen. Johnson backs off 'secret society' claimthere is a society out there, but it is no secret. it is comprised of the 60% of the people who disapprove of the president.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 25, 2018 21:12:59 GMT -5
Our disagreements over which resources are professional, unprofessional, reliable, unreliable, biased, unbiased, REAL, and unREAL are indeed quite legendary. not really. we rarely argue over SOURCES. that is because i am generally the person that challenges your sources. and since they are often zerohedge and your church, it ends right there. i am not going to troll through those sites. you rarely, if ever, challenge mine. and that is understandable, given the quality/dogmatism differential. if i can't verify something i assert*, i don't post it. whereas you just post shit. you really don't care about journalism. you only care about putting your world view out there. you have this in common with RT and a few other propaganda outfits. your contempt for consensus truth, for fact checking, and for vetting stories has been noted many times. but not as often as your opinion is similarly challenged as without basis. but let's just be frank- you actually rarely even cite sources. it is pure opinion, much of which is religiously informed. and that is fine. just don't pretend for a second that your Truth has any meaning or basis to anyone who doesn't follow your Truth. it doesn't. there is a collective truth that is secular, non-dogmatic, and subjected to constant scrutiny and challenge. you want no part of that, and that is fine. but that is why i won't argue with you any more. i won't argue with dogma. you go right ahead and follow all of that. whatever winds your clock. but it won't wind mine. *a couple of major failures of mine were failures to do ENOUGH verification. when that happened, i apologize. ttbomk, you have NEVER apologized for getting it wrong, which i add to the long list of reasons i can't discuss things with you any more. I've cited church literature 3 or 4 times in 8 years. All in religious discussions, although once might have been an eschatological discussion. I cite ZH "often" if one counts 1 in 10 citations (1 in 20 with whitepaper references included) as "often". I make dozens of citations a month; I suppose a ZH link every month or so qualifies as "often". I make no apologies for this. The site aggregates articles from nearly a hundred contributors as well as authoring their own--mostly of a financial nature. As far as online resources go, they're as good as any other.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:37:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 23:43:00 GMT -5
Not sure what ur point is? Do the texts that they found prove anything?
You must have missed the memo that says if it is in big, bold or red type it must surely be true... (eyeroll)
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 26, 2018 7:30:19 GMT -5
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-fbi-texts-appear-to-show-early-2016-discussion-of-clinton-special-prosecutor/ar-AAvbmXE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhpNew excerpts of text exchanges between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page released Thursday appear to show the two discussing the Hillary Clinton email investigation, including how much manpower they should exert and whether or not a special prosecutor should be brought in.
She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear," Page, an FBI attorney, said in a discussion on February 25, 2016, about personnel involved in the investigation. "You think she's going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?"
How does this read, If they go after Hillary their careers maybe in jeopardy? We know from texts that they didn't want Trump there, did not think he would get there. Does this mean that they let Hillary go and went after Trump, It really looks like it!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 26, 2018 8:20:26 GMT -5
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-fbi-texts-appear-to-show-early-2016-discussion-of-clinton-special-prosecutor/ar-AAvbmXE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhpNew excerpts of text exchanges between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page released Thursday appear to show the two discussing the Hillary Clinton email investigation, including how much manpower they should exert and whether or not a special prosecutor should be brought in.
She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear," Page, an FBI attorney, said in a discussion on February 25, 2016, about personnel involved in the investigation. "You think she's going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?"
How does this read, If they go after Hillary their careers maybe in jeopardy? We know from texts that they didn't want Trump there, did not think he would get there. Does this mean that they let Hillary go and went after Trump, It really looks like it! I'm not sure how you got that from the quoted texts.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 26, 2018 8:27:49 GMT -5
She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear,
IMHO,, They have concern that if they pursue this hard,, when Hillary becomes President She will retaliate!!
"You think she's going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?"
Yes, they do think that If they go after Hillary, She will go after them! IMHO.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 26, 2018 8:54:29 GMT -5
She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear,
IMHO,, They have concern that if they pursue this hard,, when Hillary becomes President She will retaliate!! "You think she's going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?"
Yes, they do think that If they go after Hillary, She will go after them! IMHO. I get that. Where is the part where they say "Let's see if we can fuck with Trump and make Hillary happy!"
|
|