AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 5, 2018 21:05:25 GMT -5
And by the way- Brennan and Clapper are liars and leakers-- which we know for certain. And nobody has even brought up the CIA yet. Yet...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 5, 2018 21:36:08 GMT -5
As a matter of efficiency, I can't repeat earlier lessons- so if you don't know what I'm talking about- your first resource is this thread. Go back and read my posts, and follow the links. It's going to be almost impossible to catch on mid stream. And things are going to start moving VERY FAST. Remember the batting order... The multi-front attack on the swamp is actually quite brilliant. No swamp entity or individual is given the big picture as each attack comes from a different source. They are deprived of time to think and coordinate a response. No swamp entity or individual EVER gets to come up for air. They never get to rest. They never know what's happening next. And they can't take any action to this point to cover their tracks because the President and his "white hats" in the executive, the Inspector General, The House, and the Senate are all closing in. One wrong move could mean incriminating oneself and decades in prison. The result is that the swamp will rapidly become self-draining. The partisans on a mission like Strzok and Page will give up and quit, flip, or end up swept up in the multiple stings. I have several sources as I've mentioned, and I'm told this on Sunday: the wind has gone out of their sails. They're demoralized. They're in no mood to fight. To them, destroying Trump wasn't a fantasy or a pipe dream, but an inevitability. They weren't hoping they could do it. They knew they could do it. Now, all hope is lost. They're depressed right now because it hasn't yet dawned on them they should be afraid. In other news, Mueller has moved to postpone the sentencing of Michael Flynn as “Lawyers for General Mike Flynn will shortly file a motion to dismiss all the charges filed against him, based on reports now confirmed by The Hill, Circa News and Infowars, that Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe told a teleconference of law enforcement officials, “first we f*ck Flynn, then we f*ck Trump.”
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,219
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Feb 5, 2018 21:44:22 GMT -5
Six long RW fanatical posts, with bold big fonts and with out a reply. Geez Paul you need another place to write your blog.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2018 22:03:00 GMT -5
I think those of you on the left are not considering that the alternative to destroying a weaponized partisan criminal justice and national security apparatus is stacking it with OUR people and using it against YOURS. If that's what you want- just keep spinning. The fact is that we need to CLEAN THIS SHIT UP NOW. We need to install permanent, transparent oversight of the FISC. It's astonishing that there have only been 13 denials of a request for surveillance in 33 years (one of which was a pre-Clinton-authored dossier request to spy on the Trump campaign). The Republican dominated congress just passed a reauthorization of the FISA act without any of the suggested changes to improve privacy protections.
January 2018.
So you can shut up about OUR people and YOUR people - YOUR people just reauthorized it.
omg. i am crushing hard on this post.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2018 22:11:08 GMT -5
According to Steele he got some of his information for the dossier from someone in the Russian foreign ministry and a Russian former intelligence officer that still had ties to the Kremlin. Steele also says he got unsolicited info. The Russian government is well aware that Steele used to be a spy. It's likely they are still watching him. A lot of ex-intelligence people believe that he was deliberately fed misinformation. The concerning thing about that is he used the same sources for the reports he was using for the State Department. So essentially there's a lot more evidence that the Clinton campaign got info from the Russians on a candidate and used it than the Trump campaign. and used it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2018 22:12:49 GMT -5
Only if your conclusion is that it proves someone guilty/innocent. And unless it is dt and the latter it is just a hack job and treasonous.
I don't get why there was a Nunes memo at all. If they used a very good Repub. lawyer to read the dossier why not have him write the memo? Or are we to believe this very good repub lawyer is illiterate and therefore incapable of writing a memo?
Nunes has a degree in agricultural science. Gowdy has a degree in the law as well as having been a federal prosecutor. He did write it. Everyone agrees it's factual. agreed. especially page 4. you know, where he points out that the FBI investigation would have taken place with or without the dossier, and that the dossier didn't trigger it? while we are discussing what is real and what is fake, what is your current understanding of the facts in the dossier? as far as i know, NONE have been disproven so far.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2018 22:14:36 GMT -5
Six long RW fanatical posts, with bold big fonts and with out a reply. Geez Paul you need another place to write your blog. theory: this is his blog "Trial Balloon". he tries shit out here to see if it will fly before he goes public.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2018 22:23:10 GMT -5
This isn't Paul's trial balloon. He posts stuff here after it's been posted elsewhere. that is another issue. not the one i was bringing up. but yes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2018 22:27:00 GMT -5
I'll say that my philosophical standpoint is that we are innocent until proven guilty. We don't accuse people and then say they are guilty if they can't disprove it. Other than that Cohen wasn't in Prague, Carter didn't meet the people the dossier said he did. And virtually everyone who's interacted with the dossier at a professional level says it's unsubstantiated. i am not trying and convicting anyone, annie. i am just asking a simple question. i don't understand your last statement. do you mean "everyone professional that has interacted...", because i don't get how someone would professionally interact with a set of claims. i have run out of time to debate this with you today, but i would probably raise the same points that Vox does. if you have time, why don't you take them on, and let me know your thoughts? www.vox.com/2018/1/5/16845704/steele-dossier-russia-trump
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 5, 2018 22:59:37 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 0:27:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 23:42:46 GMT -5
Oh, Goody. More BOLD statements that must truly be correct or gaslighting material. Boy, I wonder which?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,177
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 6, 2018 0:12:43 GMT -5
From the link: Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. It isn't actually "From Forbes"
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 6, 2018 1:16:12 GMT -5
Oh, Goody. More BOLD statements that must truly be correct or gaslighting material. Boy, I wonder which? Actually, I think those were BOLD statements. And second, I'm guessing you are not really wondering.... (Nor is anyone else.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2018 1:36:39 GMT -5
From the link: Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. It isn't actually "From Forbes" nor is it fact checked. Forbes has been circling the reputational drain since he ran for 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 Feb 6, 2018 3:30:51 GMT -5
From the link: Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. It isn't actually "From Forbes" Semantics. Forbes is willing to print it. If they don't also print a rebuttal piece or something to back the opposing side of the story, this is their endorsement.
|
|
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 Feb 6, 2018 3:41:55 GMT -5
@anne81, you're the resident expert: Some of the stories suggest the Steele dossier was integral to obtaining something, i.e. it was the principle evidence supplied by the alleged malefactors in at least one step of the plan. Other stories claim the Nunes memo (which I haven't read and don't intend to) indicates the Title I surveillance on Carter Page would have been granted with or without the dossier. Are these all talking about the same thing? If so, how do we reconcile these counterfactuals?
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 6, 2018 5:51:37 GMT -5
Putin has got to be sitting there laughing his butt off at the US. He is totally destroying the country and didn't have to fire one bullet.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2018 6:43:15 GMT -5
@anne81 , you're the resident expert: Some of the stories suggest the Steele dossier was integral to obtaining something, i.e. it was the principle evidence supplied by the alleged malefactors in at least one step of the plan. Other stories claim the Nunes memo (which I haven't read and don't intend to) indicates the Title I surveillance on Carter Page would have been granted with or without the dossier. Are these all talking about the same thing? If so, how do we reconcile these counterfactuals? No "dossier" no FISA warrant. If FBI Agent Bruce Ohr's wife, Fusion GPS, was commissioning the dossier, why did they need John McCain to bring it in to them? Because they were creating a fake trail, as if this was news that just came to them. They were laundering Hillary's paid for slander thru a Republican source. You want to talk about misuse of power and obstruction of justice? Look no further. Did they present it to the court as "this came thru McCain via a Brit", rather than, "this came thru an agent's wife who is paid by Hillary"? That's perjury to the court. That's conspiracy and racketeering. I'm not a lawyer, but, lawyers out there, please tell me how is that not a felony? Don't believe for a second that Steele had soured his relationship with the FBI by blabbing to the press. They still use his 'work' to this day. All that did was make the FBI want to create an imaginary separation as a CYA. They got it all thru Ohr anyway. Everyone knew the "dossier" was garbage, but they needed a pretext for a FISA warrant, so they used Steele to "author" it because he was considered a reliable FBI source, and they "laundered" it through John McCain to boost its credibility because their sole aim was to justify spying on their political opponents. They knew that former FBI asset Carter Page was not a threat to national security- they just needed a name within the Trump circle to attach the warrant. www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-now-know-dossier-authors-needed-mccain-get-anti-trump-dossier-comey/
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,464
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 6, 2018 8:23:25 GMT -5
I'll say that my philosophical standpoint is that we are innocent until proven guilty. We don't accuse people and then say they are guilty if they can't disprove it. Other than that Cohen wasn't in Prague, Carter didn't meet the people the dossier said he did. And virtually everyone who's interacted with the dossier at a professional level says it's unsubstantiated. Well, Carter says he didn't meet the people the dossier said he did.
Carter Page is quite the interesting character. Extremely pro-Putin, and very prone to self aggrandizement. Very eager to generate some big bucks for himself. I haven't quite figured him out.
I agree we are all innocent until proven guilty - the dossier is just part of what Mueller is investigating, we'll have to wait and see which parts could be verified and which are bunk. In the end, it isn't as important where the allegations come from, but whether the allegations are true or not.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2018 8:45:58 GMT -5
@anne81 , you're the resident expert: Some of the stories suggest the Steele dossier was integral to obtaining something, i.e. it was the principle evidence supplied by the alleged malefactors in at least one step of the plan. Other stories claim the Nunes memo (which I haven't read and don't intend to) indicates the Title I surveillance on Carter Page would have been granted with or without the dossier. Are these all talking about the same thing? If so, how do we reconcile these counterfactuals? Despite the unfortunate fact that AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP has tried to answer for you, I'd really like to read your take on this @anne81, so I do hope you'll answer as I, too, consider you our resident expert from the conservative side.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,464
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 6, 2018 8:50:01 GMT -5
@anne81 , you're the resident expert: Some of the stories suggest the Steele dossier was integral to obtaining something, i.e. it was the principle evidence supplied by the alleged malefactors in at least one step of the plan. Other stories claim the Nunes memo (which I haven't read and don't intend to) indicates the Title I surveillance on Carter Page would have been granted with or without the dossier. Are these all talking about the same thing? If so, how do we reconcile these counterfactuals? Despite the unfortunate fact that AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP has tried to answer for you, I'd really like to read your take on this @anne81 , so I do hope you'll answer as I, too, consider you our resident expert from the conservative side. Yes, I would say 'thoughtful, reasonable, well researched' resident conservative expert.
Not that we don't have other thoughtful and reasonable conservatives. And a handful of some others.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2018 8:50:17 GMT -5
I'll say that my philosophical standpoint is that we are innocent until proven guilty. We don't accuse people and then say they are guilty if they can't disprove it. Other than that Cohen wasn't in Prague, Carter didn't meet the people the dossier said he did. And virtually everyone who's interacted with the dossier at a professional level says it's unsubstantiated. Well, Carter says he didn't meet the people the dossier said he did.
Carter Page is quite the interesting character. Extremely pro-Putin, and very prone to self aggrandizement. Very eager to generate some big bucks for himself. I haven't quite figured him out.
I agree we are all innocent until proven guilty - the dossier is just part of what Mueller is investigating, we'll have to wait and see which parts could be verified and which are bunk. In the end, it isn't as important where the allegations come from, but whether the allegations are true or not.
Agreed. I'm not particularly concerned about on which side the bodies fall. I'm much more concerned about what is the truth and who was actually involved in what. If there are people involved in despicable behavior, on either side of the political aisle, they need to be rooted out, removed, and punished. Wrong is wrong no matter who's involved.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 6, 2018 9:35:11 GMT -5
Anne81 deleted a post last night, I got the feeling she was fed up.
I hope that I am wrong.
I know that I am close stop posting on the political board because of the constant derogatory comments instead of some civil dialog.
Besides that it is time to go to work. Good day to you all.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,464
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 6, 2018 11:07:44 GMT -5
Well, in defense of the Politics board, it's about politics, and politics and religion are two of the most contentious subjects on the planet, with people often holding very strong views about both.
Personally I come to this board because I can't talk about politics with very many people IRL. My DH, my DS and his DW, and that's about it. My in laws are all very right leaning conservatives, and I love them very much, so we all avoid political discussions as much as possible, to avoid hard feelings.
And it's one of the 'forbidden' topics at work.
But I like hearing other opinions, whether they agree with me or not, and there are some people on this board who know a lot about politics and/or the law, so I usually learn a lot. You just have to not take the digs personally...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,382
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 6, 2018 11:17:37 GMT -5
From the link: Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. It isn't actually "From Forbes" Semantics. Forbes is willing to print it. If they don't also print a rebuttal piece or something to back the opposing side of the story, this is their endorsement.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,267
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 6, 2018 11:27:09 GMT -5
I'd argue on the importance of the poster understanding that. People have shown how dumbed down they wanted it. How can anyone impact such willful ignorance? Democrats have become pretzel people on the memo-- releasing it will damage national security, but it's a nothingburger, and it's full of inaccuracies, but we can't tell you what's inaccurate about it and it's been since Friday-- and not one thing has been disputed. THAT is all I care about. They want to argue it-- argue it. So far it has been all smoke and mirrors. Where exactly would you expect to hear an accurate representation of the counter side? Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox? If you spend your entire time listening to only one side of an opinion - and an extreme version of that side - and choose to believe what you will, have at it. But it gives you nothing which with to have an actual debate about because you don't really know anything. You are just regurgitating third hand interpretations of what the other side said and pretending you are being original.... We've established that you don't care what the truth is, or what is right and fair let alone even handed...likely merely playing with talking points to try out your next get rich quick schemes. It isn't even worth the time to engage really and indeed one might
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2018 11:51:21 GMT -5
Not an expert but I'll do some translating. Part of the reason Paul's stuff seems so crazy is because it's inside ball. It might help you to evaluate what I'm saying if you know that IRL I'm not considered conservative at all. Grew up in a union household, donate to minority causes and NPR, I'm bi-racial, etc. I also grew up in a family of ex-military service members who had a very healthy skepticism of the government and military while still loving their country. My Dad had me read the Pentagon papers before I was in high school. I also have a history background, which means I'm interested in historiography and that really shapes how I view this story. arguably, until recently, the New York Times wrote history. now, it is hard to say.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2018 11:52:43 GMT -5
Democrats have become pretzel people on the memo-- releasing it will damage national security, but it's a nothingburger, and it's full of inaccuracies, but we can't tell you what's inaccurate about it and it's been since Friday-- and not one thing has been disputed. THAT is all I care about. They want to argue it-- argue it. So far it has been all smoke and mirrors. Where exactly would you expect to hear an accurate representation of the counter side? Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox? If you spend your entire time listening to only one side of an opinion - and an extreme version of that side - and choose to believe what you will, have at it. But it gives you nothing which with to have an actual debate about because you don't really know anything. You are just regurgitating third hand interpretations of what the other side said and pretending you are being original.... i admire people who can read BOTH the NYT and the WT. there are very few of those people on this board, unfortunately.
|
|
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 Feb 6, 2018 12:26:38 GMT -5
Not an expert but I'll do some translating. Part of the reason Paul's stuff seems so crazy is because it's inside ball. I'm assuming "inside ball" is the American idiom "inside baseball", meaning esoteric and hyper-detailed. But if so, I don't see why this would lead to his material seeming "crazy". I don't actually consider his broader theory crazy. It's posited with far too much certainty, and with the worst possible spin filling in the considerable gray area, but not so far out of the realm of possibility that it seems delusional (except the effort to tie it to Pres. Obama based on the current evidence; that's grade A rainbows and lollipops wishful thinking). As for the rest of your post: I don't consider you a far-right conservative, especially by the standards of the American far right. I think you've earned the "conservative" moniker in this thread because you come across as open-minded on (leaning toward "believing in") the conspiracy. Whether this is simply because you find yourself constantly shooting down unwarranted skepticism (been there, done that), I don't know.
|
|
engineerdoe
Established Member
Joined: May 22, 2013 17:10:26 GMT -5
Posts: 498
|
Post by engineerdoe on Feb 6, 2018 12:55:04 GMT -5
At the time it was shocking but seemed very believable because of the names used, the investigation being undergone by the government, naming Page specifically and his previous ties. But look at what he left out that we know now: - It wasn't an intelligence report. It was opposition research (that went far beyond typical opposition research) compiled and paid for by Fusion GPS and the DNC. I agree that the author of the article should have stated it was not an intelligence report, but please stop leaving out that a GOP nominee candidate also paid for thise research.
- Isikoff knew at the time it was opposition research - he met with both Steele and Glenn Simpson when he received this info.
- It wasn't a well placed Western intelligence source. Steele was a retired spy, who couldn't work in Russia anymore but was probably still being monitored by their intelligence services. He was a private eye. He also likely didn't write the whole thing. Some of it seems to have been written by the wife of a DOJ official. I believe a retired spy can still be considered a Western Intelligence source. In fact I would go so far as say he wasn't retired he just wasn't working for British Intelligence any longer.
But Isikoff's version helped create the mental framework through which people interpreted later information. The public would have taken these reports quite differently had they known the truth. It's funny that this morning his buddy, David Corn, put out a CYA article on Russia-gate. They are writing a book together and both are early leakers of the dossier and named in lawsuits regarding the dossier.
I agree, if Isikoff had stated an unverified opposition research report or even an unverified intelligence report, the tone of the article does change. Also part of the article is regarding the security briefings to the Senate and House by Comey.
|
|