SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[Virgil Showlion]

Enough about Paul. Again.

Expressing the opinion that Pres. Obama should be tried and hung for treason isn't contrary to the CoC. Calling other members "disgusting" is.

It is a simple matter to rebut Paul's statement without resorting to personal attacks, and you're doing no one any favours by breaking the rules.

    - Virgil (Mod)

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP: Show some respect for your ex-president. I don't care if you're sincere in your belief the man is guilty of treason and fit to be executed, "a short drop and a sudden stop" is glib, inflammatory, and profoundly disrespectful.

[tallguy]

The only president we have ever had who even approaches "treasonous" is Donald Trump.  There are arguments to be made for some others as war criminals, but none except Trump have acted either in concert with or for the benefit of foreign governments in pursuing his own interests at odds with what is best for this country or its people.  The man is hopelessly corrupt.

[steff]

so we can't use the word "orange" or use descriptive names for current politicians, but we can call for the death & imply lynching for former ones.  

Yeah, that makes a fuckton of sense doesn't it?  Thank goodness someone didn't say the orange fucktard, that would be BAD!    

[Tennesseer]

[OldCoyote]

Wooo Hoooo Trump is Making America Great Again!!!

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2018 16:22:22 GMT -5 Opti said:

And I want to point out I am noticing the usual hypocrisy of Trump supporters and enablers. They were all OK with coming down on Debbie Wasserman who was helping with Clinton's campaign yet suddenly if Manafort or Page is a criminal asshole its now got to be about Trump's campaign?!

Still not about Trump.

But what the heck are you all hiding? What big ass stupid did he do? Did he and parts of the GOP pay for the Russian targeted ads? What did he do? What did they do? With all this whining and deflection, it makes me wonder how bad it is.

it's called an investigation.  if it were not for tips from reliable sources, it would be almost impossible to prosecute ANYONE.

[Opti]

I would like to revisit the FB ads from Russia. Several conservative posters poo-pooed the idea that the Russians could have affected the election purely based on emotional reasoning. $500,000 did not sound like it was a high enough budget to do anything they believe. But no time or thought was invested beyond that.

Jared was touted as being into analytics before the election. Basically targeting voters on various measures. You combine that with how cheap it is to throw an ad on FB in front of a user, a person who works through the numbers can see how little money might be needed to sway the right people. According to my Google results, it is only $7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression. An impression is merely seeing the ad, requiring no affirmative response like clicks or actually purchasing things. (Both of these latter actions are more costly FB ad choices.) Wisconsin was won by Trump by less than 23,000 votes. www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-final-wisconsin-recount-tally-1481584948-htmlstory.html

To put up an ad if one could target only those voters would have been roughly 7.19 x 23 x 5 for just displaying an ad 5 times in front of that many targeted FB users. An ad budget just under $827.00  . Let that sink in. Trump wins Pennsy with under 45,000 votes. 7.19 x 45 x 5 ==> roughly $1618.00 . Trump wins Michigan with less than 11,000 votes.

[Opti]

So less than $3000 to show a FB ad enough times for voters to remember for 79,000 peeps. With a budget of $500K you could repeat this for 167 times or do it once for over 13 Million people or some variation in between.

[thyme4change]

Bi-partisan statement from the Senate intelligence committee confirms that Russia did interfere and their efforts support a Trump win. I hope that republicans can at least accept that. Collusion has not been proved, but most are in agreement that Russia was trying to get Trump elected.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 9:28:48 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Bi-partisan statement from the Senate intelligence committee confirms that Russia did interfere and their efforts support a Trump win. I hope that republicans can at least accept that. Collusion has not been proved, but most are in agreement that Russia was trying to get Trump elected.

I have no problem accepting that foreign actors want to influence our elections, and that they have their preferences based on their perception of our candidate's policies and their own political and foreign policy objectives. Like avoiding WWIII.

Do you accept that there is still NO EVIDENCE (and I'll grant you the qualifier "that we're aware of") of Russian collusion with anyone in the Trump campaign?  

Do you accept that the FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign, and that once again- the FBI's story has been contradicted AGAIN-- as the informant was prying into the campaign far earlier than acknowledged?

nypost.com/2018/05/19/cambridge-professor-outed-as-fbi-informant-inside-trump-campaign/

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 0:44:23 GMT -5 Opti said:

I would like to revisit the FB ads from Russia. Several conservative posters poo-pooed the idea that the Russians could have affected the election purely based on emotional reasoning. $500,000 did not sound like it was a high enough budget to do anything they believe. But no time or thought was invested beyond that.

Jared was touted as being into analytics before the election. Basically targeting voters on various measures. You combine that with how cheap it is to throw an ad on FB in front of a user, a person who works through the numbers can see how little money might be needed to sway the right people. According to my Google results, it is only $7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression. An impression is merely seeing the ad, requiring no affirmative response like clicks or actually purchasing things. (Both of these latter actions are more costly FB ad choices.) Wisconsin was won by Trump by less than 23,000 votes. www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-final-wisconsin-recount-tally-1481584948-htmlstory.html

To put up an ad if one could target only those voters would have been roughly 7.19 x 23 x 5 for just displaying an ad 5 times in front of that many targeted FB users. An ad budget just under $827.00  . Let that sink in. Trump wins Pennsy with under 45,000 votes. 7.19 x 45 x 5 ==> roughly $1618.00 . Trump wins Michigan with less than 11,000 votes.

I built a list for a FB ad client of 6 million potential customers for less than $75,000 (not including my fee, of course). So, in the right hands, I'll grant you-- $500,000 is actually a substantial ad buy on FB. It's less than the $84 million the Clinton campaign illegally laundered- including the millions she illegally laundered through the Perkins Coie law firm paid to Fusion GPS, MI6 agent Christopher Steele, and Russian agents to create a phony intelligence document used to obtain a fraudulent FISA warrant (and nevermind the fact that she and the DNC initially lied and said they had no hand in the dossier- and the fact that they tried to block the Nunes memo which established this lie).

thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hillary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

Obama, Hillary, the DNC, and MANY deep state actors are in a shitload of trouble. 

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2018 9:28:48 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Bi-partisan statement from the Senate intelligence committee confirms that Russia did interfere and their efforts support a Trump win. I hope that republicans can at least accept that. Collusion has not been proved, but most are in agreement that Russia was trying to get Trump elected.

nobody sensible is debating the election tampering at this point.

[djAdvocate]

Do you accept that there is still NO EVIDENCE (and I'll grant you the qualifier "that we're aware of") of Russian collusion with anyone in the Trump campaign?

why would she do that?  there are a lot of people in the campaign, and it seems fairly reasonable that SOME of them wanted Russian help, if offered.  why wouldn't they?

Do you accept that the FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign, and that once again- the FBI's story has been contradicted AGAIN-- as the informant was prying into the campaign far earlier than acknowledged?

you are not familiar with the distinction between informant and spy?  i would suggest that you disambiguate and try again.  but the answer to your second question is also NO.  nobody should accept that lie.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

All roads lead to Barack Hussein O.

[djAdvocate]

he's in New Zealand:

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/news/a9694/what-barack-obama-is-doing-now/

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 10:35:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Do you accept that there is still NO EVIDENCE (and I'll grant you the qualifier "that we're aware of") of Russian collusion with anyone in the Trump campaign?

why would she do that?  there are a lot of people in the campaign, and it seems fairly reasonable that SOME of them wanted Russian help, if offered.  why wouldn't they?

Do you accept that the FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign, and that once again- the FBI's story has been contradicted AGAIN-- as the informant was prying into the campaign far earlier than acknowledged?

you are not familiar with the distinction between informant and spy.  i would suggest that you disambiguate and try again.  but the answer to your second question is also NO.  nobody should accept that lie.

I'm familiar.

This was a spy.

And not just a spy- but an "agent provocateur". 

He wasn't just working in the campaign and woke up one day and decided to tell the FBI about the Russians colluding with members of the Trump team.

No.

He was placed in the campaign and being run by Brennan and his job was to "dirty up" members of the Trump team-- basically, it was to find some useful idiot to feed false information to by means of things like this: "Hey, have you heard about the Russians working with the Trump team?"

Then they get another agent (in Britain) to get confirmation "Hey, you've heard about the Russians, right?"-- well, technically, yes. But only because it was suggested. 

This kind of frame up is commonly referred to as "entrapment" or a "set up". Basically, they created the alleged "crime" they were investigating. 

Except they had so little evidence, they couldn't start a criminal investigation (and still have not). Instead, they started a "counterintelligence" investigation, and used the lower standard to justify spying.

Cicero. Interesting Selection. Here are some other notable quotes by Cicero:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”

“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 10:39:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he's in New Zealand:

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/news/a9694/what-barack-obama-is-doing-now/

"was"

One might wonder whether you missed the point deliberately, or if you just missed it?

[djAdvocate]

This was a spy.

And not just a spy- but an "agent provocateur".

really?  that is not how i hear it.  

you mind proving that?

i am willing to stand corrected on this if you can

show me that the informant was:

a) a PAID asset of the FBI

b) worked prior to and after the campaign for the agency.

it should be pretty simple to provide the evidence, if you have it.

or, alternatively, you can admit that you don't actually KNOW any

of this.  that would be the norm for you.

edit: let me be clear: i have heard interviews with people who know who this asset is, and it seemed clear from the interviews that this asset worked for the private sector, not for the FBI.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 10:29:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2018 9:28:48 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Bi-partisan statement from the Senate intelligence committee confirms that Russia did interfere and their efforts support a Trump win. I hope that republicans can at least accept that. Collusion has not been proved, but most are in agreement that Russia was trying to get Trump elected.

nobody sensible is debating the election tampering at this point.

Nobody with any sense is debating "collusion" at this point. There was none.

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 10:35:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

All roads lead to Barack Hussein O.

In your dreams perhaps. He could have deep-sixed Trump's chances be to elected by making a big deal about Russia's interference before the election. But he didn't. Yet you and Trump think its believable he would do something far more complicated with no guaranteed pay off instead?

There is not enough tin foil on the planet to make that scenario sound sane.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 10:47:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

This was a spy.

And not just a spy- but an "agent provocateur".

really?  that is not how i hear it.  

you mind proving that?

i am willing to stand corrected on this if you can

show me that the informant was:

a) a PAID asset of the FBI

b) worked prior to and after the campaign for the agency.

it should be pretty simple to provide the evidence, if you have it.

or, alternatively, you can admit that you don't actually KNOW any

of this.  that would be the norm for you.

It's kind of like the "Where was Barrack Obama"? question- it's all here in this thread. I can post it, but I can't make you see it or read it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 10:49:48 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 21, 2018 10:35:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

All roads lead to Barack Hussein O.

In your dreams perhaps. He could have deep-sixed Trump's chances be to elected by making a big deal about Russia's interference before the election. But he didn't. Yet you and Trump think its believable he would do something far more complicated with no guaranteed pay off instead?

There is not enough tin foil on the planet to make that scenario sound sane.

We are WAY past conspiracy theories. Way past. We know. Now we just need to unpack it all. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Buckle up.

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 10:47:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

This was a spy.

And not just a spy- but an "agent provocateur".

really?  that is not how i hear it.  

you mind proving that?

i am willing to stand corrected on this if you can

show me that the informant was:

a) a PAID asset of the FBI

b) worked prior to and after the campaign for the agency.

it should be pretty simple to provide the evidence, if you have it.

or, alternatively, you can admit that you don't actually KNOW any

of this.  that would be the norm for you.

edit: let me be clear: i have heard interviews with people who know who this asset is, and it seemed clear from the interviews that this asset worked for the private sector, not for the FBI.

The only story in the non-story planting media is that a professor struck up convos with some of those being watched like Page. He was not part of the campaign, but later offered to help with foreign policy.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Buckle up real good.

[djAdvocate]

It's kind of like the "Where was Barrack (sic) Obama"? question- it's all here in this thread. I can post it, but I can't make you see it or read it.

i answered your question, but you won't answer mine, will you?

but you are right about one thing- i am not going to comb through 50 pages of bullshit looking for your granule of truth, presuming there is one somewhere in this thread.  you will have to repost it.

unless, of course, it does not exist.

[happyhoix]

May 21, 2018 10:15:15 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 21, 2018 9:28:48 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Bi-partisan statement from the Senate intelligence committee confirms that Russia did interfere and their efforts support a Trump win. I hope that republicans can at least accept that. Collusion has not been proved, but most are in agreement that Russia was trying to get Trump elected.

I have no problem accepting that foreign actors want to influence our elections, and that they have their preferences based on their perception of our candidate's policies and their own political and foreign policy objectives. Like avoiding WWIII.

Do you accept that there is still NO EVIDENCE (and I'll grant you the qualifier "that we're aware of") of Russian collusion with anyone in the Trump campaign?  

Do you accept that the FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign, and that once again- the FBI's story has been contradicted AGAIN-- as the informant was prying into the campaign far earlier than acknowledged?

nypost.com/2018/05/19/cambridge-professor-outed-as-fbi-informant-inside-trump-campaign/

Do you accept that Manafort was interviewed twice by the FBI PRIOR to joining the Trump campaign? In 2014, he was interviewed about what knowledge he might have about money stolen by Yanukovych - and that the money laundering and bank fraud charges against Manafort and Gates come from their lobbying work for the pro-Russian political party in the Ukraine?  

thehill.com/policy/national-security/384679-manafort-interviewed-twice-by-fbi-prior-to-joining-trump-campaign

And that Carter Page was known to US counter intelligence officials FOR YEARS prior to becoming involved in Trump's campaign?

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

The FBI wasn't planting spies in Trump's campaign. They were surveilling known pro-Russian actors who Trump had the poor judgement to hire for his campaign - not the first or last time Trump's failure to vet job applicants came back to bit him in the ass.

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 10:50:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 21, 2018 10:47:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

This was a spy.

And not just a spy- but an "agent provocateur".

really?  that is not how i hear it.  

you mind proving that?

i am willing to stand corrected on this if you can

show me that the informant was:

a) a PAID asset of the FBI

b) worked prior to and after the campaign for the agency.

it should be pretty simple to provide the evidence, if you have it.

or, alternatively, you can admit that you don't actually KNOW any

of this.  that would be the norm for you.

It's kind of like the "Where was Barrack Obama"? question- it's all here in this thread. I can post it, but I can't make you see it or read it.

So you got nothing. The crayons are telling though. Not up to typing a few key strokes with a name?

[happyhoix]

May 21, 2018 10:52:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Buckle up.

You keep saying that, and nothing keeps happening, unless you count all the Trump dirty laundry that keeps getting aired.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

When the head of the executive branch to whom the FBI and DOJ ultimately report, receive a lawful order, they must obey.
theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/20/president-trump-tweets-official-investigative-request-to-doj-forthcoming/
President Trump Tweets Official Investigative Request To DOJ Forthcoming…

Posted on May 20, 2018 by sundance

Those who have followed the events over the past two years closely know what the final tweet -in a series of sequenced tweets- from President Trump indicates:


Beginning with the confirmation of DNI Dan Coats in March 2017, a series of carefully planned sequential steps have been implemented – preparing the groundwork to expose the biggest political scandal in the history of the U.S. government: You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization and weaponization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States.

From a series of POTUS Tweets today it would appear the Big Ugly is ignited.