SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

twitter.com/_ImperatorRex_/status/1003295859860070401

1. OF COURSE. How did I miss it?

Horowitz flipped Lisa Page between Jan - March, 2017.

Horowitz started watching Comey's FBI - and then Mueller's SC, as soon as it started - 17 May, 2017.

Page was the key THE WHOLE TIME.

Let me explain...

2. We know that Mueller was appointed on 17 May, 2017. He immediately started appointing a team of absurdly partisan hacks.

Among the early team was one Lisa Page.

3. But long before then, Horowitz was already secretly investigating Page & Strzok.

We know this from Horowitz letter to Chairmen Grassley & Johnson, dated 13 December, 2017 - www.scribd.com/document/367204037/OIG-Letter-to-Congress-Explaining-Strzok-and-Page-Text-Messaging-Origin

4. See, Horowitz had found the initial batch of Page/Strzok texts, while investigating the 'MidYear Exam', Comey & Lynch's fraudulent exoneration of Clinton (subject of the imminent IG report).

I'm guessing he found those texts as early as Feb, 2017.

5. So, Horowitz special agents started tracking Page & Strzok at the FBI, from say Feb '17.

Remember, these IG agents are deputized by the AG, with broad law enforcement powers. It's wrong to say that the IG has no law enforcement power - it does.

6. Stay with the timeline:

Comey is fired (9 May). Mueller is appointed (17 May).

Lisa Page is appointed by Mueller (17 May - 1 June).

And then, 23 June - the date of Page's last known text to Strzok.

'Never text me again'.

7. What happened to Lisa between Jan 12 - June 23, 2017?

Page's text can appear as a 'goodbye'. BUT if you assume Page was flipped early, it may be something else entirely.

An instruction by others for Lisa to keep 'Pete' in the game. 'Lets talk on non-FBI lines'.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 4, 2018 15:42:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 4, 2018 14:53:33 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

So do you have a journalistic source to back that claim up?

Not CTH or some stock broker's back pages or the Fox news comments section, actual NEWS source.

you know, they actually offer DEGREES in this thing called JOURNALISM?  whacky, right?

you know, they do this so that people entering the field will understand that they have STANDARDS to uphold.  that among these standards is to VERIFY SOURCES, and to CHECK FACTS.  they also take classes in this thing called ETHICS, where they learn how to stand up for PRINCIPLES, even when it differs with their opinion.  this is the sort of thing that limits the influence of BIAS to the point where it is virtually undetectable in those that actually complete this degree.

it really seems like very few people know that.  you probably do, tho. 

This post is one for the ages. Your very best work. We shall be revisiting this one often in the future. I cannot wait. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[billisonboard]

IMO, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ.

In my opinion? Hilarious.

[happyhoix]

Meanwhile, back in the actual world, Manafort got nailed attempting to tamper with witnesses.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-accuses-paul-manafort-of-attempted-witness-tampering/ar-AAyeCE1

Shall we take bets on how the conservative nuthouse tries to spin this? Manafort hasn't done anything wrong, so his attempts to contact these two people are just Manafort being friendly? Or Obama's daughter's godfather's second cousin met one of the witnesses at a scout jamboree ten years ago,  and the second witness's ex-wife's babysitter's best friend's boyfriend was a dog walker for someone who lives three blocks over from Clinton's brother's house, so clearly BOTH witnesses were plants to lure Manafort into sending encrypted messages that look bad, but aren't really, because the whole Manafort thing is clearly a deep star/black hawk globalist operation?

Or maybe at this point we're just clicking our heels together, reciting 'there's no place like Mar A Lago' and throwing pixie dust in the air in an effort to distract from what's really happening behind the Mueller curtain.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 5, 2018 8:21:33 GMT -5 midjd said:

before you say anything, prepare to shut the fuck up:

Rude. 

Now now, "swearing appears to be a feature of language that an articulate speaker can use in order to communicate with maximum effectiveness".

I learned it on YMAM.

[dondub]

[midjd]

Jun 5, 2018 9:46:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 5, 2018 8:21:33 GMT -5 midjd said:

Rude. 

Now now, "swearing appears to be a feature of language that an articulate speaker can use in order to communicate with maximum effectiveness".

I learned it on YMAM.

Uh huh. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 5, 2018 9:01:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

IMO, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ.

In my opinion? Hilarious.

It's a pretty good educated guess. 

I find it interesting that there has not been

One.

Single.

Leak.

From the I.G. report...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 5, 2018 9:46:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 5, 2018 8:21:33 GMT -5 midjd said:

Rude. 

Now now, "swearing appears to be a feature of language that an articulate speaker can use in order to communicate with maximum effectiveness".

I learned it on YMAM.

Fuckin' Classic.

[retread]

Jun 5, 2018 2:53:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 4, 2018 20:21:36 GMT -5 retread said:

Interesting timing.  I grabbed this for message this afternoon and another opportunity arises a few hours later.

I am not well-versed in old movies. Where is this from? What's the scene and relevance?

The movie is "The Man Who Knew Too Much".  This was a highly cryptic reference to a few words in the post which proceeded mine.

Jun 4, 2018 19:29:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Really, what does it matter what any of us, or anyone at all, thinks of the relative likelihood. Either evidence will come out to substantiate the "set up" theory or it won't. The evidence will either implicate agency actors or it won't. If it does, que sera sera. If it doesn't, a theory isn't enough to prosecute or convict anybody. It goes into the bin along with the JFK assassination and the moon landing hoax.

btw, she turned 96 in April.
kind of a stretch to use that post as a segue and if you disliked the frivolous tangent, I apologize. But the song evokes memories of a pleasant period of time for me. That's just how my mind works. A short phrase or even a single word can trigger a song in my head and the song triggers a mood. It's a blessing ... and a curse.

[billisonboard]

Jun 5, 2018 11:24:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 5, 2018 9:01:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

IMO, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ.

In my opinion? Hilarious.

It's a pretty good educated guess. 

...

Then identify it as a guess. My guess is that the guy doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 5, 2018 12:24:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 5, 2018 11:24:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's a pretty good educated guess. 

...

Then identify it as a guess. My guess is that the guy doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions.

"IMO, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ."

versus

"IME, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ."

I'd give the guy a break.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 5, 2018 10:41:19 GMT -5 midjd said:

Jun 5, 2018 9:46:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Now now, "swearing appears to be a feature of language that an articulate speaker can use in order to communicate with maximum effectiveness".

I learned it on YMAM.

Uh huh. 

uh, that is not what i said, Virgil.  THIS is:

"it can be said that swearing is often MORE CLEAR than other means"

example: stop being such a prick.

[retread]

Jun 5, 2018 13:20:58 GMT -5 @djlungrot said:

"it can be said that swearing is often MORE CLEAR than other means"

example: stop being such a prick.

Interesting example. There is a great deal clarity there. Although I'm not sure what you made clear was what you wanted to make clear.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 5, 2018 13:33:12 GMT -5 retread said:

Jun 5, 2018 13:20:58 GMT -5 @djlungrot said:

"it can be said that swearing is often MORE CLEAR than other means"

example: stop being such a prick.

Interesting example. There is a great deal clarity there. Although I'm not sure what you made clear was what you wanted to make clear.

you have no idea what i want.  perhaps you should cease speculating otherwise.

second example: maybe you should mind your own damned business? 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 5, 2018 12:11:34 GMT -5 retread said:

Jun 5, 2018 2:53:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

I am not well-versed in old movies. Where is this from? What's the scene and relevance?

The movie is "The Man Who Knew Too Much".  This was a highly cryptic reference to a few words in the post which proceeded mine.

Jun 4, 2018 19:29:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Really, what does it matter what any of us, or anyone at all, thinks of the relative likelihood. Either evidence will come out to substantiate the "set up" theory or it won't. The evidence will either implicate agency actors or it won't. If it does, que sera sera. If it doesn't, a theory isn't enough to prosecute or convict anybody. It goes into the bin along with the JFK assassination and the moon landing hoax.

btw, she turned 96 in April.
kind of a stretch to use that post as a segue and if you disliked the frivolous tangent, I apologize. But the song evokes memories of a pleasant period of time for me. That's just how my mind works. A short phrase or even a single word can trigger a song in my head and the song triggers a mood. It's a blessing ... and a curse.

It didn't get by me. You might have me pegged as some old bastard that stands out on the porch yelling at the kids to get off my lawn, but I'm actually a film buff and I recognized it right away.  FWIW, I'm a hopeless flaming liberal when it comes to entertainment. I love movies and music, and I have very ecclectic taste. Movies are the perfect place for liberalism because that's where we're supposed to go to live out our fantasies. In the rest of life, however, I'm a reality fanatic.

[retread]

Jun 5, 2018 13:38:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you have no idea what i want.

That's patently false. I have an idea although that lacks absolute certainty. And that uncertainty was clearly expressed.

Jun 5, 2018 13:38:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

second example: maybe you should mind your own damned business? 

That example is nearly as weak as your first one. Although this one only has one clarity added through vulgarity rather than two, the lack of creativity in applying the vulgarity doesn't impress anyone while clearly indicating your lack of control due to being irritated.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 5, 2018 13:20:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 5, 2018 10:41:19 GMT -5 midjd said:

Uh huh. 

uh, that is not what i said, Virgil.  THIS is:

"it can be said that swearing is often MORE CLEAR than other means"

example: stop being such a prick.

The quote is straight from Weltz' "study".

As for "swearing is often MORE CLEAR than other means", I agree. And spitting in somebody's eye and threatening them with death sends the clearest, most unambiguous, most profound message of all, but I don't recommend doing that either.

The "legitimate" purpose of swearing is to add punch at the expense of objectivity and decorum, the same as slurs, memes, and dirty jokes. It's the verbal equivalent of a Jerry Springer show: provocative and titillating, but clear in its intent to drag conversation into the gutter.

This is a general criticism. If you disagree, please don't take it personally. It seems to me you only rarely use profanity anyway.

[billisonboard]

Jun 5, 2018 12:54:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 5, 2018 12:24:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Then identify it as a guess. My guess is that the guy doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions.

"IMO, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ."

versus

"IME, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ."

I'd give the guy a break.

In a less significant application, so would I. I also give people a break in insignificant discussions when they confuse thinking and feeling.

[djAdvocate]

The quote is straight from Weltz' "study".

didn't read it.  thanks for pointing that out.

As for "swearing is often MORE CLEAR than other means", I agree. And spitting in somebody's eye and threatening them with death sends the clearest, most unambiguous, most profound message of all, but I don't recommend doing that either.

but there is a different standard for language than action, Virgil.  that is why abusive SPEECH is generally protected by the first amendment, and abusive (or threatening) ACTION never is.

The "legitimate" purpose of swearing is to add punch at the expense of objectivity and decorum, the same as slurs, memes, and dirty jokes. It's the verbal equivalent of a Jerry Springer show: provocative and titillating, but clear in its intent to drag conversation into the gutter.

i am not all that interested in objectivity and decorum.  however, i don't generally engage in slurs, memes and i never tell dirty jokes.  i am interested in making my point, and doing it as forcefully and concisely as possible.  if i can use a four letter word to accomplish that, then i will.

This is a general criticism. If you disagree, don't take it personally.

this might surprise you a bit, given our history, but i don't take anything personally here, anymore.  if you don't believe me, i don't fucking care. 

but in case you were projecting: don't take anything i say personally either.  mmkay?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 5, 2018 14:07:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 5, 2018 12:54:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"IMO, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ."

versus

"IME, Horowitz FBI/DOJ investigation has already issued 30+ indictments & at least 150+ criminal referrals, to the DOJ."

I'd give the guy a break.

In a less significant application, so would I. I also give people a break in insignificant discussions when they confuse thinking and feeling.

If he's using "In my opinion, ..." as a hedge for "My morning tea leaves told me..." baseless speculation, which I now take it is what you're alleging, disregard the comparison.

I thought you might be splitting hairs over the difference between opinion and estimation.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 5, 2018 14:06:19 GMT -5 retread said:

Jun 5, 2018 13:38:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you have no idea what i want.

That's patently false. I have an idea although that lacks absolute certainty. And that uncertainty was clearly expressed.

Jun 5, 2018 13:38:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

second example: maybe you should mind your own damned business? 

That example is nearly as weak as your first one. Although this one only has one clarity added through vulgarity rather than two, the lack of creativity in applying the vulgarity doesn't impress anyone while clearly indicating your lack of control due to being irritated.

ad hominem.  logically invalid, but rhetorically effective.

how about we try an experiment: you engage the substance of the debate and leave posters out of it?

how does that sound?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 5, 2018 14:06:19 GMT -5 retread said:

the lack of creativity in applying the vulgarity doesn't impress anyone

do you post here to impress?  good luck with that.

[retread]

Jun 5, 2018 14:13:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you don't believe me, i don't fucking care.

Here the attempt at emphasizing though vulgarity is counter-productive. Unless the 'clarity' you're going for is that you do care.

Ambivalence suffers when an attempt is made to emphasize it. Subtlety often has more effect than emphasis. This is prime example of a case where it dose.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 5, 2018 14:32:12 GMT -5 retread said:

Jun 5, 2018 14:13:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you don't believe me, i don't fucking care.

Here the attempt at emphasizing though vulgarity is counter-productive. Unless the 'clarity' you're going for is that you do care.

Ambivalence suffers when an attempt is made to emphasize it. Subtlety often has more effect than emphasis. This is prime example of a case where it dose.

really?  so, if i say "i don't fucking care", that indicates MORE caring than if i say "i don't care"?

that is not the impression i get.  the impression i get when someone says that is that they REALLY don't care.  like....REALLY REALLY REALLY.  i see the "fucking" as a sort of eyeroll of exhaustion.  like "leave me alone about this, you are boring me to death".  that is how i interpret it.

but apparently you feel differently.  and that is fine.  but keep in mind that this is your subjective impression.

in this particular case, however, i threw that in to be funny, and i doubt very much that it was lost on Virgil.  we have a long history together, and i am SURE he can recognize my humor by now.

this is a prime example of not getting the humor because of insufficient dose. 

[retread]

Jun 5, 2018 14:37:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

really?  so, if i say "i don't fucking care", that indicates MORE caring than if i say "i don't care"?

Yes. And since it was necessary for you to ask after the explanation of how ambivalence works indicates you either are unable to grasp the concept or are for some reason unwilling to.

Some people understand the art of understatement. Others don't. But that's okay. It takes all sorts to make a world. Else it would be boring.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 5, 2018 14:54:40 GMT -5 retread said:

Jun 5, 2018 14:37:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

really?  so, if i say "i don't fucking care", that indicates MORE caring than if i say "i don't care"?

Yes. And since it was necessary for you to ask after the explanation of how ambivalence works indicates you either are unable to grasp the concept or are for some reason unwilling to.

Some people understand the art of understatement. Others don't. But that's okay. It takes all sorts to make a world. Else it would be boring.

there is little that is more boring than ad hominem argumentative retreads.

i understand understatement just fine.  i just don't care much for it.

as you say, to each their own. 

[retread]

Jun 5, 2018 15:13:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is little that is more boring than ad hominem argumentative retreads.

Nicely done. Effective and you didn't need to resort to clumsy vulgarity. I'll throw a like on that post.

Apparently you can learn.