The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Captainant 27,660]

3 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

For the second time, I do, but they deserved to be called out as such. And if they are going to claim that they are politically impartial and unbiased, then they should back it up. None of these outlets are actually impartial, so they should stop pretending and claiming it.

Just to be clear, you're attacking comedy central for having bias? But you don't consider fox news as a biased source? 

[David Dennison 18,856]

2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

For the second time, I do, but they deserved to be called out as such. And if they are going to claim that they are politically impartial and unbiased, then they should back it up. None of these outlets are actually impartial, so they should stop pretending and claiming it.

Why would they do that if it's good for business?

[wildcat09 29,352]

5 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Well it's the same Hilary who set up a private email server to evade scrutiny, apparently unaware that the other correspondents would have emails on different servers.  But to your point there was aggressive leaking by the Clinton machine cronies and opportunists jockeying for favor after the obvious Hilary victory. 

What material from the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign was leaked by Hillary?

[wildcat09 29,352]

14 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Yes. Or like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, most newspapers and magazines etc.

Doubt you’ve been looking. Shadow banning is a popular technique used by twitter but the hypocrisy of banning based on violating terms of service is probably worse. I’m sure there are better studies out there but here’s a quick one. Surprised I was able to find it

https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/

Lulz, quillette.

[Enchubben 5,510]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just to be clear, you're attacking comedy central for having bias? But you don't consider fox news as a biased source? 

Phew! good thing you asked to be clear, because your reading comprehension is uhhhh not great. No that’s not what I said. Go back and read again.

[Enchubben 5,510]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Lulz, quillette.

Well I tried to find something on CNN but all I could find were articles on all this supposed direct evidence of Trump collusion with Russia which has resulted in a big nothingburger (for Trump). 

[GRHorn 105]

10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The Mueller report proved that the media was right.

Bless your heart. 

[David Dennison 18,856]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

Well I tried to find something on CNN but all I could find were articles on all this supposed direct evidence of Trump collusion with Russia which has resulted in a big nothingburger (for Trump). 

That must be why he crytweets about it every day.

[David Dennison 18,856]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Bless your heart. 

You should read the report.

[jimmyjazz 45,909]

26 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Yes. Or like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, most newspapers and magazines etc.

Doubt you’ve been looking. Shadow banning is a popular technique used by twitter but the hypocrisy of banning based on violating terms of service is probably worse. I’m sure there are better studies out there but here’s a quick one. Surprised I was able to find it

https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/

If that guy wants to bolster his story, he should compile and release the 22 social media posts & tweets that allegedly got conservatives banned.  I'm gonna go way out on a limb and guess that most of them were ban-worthy.

By the way, to argue this angle is to accuse Jack Dorsey of lying before Congress.  I'm not saying the man is above such a thing, but I guarantee he knows it's a serious offense.

[hpslugga 4,058]

38 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

For the second time, I do, but they deserved to be called out as such. And if they are going to claim that they are politically impartial and unbiased, then they should back it up. None of these outlets are actually impartial, so they should stop pretending and claiming it.

Here's my problem with the implied presumption here, which is that both Democrats and Republicans deserve to be treated equally (a premise the Republicans, incidentally, rejected decades ago when they challenged and revoked the FCC's Fairness Doctrine).

Six years ago, Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann of the very conservative Brookings Institute wrote an essay in which they explained that "the Republican Party has become a radical insurgency—ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." They're absolutely right about that. And when you are all those things that they accurately stated, you by definition cease to become a traditional parliamentary party. The problem is that both parties over the last four decades have shifted to the right. The Democrats today are basically the Republicans of the 1970's, and the Republicans today are a clown show that has drifted off the political spectrum entirely. It's profusely stupid, not to mention completely insane, to put these two groups on equal footing. It's not "political bias" to be dismissive of the notions that:

-Trickle Down Economics works 
-Global Warming isn't real
-Prayer in school needs to be "made legal again"
-Planned Parenthood should be shut down
-The Good Guy with a Gun
-A national healthcare system is more financially disastrous than our financially disastrous system
-Intelligent Design needs to be mandated in science curricula (although they aren't sure if public education in general needs to exist or not)
-A wall needs to be built on our southern border
-Right to Work
-The minimum wage either needs to stay as it is or be obliterated entirely

And a host of other viewpoints that are every bit as stupid as they are purely evil. The media has absolutely no motivation, nor have they any legitimate reason, in promoting these viewpoints as being equally valid as their blue counterparts.

What I would take issue with in the media (and I know that they doubtlessly would fall into this) is when they weigh in on the infighting of the Democratic Party. In the tussles between the Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ilhan Omar, et al types against the traditional establishment, the media always seems to lend favorability to the latter group. That wouldn't be because the media itself is owned by corporations, who themselves are part of larger conglomerates, with target audiences (advertisers) and naturally lean in a certain ideological direction as a result of being constituted in such a way, would it?

23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You should read the report.

Why do that when he can watch pundits, on a network with a vested interest in supporting the president, scream and yell about it 24/7. Same as reading a 448-page report with over 2,000 citations, right?

Edited April 25, 2019 by hpslugga

[Enchubben 5,510]

33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That must be why he crytweets about it every day.

Donald Trump is still your president.

[David Dennison 18,856]

5 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Donald Trump is still your president.

I got through Reagan and W. I think I'll be OK. And he'll be replaced by a Democrat.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,195]

10 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Donald Trump is still your president.

and he's still a cunt, just like you...what's your point?

[Enchubben 5,510]

5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

and he's still a cunt, just like you...what's your point?

There’s the tolerant left I was looking for. You go high when we go low right?

[hpslugga 4,058]

2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

There’s the tolerant left I was looking for. You go high when we go low right?

Notwithstanding that pitiful understand of what "the left" is, it's not intolerant to not tolerate intolerance.

Edited April 25, 2019 by hpslugga

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

What material from the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign was leaked by Hillary?

I think it hilarious that you keep trying to draw down the scope of the issue. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Anastasis

[hpslugga 4,058]

Btw just a show of hands, how many of you have actually read the report cover to cover?

[BradInATX 9,208]

There’s the tolerant left I was looking for. You go high when we go low right?

Not anymore. Trump has unlocked and normalized the flaunting of the most base flaws we have as humans. Unadulterated greed, racism, xenophobia, and hatred. And while Trump supporters are enjoying their moment in the sun and the ability to celebrate those things publicly, the Democrats seem to be learning to fight fire with fire.

 

I'm sure when the tables turn in two years, there won't be any playing victim or a sudden turn to ethics and morality by Trump people, after four years of trolling, liberal tears, and snowflakes.

 

You did this. Deal with it.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,195]

8 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

There’s the tolerant left I was looking for. You go high when we go low right?

I was a Republican most of my life, until the religious right hijacked it and turned it into the Christian Taliban Wannabe party.

So, you’re an ignorant cunt.

[Anastasis 23,469]

16 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

That's it? That's all you've got?

A: Says a lot about the FBI and the IC.

W: Says a lot about Hillary.

A: Yeah, I didn't really say much about Hillary.

W: Say something about Hillary!

A: OK I guess. Says something about Hillary.

W: That's all you got? Ha!

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

46 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Why do that when he can watch pundits, on a network with a vested interest in supporting the president, scream and yell about it 24/7. Same as reading a 448-page report with over 2,000 citations, right?

And this is a main part of the issue. News isn't meant to be consumed for long periods of time. Should be within an article or two minute segment outlining the data points. Unfortunately with 24/7 news, they fill the gaps with pundits and opinionated characters to put spins on the data. When you have the news on all day, you can easily start blurring the lines between news and opinion. Fox was the first to dive into the opinion technique and have made it their main method of broadcast. Others are now employing that method to the detriment of journalistic objectivity.

I've noticed a trend of "still trumpers" where they depend on opinion pieces to support their justifications more than not. The individual has to vet information from several sources to sus out the fact from opinion and some just don't have the energy, want, motivation to do so because of expediency. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

52 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Here's my problem with the implied presumption here, which is that both Democrats and Republicans deserve to be treated equally (a premise the Republicans, incidentally, rejected decades ago when they challenged and revoked the FCC's Fairness Doctrine).

Six years ago, Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann of the very conservative Brookings Institute wrote an essay in which they explained that "the Republican Party has become a radical insurgency—ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." They're absolutely right about that. And when you are all those things that they accurately stated, you by definition cease to become a traditional parliamentary party. The problem is that both parties over the last four decades have shifted to the right. The Democrats today are basically the Republicans of the 1970's, and the Republicans today are a clown show that has drifted off the political spectrum entirely. It's profusely stupid, not to mention completely insane, to put these two groups on equal footing. It's not "political bias" to be dismissive of the notions that:

-Trickle Down Economics works 
-Global Warming isn't real
-Prayer in school needs to be "made legal again"
-Planned Parenthood should be shut down
-The Good Guy with a Gun
-A national healthcare system is more financially disastrous than our financially disastrous system
-Intelligent Design needs to be mandated in science curricula (although they aren't sure if public education in general needs to exist or not)
-A wall needs to be built on our southern border
-Right to Work
-The minimum wage either needs to stay as it is or be obliterated entirely

And a host of other viewpoints that are every bit as stupid as they are purely evil. The media has absolutely no motivation, nor have they any legitimate reason, in promoting these viewpoints as being equally valid as their blue counterparts.

What I would take issue with in the media (and I know that they doubtlessly would fall into this) is when they weigh in on the infighting of the Democratic Party. In the tussles between the Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ilhan Omar, et al types against the traditional establishment, the media always seems to lend favorability to the latter group. That wouldn't be because the media itself is owned by corporations, who themselves are part of larger conglomerates, with target audiences (advertisers) and naturally lean in a certain ideological direction as a result of being constituted in such a way, would it?

Why do that when he can watch pundits, on a network with a vested interest in supporting the president, scream and yell about it 24/7. Same as reading a 448-page report with over 2,000 citations, right?

This is good. I would add ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’ to your bulleted list as a recent example of the GOP’s acceptance of stupidity

[Anastasis 23,469]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And this is a main part of the issue. News isn't meant to be consumed for long periods of time. Should be within an article or two minute segment outlining the data points. Unfortunately with 24/7 news, they fill the gaps with pundits and opinionated characters to put spins on the data. When you have the news on all day, you can easily start blurring the lines between news and opinion. Fox was the first to dive into the opinion technique and have made it their main method of broadcast. Others are now employing that method to the detriment of journalistic objectivity.

I've noticed a trend of "still trumpers" where they depend on opinion pieces to support their justifications more than not. The individual has to vet information from several sources to sus out the fact from opinion and some just don't have the energy, want, motivation to do so because of expediency. 

I get all of my really pivotal takes from twitter. 

[wildcat09 29,352]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think it hilarious that you keep trying to draw down the scope of the issue. 

Your stupid theory is that Hillary engineered the FBI investigation to help her win the election. The fact that she never attempted to actually utilize anything from the investigation to help her win blows a pretty big hole in that theory.

[Anastasis 23,469]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Your stupid theory is that Hillary engineered the FBI investigation to help her win the election. The fact that she never attempted to actually utilize anything from the investigation to help her win blows a pretty big hole in that theory.

That's the stupid theory that you made up in your head.

 

From last page:

 

Here is a reasonable outline of my working theory.  I can cite the vast majority of this from declassified materials and sworn testimony. There are a couple areas that require some logical connecting of the dots. Oh, and Brennan should be replaced with Clapper.  Got my spooks confused.  But please go on.  Try to use another argument tactic other than name calling. 

  On 4/23/2019 at 4:33 PM, Anastasis said:

Washington Free Beacon, Rubio, Steele Russia focus started after DNC took over.  It served as a significant input into the investigation,  inserted into the IC via conduits into the FBI with conflicts of interest and State Department officials, and substantive portions were used in FISA applications without verification.  Apparently Brennan tried to have portions inserted in the assessment of Russian interference (first I heard that one, in video linked above). Not surprising since Brennan was also leaking it to journalists and coordinating with Comey to have it publicly released around the same time, coinciding with the FBI's assessment that the quality of the sources were seriously flawed.  Reports are that the FBI IG is zeroing in on Steele for his report, and that Steele has refused to cooperate.  None of that is conspiracy theory, all statements can be cited. But nothing to investigate here.  

 

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Anastasis

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I get all of my really pivotal takes from twitter. 

Good morning, Mr. President.

[hpslugga 4,058]

36 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

This is good. I would add ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’ to your bulleted list as a recent example of the GOP’s acceptance of stupidity

The only reason I didn’t specifically list that one is because it’s the equally retarded cousin of the ‘Trickle Down Economics works’ canard.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's the stupid theory that you made up in your head.

 

From last page:

 

Here is a reasonable outline of my working theory.  I can cite the vast majority of this from declassified materials and sworn testimony. There are a couple areas that require some logical connecting of the dots. Oh, and Brennan should be replaced with Clapper.  Got my spooks confused.  But please go on.  Try to use another argument tactic other than name calling. 

  On 4/23/2019 at 4:33 PM, Anastasis said:

Washington Free Beacon, Rubio, Steele Russia focus started after DNC took over.  It served as a significant input into the investigation,  inserted into the IC via conduits into the FBI with conflicts of interest and State Department officials, and substantive portions were used in FISA applications without verification.  Apparently Brennan tried to have portions inserted in the assessment of Russian interference (first I heard that one, in video linked above). Not surprising since Brennan was also leaking it to journalists and coordinating with Comey to have it publicly released around the same time, coinciding with the FBI's assessment that the quality of the sources were seriously flawed.  Reports are that the FBI IG is zeroing in on Steele for his report, and that Steele has refused to cooperate.  None of that is conspiracy theory, all statements can be cited. But nothing to investigate here.  

 

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Jesus Anastasis, you've gone insane. You can stop pretending to be the impartial guy above at all anytime now.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45,909]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Jesus Anastasis, you've gone insane. You can stop pretending to be the impartial guy above at all anytime now.

I think I've read that paragraph a half dozen times and I'm still not entirely sure what the theory is.

[David Dennison 18,856]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

There’s the tolerant left I was looking for. You go high when we go low right?

Since when is the left tolerant of the right?

[Anastasis 23,469]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think I've read that paragraph a half dozen times and I'm still not entirely sure what the theory is.

Maybe the context of the post that I was responding to will help you jimmy since you seem to be struggling.

On 4/23/2019 at 4:21 PM, Lagunamadre said:

Jeb Bush campaign started it. Clinton finished it. It wasn't used to start the FBI counterintelligence probe or to appoint a special council. A lot of it was corroborated by Mueller, some of it wasn't. What exactly is there to "investigate"? 

On 4/23/2019 at 4:33 PM, Anastasis said:

Washington Free Beacon, Rubio, Steele Russia focus started after DNC took over.  It served as a significant input into the investigation,  inserted into the IC via conduits into the FBI with conflicts of interest and State Department officials, and substantive portions were used in FISA applications without verification.  Apparently Brennan tried to have portions inserted in the assessment of Russian interference (first I heard that one, in video linked above). Not surprising since Brennan was also leaking it to journalists and coordinating with Comey to have it publicly released around the same time, coinciding with the FBI's assessment that the quality of the sources were seriously flawed.  Reports are that the FBI IG is zeroing in on Steele for his report, and that Steele has refused to cooperate.  None of that is conspiracy theory, all statements can be cited. But nothing to investigate here.  

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Anastasis

[Dahobbs 17,534]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think I've read that paragraph a half dozen times and I'm still not entirely sure what the theory is.

It isn't a theory. It is rambling. There doesn't need to be any conspiracy to believe the FBI should investigate whether a candidate's campaign is compromised when a foreign agent is clearly and working to influence the election in the candidate's favor. I'm glad the answer here is that it was just a general move to destabilize the country by supporting the fucking moronic candidate and not actual treason by the candidate. But shit like that should always be investigated. In this instance I would have more problem with the idea that FBI wasnt doing anything than with the idea that political motives spurred their action.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45,909]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe the context of the post that I was responding to will help you jimmy since you seem to be struggling.

The only reason I'm struggling is because you don't write very clearly.  Apparently "it" is the Steele dossier.  Read in this light, that paragraph smacks of a whole bunch of conspiracy theory wrapped up in a cloak of legitimacy.  

[Anastasis 23,469]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't a theory. It is rambling.

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The only reason I'm struggling is because you don't write very clearly. 

Let's restate.

Opposition research conducted by a foreign intelligence operative and funded by a political entity was transmitted to the FBI through a back channel network that involved individuals in the FBI with conflicts of interest and individuals tied to the State Department. This work product was based on intel from Russian sources, providing a mix of disinformation and plausible content. That work product was used without verification by the FBI to bolster FISA application(s) for surveillance of at least one US citizen with a connection to another political entity. According to Woodward, another component of the intelligence community tried to have content from that work product inserted into the IC assessment of Russian interference. In time the FBI  attempted but was unable to verify the material, and found the sources to be unreliable. At the same time that the sources were being determined unreliable, yet another individual associated with yet another component of the intelligence community was spreading knowledge of the content of unverified opposition research among journalists, and orchestrating a series of events which included the reluctant participation of the Director of the FBI to provide cover for the public release of that material. This served to pour gasoline on a fire intended to undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected US President. 

You guys don't care about any of this, cause Trump.  I get it. I do care.  Not because of Trump, but because I have consistent concerns about abuses within the US intelligence community both here and abroad.  Please keep this post at top of mind when the IG report is issued in May/June timeframe so that we can come back to it. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Anastasis

[DDD Dad 14,336]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Let's restate.

Opposition research conducted by a foreign intelligence operative and funded by a political entity was transmitted to the FBI through a back channel network that involved individuals in the FBI with conflicts of interest and individuals tied to the State Department. This work product was based on intel from Russian sources, providing a mix of disinformation and plausible content. That work product was used without verification by the FBI to bolster FISA application(s) for surveillance of at least one US citizen with a connection to another political entity. According to Woodward, another component of the intelligence community tried to have content from that work product inserted into the IC assessment of Russian interference. In time the FBI  attempted but was unable to verify the material, and found the sources to be unreliable. At the same time that the sources were being determined unreliable, yet another individual associated with yet another component of the intelligence community was spreading knowledge of the content of unverified opposition research among journalists, and orchestrating a series of events which included the reluctant participation of the Director of the FBI to provide cover for the public release of that material. This served to pour gasoline on a fire intended to undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected US President. 

You guys don't care about any of this, cause Trump.  I get it. I do care.  Not because of Trump, but because I have consistent concerns about abuses within the US intelligence community both here and abroad.  Please keep this post at top of mind when the IG report is issued in May/June timeframe so that we can come back to it. 

LOUD NOISES!

[Anastasis 23,469]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

LOUD NOISES!

 

[wildcat09 29,352]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Let's restate.

Opposition research conducted by a foreign intelligence operative and funded by a political entity was transmitted to the FBI through a back channel network that involved individuals in the FBI with conflicts of interest and individuals tied to the State Department. This work product was based on intel from Russian sources, providing a mix of disinformation and plausible content. That work product was used without verification by the FBI to bolster FISA application(s) for surveillance of at least one US citizen with a connection to another political entity. According to Woodward, another component of the intelligence community tried to have content from that work product inserted into the IC assessment of Russian interference. In time the FBI  attempted but was unable to verify the material, and found the sources to be unreliable. At the same time that the sources were being determined unreliable, yet another individual associated with yet another component of the intelligence community was spreading knowledge of the content of unverified opposition research among journalists, and orchestrating a series of events which included the reluctant participation of the Director of the FBI to provide cover for the public release of that material. This served to pour gasoline on a fire intended to undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected US President. 

You guys don't care about any of this, cause Trump.  I get it. I do care.  Not because of Trump, but because I have consistent concerns about abuses within the US intelligence community both here and abroad.  Please keep this post at top of mind when the IG report is issued in May/June timeframe so that we can come back to it. 

No, you don't care. In fact, you know that a lot of what you just mentioned was fully appropriate and justified or benign. You know that Steele himself presented the dossier as unverified raw intelligence. You know that the FISA application presented the dossier as unverified raw intelligence.

What you DO care about is constantly redirecting all negative focus back to the Democrats, and because Trump makes that very hard, you try to dress up some bullshit in, as jimmyjazz said, a cloak of legitimacy. All you are is a more sophisticated texashammer.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Let's restate.

Opposition research conducted by a foreign intelligence operative and funded by a political entity was transmitted to the FBI through a back channel network that involved individuals in the FBI with conflicts of interest and individuals tied to the State Department. This work product was based on intel from Russian sources, providing a mix of disinformation and plausible content. That work product was used without verification by the FBI to bolster FISA application(s) for surveillance of at least one US citizen with a connection to another political entity. According to Woodward, another component of the intelligence community tried to have content from that work product inserted into the IC assessment of Russian interference. In time the FBI  attempted but was unable to verify the material, and found the sources to be unreliable. At the same time that the sources were being determined unreliable, yet another individual associated with yet another component of the intelligence community was spreading knowledge of the content of unverified opposition research among journalists, and orchestrating a series of events which included the reluctant participation of the Director of the FBI to provide cover for the public release of that material. This served to pour gasoline on a fire intended to undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected US President. 

You guys don't care about any of this, cause Trump.  I get it. I do care.  Not because of Trump, but because I have consistent concerns about abuses within the US intelligence community both here and abroad.  Please keep this post at top of mind when the IG report is issued in May/June timeframe so that we can come back to it. 

I dont care about it because it is bullshit. The intelligence community should have always been investigating the issue. FISA warrants were granted before the dossier existed. I frankly dont even know what "back channels" means in this context. It is information that was probative of an on going investigation that coincided with a massive foreign operation to disrupt our elections. It wasnt a hypothetical threat, it was a real and ongoing one. Yes, that information should be utilized by the IC community, like any other information that is gathered in the course of an investigation.

But of course, you dont think any of us should care about the real attempt to disrupt the election or real the possibility that a candidate was compromised, or any of the real constitutional problems his administration has created because "both sides" and apparently because "bullshit and nonsensical conspiracy theory."

[DDD Dad 14,336]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

[wildcat09 29,352]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I dont care about it because it is bullshit. The intelligence community should have always been investigating the issue. FISA warrants were granted before the dossier existed. I frankly dont even know what "back channels" means in this context. It is information that was probative of an on going investigation that coincided with a massive foreign operation to disrupt our elections. It wasnt a hypothetical threat, it was a real and ongoing one. Yes, that information should be utilized by the IC community, like any other information that is gathered in the course of an investigation.

But of course, you dont think any of us should care about the real attempt to disrupt the election or real the possibility that a candidate was compromised, or any of the real constitutional problems his administration has created because "both sides" and apparently because "bullshit and nonsensical conspiracy theory."

But but someone had ties to the State Department!

[jimmyjazz 45,909]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You guys don't care about any of this, cause Trump.  I get it.

Well, that's not true.  I care if there are inefficiencies or political motivations informing IC investigations.  In this case, I have no reason to believe that corners were cut or bad decisions were made above and beyond what might be expected in any multi-pronged investigation performed by real live human beings.  I think you see abuse because you're looking for abuse.  Your counterargument is of course that I don't see it because I'm not looking for it.

In the end, the FISA warrant for Carter Page was wholly justified even if the Steele dossier were completely ignored.  I believe you're advocating a standard of evidence that is more consistent with a guilty verdict in a court of law rather than the lower bar which naturally must be set for allowing surveillance and other investigatory actions.

[David Dennison 18,856]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You guys don't care about any of this, cause Trump.  I get it. I do care.  Not because of Trump, but because I have consistent concerns about abuses within the US intelligence community both here and abroad.  Please keep this post at top of mind when the IG report is issued in May/June timeframe so that we can come back to it. 

What are you doing about it?

[Anastasis 23,469]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I dont care about it because it is bullshit.

So now I dwell just to say you're plainer
Hold your cup, cause I got the container
Pass a plate or, cross the fader
Black Sheep get play like the Sony Innovator
Never the traitor, party inflater
And you can get a scoop ... later

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

30 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

All you are is a more sophisticated texashammer.

[Pig Bellmont 8,715]

So let me understand this theory. Democratic leaning officials improperly advanced a counter intelligence investigation into people associated with the Trump campaign for political reasons, but no one actually revealed that this investigation existed or was ongoing until *after* the election? Or was it their intention to wait until after Trump won to have a special counsel appointed?

That is the stupidest bunch of bullshit I think I’ve heard. Next Anastasis will be telling us to bookmark posts about pizzagate. 

[Longhorn94 2,448]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

So let me understand this theory. Democratic leaning officials improperly advanced a counter intelligence investigation into people associated with the Trump campaign for political reasons, but no one actually revealed that this investigation existed or was ongoing until *after* the election? Or was it their intention to wait until after Trump won to have a special counsel appointed?

That is the stupidest bunch of bullshit I think I’ve heard. Next Anastasis will be telling us to bookmark posts about pizzagate. 

you dont understand. DEEP STATE! BOTH SIDES! - Anastasis.

[Anastasis 23,469]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

That is the stupidest bunch of bullshit I think I’ve heard. Next Anastasis will be telling us to bookmark posts about pizzagate. 

 

Just now, Longhorn94 said:

you dont understand. DEEP STATE! BOTH SIDES! - Anastasis.

 

Where's the black sheep, here's the black sheep
Even if we wanted to, the flock could not be weak
Watch me swing like this, why should I swing it like that
Because in fact, on me it might not attract
Therefore I ignore, do as I feel inside
I live with me, I've got my back tonight
Ya know what I'm saying
Yo Black, I'm not playing

[Longhorn94 2,448]

Just now, Anastasis said:

 

 

Where's the black sheep, here's the black sheep
Even if we wanted to, the flock could not be weak
Watch me swing like this, why should I swing it like that
Because in fact, on me it might not attract
Therefore I ignore, do as I feel inside
I live with me, I've got my back tonight
Ya know what I'm saying
Yo Black, I'm not playing

#BOTHSIDES! DEEP STATE!!!!! Tear it all down! except the Republicans and Trump. just the dems did bad stuff. not the republians. see the DEEP STATE and LAW ENFORCEMENT favor democrats! everyone is talking about it. DEEP STATE and FBI, those dirty bastards, hate Republicans! #BOTHSIDES!!!!!!

 

good lord man....

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

Everyone knew the Steele reports were raw intelligence, which are just rumors from unverified sources. It was intended to point federal investigators and investigative journalists in various directions to investigate and corroborate. That is what it did.

Much of the Steele reports has turned out accurate:

- russian regime had been cultivating trump for 5 yrs in effort to divide western alliances. TRUE

- one aspect to influence trump was to exploit his sexual perversions. POSSIBLY TRUE. Cohen and Mueller investigated Russian tapes and were unable to deny their existence. Trump and Cohen discussed tapes 

- russia was using state sponsored cyber operations TRUE

- kremlin behind dnc emails released by Wikileaks TRUE

- Russian and trump coordination was managed by Manafort POSSIBLY TRUE. Manafort was providing polling data to Russia and has not cooperated with investigators.

- Page holds secret meetings in Moscow with Rosneft official MOSTLY TRUE. Steele said it was rosneft president but it was a lower level employee.

- trump paid bribes and hookers in St. Petersburg UNKNOWN. Hasn’t been investigated.

- Russians had more emails on Clinton waiting to be released TRUE

- Cohen’s secret meeting Prague UNLIKELY TRUE. Mueller didn't investigate but dismissed it based on Cohen’s testimony