The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 47221]

1 hour ago, TtomTerrific said:

you interject racial conflict into almost every argument that you lose where it has no relevance, as a drowning man lashes violently for some sort of life preserver... thus co-opting an actual sociological pathology for your selfish political "gotchya" moment on a message board.  All you do with that is marginalize the actual victims of racism and get someone like Donald Trump elected in a landslide. 

 

nice work 

 

 

Is this some kind of party game?  It better not be a key party.

[jimmyjazz 47221]

17 minutes ago, tucker said:

Good job Ds

 

Stupid strategy.  The House doesn't need the report . . . they just need Mueller.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

Oh poor Trump attacked and lied about...  GTFO with that bullshit.  That’s Trump’s MO and you are acting like he’s the victim?  To you and anyone whom feels that was I say fuck you!

False dichotomy much?

Yes, they're all bad. They all lie. Two things can be true at the same time. #bothsides 

It's only complicated to the simpleminded.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Bama Chick 28596]

Don’t back down, fat man.

[Chrispy 132]

1 hour ago, Chooky said:

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a businessman who is completely unable to be consistently truthful even about inconsequential details as a president.  The guy is a complete mediocrity in the realm of business and he's fighting for his life to conceal the financial records that will prove that.  At best.  At best he's breaking the most common norms of a system built on checks and balances to hide the fact that he regularly lost large amounts of other people's money.  You support the destruction of basic aspects of democracy so a con artist rube who has spent most of his life cultivating a celebrity profile can save himself from the embarrassment of truth. 

And the best you can hope for is that he's fighting so desperately to hide the fact that he's a mediocre mind rather than an overt criminal.  Staunch conservatives who have spent their lifetime as prosecutors are saying he has committed crimes.  There will always be handfuls of wanks who will say otherwise, especially on cable news, but I think you and everyone else are perfectly aware of why you're especially narrow and selective on whose opinion you value there. 

You quoted me in a post and used the word "delusion" while insisting that a report exonerated him when it clearly did not.  Trump is currently shitting his pants and fighting the public testimony of a guy whose report he claims completely exonerates him.  And you've just decided, based on the word of a guy who lies almost everyday, to believe him instead of showing slight curiosity to see if the guy who exonerated him will in fact exonerate him.  What's at stake is the separation of powers and whether there are particular people in this country who are above the law.  You're claiming that people are delusional while supporting a person fighting a war to hide specific realities.  You aren't entertained.  You're emotionally invested in a guy who lies on a comical level and it gives you angst that the momentum for transparency is surging.

Watching you guys twist, contort, and descend into insanity is absolutely entertaining. We know full well that if you can’t spout any of this hyperbolic nonsense in real life, so I imagine in some sense this is your catharsis. I do know, however, that you’ll be sorely disappointed about Trump’s demise and, well, I feel a slight twinge of pity. After all, I’m not completely heartless. 

[Chooky 13340]

7 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Watching you guys twist, contort, and descend into insanity is absolutely entertaining. We know full well that if you can’t spout any of this hyperbolic nonsense in real life, so I imagine in some sense this is your catharsis. I do know, however, that you’ll be sorely disappointed about Trump’s demise and, well, I feel a slight twinge of pity. After all, I’m not completely heartless. 

I won't be disappointed.  I loathe him as a human but I've stated here multiple times I'm positive he'll win reelection.  What you perceive as insanity is mainly rational people saddened and frustrated by watching the largest expansion of executive power tenfold and the complete dismissal of an entire chamber of government and petulant disdain for the other.  The destruction of that balance should concern conservatives the most, considering the normal social mores of ideology.  You're so clouded in the retardation of your singularity that you haven't noticed that the majority of people in this forum who've you've designated as "insane" have savagely lambasted the democratic side of the isle.  You couldn't fathom that.  You haven't even noticed it because the depth of your curiosity stops at the 'Monday Night Football' intro music of cable news talking points received as ammo rather than the pliancy of ideation.  Few people here recognize you as a thinker because you don't offer thoughts.  You just recycle bumper sticker jargon as if nobody else here has access to Fox News, talk radio or the internet.  Learn to swim.      

[henrygandorf 29227]

7 hours ago, Zavala said:

Now a $35M investigation with 3 years of spying finds no evidence of collusion with Russia. He is saying these things to trigger you.

just as a note - whenever anyone brings up the "cost" of the investigation, i tune out right quick.  as if "well, if it was a $3mm investigation then it was ok, but $35mm??  nowai!"  whenever trump does this, you can tell he's reaching.  it's like when someone resorts to profanity or name-calling in an argument.

nobody in the living, breathing, tax-paying world would tell the difference if the investigation cost 3 bucks or 3 billion.

also lulz at "3 years of spying".

[suddenly shaggy 929]

On 5/6/2019 at 11:32 PM, Anastasis said:

Jesus.  Other than than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln. Since you bring up the Dossier again Hugo, let's step back a couple pages and address some of the [totallycriticallythinkingnormalbrain] takes wrt the Dossier. Let's actually take a detailed look at this.  My comments are in bold. When no comment really necessary, I just bold italicize the WaPo text. 

What the Steele dossier said vs. what the Mueller report said

Glenn Kessler

...

Here’s a guide to how elements of the dossier match up with the Mueller report, along with our analysis.

This analysis is shit.  It wouldn't pass peer review in any self-respecting journal. I would be embarrassed to submit this article.  

“Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” 

— Steele memo 80, dated June 20, 2016

The Mueller report documents extensive Russian efforts to ensure Trump’s victory, through hacking operations and social media efforts. Mueller also details Trump’s business interests in Russia, especially pursuit of a Trump Tower project in Moscow.

Nothing in this memo details hacking or social media operations by Russia.  What this memo does discuss is "the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including clinton, for several years." It discusses a "dossier of compromising material on Clinton" comprising "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls"..."and focused on things that she had said which contradicted her current position on various issues". None of these aspects are supported by Mueller's findings. Memo 80 fails on virtually every single claim in the "Detail" section when examined specifically.

When you actually reference the Dossier to contemporaneous lay press reporting, the reality is that the dossier was very good and accurate at describing information that was already in the public sphere.  It does very poorly when you assess it's ability to actually provide novel forward looking insights from Steele's extensive network of Russian resources.  As described below by the Post...

Talks on the project continued even as Trump pursued the presidency — and Trump aide Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to misleading Congress about those efforts. But a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already broken the news that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee.

“There were other aspects to TRUMP’s engagement with the Russian authorities. One which had borne fruit for them was to exploit personal obsessions and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable ‘kompromat’ [compromising material] on him.” 

— Memo 80

We won’t get into the details, but the most salacious material in the dossier concerned allegations that Trump cavorted with sex workers in Moscow in 2013 — and that the Russians had tape of the incident. Mueller actually addresses this allegation in an intriguing footnote that called the claim “unverified” but suggested Trump had heard Russia might have such incriminating tapes.

“Comey’s briefing [to Trump] included the Steele reporting’s unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant,” the report said. “During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 2016, [Trump attorney] Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, ‘Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know … .’ Rtskhiladze said ‘tapes’ referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.”

Are we suppose to read this as Mueller confirmed the Pee Pee Tape?  Cause I think that we should mark this an another very specific claim by Steele that Mueller finds insufficient evidence to confirm. This is garbage. 

“Russia has extensive program of state-sponsored offensive cyberoperations.” 

— Memo 86, dated July 26, 2016

This was documented in the Mueller report, but it was also well known at the time Steele wrote this memo. The methods described in this document do not match up with the methods used by the Russians to obtain DNC and Clinton campaign emails during the 2016 campaign.

OK, not sure how WaPo is scoring this one.  Given that the methods described in the Dossier do not match to the methods described in Mueller report, I think scoring it as "non-specific information in line with general knowledge of Russian operations" is a generous assessment.  

 

“Further evidence of extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US. Agreed exchange of information established in both directions.” 

— Memo 95, undated, probably July

This memo makes the strongest suggestion of coordination and collusion — a “conspiracy” — between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The memo claims an “agreed exchange of information in both directions,” with “Trump’s team using moles within the DNC and hackers in the US.” The memo further states that Putin was “motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary Clinton.”

The Mueller investigation did not find such a level of coordination. Instead, it suggests the Trump campaign was opportunistic about apparent assistance from Russia, but Mueller could not find evidence the conspiracy outlined in the memo existed.

Let's go ahead and accept the WaPo assessment.

Instead, the report described Russian contacts that “consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations.”

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller concluded.

 

“TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability.” 

— Memo 95

This is correct. Mueller concluded that Russia distributed hacked material through WikiLeaks, as well as fictitious online personas “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” The report noted: “The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.” Large sections of the WikiLeaks discussion are redacted in the public version of the report, citing an ongoing investigation.

Maybe we note here that memo 95 is undated. This demonstrates the lack of consistent QC in Steele's reporting and report formulation. It does come however in order after a memo dated 26 July 2015 (2016/086) and before a memo tagged 2016/94 dated 19 July 2016 which actually comes after (at least in the Buzzfeed ordering of the file). Interesting as well that the numbering in the lower right hand corner is not present with this memo, but all the other pages in the released version. This could be the result of a number of issues as the files were passed around, and the FBI indicates that there were a few different versions of the Dossier in circulation. But this is precisely the type of shit that a fucking auditor like the OIG is going to zero in on when determining credibility of the work. 

Either way, if the memo came after the 86 memo it is penned after the wikileaks release, and after public speculation (and political speculation) had already arrived at the conclusions transmitted by Steele.  Once again, the primary aspects of the Dossier that check out are post-hoc assessments in the public sphere. In almost ever case where we can test Steele's novel assessments without the potential for an external publicly available source, they fail.  

“This [coordination] was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.” 

— Memo 95

The Mueller report does not show that Manafort used Trump foreign policy aide Carter Page as an intermediary with Russia before he was ousted from the campaign in August. Manafort had his own Russia-linked connections, as documented in the report.

“On August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence,” the report said. “Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’ s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.”

Kilimnik has denied to The Washington Post that he has any ties to Russian intelligence.

The report says that Manafort lied to prosecutors about his dealings with Kilimnik, resulting in termination of his cooperation agreement. “The Office could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period,” the report said, but added: “The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.”

Bold italicized 

“TRUMP advisor Carter PAGE holds secret meetings in Moscow with [Rosneft president] SECHIN and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN. SECHIN raises issues of future bilateral US-Russia energy co-operation and associated lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.” 

— Memo 94, dated July 19, 2016

“In terms of the substance of their discussion SECHIN’s associate said that the Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered PAGE associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return. PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.” 

— Memo 134, dated Oct. 18, 2016

The Mueller report does not confirm a meeting between Page, then a low-level campaign adviser, and the president of Rosneft. But Mueller did document a meeting between Page and a lower-level Rosneft official. The meeting included discussion of a possible sale of part of Rosneft, though apparently not in the context of a reward for lifting sanctions.

“Page said that, during his time in Moscow, he met with friends and associates he knew from when he lived in Russia, including Andrey Baranov, a former Gazprom employee who had become the head of investor relations at Rosneft, a Russian energy company,” the Mueller report said. “Page stated that he and Baranov talked about ‘immaterial non-public’ information. Page believed he and Baranov discussed Rosneft president Igor Sechin, and he thought Baranov might have mentioned the possibility of a sale of a stake in Rosneft in passing.”

The report stated that Page shook hands with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich, who made statements to Page about working together in the future. Page wrote a memo to the campaign that Dvorkovich “expressed strong support for Mr. Trump,” as did other senior members of the Putin administration. But the report added: “The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page’s activities in Russia — as described in his emails with the Campaign — were not fully explained.”

Bold italicized 

“Top level Russian official confirms current closeness of Alpha Group-PUTIN relationship. Significant favors continue to be done in both directions... and [Petr] AVEN still giving informal advice to PUTIN, especially on US.” 

— Memo 112, Sept. 14, 2016

This memo gets the essence of the relationship between Putin and Russia’s largest commercial bank correct. (The Cyrillic name can be translated as Alfa or Alpha in Latin script; the bank itself prefers Alfa.)

“Aven told the Office that he is one of approximately 50 wealthy Russian businessmen who regularly meet with Putin in the Kremlin; these 50 men are often referred to as ‘oligarchs,’ ” the Mueller report said. “Aven told the Office that he met on a quarterly basis with Putin, including in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2016, shortly after the U.S. presidential election.” The report recounts how, at Putin’s direction, Aven sought to make contacts with the Trump transition team.

Bold italicized. Way to go Steele. 

“Two knowledgeable St Petersburg sources claim Republican candidate TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and evidence hard to obtain.” 

— Memo 113, dated Sept. 14, 2016

The Mueller report does not describe any bribes paid by Trump. There is no indication Mueller investigated this allegation.

Bold italicized.

"The Kremlin had more intelligence on CLINTON and her campaign but he did not know the details or when or if it would be released.” 

— Memo 96, dated July 30, 2016 

I don't see Memo 96 dated 30 July 2016 in the version of the dossier i have in front of me.  It's memo 97. This memo relates that "an intelligence exchange had been running between them [Trump team and Kremlin] for at least 8 years."  

Mueller of course does not confirm this.

 

Note that Memo 100, dated 5 August 2016 is skipped in the Wapo asessment. This is kind of an inside baseball reporting of Kremlin machinations and shouldn't necessarily be addressed by Mueller, so OK.

 

Note that Memo 101, dated 10 August 2016 is also skipped. "No new leaks evisaged, as too politically risky, but rather further exploitation of material (Wikileaks) material already disseminated to exacterbate divisions." Oops. 

Kremlin engaged with several high profile US players, including STEIN, PAGE, and (former DIA Director Michael Flynn), and funding their recent visit to moscow. Stein and Flynn RT anniversary was 2015. Again, Steele pushing publicly available information as intelligence insights.

 

Memo 102 not mentioned. Nothing here confirmed by Mueller. 

Memo 105 not mentioned.Includes meeting of Putin and Yanukovych in Volgograd to discuss manafort. Maybe this can be confirmed, haven't really looked into it.  Discusses Manafort's ousting, Lewandoski hated Manafort, etc. Not exactly compelling insights outside the Putin Yank meeting. 

 

“Russians do have further kompromat on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it after Duma (legislative elections) in late September.” 

— Memo 111, dated Sept. 14, 2016

These two memos accurately reported more Russian-obtained dirt on Clinton was coming.

Now contradicting previous reporting in Memo 101, a month earlier, that "No new leaks evisaged, as too politically risky". I guess advantage Steele? This is the closest thing approaching a forward looking prediction that can be tested. Given the fuzz around all the Clinton emails, the nonspecific parenthetical is not particularly compelling, but it is about the best that you get.   

On Oct. 7, The Post disclosed the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump had a lewd conversation about women, in what was considered a major setback for his campaign. “Less than an hour after the video’s publication, WikiLeaks released the first set of emails stolen by the GRU [Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army] from the account of Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta,” the Mueller report said. Mueller noted that thousands of Podesta emails had been stolen in late March. That means the Russians had held on to the material for nearly six months.The report says that “metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016,” indicating that is when it was transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks released more than 50,000 Podesta documents in the month before the U.S. election.

 

“Kremlin insider reports TRUMP lawyer COHEN’s secret meeting/s with Kremlin officials in August 2016 was/were held in Prague.” 

— Memo 136, dated Oct. 20, 2016

The Mueller report suggests no such meeting in Prague took place, even though three of the Steele memos discuss this alleged meeting in detail.

One of the memos, dated Dec. 13, stated that Cohen was accompanied in Prague by three colleagues with an agenda of processing “deniable” cash payments to operatives, including hackers, and contingency plans to cover up the operations. Another memo, dated Oct. 19, described Cohen as a “secret liaison with Russian leadership,” a role that had supposedly grown with the departure of Manafort from the campaign.

Mueller does not indicate he investigated whether Cohen traveled to Prague; he simply dismisses the incident in Cohen’s own words as he discusses Cohen’s preparation for testimony before Congress.

”At that time [May 2017], Cohen understood Congress’s interest in him to be focused on the allegations in the Steele reporting concerning a meeting Cohen allegedly had with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign,” the report said. “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false.”

The only listed source for this information is a “302,” code for an FBI summary of an interview with Cohen. He has not been consistent on whether he has ever been to Prague, telling the Wall Street Journal he had not been there since 2001, telling Mother Jones in 2016 he had been there for one afternoon 14 years earlier and reiterating on Twitter and to Congress he has never been there.

Cohen has been cooperating with the investigation after pleading guilty to criminal charges, including lying to Congress. So, facing a prison term, Cohen presumably would reveal such a meeting if it had occurred.

The Mueller report documents Trump Organization discussions about Cohen’s taking a trip to Moscow in 2016 to advance the Trump Tower Moscow project. But that trip never took place. Trump had signed a letter of intent in November 2015, as he was campaigning for the presidency.

Bold italicized. 

Overall assessment: Reject, requires major revisions. 

 

No fucking way I'm reading this whole manifesto. You start being disingenuous with your very first point. 

Quote

“Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” 

— Steele memo 80, dated June 20, 2016

and

 

The Mueller report documents extensive Russian efforts to ensure Trump’s victory, through hacking operations and social media efforts. Mueller also details Trump’s business interests in Russia, especially pursuit of a Trump Tower project in Moscow.

Those two statements are perfectly consistent with one another and you're lying out both sides of your face when you claim they aren't. Then you launch into your diatribe about the possibility of Russians feeding disinformation to Steele. Who gives a shit? They probably did. The guy in charge of the Moscow desk for MI-6 has a lot of experience dealing with Russian disinformation. I'm sure you're nipping at his heels though.  

Why don't we see what the rest of the report says and hear what Mueller has to say and see what some of those redactions and Bill Burr are covering up? I'm pretty comfortable that the Washington Posts analysis is going to be more accurate than your disingenuous spin. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[Anastasis 23723]

5 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

No fucking way I'm reading this whole manifesto.

I am not shocked.  Your MO is to either act like you can't read or don't know how the search function works when confronted with an argument that you cannot address (see below). You deflect about a "diatribe about Russian disinformation" but I do not directly talk about Russian disinformation at all in that break down. What I do is compare very specific assertions in certain passages against reality.  They don't check out. Instead of having an exchange based on analysis of the material at hand, you immediately fall back. Even to the people that agree with you and also want to call me names, it is transparent. The WaPo analysis is lazy. It appears infectious. 

 

 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

Someone help me here.

Some of the dossier has been confirmed. Some of it hasn’t been confirmed. Only a little has been shown to be untrue. How is it relevant whether parts are true or not at this point? 

Why are people not able to understand that everyone knew it was unverified intelligence (essentially rumors) meant to point investigative journalists and federal investigators in various directions to confirm or deny its reports? It wasn’t released before the election. The dossier served its function. We have multiple indictments, uncovered Russian meddling, uncovered trump campaign’s lies and outreach to and sharing of data with Russia, and a potus that attempted to cover it all up.

Why does it matter whether 60% or 90% of the dossier is true? Why are people unable to grasp what unconfirmed intelligence is?

It seems that if you aren’t able to catch the chicken then at some point you will stop trying to fuck it.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Someone help me here.

Some of the dossier has been confirmed. Some of it hasn’t been confirmed. Only a little has been shown to be untrue. How is it relevant whether parts are true or not at this point? 

Why are people not able to understand that everyone knew it was unverified intelligence (essentially rumors) meant to point investigative journalists and federal investigators in various directions to confirm or deny its reports? It wasn’t released before the election. The dossier served its function. We have multiple indictments, uncovered Russian meddling, uncovered trump campaign’s lies and outreach to and sharing of data with Russia, and a potus that attempted to cover it all up.

Why does it matter whether 60% or 90% of the dossier is true? Why are people unable to grasp what unconfirmed intelligence is?

It seems that if you aren’t able to catch the chicken then at some point you will stop trying to fuck it.

Because it is a convenient distraction used by disingenuous tools attempting to discredit the whole Russian affair.  Disinformation, in other words.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Judge Roybeanbag

[jimmyjazz 47221]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Someone help me here.

Some of the dossier has been confirmed. Some of it hasn’t been confirmed. Only a little has been shown to be untrue. How is it relevant whether parts are true or not at this point? 

Why are people not able to understand that everyone knew it was unverified intelligence (essentially rumors) meant to point investigative journalists and federal investigators in various directions to confirm or deny its reports? It wasn’t released before the election. The dossier served its function. We have multiple indictments, uncovered Russian meddling, uncovered trump campaign’s lies and outreach to and sharing of data with Russia, and a potus that attempted to cover it all up.

Why does it matter whether 60% or 90% of the dossier is true? Why are people unable to grasp what unconfirmed intelligence is?

It seems that if you aren’t able to catch the chicken then at some point you will stop trying to fuck it.

Some people like Chrispy are simply too stupid to see the facts in front of their face because their Dear Leader is telling them that it's all fake news.

Others, like Anastasis, are far smarter than that, but maliciously cast shade on the dossier along with hundreds of things known to be true in order to try to confuse the electorate.  They are nihilists.

Both groups should be mocked and shunned.

[Anastasis 23723]

A couple posters post a WaPo "fact checker" piece to bolster a position they are advocating, one indignant that other posters don't read it.

I read it and take the time to offer an analysis of the article.

In response, said poster, "No fucking way I'm reading this"

Others chime in "disingenuous", "nihilist", "you're grinding this into pulp".

 

 

 

[Anastasis 23723]

Chicken chasing DOJ OIG: https://www.wsj.com/articles/watchdog-probes-fbi-reliance-on-dossier-in-surveillance-of-trump-aide-11557275757

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 19553]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Chicken chasing DOJ OIG: https://www.wsj.com/articles/watchdog-probes-fbi-reliance-on-dossier-in-surveillance-of-trump-aide-11557275757

There will be a stern finger wagging, I'm sure. 

Probably because they presented this evidence and its source to a judge who went ahead and issued a warrant because of all the other evidence not from the Steele dossier.

[DDD Dad 14654]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A couple posters post a WaPo "fact checker" piece to bolster a position they are advocating, one indignant that other posters don't read it.

I read it and take the time to offer an analysis of the article.

In response, said poster, "No fucking way I'm reading this"

Others chime in "disingenuous", "nihilist", "you're grinding this into pulp".

 

 

 

[retread 2951]

Gohmert going full deep state. Sanctimonious Rs. smh

[David Dennison 19553]

7 minutes ago, retread said:

Gohmert going full deep state. Sanctimonious Rs. smh

If the FBI was so hell bent on keeping Donald Trump out of the White House, why didn't we learn about the FBI investigations until well after the 2016 election?

The public was only aware of one presidential candidate being investigated, and it wasn't Donald Trump.

[LonghornJudas 1138]

Wow, Hank Johnson is still around. Awesome.

[Mdhorn 6166]

From the comment section elsewhere: "Why exert executive privilege over a document that exonerated you?"

 

[TtomTerrific 200]

https://youtube/SuPJ4UZBi3Q

[TtomTerrific 200]

lol... "link could not be embedded because YouTube is not allowing the embedding of this link" 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

It's a deep state conspiracy.  

[Anastasis 23723]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If the FBI was so hell bent on keeping Donald Trump out of the White House, why didn't we learn about the FBI investigations until well after the 2016 election?

The public was only aware of one presidential candidate being investigated, and it wasn't Donald Trump.

Discard political motivations within the FBI for a moment.  If it is demonstrated that the FBI conducted surveillance on US citizens using a thin justification bolstered by privately funded politically motivated information sourced from Russia, does that bother you? 

[Biff Tannen 46170]

What are the hearings going on right now?  Just House Rs talking shit or what?

[David Dennison 19553]

 

[LonghornJudas 1138]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

What are the hearings going on right now?  Just House Rs talking shit or what?

Motion to hold Barr in contempt. Everyone objecting to strike the last word of the previous member and making their own speech, along with some poo flinging.

[David Dennison 19553]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Discard political motivations within the FBI for a moment.  If it is demonstrated that the FBI conducted surveillance on US citizens using a thin justification bolstered by privately funded politically motivated information sourced from Russia, does that bother you? 

It would bother me if that's what happened. But that's not what happened. You're leaving out facts.

Edited May 8, 2019 by David Dennison

[Foosters 18285]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Discard political motivations within the FBI for a moment.  If it is demonstrated that the FBI conducted surveillance on US citizens using a thin justification bolstered by privately funded politically motivated information sourced from Russia, does that bother you? 

Oh, you've started lying too? 

[DDD Dad 14654]

Just flipped on the Judiciary Committee meeting.

Does Gym Jordan ever wear a coat?

[TtomTerrific 200]

7 minutes ago, LonghornJudas said:

Motion to hold Barr in contempt. Everyone objecting to strike the last word of the previous member and making their own speech, along with some poo flinging.

exactly why he didn't show up... this was never an "inquiry" but a forum for Dems to give political sound bites to their campaign ads. 

 

"The report is public... I told you what was in it and there it is for you to see."

The committee chair doesn't even have enough game to go after Barr himself and wanted this to be an opportunity for his lawyers to go after him for sound bites and to allow CNN to continue the narrative that has collapsed on them. 

 

Perhaps a "Town Hall" with Comey will fix all this. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by TtomTerrific
quotation marks

[Foosters 18285]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Just flipped on the Judiciary Committee meeting.

Does Gym Jordan ever wear a coat?

No. That's how you know he's a man of the people and not an elite gay.

[retread 2951]

Quote

Does Gym Jordan ever wear a coat?

Ohio gonna Ohio ^

Edited May 8, 2019 by retread

[DigglerontheHoof 21554]

What's w/ all the "move to strike the last comment" shit?

[Anastasis 23723]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

Oh, you've started lying too? 

You still eating glue?

[David Dennison 19553]

It's going to be hilarious when the unredacted report leaks.

[wildcat09 29591]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Discard political motivations within the FBI for a moment.  If it is demonstrated that the FBI conducted surveillance on US citizens using a thin justification bolstered by privately funded politically motivated information sourced from Russia, does that bother you? 

Papadopoulus blabbing about how they're working with Russia to hurt a political opponent is thin justification? Get the fuck out of here.

[TtomTerrific 200]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's going to be hilarious when the unredacted report leaks.

rage... rage at the dying of the light 

 

[Anastasis 23723]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It would bother me if that's what happened. But that's not what happened. You're leaving out facts.

Everything that I said in that post is accurate and sufficient to the consideration of the question that I posed. 

[David Dennison 19553]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Everything that I said in that post is accurate and sufficient to the consideration of the question that I posed. 

What you posted might be accurate, but you left out information that is also accurate. You left that out on purpose. 

[wildcat09 29591]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Everything that I said in that post is accurate and sufficient to the consideration of the question that I posed. 

Bill Barr would be proud.

[Planet Houston 4950]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Everything that I said in that post is accurate and sufficient to the consideration of the question that I posed. 

Ah, you're taking the approach that Barr took in his "summary" of the Mueller Report.  That version of the story certainly held up.

[LonghornJudas 1138]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Does Gym Jordan ever wear a coat?

Ever tried wrestling college boys in a coat?

[jimmyjazz 47221]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's going to be hilarious when the unredacted report leaks.

I'm too much of a process guy to actually feel this way, but I'm getting closer to "burn it all down".  Leak the unredacted report, everything, fuck grand jury testimony, fuck national security, fuck it all.  #notquitethereyet

[David Dennison 19553]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm too much of a process guy to actually feel this way, but I'm getting closer to "burn it all down".  Leak the unredacted report, everything, fuck grand jury testimony, fuck national security, fuck it all.  #notquitethereyet

The actions of the Republicans make it a near certainty that someone is going to get bent out of shape and leak it out of spite.

 

[SubliminalHorn 7009]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm too much of a process guy to actually feel this way, but I'm getting closer to "burn it all down".  Leak the unredacted report, everything, fuck grand jury testimony, fuck national security, fuck it all.  #notquitethereyet

I’m there. Republicans play dirty and will hold the entire constitution hostage, fuck it, leak it all. 

[David Dennison 19553]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I’m there. Republicans play dirty and will hold the entire constitution hostage, fuck it, leak it all. 

As I said in another thread, if Congress decides to use its power of "inherent contempt," all hell will break loose and the fun will really start.

I would love to see the House sergeant-at-arms try to arrest the Attorney General. That would be fantastically entertaining.

[texas08 1599]

Mueller needs to grab his M-16, strap it over his shoulder and read the fucking report in front of the US Capitol with a loud speaker.

FUCK THE TRAITORS!

[SubliminalHorn 7009]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

As I said in another thread, if Congress decides to use its power of "inherent contempt," all hell will break loose and the fun will really start.

I would love to see the House sergeant-at-arms try to arrest the Attorney General. That would be fantastically entertaining.

You know they won’t 

[David Dennison 19553]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

You know they won’t 

Probably not. But maybe.