EternalShinyAndChrome 2,497 Posted February 26, 2018 This is also factually inaccurate. Slowtard is a combination of you being "slow" and "retarded". That is factually correct. In fact, it doesn't get more factual than that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 26, 2018 Slowtard is a combination of you being "slow" and "retarded". That is factually correct. In fact, it doesn't get more factual than that.Already explained why it wasnt...you can refute what I stated after if you like...or can admit you are slow.Instead...I predict you will make some ridiculous claim and add more childish insults proving me right in says my yiubare here to do nothing more than troll this board. Run along Max...youre out of your league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 26, 2018 Keep in mind the Democratic memo did NOT refute the Gowdy/Nunes memo concerning McCabe's closed door testimony the FISA warrant wouldn't have been sought without the Dossier. Schiff contested that assertion but didn't refute it in his memo. The Dems are trying to difuse a bomb that's already gone off. Frankly the look ridiculous. Saints.....your thoughts on that? Also, to those defending not disclosing to the FUSA judge that the Dossier WAS political (not MIGHT BE) as well as it was the political opponent of the campaign in question is just laughable. NFW does an objective judge with the knowledge that Hillary and Co. produced that info view that request as anything other than a nefarious endeavor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted February 26, 2018 Ok that's fair. Page presents a problem for Trump supporters and critics alike. For Trump supporters he's obviously a lynchpin to Trump's claim his campaign was eavesdropped on, but he's such a weasel that they have to explain how he got hired in the first place, distance him from the campaign, and also accept that the FISA order wasn't granted until after he left the campaign. For Trump critics yes he seems like a connection to SVR/FSB but again the fact that he's such a flake that it seems hard to imagine him doing anything seriously nefarious It should be a wash, but Nunes has decided to make him the tip of the spear in vindicating Trump, which again seems like a really poor choice. It's not a problem when you understand that he was working with the FBI to catch some Russians in another unrelated matter. You can't use Page as a basis for suspicion or even surveillance because he's talking to "Russians". He's talking to those Russians on the FBIs behalf. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted February 26, 2018 Some other questions. How could they re-up the FISA warrant on Page 3 times, meaning they had to present new evidence each time and still not have enough to indict him? Why is the "Ukraine report" which was generated in 2012, important enough to cause the indictment of van der Zwaan for false statements? And who is person A? Presumably Manafort, but maybe not. Why did Steele leak info to yahoo, after briefing the FBI? Why isn't he under indictment for this? The 1st FISA warrant was issued almost immediately after the leak, it seems obvious that the FBI felt they had to act fast before Steele tipped the whole thing. Steele caused the warrant, even if indirectly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 26, 2018 Some other questions. How could they re-up the FISA warrant on Page 3 times, meaning they had to present new evidence each time and still not have enough to indict him? Why is the "Ukraine report" which was generated in 2012, important enough to cause the indictment of van der Zwaan for false statements? And who is person A? Presumably Manafort, but maybe not. Why did Steele leak info to yahoo, after briefing the FBI? Why isn't he under indictment for this? The 1st FISA warrant was issued almost immediately after the leak, it seems obvious that the FBI felt they had to act fast before Steele tipped the whole thing. Steele caused the warrant, even if indirectly. Don't forget a good amount of Steele's info came from Hillary's cohorts (Sid and other dbag). By proxy, Hillary caused the warrant as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 26, 2018 Saints.....your thoughts on that? Also, to those defending not disclosing to the FUSA judge that the Dossier WAS political (not MIGHT BE) as well as it was the political opponent of the campaign in question is just laughable. NFW does an objective judge with the knowledge that Hillary and Co. produced that info view that request as anything other than a nefarious endeavor. I addressed it further up, but Donald Trump's name was masked, as was Steele's, Simpson's and Perkins', while Steele was explained as having been hired to politically discredit Trump. If the court wasn't told Trump's name then there was no reason, by the rules, to include Hillary's. The political purpose of the information was explicitly stated. On your third point, this continues to drive me crazy - please if Team Trump believes this someone do something. The chief judge at the court is a GW Bush appointee - file a petition, a motion, something. There are 22 indicted persons & entities plus it is claimed probably another 20 could be affected including the President. Do something, I'm sure the chief judge and the whole court will be angry. So please do something. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,593 Posted February 26, 2018 I addressed it further up, but Donald Trump's name was masked, as was Steele's, Simpson's and Perkins', while Steele was explained as having been hired to politically discredit Trump. If the court wasn't told Trump's name then there was no reason, by the rules, to include Hillary's. The political purpose of the information was explicitly stated. On your third point, this continues to drive me crazy - please if Team Trump believes this someone do something. The chief judge at the court is a GW Bush appointee - file a petition, a motion, something. There are 22 indicted persons & entities plus it is claimed probably another 20 could be affected including the President. Do something, I'm sure the chief judge and the whole court will be angry. So please do something. Hey Ssints, why do you think Samantha Powers started doing all that unmasking during the election and after it? She wasn't doing it before. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 26, 2018 I addressed it further up, but Donald Trump's name was masked, as was Steele's, Simpson's and Perkins', while Steele was explained as having been hired to politically discredit Trump. If the court wasn't told Trump's name then there was no reason, by the rules, to include Hillary's. The political purpose of the information was explicitly stated. On your third point, this continues to drive me crazy - please if Team Trump believes this someone do something. The chief judge at the court is a GW Bush appointee - file a petition, a motion, something. There are 22 indicted persons & entities plus it is claimed probably another 20 could be affected including the President. Do something, I'm sure the chief judge and the whole court will be angry. So please do something. What I wanted you to address was the lack of refuting in the Dem memo concerning McCabe's statementment the FISA Warrant wouldn't have been sought without the Dossier. Schiff verbally challenged that yet didn't in the Dem memo. That leads one to believe there wouldn't be an investigation or pleas without the Dossier. Thus Hillary and Obama manufactured the investigation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 26, 2018 What I wanted you to address was the lack of refuting in the Dem memo concerning McCabe's statementment the FISA Warrant wouldn't have been sought without the Dossier. Schiff verbally challenged that yet didn't in the Dem memo. That leads one to believe there wouldn't be an investigation or pleas without the Dossier. Thus Hillary and Obama manufactured the investigation. wait, didn't you hear, a source familiar with the matter and the thinking of McCabe has said that its 100% not true that McCabe testified to such. They didn't need to put it in the dem rebuttal, dont you realize, a source familiar with is rock solid ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 26, 2018 Hey Ssints, why do you think Samantha Powers started doing all that unmasking during the election and after it? She wasn't doing it before. I don't know. But if that's true I can tell you when I think such unmasking would be justified: and that is when masked persons appeared to be communicating with foreign spies and especially if they appeared to be in US government. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 26, 2018 What I wanted you to address was the lack of refuting in the Dem memo concerning McCabe's statementment the FISA Warrant wouldn't have been sought without the Dossier. Schiff verbally challenged that yet didn't in the Dem memo. That leads one to believe there wouldn't be an investigation or pleas without the Dossier. Thus Hillary and Obama manufactured the investigation. I think you've got two good points going for you right now. One was David Kramer pleading the 5th and the other is the lack of refutation about McCabe's testimony, because those are actual things that have happened. But to answer the question, you need to check what Nunes actually claimed. I'm not accepting anything Nunes says as true, mind you, but assuming we take his claim at face value he said that McCabe said the Page warrant wouldn't have been 'sought' if not for the 'information' from Steele. As far as I understand that's referring to Page's trip to Moscow, and yeah I guess that's true. That information may have also come from other sources and we know for a fact it happened now, so I suppose that after verifying yeah that would be a good reason to seek a FISA warrant on Page. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,593 Posted February 26, 2018 I don't know. But if that's true I can tell you when I think such unmasking would be justified: and that is when masked persons appeared to be communicating with foreign spies and especially if they appeared to be in US government. Ok. Also, why did Obama expand the dissemination of classified material after the election, in December, weeks before he left office? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 26, 2018 Ok. Also, why did Obama expand the dissemination of classified material after the election, in December, weeks before he left office?Look let me say I always respect people's values. So you don't trust Obama, fine, I get that. And I'll even say I respect you. Their stated explanation was they were worried about what would happen to the acquired knowledge if the Trump transition team's activites after handover. I don't know what to tell you after that, the US government said and totally acted like they perceived a legitimate security threat. I'm not going to tell you what to think, you're obviously free to distrust it. To me it's a hell of a thing. From my perspective if Trump had IC come to him and tell him that Flynn and maybe others were security risks he'd act on that immediately. But then he didn't. The decompartmentalization of information is literally something done in intelligence to protect information from being destroyed. This is how those people were acting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted February 26, 2018 I think you've got two good points going for you right now. One was David Kramer pleading the 5th and the other is the lack of refutation about McCabe's testimony, because those are actual things that have happened. But to answer the question, you need to check what Nunes actually claimed. I'm not accepting anything Nunes says as true, mind you, but assuming we take his claim at face value he said that McCabe said the Page warrant wouldn't have been 'sought' if not for the 'information' from Steele. As far as I understand that's referring to Page's trip to Moscow, and yeah I guess that's true. That information may have also come from other sources and we know for a fact it happened now, so I suppose that after verifying yeah that would be a good reason to seek a FISA warrant on Page. Taking a trip to Moscow is a reason for the issuance of a FISA warrant? That's the only thing that has been "verified" by the Steele dossier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted February 26, 2018 Look let me say I always respect people's values. So you don't trust Obama, fine, I get that. And I'll even say I respect you. Their stated explanation was they were worried about what would happen to the acquired knowledge if the Trump transition team's activites after handover. I don't know what to tell you after that, the US government said and totally acted like they perceived a legitimate security threat. I'm not going to tell you what to think, you're obviously free to distrust it. To me it's a hell of a thing. From my perspective if Trump had IC come to him and tell him that Flynn and maybe others were security risks he'd act on that immediately. But then he didn't. The decompartmentalization of information is literally something done in intelligence to protect information from being destroyed. This is how those people were acting. Or they were acting in furtherance of a common scheme to discredit an incoming President that they didn't like, with nothing more than innuendo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted February 26, 2018 I don't know. But if that's true I can tell you when I think such unmasking would be justified: and that is when masked persons appeared to be communicating with foreign spies and especially if they appeared to be in US government. Are you telling me that Samantha Power, ambassador to the U.N., was conducting her own investigation, or is that more properly the job or jobs of other people in different agencies? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 26, 2018 Taking a trip to Moscow is a reason for the issuance of a FISA warrant? That's the only thing that has been "verified" by the Steele dossier. A foreign policy advisor to a presidential campaign takes a flight to speak with Rozneft exec and Kremlin aide? Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 26, 2018 Are you telling me that Samantha Power, ambassador to the U.N., was conducting her own investigation, or is that more properly the job or jobs of other people in different agencies? No, I have no idea. Gowdy and Oversight was investigating this. I haven't read much about it, I just explained in what circumstances it might be justified. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted February 26, 2018 A foreign policy advisor to a presidential campaign takes a flight to speak with Rozneft exec and Kremlin aide? Yes. It's alleged that he spoke with those two, not proven. He was there to speak at some conference, which was verified. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 26, 2018 Saints, you remain the sole person who leans left who I respect. That being said, IMO you've passed 'a reasonable doubt' marker where there would have to be so many coincidences for what the Nunes/Grassley's memos alledge NOT to be true that the odds are about 1 in 1/trillion. And no, I'm not saying there's a chance (Dumb and Dumber reference). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casual Observer 597 Posted February 26, 2018 No, I have no idea. Gowdy and Oversight was investigating this. I haven't read much about it, I just explained in what circumstances it might be justified. The question is directed to the person-is she the person that is tasked with conducting this kind of investigation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 26, 2018 Are you telling me that Samantha Power, ambassador to the U.N., was conducting her own investigation, or is that more properly the job or jobs of other people in different agencies? One person who might have been using Samantha Powers' name is Lisa Monaco. Named Obama's Chief Counter terrorism advisor. You haven't heard her name but you will.....soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted February 27, 2018 Grassley is on the hunt: http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/26/chuck-grassley-dossier-interview/ The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is requesting an interview with a Washington-based lobbyist who served as an intermediary between a Democratic senator and two key figures in the Russia investigation, dossier author Christopher Steele and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. “The nature and extent of the relationship between Mr. Steele, Mr. Deripaska, and you are of potential relevance to the Committee’s work,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, wrote Monday to the lobbyist, Adam Waldman. Waldman emerged earlier this month as a figure in the Russia investigation after it was revealed that he exchanged text messages last year with Virginia Sen. Mark Warner regarding Steele and Deripaska. Background on Waldman's connections with Russia: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255290/christopher-steele-putin-oleg-deripaska In 2009, Waldman filed papers with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) registering himself as an agent for Deripaska in order to provide “legal advice on issues involving his U.S. visa as well as commercial transactions” at a retainer of $40,000 a month. In 2010, Waldman additionally registered as an agent for Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, “gathering information and providing advice and analysis as it relates to the U.S. policy towards the visa status of Oleg Deripaska,” including meetings with U.S. policymakers. Based on the information in his FARA filings, Waldman has received at least $2.36 million for his work with Deripaska. These people are really dumb. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 27, 2018 Grassley is on the hunt: http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/26/chuck-grassley-dossier-interview/ Background on Waldman's connections with Russia: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255290/christopher-steele-putin-oleg-deripaska These people are really dumb. Dem. Senator Warner needs to step down from Senate Intel. Committee at the very least. Colluding with lobbyist who represents Russian and this is one of the Gang of Eight?! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,593 Posted February 27, 2018 Sessions officially opens investigation into FISA abuses. Here we go. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 27, 2018 Sessions officially opens investigation into FISA abuses. Here we go.bam! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,302 Posted February 27, 2018 Well Kushner losing his security clearance due to Muellers investigation. Not looking good for him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted February 27, 2018 http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/375863-sessions-says-justice-dept-will-investigate-alleged-fisa-abuses Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday that the Justice Department will investigate potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). "Yes, it will be investigated," Sessions told reporters at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees FISA warrants, according to the Washington Examiner. He said looking into any abuses is the "appropriate thing" to do. Sessions's remarks follow allegations from President Trump last year that Obama administration officials misused their FISA authority to wrongly surveil members of his transition team. It is not clear if Sessions has opened a formal investigation into the matter, but he said the Justice Department's inspector general would take it up. Left better start preparing their talking points.. Horowitz is racist! Horowitz is a partisan hack! Horowitz is literally Hitler! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted February 27, 2018 Well Kushner losing his security clearance due to Muellers investigation. Not looking good for him Can you elaborate on how Kushner losing his security clearance will impact Trump? Can you elaborate on how it is "not looking good for him"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,593 Posted February 27, 2018 Well Kushner losing his security clearance due to Muellers investigation. Not looking good for him WGAF? And good. Kelly is doing the right thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,302 Posted February 27, 2018 Can you elaborate on how Kushner losing his security clearance will impact Trump? Can you elaborate on how it is "not looking good for him"? For Kushner, silly. And he is Trumps son in law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,479 Posted February 27, 2018 Meh Thanks...wont likely be in much. Honestly havent missed the place. Lair! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,121 Posted February 27, 2018 Gates charges dropped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 27, 2018 Gates charges dropped.up next, shutting down the illegal mueller investigation 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,593 Posted February 27, 2018 Gates charges dropped. Lol. This is funny. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,121 Posted February 27, 2018 Lol. This is funny. How does that even happen? What did he think he had a few days/weeks ago that warranted charges but he doesn't have now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,593 Posted February 27, 2018 How does that even happen? What did he think he had a few days/weeks ago that warranted charges but he doesn't have now? Maybe whoever dimed him out or a witness ended up compromised themselves. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reality 2,710 Posted February 27, 2018 Clown show, is this the biggest political backfire in history? It has to be up there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 27, 2018 Did Podesta just threaten Kushner ?https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/968616313408098304?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
