... Democrats, FBI & Russians meddled in election

Discuss local, regional, state, federal, and world politics. Keep it classy, Cleveland.

... Democrats, FBI & Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 16th, 2017, 11:02 am

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/12/15/wsj-theres-mounting-evidence-of-election-meddling-coming-from-the-fbi-n2422639
WSJ: There's Mounting Evidence of 2016 Election Meddling Coming From the FBI
by Matt Vespa |Posted: Dec 15, 2017

There is something rotten at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I mean all of this is just absurd. We have two FBI agents texting one another, one of which is having an extramarital affair with the other, cryptically talking about “insurance” against a Trump presidency. That text between these two agents was delivered on August 15, 2016. You also have Andrew Weissmann, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top lieutenant, voicing praise for then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to enact President Trump’s executive order on immigration, which got her fired. Then, there’s another DOJ official, Bruce Ohr, who was demoted for meeting the authors of the infamous and unverified Trump dossier, Fusion GPS; Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for that firm during the 2016 election. If there is nothing rotten at the FBI, then it’s credibility is definitely in question, something that The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board mentioned in their op-ed about this mess. The two FBI agents at the center of the firestorm right now, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are obviously no longer working with Mueller; Strzok was removed in August, while Page’s assignment with the investigation has already ended and she has been transferred elsewhere. Still, from this past summer to now—and we’re just learning about these 10,000 text messages between the two. The Journal makes it clear that there appears to be mounting evidence of election meddling emanating from the bureau:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Mr. Strzok wrote Ms. Page in an Aug. 15, 2016 text. He added: “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
What “policy” would that be? The “Andy” in question is Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director. FBI officials are allowed to have political opinions, but what kind of action were they discussing that would amount to anti-Trump “insurance”?

In another exchange that month, Ms. Page forwarded a Trump-related article and wrote: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” He thanked her and assured: “Of course I’ll try and approach it that way.” Mr. Strzok, recall, is the man who changed the words “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in James Comey’s July 2016 public exoneration of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The McCabe meeting came on the heels of the FBI’s launch of its counterintelligence probe into Trump-Russia ties. July is also when former British spook Christopher Steele briefed the FBI on his Clinton-financed dossier of salacious allegations against Mr. Trump. The texts explain why Mr. Mueller would remove Mr. Strzok, though a straight shooter wouldn’t typically resist turning those messages over to Congress for as long as Mr. Mueller did.
Meanwhile, we’re learning more about the political motives of Mr. Mueller’s lieutenant, Andrew Weissmann. Judicial Watch last week released an email in which Mr. Weissmann expressed his “awe” and praise for Sally Yates, after the then acting AG and Obama holdover refused to implement Mr. Trump’s travel ban. [ That's PRESIDENT TRUMP's LEGAL TRAVEL BAN ]
This should trouble anyone who cares about the integrity of the Justice Department. [That leaves out all liberals and most Democrats.]
[…]
Public confidence isn’t helped by the continuing Justice and FBI refusal to cooperate with Congress. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mr. Mueller, toed the Mueller-FBI line on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee. He repeated FBI Director Christopher Wray’s preposterous excuse that he can’t answer questions because of an Inspector General probe. And he wouldn’t elaborate on the news that Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior Justice official Bruce Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS, which hired Mr. Steele to gin up his dossier.

The man who should be most disturbed by all this is Mr. Mueller, who wants his evidence and conclusions to be credible with the public. Evidence is building instead that some officials at the FBI—who have worked for him—may have interfered in an American presidential election.

So, again, what’s the insurance policy? Is it the dossier that contains salacious and unverified information about Trump, something that Katie pointed out in her post? Or, as it seems, is it the FBI investigation into Russian interference in July. Did they hope to find actual evidence of collusion to nail Trump if he were to become president? Strzok was an agent with the counter-intelligence wing of the bureau. Whatever the case, it seems that meddling, or at least conversation of such activities, is coming from inside the house, or to be more accurate—inside the J. Edgar Hoover Building and not the Kremlin.

Judicial Watch just filed a FOIA lawsuit to obtain all of Peter Strzok’s files relating to his reassignment from the Russia investigation conducted by Robert Mueller.
Last edited by Michaels153 on February 20th, 2018, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 16th, 2017, 2:55 pm

An extremely based and questionable article. But it shows the effort that the far right is putting in to discredit the FBI and the Russia investigation. "If" Mueller is fired there will be a fire storm of protest which will include this aging progressive. Firing Mueller on this thin evidence demonstrates Trump has something to hide.

Every American has a right to a political point of view, and that includes members of the FBI. You certainly do not criticize Roy Moore for his bizarre views, and he was supposed to be a judge. No, everybody, not just conservatives , has a right to political opinions. So what is the point of all of this? Besides, Mueller fired the agent when he discovered that he had a bias which was the right thing to do, just as CNN fired three reporters simply because they printed information that did not meet CNN standards" in an article about Russian investors and Trump http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/c ... index.html. When has your side fired anybody for outright lying about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

No, the right does what it always does when it is backed into a corner; it attacks. And it is not afraid to undermine a cherished institution to protect itself and its president. Rule of law be damned.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 16th, 2017, 6:09 pm

leftyg wrote:An extremely based (you meant biased)and questionable article.No bias, and nothing questionable in this article, just a typical reflexive retort on anything contrary to your point of view. But it shows the effort that the far right is putting in to discredit the FBI and the Russia investigation. No group and nobody except the FBI is discrediting the "FBI"."If" Mueller is fired there will be a fire storm of protest which will include this aging progressive. The Galaxy trembles at the thought. Firing Mueller on this thin evidence demonstrates Trump has something to hide. No Firing Mueller is the right thing to do and will come if he does not end this farce. The firing of Mueller, if it occurs will be accompanied with cartons of papers showing legal justification for not only his removal, but for the ending of this farce. I am not a lawyer as you have already surmised, but this farce has led to many who are lawyers comment as to the possible legal repercussions for those who have enjoined this investigation. There are possible felony and misdemeanor crimes with both Federal and Civil prosecution being both very probable. For starters there is securing execution of a document by deception, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454709/steele-dossier-source-fisa-warrant-against-trump-campaignCongressional contempt, Perjury, Fraud, Aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice. And the irony here is just how far President Trump is willing to see true justice enacted. Yes, the very person that the liberals and the Democrats are trying to get impeached will be the one deciding just how he wants to proceed after this farce is ended. And make no mistake, this Democratic wish sandwich is all but over

Every American has a right to a political point of view, This investigation is not a debate over a "point of view"and that includes members of the FBI. You certainly do not criticize Roy Moore for his bizarre views, and he was supposed to be a judge. No, everybody, not just conservatives , has a right to political opinions. Not everybody has a right to demand an investigation when no crime has been committed, nor to demand the continuation of such an investigation without finding any evidence that you were seeking to justify the continuation of the investigation. A fraudulent dossier that was used to secure a warrant. A dossier that was passed off as a legitimate intelligence report but was never verified. And when it was determined that this dossier could not be verified, the chief advocate gets demoted but the investigation CONTINUES?! So what is the point of all of this? Besides, Mueller fired the agent when he discovered that he had a bias which was the right thing to do, just as CNN fired three reporters simply because they printed information that did not meet CNN standards" in an article about Russian investors and Trump http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/c ... index.html. When has your side fired anybody for outright lying about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?[color=#FF0000 When "MY SIDE" finds somebody lied about what Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama did? Where is there a need for lying about those two? It is the Left that lies because of lack of evidence, not the right.[/color]

No, the right does what it always does when it is backed into a corner; it attacks. No, when accused of something, the right responds to it, which usually turns out that it corrects the bald face lies of the left and sets the record straight. And it is not afraid to undermine a cherished institution to protect itself and its president. What cherished institution are you referring to? Freedom of the Press? It was Hilary Clinton who said we have a right to disagree did she not. And the press is killing itself.Rule of law be damned. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/11/cruz-holder-should-be-impeached-for-defying-congress-and-the-rule-of-law-in-irs-scandal/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 16th, 2017, 7:16 pm

First, Rod Rosenstein, in his congressional testimony, said he did not have cause to fire Mueller. He felt Mueller is above reproach and that Mueller's team did not violate "the appearance" of impropriety. All appearance is "in the eye of the beholder" as he said https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ro ... ORM=VRDGAR The point is there is no evidence that Mueller has done anything wrong and every indication that Trump has something to hide.

Remember, Mueller is a Republican. He was a decorated war hero who has been applauded at ever level of government he has served. This guy has given no evidence of impropriety other than in the minds of conservative commentators and Donald Trump. Everybody knows that Trump is the one with a bias; he is likely an object of investigation; that gives him a strong bias.

It is very dangerous when the right wing media tries to prejudice its followers against completion of this investigation. If it is aborted, then one has to wonder what the president has to hide. My guess is there will be all hell to pay. All we need is an investigation, even handed and fair, and there is no evidence that Mr. Mueller will not do just that, the fears of the far right aside. If something emerges, I might change my mind, but there is nothing out there to indicate the need for that.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 17th, 2017, 9:19 am

leftyg wrote:First, Rod Rosenstein, in his congressional testimony, said he did not have cause to fire Mueller. That's a good point if it is true and if Rosenstein really believes it. He felt Mueller is above reproach That is ludicrous. Haven't the Democrats been telling everyone that "no one is above reproach"?and that Mueller's team did not violate "the appearance" of impropriety. I do not know what context he could be speaking from for that statement, but the majority of the public from polls do not share that opinion. The majority of the public believe that there is a conflict of interest between Comey and Mueller. And while Mueller has Manafort and Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI, what has the FBI done to its own agents who lied to them? Mr. Strzok was removed in August. (No charge of lying to the FBI, no ethics hearing.) Lisa Page is no longer working with Mueller, but is that it? Why isn't Page investigated? Outside of the FBI there is the demotion of Bruce Ohr, and what about his wife. All appearance is "in the eye of the beholder" as he said https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ro ... ORM=VRDGAR The point is there is no evidence that Mueller has done anything wrong (Okay Leftyg, lets accept that for now. Let's accept that there is no evidence that Mueller has done anything wrong. I look at this open investigation of his where he seems to go on forever and I thought that this was supposed to be about what the President did before the election, the allegation of collusion with the Russians to meddle with the election. If that is no longer being investigated, then the investigation should end, and Mueller should come out with concluding statement about the allegation of collusion with Russia on the election. But as everyone can see, Mueller has gone beyond investigating the collusion allegation.and every indication that Trump has something to hide. (?) - No, but the Democrats will always make that Charge that
"it looks like the President has something to hide." When President Obama did have something to hide, in the Fast and Furious scandal, he shut down any attempts to pursue investigations on it, complete with gag orders. And there was a crime committed there. There was the death of a border agent and the finding of a weapon that President Obama allowed to be used in a failed sting operation.

Here there has been no crime of tampering with the election results. There is no evidence of collusion with Russia to meddle with the election. And the President has fully cooperated in this unwarranted and empty investigation for a year and a half. Whenever this "investigation" ends, if it does not conclude with what the liberals and the Democrats want, then they will say that the investigation ended too early, that they did not give Mueller the time he needed :roll: to find the true dirt on President Trump. So the critics of this President, especially the congressional Democrats, are attempting to define this investigation and use their own definitions in ways that will only benefit them. The investigation continues, (Forever), and even if nothing is found against the President until the President leaves office after his second term ;) then they can use the time of the ongoing investigation and use their lapdogs in the press to continue to smear this President and use it as fundraising material. If the investigation ends, they will say that President Trump had something to hide, and they continue on with their efforts towards impeachment, plus they still have their fund raising material

Remember, Mueller is a Republican. That Mueller is a Republican really does not take away from the actions in this "investigation".He was a decorated war hero who has been applauded at ever level of government he has served. That is true, but that does not mean that he is not capable of making mistakes. Even if these mistakes are error's in judgement of who should work on his team. This whole investigation seems (to me) to have started from that fake dossier. And if that is true, then anything after that point is tainted. This guy has given no evidence of impropriety other than in the minds of conservative commentators and Donald Trump. Everybody knows that Trump is the one with a bias; No, the President is the victim here of a partisan witch hunt for their true intentions of using this investigation as a springboard towards the effort to impeach him.

It is very dangerous when the right wing media tries to prejudice its followers against completion of this investigation. That is not what is happening here If it is aborted, then one has to wonder what the president has to hide. My guess is there will be all hell to pay. All we need is an investigation, even handed and fair, and there is no evidence that Mr. Mueller will not do just that, the fears of the far right aside. If something emerges, I might change my mind, but there is nothing out there to indicate the need for that.
We will see Leftyg.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 17th, 2017, 1:38 pm

First, I said that Rod Roesenstein said he had no cause to fire Mueller. You said
That's a good point if it is true and if Rosenstein really believes it. He felt Mueller is above reproach That is ludicrous. Haven't the Democrats been telling everyone that "no one is above reproach"?and that Mueller's team did not violate "the appearance" of impropriety. I do not know what context

The context is here in the link I gave you https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ro ... ORM=VRDGAR

You also said that most polls show that Ameicans find the investigation and they do not. They think these are important matters Pay attention. I am giving you a link https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ ... lls-235667 There that should explain it. so the public and Rod Rosenstein both seem to think this is legitimate.

Further you asked what has the FBI done to agents who lied. I do not know what you are referring to. I know that the agents who displayed bias in their private comment were reassigned. So Mueller acted. So what is your point?

Investigations take time. They are not going to wrap up in a month or two the way you would seem to like them. From what I have read there is plenty to investigate and many avenues to connect. We do not know and they do. The reason that they are going after Russia is because there is something to hide. Fast and Furious was a joke. It was a local effort by the ATF that existed before President Obama.

There is certainly evidence of Russia trying to collude during the election. First it has been established that they did hack the DNC. That is beyond question. And the meeting with Donald Trump Jr and the lie his father, the president, with Russians happened beyond dispute and the email that Trump's son sent the Russians is very incriminating http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... -collusion "If it is what you say I love it, especially later in the summer" http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/ ... index.html So there is evidence,.

You make a claim you cannot back up. You know nothing and have shared nothing about how Trump is an innocent victim. Trump's behavior towards the FBI and toward Mueller, and before him James Comey, indicate there is something there. Remember, he told Lester Holt that he fired Comey over the Russia investigation https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/vi ... 1538371971 So there is something there. and Trump has done nothing meaningful to ally those fears. Also Trump Is the greatest serial liar in American history https://www.bing.com/search?q=trump+lie ... lang=en-US Mueller and Comey are honorable men known for probity.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 17th, 2017, 5:21 pm

leftyg wrote:First, I said that Rod Roesenstein said he had no cause to fire Mueller. You said
That's a good point if it is true and if Rosenstein really believes it. He felt Mueller is above reproach That is ludicrous. Haven't the Democrats been telling everyone that "no one is above reproach"?and that Mueller's team did not violate "the appearance" of impropriety. I do not know what context

The context is here in the link I gave you https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ro ... ORM=VRDGAR

You also said that most polls show that Ameicans find the investigation and they do not. They think these are important matters Pay attention. I am giving you a link https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ ... lls-235667 There that should explain it.

No that does not "explain it". I said: "The majority of the public believe that there is a conflict of interest between Comey and Mueller" WND
MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE MUELLER HAS 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST'
Voters unconvinced of neutrality of special counsel probe into 'Russian collusion'
Published: 2 days ago http://www.wnd.com/2017/12/most-americans-believe-mueller-has-conflict-of-interest/ [color=#FF0000]To believe there is a conflict of interest between Mueller and Comey goes against "the appearance of impropriety"


so the public and Rod Rosenstein both seem to think this is legitimate. As the link shows, the public doesn't.

Further you asked what has the FBI done to agents who lied. I do not know what you are referring to. I know that the agents who displayed bias in their private comment were reassigned. So Mueller acted. So what is your point? Strzok lied about the dossier and tried to pass it off as a legitimate intelligence report. He previously changed the wording of Hilary's emails involvement so that she would not be prosecuted. And again, he gets moved a few doors down from his previous office. Manafort and Flynn no longer work in the white house and they were charged with lying to the FBI. And that is perfectly legit to you? You don't see an appearance of impropriety there? Or you don't want to see an appearance of impropriety there.

Investigations take time. They are not going to wrap up in a month or two the way you would seem to like them. A month or two? It's been a year and a half!! From what I have read there is plenty to investigate and many avenues to connect.Like what? We do not know You do not know, but you just said that there is plenty to investigate, and many avenues to connect. But you do not know. And you do not provide a link that states that there is plenty to investigate. And you did not provide a link stating ANY avenues to connect. and they do. The reason that they are going after Russia is because there is something to hide. I don't see a link. You say they are going after Russia because there is something to hide. Fast and Furious was a joke. The death of the border agent was a joke?! The gun running sting that allowed hundreds of weapons to find their way into criminals hands was a joke?! It was a local effort by the ATF that existed before President Obama. It existed before Obama, was determined not to be a way of stopping the problem, and then stopped. Obama took it upon himself thinking that even if he could not do it any better he could perhaps get a stiff gun control bill passed. Obama was the joke. Everything he did with Fast and Furious failed.

There is certainly evidence of Russia trying to collude during the election. Go ahead Leftyg name the evidence. Provide the link. First it has been established that they did hack the DNC. No that was not established. First Podest was not hacked. He opened up an email and fell victim to Phishing. Also it wasn't long ago that the intelligence community admitted that we have the capability to mimic hackers signature from all over the world. So somebody from our country could have sent that email trap to Podesta. And Julian Assange has always said and maintained that his connection was not a Russian. He believes that his contact was someone from inside the DNC. That is beyond question. No, you said it is beyond question, and I just showed otherwise. And Comey said long ago that Trump was not under investigation, which means he was not even an object of an investigation. There was nothing to link him to collusion with Russia back then, so this whole investigation should not even had started.


You make a claim you cannot back up.I just did idiot. You know nothing and have shared nothing about how Trump is an innocent victim.In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty. I know that much blowhard. Trump's behavior towards the FBI and toward Mueller, and before him James Comey, indicate there is something there. What is there is righteous indignation. Which is another thing you may never understand. Remember, he told Lester Holt that he fired Comey over the Russia investigation https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/vi ... 1538371971 So there is something there.What was there back then was a President who could see that Comey was an incompetent jerk who was destroying the integrity of the FBI Mueller and Comey are honorable men known for probity. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 17th, 2017, 11:41 pm

Michaels, I gave a source that said people did not think Russia was a witch hunt according to polls https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ ... ls-235667; this source is credible. WND is a right wing hack source. And Rod Rosenstein said he felt Mueller has integrity and there was no legitimate reason to fire him. I have a legitimate source that says Russia is not a witch hunt and you have a suspect far right journal that says it is. I will let the reasonable among our audience decide.

And Bob Mueller is a man of honor and commitment. Mueller came from a privileged background and volunteered for the Marine Corp and then Vietnam. He was wounded; Trump hid behind a minor problem to get out of serving. And it was not because he was a peacenik; it was because he simply did not want to put his life on the line for things he now asks others to do.

It has been established that Russia hacked the DNC according to about 17 intelligence agencies https://www.google.com/search?q=Russia+ ... e&ie=UTF-8 As you can see volumes of articles have been written about it.

I agree one of us is an idiot. But if you think Donald Trump is a man of honor, I question your judgment.. Trump said he fired Comey over the Russia scandal. What is Trump afraid of? You did not address that. No, let Mueller do his job. What are you afraid of? Finding out that you have been seduced by a lie?

And some of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to me. The lack of evidence and of reason for them baffle me. I do know that President Trump is attacking some of our most cherished institutions to save himself, and you do not get it which is very sad. The acid test is the evidence which cannot be unearthed if we do not look for it. If President Trump was sincerely interested in our security he would embrace the Russia probe and stop trying to divert attention to non issues like Hillary Clinton and truly dangerous issues like attacks on our intelligence gathering community, our media and our scientific community.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Postby vietsun004 » December 19th, 2017, 4:30 am

ĐẶT CHỖ biệt thự - liền kề Dự án Athena Fulland Nguyễn Xiển GIÁ TỪ 120 - 150 triệu/m2, DT từ 75 - 242M2 Dự án Athena Fulland Nguyễn Xiển sẽ là đại dự án cuối cùng được phê duyệt trên trục Nguyễn Xiển. Với quy mô lên tới 27ha, ngay gần #Công_viên_Chu_Văn_An 100ha, dự án tạo nên quần thể nhà ở - thương mại – cảnh quan xanh lý tưởng nhất tại Thủ Đô.
Cơ hội sở hữu biệt thự - liền kề và căn hộ GIÁ TỐT
ĐẦU TƯ ĐỢT 1 - Lãi ngay từ thời điểm xuống tiền
Nhanh tay đặt ngay căn đẹp đợt đầu.
--------------- VỊ TRÍ VÀNG MẶT ĐƯỜNG NGUYỄN XIỂN • Đối diện #The_Manor_Central_Park & nằm trong quần thể khu đô thị lớn nhất Tây Nam HN. • Liên kết tiện ích hoàn hảo: gần Công viên Chu Văn An 100ha, BV An Sinh, ĐH Thăng Long…- Dự án shophouse KĐT mới Đại Kim, Hoàng Mai, Nguyễn Xiển (Vành Đai 3).
- Tọa lạc tại vị trí đắc địa tại cửa ngõ phía Tây Nam của thủ đô.
- Mặt chính hướng Tây của dự án tiếp giáp khu đô thị The Manor Central Park.
- Phía Tây Bắc: Liền kề dự án Tây Nam Kim Giang.
- Phía Nam liền kề đại học Thăng Long.
- Phía Đông gần đường Kim Giang.
Khi dự án đi vào hoạt động phối hợp với dự án The Manor Central Park sẽ biến nơi đây thành khu đô thị trung tâm, sầm uất và hoàn chỉnh đồng bộ của quận Hoàng Mai với các cơ quan hành chính quận, các tòa nhà văn phòng, các công ty doanh nghiệp...==========================
Bên cạnh đó, Chung cư Sun Grand City nằm ở những vị trí đắc địa như chung cư 69B Thụy Khuê, Sun Grand City 125 Văn Caochung cư 31 Láng Hạ với phong thuỷ tuyệt vời, mang lại sức sống, tài lộc, thịnh vượng.. Ngay sát với trung tâm chính trị của Hà Nội, dễ dàng đi lại, kết nối với nhiểu tuyến đường huyết mạch của thủ đô.

· Thế giới tiện ích tiêu chuẩn 5 sao

· Môi trường sống tuyệt hảo, đẳng cấp nhất khu vực

· Chủ đầu tư và đơn vị phát triển uy tín

Với những ưu điểm vượt trội, [color=#333333]tập đoàn Sun Group
muốn đem đến cuộc sống sang trọng và đầy đủ tiện ích nhất cho cư dân dự án: một thế giới bình yên, biệt lập chào đón bạn với những tiện ích sang trọng “không dành cho số đông”

==========================
BOM TẤN LÀM KHUYNH ĐẢO THỊ TRƯỜNG HỒ TÂY => D' El Dorado PremiumD' El Dorado Tân Hoàng Minh- Chủ đầu tư: Tập đoàn Tân Hoàng Minh- Sở hữu vị trí đắc địa tại ngã 4 Nguyễn Hoàng Tôn giao cắt Lạc Long Quân( đối diện Quận Uỷ Tây Hồ). D' El Dorado Tân Hoàng Minh là dự án căn hộ mới nhất do Tập đoàn Tân Hoàng Minh đầu tư và phát triển đáp ứng nhu cầu thiết yếu của các gia đình mong muốn sở hữu một căn hộ cao cấp xứng tầm với đầy đủ tiện ích.[/color]
Cơ hội đầu tư BĐS hiệu quả với nhiều chính sách ưu đãi:
Chung cư Sun Grand City 31 Láng Hạ - [size=4][size=4]chung cư 6th element - [/size][color=#1D2129][size=4][size=4]6th element[/size][/size][/size][/color]
vietsun004
 
Posts: 1
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 9:11 am

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 20th, 2017, 10:14 am

Leftyg, I gave a source that said A poll by the Harvard Center for American Political Studies (credible) and Harris (credible) indicates 54 percent of voters agree that as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey, Special Counsel Robert Mueller “has his own conflict of interest in the proceedings,” the Washington Times (credible)reported.
The Times noted the partisan divide, with 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreeing to the statement.
WND is an American news and opinion website. This source is credible. All the sources in this article are credible. Go grab a handkerchief and cry your eyes out if you don't like it. You have a questionable source that says Russia is not a witch hunt and I have credible sources that say it is. The reasonable among our audience and the country have decided, and your of the minority opinion.

And Bob Mueller is a man of honor and commitment. Never said he wasn't. I just laughed when you said Mueller and Comey are honorableMueller came from a privileged background A left wing, non-specific, and not accepted demographic.and volunteered for the Marine Corp and then Vietnam. He was wounded; Thanks for the history lesson. And this has what to do with the present circumstances? Trump had a minor problem that prevented him from serving then but now he is the Commander in Chief, while you are just a butt head.
It has been established that Russia hacked the DNC according to about 17 intelligence agencies https://www.google.com/search? No it hasn't
q=Russia+hacked+the+DNC&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS755US755&oq=Russia+hacked+the+DNC&aqs=chrome..69i57.9911j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 An as you can see here are the articles that have been written about it.
1) https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
This journalistic mission led The Nation to be troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. ...Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”...Despite all the media coverage taking the veracity of the ICA assessment for granted, even now we have only the uncorroborated assertion of intelligence officials to go on. Indeed, this was noticed by The New York Times’s Scott Shane, who wrote the day the report appeared: “What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”
Read the whole article, after you sign the waiver and get permission from your nurse to do so.
2) https://www.salon.com/2017/08/15/what-if-the-dnc-russian-hack-was-really-a-leak-after-all-a-new-report-raises-questions-media-and-democrats-would-rather-ignore/
The original piece, authored by former Salon columnist Patrick Lawrence (also known as Patrick L. Smith) appeared in The Nation on Aug. 9. The findings it details are supported by a group of strongly credentialed and well-respected forensic investigators and former NSA and CIA officials. ...VIPS states two things with what they describe as a high degree of certainty: There was no Russian hack on July 5, and the metadata from Guccifer’s June 15 document release was “synthetically tainted” with “Russian fingerprints.”...“Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible,” Folden told The Nation....
Further casting doubt on the official narrative is the fact the DNC’s computer servers were never examined by the FBI(And yet, The FBI was one of the original agencies that claimed that the DNC was hacked.
In a memorandum sent to President Trump, VIPS questions why the FBI, CIA and NSA neglected to perform any forensic analysis of the Guccifer documents, which were central to the narrative of Russian hacking. Again read the whole article.
3) https://spectator.org/?s=It+was+a+Brennan+Operation
by George Neumayr
Even lefty Seymour Hersh agrees that the Russian fable begin in the mind of Obama’s CIA director.
One wouldn’t expect Seymour Hersh, a lefty journalist par excellance, to pop the Trump-Russia propaganda balloon Obama’s CIA director John Brennan released last year. But he has. Hersh has been quoted as saying that the collusion claim is a product of “disinformation” — “a Brennan operation,” as he puts it.
Hersh says that Trump is not the villain but the victim in this story, and that the press has served as a shameful stenographer for Brennan to smear Trump. Let's repeat that Lefty, Seymour Hersh says that President Trump is not the villain, BUT THE VICTIM in this story.

You said:
You know nothing and have shared nothing about how Trump is an innocent victim
Seymour Hersh - Trump is a victim. I said in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Put the two together and you have the innocent victim.
4) https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story
Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names. But their findings and doubts are only being aired by non-mainstream publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation. The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather than by hackers, Russian or otherwise....And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power....The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election.


And Leftyg, most of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to anyone. The lack of evidence you show and your lack of critical reasoning skills are shameful. Everyone except you knows about the wonderful job President Trump is doing to bring this country back to greatness and you do not get it which is very sad.
Last edited by Michaels153 on December 22nd, 2017, 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 20th, 2017, 4:56 pm

You wrote this:
And Bob Mueller is a man of honor and commitment. Never said he wasn't. I just laughed when you said Mueller and Comey are honorableMueller came from a privileged background A left wing, non-specific, and not accepted demographic.and volunteered for the Marine Corp and then Vietnam. He was wounded; Thanks for the history lesson. And this has what to do with the present circumstances?Trump had a minor problem that prevented him from serving then but now he is the Commander in Chief, while you are just a butt head.
First, I never mentioned Trump was commander in chief and I did not say you were a butt head, although you may be, but I do not know that so do not put words in my mouth. I am not prone to ad hominem attacks, and I checked my post and I did not say it. So please do not slander me. I did not call you a butt head just because you are not president. The fact that you are not this president means actually that you probably --even if you are a butt head--you are not as big a butt head as Trump.

Still this is ridiculous. Just let the process play out. You have presented no serious evidence that Trump is innocent. You have not presented exculpatory evidence. All you have done is attack the process. The process is constitutional and has happened before. What happened in the Russia situation is real, and no amount of denial will change that.

Also, left leaning folks like me tend to be specific. I was not doing a biography of Mr. Mueller, just the fact that he came from the upper class and went to the same prep school as John Kerry and they were teammates on the hockey team. He then matriculated to an Ivy League collage, and then he decided to go to Vietnam. Trump, by all descriptions is vainglorious war monger and blowhard. Like Dick Cheney (another vain glorious blowhard), he found every way he could to avoid service himself. That makes me want to puke. I was against the war in Vietnam and got a draft number of 325 in 1969. But my problem with Vietnam was that I thought the war was immoral. I doubted if that is true of Trump. He just wanted to save his ass.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » December 21st, 2017, 9:08 am

I give Michaels credit for attempting to defend his beliefs here but this is some batshit crazy stuff.

By this point, most Trump supporters have retreated to their MAGA Twitter echo chamber where they mostly interact with Russians pretending to be attractive American women. MAGA, indeed.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

And Leftyg, most of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to anyone. The lack of evidence you show and your lack of critical reasoning skills are shameful. Everyone except you knows about the wonderful job President Trump is doing to bring this country back to greatness and you do not get it which is very sad.
I did not see this comment before. Now I do. You write "most of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to anyone." It is probably beyond the comprehension of Rush listeners and Trump supporters. But I try to be honest and back things up with fact. If you judge my critical thinking skills as deficient, I take that as an enormous compliment given what you close with when you say:
Everyone except you knows about the wonderful job President Trump is doing to bring this country back to greatness and you do not get it which is very sad.
Then I laughed my ass off. You are just pulling my leg, Right? The whole world thinks Trump is an idiot and the people who voted for him the sorriest suckers on the planet.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby hmmmmm » December 21st, 2017, 6:44 pm

leftyg wrote:
And Leftyg, most of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to anyone. The lack of evidence you show and your lack of critical reasoning skills are shameful. Everyone except you knows about the wonderful job President Trump is doing to bring this country back to greatness and you do not get it which is very sad.
I did not see this comment before. Now I do. You write "most of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to anyone." It is probably beyond the comprehension of Rush listeners and Trump supporters. But I try to be honest and back things up with fact. If you judge my critical thinking skills as deficient, I take that as an enormous compliment given what you close with when you say:
Everyone except you knows about the wonderful job President Trump is doing to bring this country back to greatness and you do not get it which is very sad.
Then I laughed my ass off. You are just pulling my leg, Right? The whole world thinks Trump is an idiot and the people who voted for him the sorriest suckers on the planet.

Says the guy that thinks the video of Trump and the rocket man drawing is real. :o
The worst form of inequality, is to try to make unequal things equal ~~~~~ Aristotle

You can't cure poverty by creating more dependency ~~~~~

"Science flies you to the moon. Radical Islamists fly you in to buildings."
~~~~~ hmmmmm
hmmmmm
 
Posts: 742
Joined: March 2nd, 2011, 1:46 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 21st, 2017, 8:27 pm

Says the guy that thinks the video of Trump and the rocket man drawing is real. :o
The fact that it is so believable and totally within Trump's character or lack thereof is disturbing itself.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 22nd, 2017, 9:55 am

JuicedTruth wrote:I give Michaels credit for attempting to defend his beliefs here but this is some batshit crazy stuff.

By this point, most Trump supporters have retreated to their MAGA Twitter echo chamber where they mostly interact with Russians pretending to be attractive American women. MAGA, indeed.


First, thanks Juiced. And I agree that this whole investigation is what you referred to as "bat_ _ _ _ crazy stuff." You really need a file cabinet to try and keep things straight here.

Look I don't know what most Trump supporters are doing. They may not be paying much attention to this anymore. But "your comment: "
most Trump supporters have retreated to their MAGA Twitter echo chamber where they mostly interact with Russians pretending to be attractive American women. MAGA, indeed."

Come on Juiced, you know better than this.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 22nd, 2017, 10:48 am

Hmmmmm wrote :
Says the guy that thinks the video of Trump and the rocket man drawing is real. :o


It is one thing to misjudge someone. It is quite another to deny evidence that is contrary to your original opinion, that is just being obstinate. There is nothing special or "progressive" about being obstinate. Whatever anyone thought of President Trump before he was elected, they certainly are entitled to. But the individual before the election could not be judged as President of the United States. Since being elected as President, there are some who criticized him and did not vote for him for whatever reason and there are some critics now who call him stupid. One thing this man is not, and that is, he is not stupid.
From the left's perspective, anyone who does not agree with them is "stupid", so the left takes one term with a clear definition that does not fit (just because you disagree with them) and transforms the term into a derogatory label.
But the left falls apart when comparing apples to apples does not result in a favorable outcome for them.
Do you want to compare presidents?
They do not want to compare President Trump to the previous occupant of the white house.

But with each recurring success, these lame statements only hurts them, not President Trump
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 23rd, 2017, 5:23 pm

It is one thing to misjudge someone. It is quite another to deny evidence that is contrary to your original opinion, that is just being obstinate. There is nothing special or "progressive" about being obstinate. Whatever anyone thought of President Trump before he was elected, they certainly are entitled to. But the individual before the election could not be judged as President of the United States. Since being elected as President, there are some who criticized him and did not vote for him for whatever reason and there are some critics now who call him stupid. One thing this man is not, and that is, he is not stupid.
From the left's perspective, anyone who does not agree with them is "stupid", so the left takes one term with a clear definition that does not fit (just because you disagree with them) and transforms the term into a derogatory label.
But the left falls apart when comparing apples to apples does not result in a favorable outcome for them.
Do you want to compare presidents?
They do not want to compare President Trump to the previous occupant of the white house.

But with each recurring success, these lame statements only hurts them, not President Trump

You walked into this Micheals, so here goes: Trump has told almost six times as many lies in his first ten months in the White House as Obama did in eight years as president, Trump 103, Obama 18 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0 Trump: 103 https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2 ... oard_6.png

But that is just the beginning. In January 2009 Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.8% and drove it down to 4.7%, less than half the peak of 9.9% in 2010. Meanwhile, Trump inherited 4.7% from Obama and has it down to 4.1%. https://historyinpieces.com/research/us ... -president According to Forbes Obama had higher stock market gains(16.25%) in his first ten months than has Trump (15.38) https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndorfma ... 3d75736644 Trump says no president has improved the market as quickly as he has, and he is lying. He was sixth best in even that narrow window. Obama inherited a market Dow Index of 7000 and grew it to 20000; Trump grew that to about 24,500. In other words Trump's presidency was born on third base, and he thinks he hit a triple.

But it does not stop there. Yesterday, Nikki Haley, likely at Trump's behest, threatened all the 128 countries in the United Nations who voted against the United States moving its embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoS57lMfcR8 This is an extremely stupid move (Haley and Trump''s responses). The other nations of the UN are not Trump employees. Wait until he needs them for something. Diplomacy is important and he does not get it; he seems to think he is the world's CEO. As a result, he has essentially been uninvited to Great Britain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... eresa-may/ He continues to alienate world leaders while continuing his bromance with Vladimir Putin. And his popularity in the world has plumeted http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ees-trump/ He is, however, popular in Russia and the Philippines (two notorious dictatorships).

Meanwhile, Obama was very popular at the end of his presidency. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ating.html
An Ipsos poll showed that 76% of world citizens interviewed thought Obama was a good president; 66% think Trump will be a bad president. https://www.ipsos.com/en/president-obam ... p-are-more

By any reasonable metric you want to choose, Obama is vastly superior to Trump, and most of Trump's success is built on Obama's accomplishments.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 25th, 2017, 1:35 pm

leftyg wrote:You walked into this Micheals, so here goes: Trump has told almost six times as many lies in his first ten months in the White House as Obama did in eight years as president, Trump 103, Obama 18 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0 Trump: 103 https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2 ... oard_6.png

Point # 1 of your first apple to apple comparison;
First, there is no definition of lies given for the purpose of comparison. As you already well know, If you look at definitions of lies the list includes to say something that you know is not true as with an intent to deceive, or to make a statement that is inaccurate. The New York Times link is an opinion column and in my opinion many of the alleged lies are subjective interpretations of statements given. For example: JAN. 21, 2017.“I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” This is the Times comment that to them qualifies as a lie ->(He was for an invasion before he was against it.) How is that a lie? You have congressmen who vote for something even if they may have certain misgivings about the bill. Does that mean that they lied if they say they didn't like the bill, when it is pointed out that they voted for it? Here on 1/21/17 Mr. Trump is expressing his feelings. How are his expressed feelings on 1/21/17 a lie, regardless how he felt or expressed them in the past?

Second, This opinion piece has the appearance of being fair only because it includes both presidents. Do you think that the New York Times chronicled every lie of Obama? Or do you think that another source could find more?
And finally, - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
This was what was voted as the top lie, the lie of the year for 2013, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said -- many times -- of his landmark new law."
You said: By any reasonable metric you want to choose, Obama is vastly superior to Trump, Well in this case, Obama's lie of "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" is vastly superior to "I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq."

Point #2 of your apple to apple comparison - Unemployment
In January 2009 Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.8% and drove it down to 4.7%, less than half the peak of 9.9% in 2010. Meanwhile, Trump inherited 4.7% from Obama and has it down to 4.1%. https://historyinpieces.com/research/us ... -president
President Washington did not inherit anything. His presidency as all president's who came after him, should be judged just by what they did. Let's begin by noting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics use different standards to register the numbers of the unemployed. They use the U-3 and the U-6 categories, and they also use the seasonally adjusted numbers and the not adjusted numbers. Janet Yellen and Bernie Sanders both believe that the U-6 numbers is a more truer representative of the unemployed because it is the sum total of everybody, even those who have given up looking for a job. In November of 2016, the unadjusted U-3 number of the unemployed was 4.4. This past November the U-3 number was 3.9. In November of 2016 the U-6 number was 9.0. This past November the U-6 number was 7.7. So by either category, the number of unemployed under President Trump was lower than the number under Obama. But that is only a statistical view of the unemployment numbers. There are basically two ways that you can lower unemployment. First, you can lower unemployment by actually increasing the number of those working.
The other way is by decreasing the number of jobs available making the pool of workers as a percentage of jobs available look better. Obama dropped the unemployment numbers by readjusting the labor statistics, and because his policies resulted in many people losing their jobs.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/05/obama_s_unemployment_sleight_of_hand/
Obama's unemployment sleight of hand by Rush Limbaugh - 2/5/16
RUSH: We have an audio sound bite here from Obama, the press conference I mentioned an hour ago. He went out there and he was praising his economy. He was heralding first-time unemployment rate as being under 5% for the first time in seven years. That’s essentially since he took office. The first time. When have you ever heard that referred to: “The first-time unemployment rate is now at 4.9%”? What’s that? Does anybody have any memory of hearing the unemployment rate referred to as “the first-time unemployment rate”?
Well, there’s a reason he said it. It’s because it’s the only way you can ignore the 94 million Americans not working, not in the labor force. The first-time unemployed. In other words, people applying for unemployment benefits for the first time, 5%. So this is a sleight-of-hand thing.

One of President Trump's major accomplishments has been the creation of 1.7 million new jobs along with what you posted as his 4.1% unemployment rate. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159
President Trump is doing a far better job here by reducing the unemployment numbers and adding jobs than Obama did. And, President Trump is not fudging the statistics to do this. How long did it take Obama to get below 5% unemployment for the first time? President Trump brought the unemployment number down to 4.1%
in less than his first year in the job.


Point # 3 in your apple to apple comparison - the stock market

According to Forbes Obama had higher stock market gains(16.25%) in his first ten months than has Trump (15.38) https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndorfma ... -in-stock-
market-performance. And from your own link:
Everyone is impressed with the performance of the stock market under President Trump–especially Trump. Stocks have risen in nine of the first ten months of the Trump Administration, a record that no other U.S. president can match.
Trump says no president has improved the market as quickly as he has, and he is lying. Lying? Really?!! Your own link says that "stocks have risen in nine of the first ten months of the Trump Administration, a record that NO OTHER PRESIDENT CAN MATCH"He was sixth best in even that narrow window. Obama inherited a market Dow Index of 7000 and grew it to 20000; Trump grew that to about 24,500. In other words Trump's presidency was born on third base, and he thinks he hit a triple.No, in other words, the Dow Index has improved under President Trump and has surpassed what it was under Obama. Since the stock market can go up and down, the fact that it continues to rise as it has been is a reflection of the confidence that industry has in the direction that this President in taking them. And the rise has been steady prior to the tax reform plan that just recently passed. There is the belief that the stock market will continue to grow, just how much I don't know,
but some believe that it could even hit or exceed 25,000 by the end of this year.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/23/a-dow-jones-industrial-record-5000-points-higher-i.aspx
A Dow Jones Industrial Record: 5,000 Points Higher in Just 1 Year
That’s never happened before. But what does it mean? And what comes next?
Motley Fool Staff (the_motley_fool) Dec 23, 2017 at 12:05AM
Mac Greer: For the first time in its 121-year history, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gone up more than 5,000 points in a year. That's the biggest annual points gain ever. Guys, the Dow has also closed at a record high 70 times this year.


Point number 4 in your apple to apple comparison - Nikki Haley, the UN and International popularity?

But it does not stop there. What does not stop there? Your idiocy?Yesterday, Nikki Haley, likely Likely?, you don't know, but your willing to assume for an opportunity to criticize Trump. I thought this was supposed to be an apple to apple comparison of presidents? No need for a mulligan here.
I will accept that Ms. Haley's comments and actions were approved of by President Trump.
at Trump's behest, threatened all the 128 countries in the United Nations who voted against the United States moving its embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoS57lMfcR8 This was no threat to anyone. This was a long overdue comeuppance to countries who hate Israel. This was a rebuke to them. The Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2017 formally recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and allows for the relocation of its embassy to Jerusalem. CNN referred to the Jerusalem embassy move" a recognition of reality." The history of Jerusalem is that it has always been recognized by Israel as its capital. In modern times it was at first partitioned with Israel being recognized as having the right to eastern Jerusalem. After the 67 war, Israel claimed all of Jerusalem. All or part of Jerusalem, from any perspective you want to accept, Israel has part of it, and as being the holder to it's part, it is allowed as a sovereign state to make its own decisions on what to do within it's country. If Israel,
who accepted our embassy in Tel Aviv, has no problem with us relocating our embassy to their part of Jerusalem, then that should settle it. It is no other countries business but Israel's. This decision and action is long overdue. It is a true demonstration of recognizing Israel as our friend and ally. It is a line drawn in the sand that tells the world that we stand by Israel. And for those countries that plot the overthrow of Israel, they now know that any aggressive military attempt to overtake Jerusalem and/or Israel means that they won't just be fighting Israel, but the U.S. as well. This vote (for those who voted) by the UN was a non-binding statement of agreement or disagreement with our action and the recognition of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. It is not a stupid move. What could be more legitimately be considered stupid, is the thought that somehow that the recognition of disapproval might have any bearing on what Israel and the United States (now) were going to do.
Did anyone seriously believe that even if the entire UN voted against the US, that the US would change their minds about this.
The other nations of the UN are not Trump employees. And the United States are no other countries employees either. Wait until he needs them for something. If the United States needs something and no other country is willing to help us, then we will go it alone, and remember. Diplomacy is important and he does not get it; he seems to think he is the world's CEO. Diplomacy is important to a certain degree. President Trump understands that. He Gets it! What you and the rest of the liberals don't get is that you don't sacrifice or accommodate right actions for any price. As a result, he has essentially been uninvited to Great Britain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... eresa-may/ The Presidency is not a world popularity puppet show. I don't care what the world thinks of what we are doing. President Trump should only be concerned in what is best for this, our country, and it's people.

Point number 5 in your apple to apple comparison - Legacy popularity. ?

Meanwhile, Obama was very popular at the end of his presidency. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ating.html
An Ipsos poll showed that 76% of world citizens interviewed thought Obama was a good president; 66% think Trump will be a bad president. https://www.ipsos.com/en/president-obam ... p-are-more
How is this an apple to apple comparison? You talk about Obama being popular at the end of his presidency while President Trump just started. You also talk about some people thinking that President Trump will be a bad president. If this is an important metric to you, then take it when President Trump concludes his presidency.

By any reasonable metric, President Trump is already vastly superior to Obama. [/quote]
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159.
Last edited by Michaels153 on December 25th, 2017, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 25th, 2017, 4:01 pm

I saw red when I looked at you response, literally. I am first going to respond to the Obama statement that "you can keep your insurance if you want to." The truth is that is an opinion based on his consultation with insurance company executives. Obama had no power to stop them from cancelling policies if they wanted to. He never had it before, and did not acquire it after Obamacare passed and was implemented. It was a foolish statement, and he should not have made it because it was not his call.

The equation that conservatives often make is with Bush and WMD. They say he was not lying because the information he got he thought was true. In the same way, Obama had to believe that he was getting accurate information. And Obama was making a prediction. I made a prediction over a year ago that the Indians would win the World Series; I was wrong. It was not a lie because you cannot lie about the outcome of a future event or an unknown event.

About private non-group insurance policies: a poll was done by the Urban Institute of 522 people 18-64 receiving these policies and 18.6 % said that they were cancelled in the year after Obamacare was implemented. The conservative group Americans for Prosperity said that 4.7 million policies were cancelled. The Centers for Disease Control said that there were 14 million such policies in force in the United States. Lead author on the study, Lisa Clemans-Cope said there was a 95% probability that the true percent of people losing coverage was between 16.2-23,3% of all enrollees which is far less than 4,7 million. Most likely it is about 2.6 million, or some number between 2.3 and 3.2 million people.

AND you have to remember that private insurance policies were cancelled before Obamacare for reasons that only insurers know. Forbes Magazine said that fewer policies were cancelled under Obamacare than before https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapse ... 25ea8b1f76. Which is something conservative never mention..

This is a lot of time spent on just one lie and Michaels because of the people you admire, you get lied to a lot and are bound to take it out on people like me. But when a lie is easily identifiable, as with Trump, it is easy to count. The fact that these are numerous, like shooting fish in a barrel, makes them easy to quantify.

But before I watch the Cav's play the Warriors I have to address this. You are right, that unemployment has gone down, but it is what you would expect as the economy imporves. What happens to this improvements remains to be seen. Remember that these numbers may adjust as Republican policies take effect next year. Right now we are still living under tax policies established by Obama. So we have to wait and see. And as the economy gets better and the job market tightens, you would expect the U6 number to go down faster. One problem: the Republicans do not like tight job markets; they like surplus labor. Got to go. LeBron is calling me.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 25th, 2017, 5:06 pm

I saw red when I looked at you response, literally. I am first going to respond to the Obama statement that "you can keep your insurance if you want to." The truth is that is an opinion based on his consultation with insurance company executives. Obama had no power to stop them from cancelling policies if they wanted to. He never had it before, and did not acquire it after Obamacare passed and was implemented. It was a foolish statement, and he should not have made it because it was not his call.

You may not have liked my response, but I responded to what you provided. You wanted to compare lies. You provided the New York Times link, and in that link they quoted Obama saying the following:
JUNE 11, 2009.“No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.” (Some people had to switch plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act)
Now this is similar to the wording of the Politifact quote: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said -- many times -- of his landmark new law." The New York Times' quote is more damning because it rules out opinion. Here Obama is very clearly taking responsibility for the health care plan: No matter how we reform health care, I INTEND TO KEEP THIS PROMISE: if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."
But your reaction to this goes to what I said. There is no definition given as to what constitutes a lie. Your link is an opinion piece. And you just found a reference to Obama that you do not consider a lie.
You are giving Obama every benefit of the doubt and claim it is an opinion. But without a precise definition from which to objectively compare, this opinion column becomes nothing more than a collection of statements, subjectively interpreted as lies.
So do not fault me or others when I disagree when someone says that President Trump lied, and do what you just did.
However your predictive statement about the Indians winning the world series (I thought they had a good chance to win too) is different to what Obama said. Obama was not predicting, he was declaring what he was going to do. And given time I could find transcripts of what Obama said and what Jonathan Gruber said about how it was important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare's true costs from the public. "That was really, really critical for the thing to pass," - Gruber said. That, along with forcing the public to add minimal components to their health care plan whether they needed them or not, or whether they could afford the changes or not. Regardless of what your think Obama's conversation with insurance company representatives were, or whether or not you feel he should have said what he did, Obama did say it.
You said: "This is a lot of time spent on just one lie and Michaels because of the people you admire, you get lied to a lot and are bound to take it out on people like me. But when a lie is easily identifiable, as with Trump, it is easy to count. The fact that these are numerous, like shooting fish in a barrel, makes them easy to quantify."
It is disappointing to find people that you admire lying, but I don't take out my disappointment of the person on somebody else and I am not doing it to you now. I am disagreeing with your earlier post and your sweeping praises for Obama being better than President Trump. The fact is, just as you believe that it is easy to recognize a lie when you see it, so do i, but without a definition to start with, it is like playing a game with no rules and arguing about the score.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 26th, 2017, 3:24 pm

You may not have liked my response, but I responded to what you provided. You wanted to compare lies. You provided the New York Times link, and in that link they quoted Obama saying the following:
Iwas responding to your font color which is often red :D

Now this is similar to the wording of the Politifact quote: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said -- many times -- of his landmark new law." The New York Times' quote is more damning because it rules out opinion. Here Obama is very clearly taking responsibility for the health care plan: No matter how we reform health care, I INTEND TO KEEP THIS PROMISE: if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."
I said it was a foolish thing to say. There is no question. It may rule out opinion but not predicting for the future. And the number of cancellations was overstated by conservatives by a factor of two to one. That would make that a lie because the information was there, like Trump saying we were the highest taxed country in the world. And you do not address the fact that the number of cancellations went down and the number of uninsured has gone down as any number of sources will verify https://www.google.com/search?q=how+muc ... e&ie=UTF-8 .The uninsured rate is something like 50% of what it was, and that is a dramatic stride forward even as the Trump administration is trying to kill it.

So do not fault me or others when I disagree when someone says that President Trump lied, and do what you just did.
However your predictive statement about the Indians winning the world series (I thought they had a good chance to win too) is different to what Obama said. Obama was not predicting, he was declaring what he was going to do. And given time I could find transcripts of what Obama said and what Jonathan Gruber said about how it was important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare's true costs from the public. "That was really, really critical for the thing to pass," - Gruber said. That, along with forcing the public to add minimal components to their health care plan whether they needed them or not, or whether they could afford the changes or not. Regardless of what your think Obama's conversation with insurance company representatives were, or whether or not you feel he should have said what he did, Obama did say it.
You said: "This is a lot of time spent on just one lie and Michaels because of the people you admire, you get lied to a lot and are bound to take it out on people like me. But when a lie is easily identifiable, as with Trump, it is easy to count. The fact that these are numerous, like shooting fish in a barrel, makes them easy to quantify."
Again Trump's lies are easily verifiable. The Times article was not an opinion piece; it was a count of factual errors Trump has made. He lied about the size of his crowd. He claimed between "three and five million people voted illegally" with absolutely no evidence to back up his claim. He said that "millions" lost there insurance with Obamacare when the number of people losing it is less than one million according to the Urban Institute. It just goes on and on. Here is a list of facts, not opinions https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0

About the things people have to add to their insurance: what exactly are they and what do you object to? Personally one big one is maternity care paid for women who get pregnant. Well who gets them pregnant? Yesterday we celebrated the birthday of the only person who was ever born without the benefit of the intervention by a male. Every man should pay for pregnancy insurance. And, on balance, Obamacare has been a huge benefit

It is disappointing to find people that you admire lying, but I don't take out my disappointment of the person on somebody else and I am not doing it to you now. I am disagreeing with your earlier post and your sweeping praises for Obama being better than President Trump. The fact is, just as you believe that it is easy to recognize a lie when you see it, so do i, but without a definition to start with, it is like playing a game with no rules and arguing about the score.
Funny, I backed up everything I said, and you call it sweeping when you heaped encomium of Trump with absolutely no support for it at all. President Obama was better than Trump. A lie is easy to recognize when you understand what it takes for something to be a lie: it has to be factual; there needs to be evidence to support it; it cannot be an opinion or a prediction; and the person lying has to be aware that s/he is lying. Those are the rules of the game and the Times adhered to them. Just look at the list I provided.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 27th, 2017, 11:06 am

leftyg wrote:
You may not have liked my response, but I responded to what you provided. You wanted to compare lies. You provided the New York Times link, and in that link they quoted Obama saying the following:
Iwas responding to your font color which is often red :D
I was responding to your lengthy defense of Obama's lie. :roll:

Now this is similar to the wording of the Politifact quote: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said -- many times -- of his landmark new law." The New York Times' quote is more damning because it rules out opinion. Here Obama is very clearly taking responsibility for the health care plan: No matter how we reform health care, I INTEND TO KEEP THIS PROMISE: if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."
... It may rule out opinion but not predicting for the future. It does rule out predicting for the future. Obama was not predicting that he was going to work on the health care law, because he already included himself as working on the health care law - present tense. ("no matter how we reform") I intend to keep this promise". You could word that statement this way with the same meaning: No matter how we work to reform health care, I intend to keep working on it until we keep this promise I made to you, that if you like your doctor you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you like your health care plan, your'll be able to keep your health care plan."
This was very clear to Politifact and to the New York Times. Neither Politifact nor the New York Times tried to explain Obama's declarative statement as either an opinion, nor as a prediction. The reason that they didn't try to explain it as either an opinion or as a prediction is because it was neither.
And the number of cancellations was overstated by conservatives by a factor of two to one. That would make that a lie because the information was there, like Trump saying we were the highest taxed country in the world. And you do not address the fact that the number of cancellations went down and the number of uninsured has gone down as any number of sources will verify https://www.google.com/search? And if you look at any of your sources you will NOT find the number of insured broken down between those who are on, or were on the ACA, and those that are insured elsewhere. But you will see how the uninsured has gone down since Obamacare (or the ACA), as if to imply that everyone was being insured through the ACA / Obamacare. The actual enrollees into ACA/Obamacare have continued to go down, and of those that remain, how many actually use it? (due to not being able to afford it) Then there are the number of people who still find paying the fine for not being insured cheaper than the unaffordability of Obamacare. I had previously explained all this in the post:"Re: Worse than a complete waste of Money."
q=how+much+has+the+uninsured+rate+gone+down+under+Obamacare&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS755US755&oq=how+much+has+the+uninsured+rate+gone+down+under+Obamacare+&aqs=chrome..69i57.22547j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 .The uninsured rate is something like 50% of what it was, and that is a dramatic stride forward even as the Trump administration is trying to kill it.

So do not fault me or others when I disagree when someone says that President Trump lied, and do what you just did.
However your predictive statement about the Indians winning the world series (I thought they had a good chance to win too) is different to what Obama said. Obama was not predicting, he was declaring what he was going to do. And given time I could find transcripts of what Obama said and what Jonathan Gruber said about how it was important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare's true costs from the public. "That was really, really critical for the thing to pass," - Gruber said. That, along with forcing the public to add minimal components to their health care plan whether they needed them or not, or whether they could afford the changes or not. Regardless of what your think Obama's conversation with insurance company representatives were, or whether or not you feel he should have said what he did, Obama did say it.
You said: "This is a lot of time spent on just one lie and Michaels because of the people you admire, you get lied to a lot and are bound to take it out on people like me. But when a lie is easily identifiable, as with Trump, it is easy to count. The fact that these are numerous, like shooting fish in a barrel, makes them easy to quantify."
Again Trump's lies are easily verifiable. The Times article was not an opinion piece; it was a count of factual errors Trump has made. He lied about the size of his crowd. He claimed between "three and five million people voted illegally" with absolutely no evidence to back up his claim. He said that "millions" lost there insurance with Obamacare when the number of people losing it is less than one million according to the Urban Institute. It just goes on and on. Here is a list of facts, not opinions https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0

About the things people have to add to their insurance: what exactly are they and what do you object to? Personally one big one is maternity care paid for women who get pregnant. There are women who are not sexually active. There are women who are not sexually active with men. There are women who do not have children. Well who gets them pregnant? There are men who are not sexually active. There are men who are not sexually active with women.
And there are men who do not have children.
Yesterday we celebrated the birthday of the only person who was ever born without the benefit of the intervention by a male. Every man should pay for pregnancy insurance. That was a pretty ignorant remark. Maybe everyone should be forced to buy car insurance too, even if they don't drive, or are blind, ...etc. And, on balance, Obamacare has been a huge benefit. No, Obamacare has been a huge failure.

It is disappointing to find people that you admire lying, but I don't take out my disappointment of the person on somebody else and I am not doing it to you now. I am disagreeing with your earlier post and your sweeping praises for Obama being better than President Trump. The fact is, just as you believe that it is easy to recognize a lie when you see it, so do i, but without a definition to start with, it is like playing a game with no rules and arguing about the score.
Funny, I backed up everything I said, Funny, to me, it looks as if you only showed up. What you used to back up what you said did not win you any points.
And if this were a case going to court and you were a lawyer and showed Obama that you were going to use these references to defend him. I am sure he would either seek a new lawyer immediately, or contemplate throwing himself on the mercy of the court.
and you call it sweeping when you heaped encomium of Trump with absolutely no support for it at all. Leftyg, you are always saying I show no support or no references when I do. President Obama was better than Trump.That is your opinion. A lie is easy to recognize when you understand what it takes for something to be a lie: it has to be factual; there needs to be evidence to support it; it cannot be an opinion or a prediction; and the person lying has to be aware that s/he is lying. Those are the rules of the game and the Times adhered to them. How can you say that the Times adhered to your supposed rules when you previously argued against one of the lies against Obama? Just look at the list I provided.
I did look at the list provided. We both argued separate examples.
OH and Leftyg, you said:
The Times article was not an opinion piece;
byt it was, as anybody can see when they go to your reference. It says: OPINION
T r u m p ’ s L i e s
By DAVID LEONHARDT and STUART A. THOMPSON UPDATED December 14, 2017
Now pinch your nostrils, and hold your head back. That is the fastest way to stop a bloody nose. ;)
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 27th, 2017, 7:22 pm

I was responding to your lengthy defense of Obama's lie. :roll:

I was using my sense of humor. Did you notice the emoji :D ?

You then explsained:
It does rule out predicting for the future. Obama was not predicting that he was going to work on the health care law, because he already included himself as working on the health care law - present tense. ("no matter how we reform") I intend to keep this promise". You could word that statement this way with the same meaning: No matter how we work to reform health care, I intend to keep working on it until we keep this promise I made to you, that if you like your doctor you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you like your health care plan, your'll be able to keep your health care plan."
This was very clear to Politifact and to the New York Times. Neither Politifact nor the New York Times tried to explain Obama's declarative statement as either an opinion, nor as a prediction. The reason that they didn't try to explain it as either an opinion or as a prediction is because it was neither.
In all honesty a prediction cannot be lie unless a person has total control over the outcome. And Obama did not. Either that or Bush definitely lied about WMD

And if you look at any of your sources you will NOT find the number of insured broken down between those who are on, or were on the ACA, and those that are insured elsewhere. But you will see how the uninsured has gone down since Obamacare (or the ACA), as if to imply that everyone was being insured through the ACA / Obamacare. The actual enrollees into ACA/Obamacare have continued to go down, and of those that remain, how many actually use it? (due to not being able to afford it) Then there are the number of people who still find paying the fine for not being insured cheaper than the unaffordability of Obamacare. I had previously explained all this in the post:"Re: Worse than a complete waste of Money."
Actually, I just caught you in a lie when you said "the actual enrollees into have continued to go down." No they have not The most recent data shows they have gone UP 46%. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/obamaca ... -pace.html So I caught you in a whopper. And the only way we can ascertain the correct numbers is through polling and assigning statistical probabilities and confidence levels which the authors of the study did, a far sight from the hollow bombast I hear from the right and your hollow claim that Obamacare is worse than a "complete waste of money" because millions who have benefited would disagree with you. Why do people continue to sign up for it as my source said? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/obamaca ... -pace.html


There are women who are not sexually active. There are women who are not sexually active with men. There are women who do not have children.

There are men who are not sexually active. There are men who are not sexually active with women. And there are men who do not have children.
Yes I know that, but it is not like driving a car which you allude to because you do not need a driver's license to kick boots with someone. And you can be the most devout celibate or spinster and run into an opportunity that you did not anticipate

I said:
Yesterday we celebrated the birthday of the only person who was ever born without the benefit of the intervention by a male. Every man should pay for pregnancy insurance.
You said
That was a pretty ignorant remark. Maybe everyone should be forced to buy car insurance too, even if they don't drive, or are blind, ...etc.
There was nothing dumb or ignorant about my observation. Fact Michaels: babies are not found under cabbage leafs

I said with the benefit of data :
And, on balance, Obamacare has been a huge benefit.
You pulled this out of your... well...
No, Obamacare has been a huge failure.
And do what most conservatives do: resort to disproven statements like you did earlier in this post when you said Obamacare enrollment has gone down which it clearly has not (GIGO) Look it up.

You reiterate a weak argument you made:
It is disappointing to find people that you admire lying, but I don't take out my disappointment of the person on somebody else and I am not doing it to you now. I am disagreeing with your earlier post and your sweeping praises for Obama being better than President Trump. The fact is, just as you believe that it is easy to recognize a lie when you see it, so do i, but without a definition to start with, it is like playing a game with no rules and arguing about the score.

Which is very true of you and your side. Look Trump lies a lot as the Times article by Leonhardt shows
I wrote:
Funny, I backed up everything I said,


You retorted :
Funny, to me, it looks as if you only showed up. What you used to back up what you said did not win you any points.
And if this were a case going to court and you were a lawyer and showed Obama that you were going to use these references to defend him. I am sure he would either seek a new lawyer immediately, or contemplate throwing himself on the mercy of the court.
I gave lots of points. Again I caught you in a lie about Obamacare numbers going down. BUT it really was not a lie because you probably did not know any better. I listen to right wing radio and commentary and I know they only give one side. ON MSNBC, for example, you hear both sides
You continue
Leftyg, you are always saying I show no support or no references when I do.
And, as I have shown, much of it is just wrong information. And you cannot come to sound conclusions with bad information.

I said:
President Obama was better than Trump.

You said:
That is your opinion.

It is close to an opinion. Actually it is an inference "an opinion or judgment based on evidence."
I gave a definition of a lie:
A lie is easy to recognize when you understand what it takes for something to be a lie: it has to be factual; there needs to be evidence to support it; it cannot be an opinion or a prediction; and the person lying has to be aware that s/he is lying. Those are the rules of the game and the Times adhered to them.


You closed with this retort:.
I did look at the list provided. We both argued separate examples.
OH and Leftyg, you said:
The Times article was not an opinion piece;
byt it was, as anybody can see when they go to your reference. It says: OPINION
T r u m p ’ s L i e s
By DAVID LEONHARDT and STUART A. THOMPSON UPDATED December 14, 2017
Now pinch your nostrils, and hold your head back. That is the fastest way to stop a bloody nose. ;)
Yes it was in the opinion section, but it was a set of declarative sentences by Trump that can easily be shown to be false; this is not rocket science. The Leonhardt article measured Trump's declarative sentences against objective reality.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby the whispering eye » December 27th, 2017, 7:50 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:



Image
the whispering eye
 
Posts: 437
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 8:42 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 28th, 2017, 6:31 pm

I said with the benefit of data :
And, on balance, Obamacare has been a huge benefit.
You pulled this out of your... well...
No, Obamacare has been a huge failure.
Postby Michaels153 » March 10th, 2016, 8:34 pm

http://www.powerlineblog.com/?s=NPR+sur ... &x=15&y=13 NPR and Harvard say: Obamacare is a complete Failure.
"...the survey findings are damning. They suggest that Obamacare has been worse than a complete waste of money."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ailed.html Even NPR agrees that Obamacare has failed.
"A thorough repudiation of the (un-) Affordable Care Act comes from all places state-run National Public Radio.
"...And i hope you haven't been making plans of what to do with that $2,500 a year you'll be saving on premiums. The NPR poll confirms that, that was just another in Obama's litany of lies."
The poll is by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H.Chan School of Public Health.

In all honesty a prediction cannot be lie unless a person has total control over the outcome. And Obama did not. In all honesty, again, this was not a prediction. And Obama did have total control over the outcome.Remember, He had a pen and he knew how to use it. When he couldn't get the funding he sought through congress, he funneled the money illegally through other sources for Obamacare. If he wanted to keep his promise, he could have done the same thing. But as we found out, he had no intention of keeping that promise because he wanted to get to Universal (Single Payer) healthcare. And the only way he could get to what he wanted, was if this plan,the ACA failed.


Leftyg, These sources show a 4 percent decline from last year's enrollment.
[urlhttp://dailycaller.com/2017/12/28/updated-obamacare-enrollment-figure-dips-to-8-7-million/][/url]
Reuters) – About 8.7 million people enrolled in healthcare plans for 2018 using the federal Obamacare marketplace, according to updated government figures released on Thursday.

The number represented a slight decline from the 2017 enrollment figure when about 9.2 million people signed up for health insurance policies from private insurers on the HealthCare.gov platform. It was slightly lower than the 8.8 million figure given last week by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The revised figure was due to some late cancellations, CMS said.
A final report is due out in March. Some states had their deadline extended.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-sign-ups-slip-as-some-customers-cancel-plans/article/2644504
A week ago, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that 8.8 million people signed up for plans. A CMS official told the Washington Examiner that the number declined because some customers canceled their plans within hours of the deadline, while others canceled plans they were automatically enrolled in. Obamacare customers who do not actively change, re-enroll or cancel their plans are automatically enrolled in a new one. If they do not pay their premiums, they are not covered by the plan and risk going uninsured, and they can cancel plans they are automatically enrolled in.
...Customers are not considered fully enrolled in plans until they pay their first months of premiums.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2017/12/26/dont-blame-trump-for-obamacares-lackluster-open-enrollment-season/#5da483b72cd0
Obamacare's 2018 open enrollment period came to a close in most states on December 15. Roughly 8.8 million people signed up for health plans through Healthcare.gov, the federal exchange that operates in 39 states. That's a 4 percent decline compared to last year's total of 9.2 million sign ups through the federal marketplace that operates exchanges in 39 states. Enrollment in the 12 exchanges run by individual states and the District of Columbia also appears to have dipped.



And thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt about my lying about the enrollment figures.
Again I caught you in a lie about Obamacare numbers going down. BUT it really was not a lie because you probably did not know any better


But as you can see, you did not catch me in a lie. You may disagree with these sources. But, I think it was you who did not know better.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 28th, 2017, 6:48 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/28/nunes-blasts-doj-fbi-for-failure-to-produce-records-relating-to-anti-trump-dossier.html

Exclusive - House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is blasting the Department of Justice and the FBI for its “failure to fully produce” documents related to an anti-Trump dossier, saying “at this point it seems the DOJ and FBI need to be investigating themselves.”

In a Thursday letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein obtained by Fox News, Nunes expressed frustration that information and witnesses subpoenaed by the committee in August related to the so-called Steele dossier had not yet been turned over. The salacious dossier includes unverified allegations about President Trump's connections with Russia that he has denied.

“Unfortunately, DOJ/FBI's intransigence with respect to the August 24 subpoenas is part of a broader pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated,” the California Republican wrote to Rosenstein.


Nunes demanded that all records – and available dates for witnesses to testify – be provided to the committee by Jan 3.

“As a result of the numerous delays and discrepancies that have hampered the process of subpoena compliance, the committee no longer credits the representations made by DOJ and/or the FBI regarding these matters,” Nunes said. - Now that is a big and bold step.

He called the DOJ’s initial response to the subpoenas “disingenuous at best.”

Nunes said the DOJ informed the House Intelligence Committee several weeks ago that the “basic investigatory documents demanded by the subpoenas…did not exist.”

“As it turns out, not only did documents exist that were directly responsive to the committee’s subpoenas, but they involved senior DOJ and FBI officials who were swiftly reassigned when their roles in matters under the committee’s investigation were brought to light,” Nunes wrote.
Among the information being sought by the committee are reports that summarize meetings between FBI confidential human sources and FBI officials about the Steele dossier.

It also wants to interview DOJ and FBI officials, Ohr, Strzok, FBI Attorney James Baker, FBI Attorney Lisa Page, FBI Attorney Sally Moyer and FBI Assistant Director for Congressional Affairs Greg Brower.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 28th, 2017, 7:41 pm

First a cold fact: Obamacare is still going because it is becoming popular with people. This is basic logic Michaels: a Republican president with majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Supreme Court amenable to repeal could not get it done. Obamacare is a complete failure in the minds of delusional people like the folks at Powerline . That is why the repeal failed.

We both know it happened and the reason ought to be simple to you. You can wail in denial all you want, but to millions of people it has been a blessing. And if you could read your own polling data and not believe the overblown headline you would get your answer yourself. First this is a perception poll. Directly Helped got 15%; No Direct Help got 56% and Directly Hurt got 25% nationally. But in YOUR state it got 35% for Directly Helped; 21% for No Direct Help and 27% for Directly Hurt.

Also, your poll is old, from 2016. The trend line for more recent polling data shows that 51.3% of all respondents favor Obamacare while 40.5% oppose it. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ealth-bill So you are wrong on the data, and the the politics of if it confirm that outcome. There will be holy hell to pay with voters if it is repealed, and the GOP knows it. For a long time it was a tool they used with the base, but when they had the opportunity to wield the cudgel of repeal they failed to do so, and breathed a slight sigh of relief. Yeah, wingnuts like you will always believe it is a bad law. And this whole discussion should have ended when Wobbly put up the chart showing that the cost of public health care went up more slowly than private health care. But facts and reason be damned on this subject.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 28th, 2017, 7:54 pm

As to Devin Nunez, he was caught going to the White House with information from his House Committee which, if nothing else, is a clear violation of the separation of powers. His loyalty should be to the Constitution and not to the president. He serves the members of the House and the people of his district, not President Trump. He had no business going to the White House with information.

And Like your friend Whispering Eye, the Mueller investigation has a time table for releasing information, and they will tell you in due time and during appropriate proceedings. They sure as hell are not going to leak it now, either way. So all of what Nunez and his obviously biased talk implies means nothing. The wheels of justice move slowly.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 29th, 2017, 12:27 pm

leftyg wrote:First a cold fact: Obamacare is still going because it is becoming popular with people. This is basic logic Michaels: a Republican president with majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Supreme Court amenable to repeal could not get it done. Obamacare is a complete failure in the minds of delusional people like the folks at Powerline . That is why the repeal failed. First, the really "cold fact" is that Obamacare is is not increasing in usage in spite of present popularity poll trend lines. From the height of it's enrollment at approximately 14.7 million, to the latest figures of
(Reuters) – About 8.7 million people enrolled in healthcare plans for 2018 using the federal Obamacare marketplace, according to updated government figures released on Thursday.
And the Republicans will return and present a different health care plan. At that time, if Obamacare is in existence, we will see just how popular it is.

Anybody can review the posts in Re: worse than a complete was of money and judge for themselves why it is considered to be a failure by so many. Not just Powerline, and NPR but the others listed there as well as those that have left it. Not one person that I know of who understands Obamacare to be the failure that it is, will not acknowledge that it has helped people. It is considered a failure for those that it hurts, for those that it cant help, for those who technically have it but can't really use it due to the sky high deductibles and premiums.
You point to people that it helps and then claim it is a success. But then aren't you dismissing those who tried to use it and couldn't afford it? Wasn't the ACA sold as being the "Affordable Care Act? But if more and more people that it was intended to reach can not afford it, then it really is not affordable, and it is not surprising to see the number of people using it decreasing. The basic failure of the ACA is that it has not lived up to it's claims.

There were 15 million people who bought individual insurance plans before Obamacare, a number that Obama himself once dismissed as an insignificant 5% of the insurance market. (see the March 14, 2016 post in Re; Worse than a complete waste of money). Remember, according to Reuters, about 8.7 million enrolled in a healthcare plan for 2018 using the federal Obamacare marketplace.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 29th, 2017, 1:09 pm

[quote="leftyg"]As to Devin Nunez, he was caught going to the White House with information from his House Committee which, if nothing else, is a clear violation of the separation of powers. His loyalty should be to the Constitution and not to the president. He serves the members of the House and the people of his district, not President Trump. He had no business going to the White House with information.He Leftyg, was Devin Nunez "caught"
going to the White House? Did somebody snap some photographs of him "sneaking in the back door late at night or in the early hours of the morning? Did Mr Nunez wear a disguise as he entered the White House? :roll:
I don't think that there is anything illegal about Mr. Nunez going to see the president or the attorney general about this investigation. He could be going over the problems that Mr. Nunez referred to, they could be discussing the next steps if their is not compliance to the January deadline. If you think there is something wrong here then I would like to see some kind of legal reference. This is an investigation of the FBI and DOJ, It might be different if it were about the Russian Collusion investigation, but even there I am not sure if there is anything wrong here. Couldn't Mr. Nunez call President Trump or Mr. Sessions on the phone and talk about the proceedings as well? And if he did call him on the phone, who would know about it?
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 29th, 2017, 1:46 pm

Yu dispute my "cold fact" with this:
First, the really "cold fact" is that Obamacare is is not increasing in usage in spite of present popularity poll trend lines. From the height of it's enrollment at approximately 14.7 million, to the latest figures of
(Reuters) – About 8.7 million people enrolled in healthcare plans for 2018 using the federal Obamacare marketplace, according to updated government figures released on Thursday.
Look All the kings horses anbd all the kings men could not repeal Obamacare. And 8.7 million new subscribers is a lot. And dthe number will probably exceed that. AND Obamacare is more and more popular, especially with poor whites in red states.

You add:
And the Republicans will return and present a different health care plan. At that time, if Obamacare is in existence, we will see just how popular it is
.
I sm fine if they do. Knock yourself out and improve Obamacare.Make it more accessible to poor people and mor affordable for the middle class, By all means do that.
You go on:
Anybody can review the posts in Re: worse than a complete was of money and judge for themselves why it is considered to be a failure by so many. Not just Powerline, and NPR but the others listed there as well as those that have left it. Not one person that I know of who understands Obamacare to be the failure that it is, will not acknowledge that it has helped people. It is considered a failure for those that it hurts, for those that it cant help, for those who technically have it but can't really use it due to the sky high deductibles and premiums.
You point to people that it helps and then claim it is a success. But then aren't you dismissing those who tried to use it and couldn't afford it? Wasn't the ACA sold as being the "Affordable Care Act? But if more and more people that it was intended to reach can not afford it, then it really is not affordable, and it is not surprising to see the number of people using it decreasing. The basic failure of the ACA is that it has not lived up to it's claims.
. Agian this is people in the individual market, and most of the stories are anecdotes. There are millions of people who sing its praises. Have you ever noticed the mass demonstrations when Congress tried to repeal earlier this year? And 51.3% like it; 40.5% do not. That is double digits. Another thing notice all these people who complained about rate increases never mentioned their income level. Yeah, if you make 150 thousand a year and run a small business, you probably can afford a higher premium.

And I am not going to let you get away with saying people use it less. CNN Money talks about all the free preventative screeings people now get. I know because I have received some. Visits that would have cost me are now free to me because they just might spot a diseases. It may be considered a failure for few, but as the data and the accolades show it is not a failure for most Americans. Some of the whiny well to do just do not like paying their fair share. Again its use is not decreaasing http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/27/news/ec ... index.html


There were 15 million people who bought individual insurance plans before Obamacare, a number that Obama himself once dismissed as an insignificant 5% of the insurance market. (see the March 14, 2016 post in Re; Worse than a complete waste of money). Remember, according to Reuters, about 8.7 million enrolled in a healthcare plan for 2018 using the federal Obamacare marketplace.
Obamacare has dropped the number uninsured almost by half. 'Since Obamacare's coverage provisions began taking effect in 2010, the nation's uninsured rate has dropped by 7.2 percentage points, from 16 percent. That translates into 20.4 million fewer people who lacked health insurance in 2016 than in 2010.Feb 14, 2017." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/the-rat ... -mark.html Remember it has gone down since then. I drop the mic.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » December 29th, 2017, 1:56 pm

leftyg wrote:As to Devin Nunez, he was caught going to the White House with information from his House Committee which, if nothing else, is a clear violation of the separation of powers. His loyalty should be to the Constitution and not to the president. He serves the members of the House and the people of his district, not President Trump. He had no business going to the White House with information.He Leftyg, was Devin Nunez "caught"
going to the White House? Did somebody snap some photographs of him "sneaking in the back door late at night or in the early hours of the morning? Did Mr Nunez wear a disguise as he entered the White House? :roll: Yes Michaels he was caught and his story was implausible. I saw video of it and here are the sources (about a million of them) for it https://www.google.com/search?q=Devin+N ... e&ie=UTF-8 Roll you eyes all you want, but those are the facts. You see Michaels I have the advantage of a good memory.
I don't think that there is anything illegal about Mr. Nunez going to see the president or the attorney general about this investigation. He could be going over the problems that Mr. Nunez referred to, they could be discussing the next steps if their is not compliance to the January deadline. If you think there is something wrong here then I would like to see some kind of legal reference. This is an investigation of the FBI and DOJ, It might be different if it were about the Russian Collusion investigation, but even there I am not sure if there is anything wrong here. Couldn't Mr. Nunez call President Trump or Mr. Sessions on the phone and talk about the proceedings as well? And if he did call him on the phone, who would know about it?
Actaull there is something wrong with a committee chair going to the target of an investigation with evidence about them. I see you are not a lawyer, and you probably slept through civics class. The three branches are separate for a reason, and the founding fathers understood it even if you do not..

Nunes is dirty. He has compromised his integrity. He may not be "guilty" of anything, but he definitely used bad judgment. Would he have gone to the White House if Hillary had won?
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » December 29th, 2017, 2:37 pm

Just as suspected. There was nothing wrong with last March meeting. Just a bunch off manure throwing libs whinning again.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » January 24th, 2018, 8:29 pm

http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/22/lawmakers-seek-release-secret-memo-fbi-anti-trump-dossier/
Lawmakers Seek Release of Secret Memo on FBI, Anti-Trump Dossier
By Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / January 22, 2018 /

Some lawmakers are calling on the House intelligence committee to release a classified memo they say contains information on the FBI’s handling of a controversial anti-Trump dossier, as well as about related abuse of the government surveillance law known as FISA.

“This has to been seen,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Sunday of the four-page memo in an interview with Fox News Channel.

“It needs to be seen by journalists like all of you, but more importantly, it has to be seen by the American people, because never forget what we know already,” Jordan said of the secret memo, adding:

What we know already is the Democrats financed this dossier [targeting Donald Trump]. The Democrat National Committee, the Clinton campaign, paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who paid Russians to do what? Influence the election.

Steele, a former British intelligence officer, authored a document containing allegations about Trump’s connections with Russia before he was the Republican nominee for president. Steele wrote the document for Fusion GPS, a research company that was paid for the work by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

James Comey, who was fired as FBI director by Trump, said June 8 that the so-called Trump dossier was unverified, and Jordan and other Republican lawmakers continue to press for answers from the FBI.

The Daily Signal requested comment on release of the memo from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but did not receive a response by publication deadline.

It is not clear who drafted or sent the memo and to whom.

CNN reported that Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the committee, met with Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during the government shutdown that started at midnight Friday.

The three lawmakers met “to discuss the prospect of releasing some of the intelligence to support the findings of the classified memo, which was prepared by Nunes and Republican committee staff,” the cable network reported.

In a statement released Monday, the three House committee chairmen expressed concern with the revelation that at least five months’ worth of electronic text messages between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page had gone missing.

Strzok and Page, who were having an affair and were once attached to Trump-related probes, denigrated the Republican nominee in previously released text messages.

Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte said in their written statement:

The contents of these text messages between top FBI officials are extremely troubling in terms of when certain key decisions were made by the Department of Justice and the FBI, by whom these decisions were made, and the evident bias exhibited by those in charge of the investigation. The omission of text messages between December 2016 and May 2017, a critical gap encompassing the FBI’s Russia investigation, is equally concerning. Rather than clearing up prior FBI and DOJ actions, these recently produced documents cause us to further question the credibility and objectivity of certain officials at the FBI.

“If we’re going to go through the process anyway of declassifying the memo, are there some of the supporting documents that might not reveal sources and methods but might answer key questions that the memo does raise?” Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., told CNN about releasing the memo.

“Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy and Chairman Nunes each sort of have jurisdiction over elements, and they are meeting and discussing a process now that I think will lead to greater transparency,” Gaetz said.

This post was updated to include the statement by Nunes, Gowdy, and Goodlatte.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » January 24th, 2018, 8:34 pm

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/01/24/gop-rep-there-are-texts-that-seem-to-show-election-meddling-at-the-fbi-n2439060
GOP Rep: There Are Texts That Seem To Suggest Election Meddling At The FBI
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Jan 24, 2018

In December, The Wall Street Journal editorial board alleged that there might be election meddling occurring at the FBI. Text messages between former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, a bureau lawyer, referenced an “insurance policy” with regards to Trump. What does that mean? The text was sent in August of 2016, a month after the FBI has started a counterintelligence investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Some say that the “insurance” is a reference to the Trump dossier. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, took to Twitter to comment on the Strzok-Page texts, which he says supports the allegation that there might have been election meddling at the FBI.

For starters, both Page and Strzok discussed pressure to finish the Hillary email probe once it became clear Donald Trump was going to be the GOP nominee. That text was sent on May 4, 2016—the day Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) dropped out of the race. Also, Strzok was the one who changed then-FBI’s James Comey’s remarks to say Hillary Clinton was extremely careless with her email server instead of grossly negligent, the latter being a crime, which Meadows cited under the “reasonable person standard.” That had to be changed.

“Think about how important that is,” wrote Meadows. “We have a text from Peter Strzok talking about the pressure to end the Clinton investigation, and then--within 48 hours--documents suggesting Peter Strzok changed Dir. Comey's letter from criminal charges to just ‘carelessness.’ That's major.”

He added, “If this is anything what it looks like--the FBI changing course on investigation, putting their thumb on the scale to undermine Donald Trump and essentially help Hillary Clinton--that is as wrong as it gets.”

Yes, by this account, it sure does look like the FBI's expediency in the Hillary probe was politically motivated, trying to get the email monkey off her back in order to campaign against Trump without distractions.

Here's the thread:


Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
THREAD--explaining the context around the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page text messages, and why they're connected to both the Hillary investigation and this so-called "Russian-collusion" investigation

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
718 718 Replies 6,287 6,287 Retweets 10,112 10,112 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
Remember the key figure here: Peter Strzok, the former deputy of counter-intelligence at the FBI. Guy who ran the 2016 Clinton investigation, who interviewed key witnesses including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Hillary Clinton. Former Mueller team member. Strzok is the guy here

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
71 71 Replies 1,390 1,390 Retweets 2,763 2,763 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
We have all these anti-Trump texts in 2016 from Peter Strzok, talking about an "insurance policy" in case Trump gets elected President. We have texts from Strzok to Lisa Page saying "We can't take the risk" Trump wins the Presidency. By itself, that's a huge problem.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
50 50 Replies 1,252 1,252 Retweets 2,592 2,592 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
But there's more. We now have a text between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, FBI agents, directly talking about the pressure to finish the Hillary Clinton investigation--a text which occurred right after Donald J. Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
32 32 Replies 1,203 1,203 Retweets 2,521 2,521 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
We have a text from May 4, 2016 where Peter Strzok says: “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE…” (or 'Mid-Year Exam,' the FBI’s code name for the Clinton investigation.) May 4, 2016 is important--because it's when Ted Cruz dropped out. That day, Trump was the nominee.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
54 54 Replies 1,392 1,392 Retweets 2,724 2,724 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
So we have Peter Strzok, the deputy of FBI counter-intelligence and lead Clinton investigator, who we already know blasted Trump in text messages, talking about the need to end the Clinton investigation... right after he knew Hillary would be running against Trump. Major problem.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
39 39 Replies 1,262 1,262 Retweets 2,704 2,704 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
Now pause, and circle to FBI Director Comey. Remember Director Comey's exoneration letter? The letter from 2016 that, at first, called Hillary Clinton "grossly negligent" but was mysteriously changed to "extremely careless"? That change is massively important.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
47 47 Replies 1,128 1,128 Retweets 2,576 2,576 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
Remember, "gross negligence" under the "reasonable person standard" is a crime. "Extreme carelessness" is not, however. That change is hugely significant. Had Dir. Comey called Hillary "grossly negligent" in his letter, he would've essentially been saying she committed a crime.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
50 50 Replies 1,154 1,154 Retweets 2,548 2,548 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
Now take that letter change, and go back to Peter Strzok. We have email documentation that suggests the "gross negligence" claim in Director Comey's exoneration letter was changed to "extremely careless" between May 4, 2016 and May 6, 2016... by none other than Peter Strzok.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
51 51 Replies 1,318 1,318 Retweets 2,751 2,751 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
Think about how important that is. We have a text from Peter Strzok talking about the pressure to end the Clinton investigation, and then--within 48 hours--documents suggesting Peter Strzok changed Dir. Comey's letter from criminal charges to just "carelessness." That's major.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
79 79 Replies 1,608 1,608 Retweets 3,187 3,187 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
Folks, this stinks to high heaven. If this is anything what it looks like--the FBI changing course on investigation, putting their thumb on the scale to undermine Donald Trump and essentially help Hillary Clinton--that is as wrong as it gets. This demands further investigation.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
147 147 Replies 1,871 1,871 Retweets 3,818 3,818 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
And remember, this doesn't even address a host of other questions! The dossier. The Carter Page FISA application (that they still won't show us). The 5 months of mysteriously "missing" Page/Strzok texts. The FBI communicating with Fusion GPS/DNC-hired Christopher Steele. Come on.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
96 96 Replies 1,425 1,425 Retweets 2,980 2,980 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
This is not party politics. This is not partisan bickering. This is an issue that gets at the very heart of who we are as a nation. If any officials at the FBI were engaged in this kind of behavior, we need to know.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
144 144 Replies 1,662 1,662 Retweets 3,822 3,822 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows
Replying to @RepMarkMeadows
Bottom line: tell us the truth. Tell us the truth about what happened with the Clinton investigation, the 2016 election, and leading up to this "collusion" investigation. All of it. Americans deserve the truth.

10:37 PM - Jan 23, 2018
471 471 Replies 2,476 2,476 Retweets 5,559 5,559 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The FBI has a lot of questions that need answering, but so far they’re dragging their feet on some of the inquiries. And there is cause for concern. The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel wrote that the FBI is abusing its secrecy powers to hide their embarrassing behavior.

When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller were informed of the Strzok-Page texts on July 27, Strassel wrote, “Both men hid that explosive information from Congress for four months. The Justice Department, pleading secrecy, defied subpoenas that would have produced the texts. It refused to make Mr. Strzok available for an interview. It didn’t do all this out of fear of hurting national security, obviously. It did it to save itself and the FBI from embarrassment.”

National Review broke down how both the Russian collusion and Hillary emails probes have played out and yes—there is a glaring discrepancy between the two, which these texts and Meadow’s thread point out concerning how the bureau handled the probe involving the former first lady:

In August 2016, Strzok, who played a lead-investigator role in the Hillary Clinton–emails investigation, flatly stated that the FBI could not “take that risk,” referring to the possibility that Donald Trump might be elected president. He made the statement in a message to Lisa Page, a bureau lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Strzok referred to an alternative FBI “path” regarding Trump’s “unlikely” election that Page had proposed during a meeting they’d attended in “Andy’s office” — meaning deputy director Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s number-two official, second only to then-director James Comey.

[…]

Around the time of Strzok’s message, the FBI and the Obama Justice Department had come into possession of the anti-Trump “dossier” compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. The dossier was opposition research commissioned by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through their lawyers. They had retained a research company, Fusion GPS, which hired Steele, who evidently paid Russian sources for what appears to be dodgy information.

[…]

We now know that one of Fusion’s point people on the project was a Russia analyst named Nellie Ohr, the wife of Bruce Ohr, the Obama Justice Department’s associate deputy attorney general. He was the right hand of Sally Yates, the famously anti-Trump deputy AG who was eventually — and justifiably — fired by Trump for insubordination (when she was his inherited acting AG). Bruce Ohr held meetings with Steele and Fusion founder Glenn Simpson (and has now been demoted over them). During the summer of 2016, the Justice Department and the bureau sought a warrant from a secret federal court to conduct surveillance of a Trump-campaign official. It is reported that agents used information from the dossier to obtain the warrant, even though, as recently as March 2017, then-director Comey dismissed Steele’s work as “salacious and unverified” in congressional testimony. For months, the House Intelligence Committee has been pressing for answers about whether and how this Clinton-campaign document was used to obtain the authority for the surveillance; the Justice Department and the FBI won’t answer and refuse to produce the warrant.

Everything that has happened in the Trump probe stands out against a backdrop of leniency in the Clinton investigation. While Mueller has prosecuted two Trump associates for lying to the FBI, the Obama Justice Department gave a pass to Mrs. Clinton and her subordinates, who gave the FBI misinformation about such key matters as whether Clinton understood markings in classified documents and whether her aides knew about her homebrew server system during their State Department service. Mueller’s team conducted a predawn raid at gunpoint in executing a search warrant on Paul Manafort’s home while Manafort was cooperating with congressional committees. When it came to the Clinton case, though, the Justice Department not only eschewed search warrants, or even mere subpoenas, but they never even took possession of the DNC server alleged to have been hacked by Russian operatives.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » January 25th, 2018, 2:28 pm

This is usually a good precursor to hearing more news coming from Mueller. Usually once the President and his propaganda outlets leach onto conspiracy theories like this, it's to distract and discredit what will soon happen.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » January 25th, 2018, 6:18 pm

I have noticed that. I would not call it a pattern but it almost appears so. This has nothing to do with the President, nor has it to do with propaganda. And it is the Democrats who proposed this conspiracy theory of Russian collusion. Plus it has been the democrats behind the leaks.
It wont go on forever.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » January 27th, 2018, 5:51 pm

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/370806-facebook-tells-senators-it-cannot-prove-or-disprove-collusion-between-trump
Facebook tells Congress it can't prove or disprove Trump-Russia collusion
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 01/25/18

[quote]Facebook informed Congress in newly released documents that it could not prove or disprove collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russians who may have used the online platform to try to sway opinions during the 2016 presidential campaign. No Evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion regarding the 2016 Presidential campaign

In written questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, Facebook representatives were asked whether metadata on their site could reveal possible collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, a possibility raised by some researchers.

"Several independent researchers have said that Facebook has the ability to search for content or metadata that could substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion between the Russian disinformation operation and the Trump campaign’s own social media efforts, such as timing of certain posts and sharing of content. a. Is this true, and if so, has Facebook found any information relevant to these allegations?" the question reads. So "several Independent researchers have said that Facebook has the ability that could substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion between the Russian disinformation operation and the Trump campaign's own social media efforts."....

"Facebook does not believe it is in a position to substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion," the company responded, according to documents released by the committee Thursday. Although independent researchers believe that Facebook has the ability to substantiate (or disprove) allegations of possible collusion, Facebook says that it does not believe it is in a position to substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion. ....


"Facebook is, however, providing investigators, including this Committee, with information it has regarding the scope and nature of Russian information operations on our platform so that those investigators have information that may be relevant to their inquiries," it continued. "We are happy to schedule a meeting with your staff to discuss our findings in more detail."

The comments from Facebook come just months after the company turned over thousands of ads purportedly purchased by Russian agents on the platform during the 2016 race.

“We believe it is vitally important that government authorities have the information they need to deliver to the public a full assessment of what happened in the 2016 election,” Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch said in a post in September. “That is an assessment that can be made only by investigators with access to classified intelligence and information from all relevant companies and industries — and we want to do our part.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also addressed reports that Russians used the social network to influence public opinion during the campaign in a video posted to the website last year.

“I don’t want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy,” he said. “That’s not what we stand for.”

Earlier this week, Democrats in the House and Senate called on Facebook and other social media sites to fight the influence of Russian bots on their platforms, warning that foreign actors were trying to influence opinion against special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia. And now, after having seeking out Facebook to find evidence of collusion and finding none, they nevertheless urge Facebook (and others) to fight -......uh, ...er.....THE LACK OF EVIDENCE of RUSSIAN INFlUENCE that is now aimed at Robert Mueller's probe.

“It is critically important that the Special Counsel’s investigation be allowed to proceed without interference from inside or outside the United States,” the lawmakers wrote. “That is why we seek your assistance in our efforts to counter Russia’s continuing efforts to manipulate public opinion and undermine American democracy and the rule of law.” Translation: Even though there is no evidence of wrongdoing here, (and there never has been any evidence of wrongdoing regarding collusion and the presidential election), IT is critically important to us and our fundraising efforts that this Sucker's Counsel of a witch hunt, be allowed to proceed
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby the whispering eye » January 29th, 2018, 5:35 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:This is usually a good precursor to hearing more news coming from Mueller. Usually once the President and his propaganda outlets leach onto conspiracy theories like this, it's to distract and discredit what will soon happen.








"FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe 'removed' from the bureau" whats that a PRECURSOR TO??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
the whispering eye
 
Posts: 437
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 8:42 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby the whispering eye » January 29th, 2018, 5:47 pm

Image :lol: :lol: :lol:
the whispering eye
 
Posts: 437
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 8:42 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 1st, 2018, 11:01 am

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/01/31/im-not-100-sure-well-see-the-fisa-memo/
RUSH: Now, there is a narrative today. This is what this springs from. Last night after Trump finished and he was walking out signing autographs and posing for selfies and so forth, somebody urged him — some member of Congress urged him — to release the memo and Trump said, “Oh, yeah! Oh, yeah! A hundred percent! Gonna do it. Gonna do it.”

Well, this sent the left into a panic, because up until then there is always held out hope that maybe they could get this thing suppressed. They don’t want it out there because it’s the truth.
....If it were factually incorrect, the Democrats would want it out there so they could destroy it with the truth! This is what you have to think. If they’re desperate to keep this thing hidden and if they’re out there saying that it’s factually incorrect, they ought to welcome it.

They run the media. They control the media! They could have any reaction to this they want. And if it is wrong, all they have to do is tell us what’s wrong and present us with the truth. Why wouldn’t they want this opportunity? If the Republicans have put together a four-page memo explaining all of the malfeasance that has gone on in the FBI and the DOJ in this investigation, if it’s wrong, why wouldn’t the Democrats want an opportunity for the Republicans to make a fool of themselves? Because that’s what this would be, wouldn’t it?
....But they really do want it suppressed because it is factually correct, and they don’t have any alternative. They can’t take this memo and point out what’s wrong and then show us the truth.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby the whispering eye » February 1st, 2018, 11:11 am

Image





Its coming :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:



RUSH is spot on as always!
the whispering eye
 
Posts: 437
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 8:42 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 1st, 2018, 11:27 am

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/01/31/fbi-to-trump-white-house-please-block-the-release-of-a-memo-that-could-expose-us-n2442476
FBI to Trump White House: Please Block The FISA Memo That Could Expose Us For Spying On You
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Jan 31, 2018

Caught on a hot mic on Tuesday night, Trump promised Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) that he would "100 percent" release the memo.


Trump's chief of staff John Kelly on Wednesday indicated the White House plans to release the memo soon.

“It will be released here pretty quick, I think, and then the whole world can see it,” Kelly said during an interview on Fox News Radio. “This president wants everything out so the American people can make up their own minds.”


Guy wrote that two senior FBI officials reviewed the memo as well, noting they didn’t see any factual inaccuracies.


This memo will be released—and it seems the FBI is a) not too pleased that more dirty laundry could be aired; and b) it could expose them for spying on the Trump team.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 2nd, 2018, 10:10 am

We already know that the memo contains incomplete and misleading information. That's why a second memo was written, that the House and GOP leadership is choosing not to release.

The whole thing is just a political ploy to place distrust in the FBI so Trump has justification to fire Rosenstein and then replace him with someone who can fire Mueller.

If liars like Paul Ryan really view this as a separate issue from the Mueller investigation, they'd move forward with formally protecting Mueller.

This memo is part of the GOP's hail mary strategy for 2018, an election year they have no business losing due to their gerrymandered districts, but are now facing the possibility because they're so radically unpopular and corrupt.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » February 2nd, 2018, 11:31 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:We already know that the memo contains incomplete and misleading information. That's why a second memo was written, that the House and GOP leadership is choosing not to release.

The whole thing is just a political ploy to place distrust in the FBI so Trump has justification to fire Rosenstein and then replace him with someone who can fire Mueller.

If liars like Paul Ryan really view this as a separate issue from the Mueller investigation, they'd move forward with formally protecting Mueller.

This memo is part of the GOP's hail mary strategy for 2018, an election year they have no business losing due to their gerrymandered districts, but are now facing the possibility because they're so radically unpopular and corrupt.
The memo is a dud according to Vox
There is no proof in the memo that the FBI is biased against Trump, no proof of abuse of surveillance powers by the FBI, and no proof that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia is fundamentally flawed. The memo is a piece of partisan spin, and not a particularly compelling one at that.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/2/1696 ... ud-release

The Nunes Memo Doesn’t Reveal an Abuse of Power. It Is One goes another headline http://time.com/5131168/nunes-memo-trum ... e-dossier/ That article says:
According to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), the memo reveals official misconduct “worse than Watergate.” King is right about the misconduct, but wrong about whose it is.


And the chief allegation of the Nunes Memo is that surveillance of Carter Page as an alleged Russian agent was because of the Steele Dossier created by the Clinton campaign, but the FISA warrant was offered before the dossier was delivered https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-tru ... 1517486401.

So this is a pile of nothing. And actually it is not nothing; it indicts the intent of the Republicans on the House Intel Committee. They forget that the job of the Justice Department and the special prosecutor is not to defend the president but the Constitution
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 3rd, 2018, 5:28 pm

Trump supporters had 8 years of angry Fox News under Obama, peddling every crackpot conspiracy theory you could think of. Then they got the Fox News President they've always wanted, and he's more than happy to promote more crackpot conspiracies to try and discredit and destroy the institutions set up to protect us against abuses of power like Trump, Nunes, and Ryan are showing.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 3rd, 2018, 5:56 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:We already know that the memo contains incomplete and misleading information. Why don't you point out EXACTLY what is incomplete and misleading to you?
Guy wrote that two senior FBI officials reviewed the memo as well, noting they didn’t see any factual inaccuracies.
That's why a second memo was written, that the House and GOP leadership is choosing not to release. The public expected that the Democrats in Congress would respond in some manner after they could not stop the release of this memo. This is their attempt at damage control. And lets leave out the House and the GOP here. Just have some Democrats leak what is purported to be in this second memo and let the public discuss it. It is not as if the Democrats are suddenly concerned about the legalities of the law now.

The whole thing is just a political ploy to place distrust in the FBI so Trump has justification to fire Rosenstein and then replace him with someone who can fire Mueller. No, this memo is not a ploy. And Trump does not need anybody to stop this investigation if he wanted to. So forget about Rosenstein, The President can fire Mueller at any time

If liars like Paul Ryan Mr. Mueller has been given the green light to do anything he wants to do from Rosenstein. Rosenstein is not overseeing anything that Mueller does. really view this as a separate issue from the Mueller investigation, they'd move forward with formally protecting Mueller. Mu

This memo is part of the GOP's hail mary strategy for 2018, an election year they have no business losing due to their gerrymandered districts, but are now facing the possibility because they're so radically unpopular and corrupt.
This memo is just the beginning. The Democratic strategy is to smear President Trump in every and anyway possible. They have decided to do that by keeping the President in the news on a daily basis and have colluded with their media sychophants to publish and air their own pieces of spin and propoganda. The GOP gave the Democrats some time to pursue their conspiracy theory, but now the GOP have decided to bring to light what the Democrats have been doing, and the Democrats are crying about it.
Gerrymandering is carried out by both parties. We will see just how popular each party is in the coming months. President Trump's popularity is climbing and has recently climbed to 49%. By the end of this month, when the entire country will be hearing about the many people whose paychecks will climb just as the GOP said it would; they will also remember that the Democrats did not vote for this tax cut, and they will also remember the lies that the Democrats said about the tax cut. And, those that voted for Hilary will learn more about Hilary and the Democrats role in the past election. They will remember how "their party" rigged it to make sure that Bernie Sanders would not represent their party. It will keep adding up Juiced. And where do you think the polling results are heading from all of this? The GOP do not need a "Hail Mary".
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 3rd, 2018, 7:26 pm

leftyg wrote: The memo is a dud according to Vox
There is no proof in the memo that the FBI is biased against Trump, no proof of abuse of surveillance powers by the FBI, and no proof that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia is fundamentally flawed. The memo is a piece of partisan spin, and not a particularly compelling one at that.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/2/1696 ... ud-release
Let us look at the memo and what Vox had to say about it.
Devin Nunes's memo allegedly exposing anti-Trump bias at the FBI does nothing of the kind.
By Zack Beauchamp

The memo says: (under Investigating Update) beginning with paragraph 3 -
due to the sensitive nature of foreigh intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public's confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court's ability to hold the government to the highest standard--particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC's rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production to the court OF ALL MATERIAL AND RELEVANT FACTS. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting to the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.


The memo then goes on to list the material and relevant information that was omitted in 1), 1a), 1b), 2), 2a), 2b), 3), 3a), and 4).

Vox had this to say:
The only example the memo cites is an October 21, 2016, request by the Department of Justice and FBI for permission under FISA powers to snoop on former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page. The key word there is former. Page had left the Trump campaign at least a month before the application. That's the first red flag that there's nothing here, as an FBI campaign to undermine Trump's campaign would almost certainly involve targeting someone who was actually working on it.

Now what Vox says make sense. You would think that if the FBI were out to undermine Trump's campaign, they would almost certainly involve someone who was actually working on it.. So if
Page left the Trump campaign at least a month before the application, why did the FBI seek out the FISA application on Carter Page?

From the memo:
2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application INCORRECTLY ASSESSES that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News--and several other outlets--in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele's initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations--an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September--before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October--but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts. ...

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with the DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steel admitted to Ohr his feelings against then candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by OHR at the time and subsequently in official FBI files--but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
___________________________________________________

So when the FBI had the opportunity to present all material and relevant information, it didn't. This certainly appears to be bias against Trump being demonstrated by the FBI. But Vox said that the memo did not show the anti-Trump bias at the FBI.
Also from Vox:
The Nunes memo, in other words, could be full of lies. We just can't tell based on reading it.

No, Vox can't tell that the Nunes memo "could be full of lies." They said: "we just can't tell based on reading it." Vox could not find the Anti-Trump bias demonstrated by the FBI by reading the memo either.
All Vox can do is to claim that "The Nunes memo is a dud" without substantiating that position.
And all Leftyg can do is find a article with a headline that says what he wants to persuade others to believe. And Leftyg, does not seem interested in what the article actually says.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 4th, 2018, 10:22 am

Leftyg's second reference:
The Nunes Memo Doesn’t Reveal an Abuse of Power. It Is One goes another headline http://time.com/5131168/nunes-memo-trum ... e-dossier/ That article says:
According to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), the memo reveals official misconduct “worse than Watergate.” King is right about the misconduct, but wrong about whose it is.


And the chief allegation of the Nunes Memo is that surveillance of Carter Page as an alleged Russian agent was because of the Steele Dossier created by the Clinton campaign, but the FISA warrant was offered before the dossier was delivered https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-tru ... 1517486401.
#1) The memo does not state that the chief allegation is the surveillance of Carter Page.
#2) The memo does not refer to Carter page as an alleged Russian agent.
#3) The memo does not state that the Steel Dossier was created by the Clinton campaign

The article said that the FISA warrant was offered before the dossier was delivered.
[color=#FF0000]The memo says: #4) According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap,
CORROBORATION OF THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS IN ITS "INFANCY" AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL PAGE FISA APPLICATION And the memo says, a few sentences later...
The memo quotes
Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
[/color]

So this is a pile of nothing. And actually it is not nothing; it indicts the intent of the Republicans on the House Intel Committee. They forget that the job of the Justice Department and the special prosecutor is not to defend the president but the Constitution

So what Leftyg has presented as his second reference, is a pile of nothing.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » February 4th, 2018, 3:48 pm

#1) The memo does not state that the chief allegation is the surveillance of Carter Page.Unfortunately for you, that is what the memo focuses on, the surveillance of Carter Page, an American citizen authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.. The Steele Dossier is also mentioned. But Page had his surveillance reauthorized four times because an agency has to find contact with a foreign actor every 90 days or the surveillance is stopped. Evidently, Carter was pretty active.

#2) The memo does not refer to Carter page as an alleged Russian agent.Perhaps, but the fact remains his surveillance was reauthorized four times and three by Trump appointees

#3) The memo does not state that the Steel Dossier was created by the Clinton campaign Here you are simply wrong on your facts. The Nunes Memo says
1) The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/02/58282846 ... -committee

The article said that the FISA warrant was offered before the dossier was delivered.
The memo says: #4) According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, CORROBORATION OF THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS IN ITS "INFANCY" AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL PAGE FISA APPLICATION And the memo says, a few sentences later...
The memo quotes
Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
Yet that statement is at odds with what Andrew McCabe said about his testimony

Asked if that was a true representation, a source familiar with McCabe’s testimony responded: “100% not.”

A senior Democratic House intelligence committee official agreed.

“The Majority purposefully mischaracterizes both what is actually contained in the FISA applications and the testimony of former FBI Deputy McCabe before our committee in December 2017—the Minority’s memo lays out the full facts,” the official said.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-d ... sa-warrant And remember, the committee testimony is probably classified. Besides, Andrew McCabe probably knows if he said that. And he said he did not.

So what Leftyg has presented as his second reference, is a pile of nothing.Sure, if you counter it with lies and speculation.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 4th, 2018, 4:58 pm

leftyg wrote:#1) The memo does not state that the chief allegation is the surveillance of Carter Page.Unfortunately for you, that is what the memo focuses on, the surveillance of Carter Page, an American citizen authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.. The Steele Dossier is also mentioned. But Page had his surveillance reauthorized four times because an agency has to find contact with a foreign actor every 90 days or the surveillance is stopped. Evidently, Carter was pretty active.

#2) The memo does not refer to Carter page as an alleged Russian agent.Perhaps, but the fact remains his surveillance was reauthorized four times and three by Trump appointees

#3) The memo does not state that the Steel Dossier was created by the Clinton campaign Here you are simply wrong on your facts. The Nunes Memo says
1) The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/02/58282846 ... -committee
You are wrong Leftyg. As you quoted. The dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele. The memo does not say it was compiled by Hilary Clinton. It does not state that the Steel Dossier was created by the Clinton Campaign. The memo does say: The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (DNC) AND THE HILARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN
The article said that the FISA warrant was offered before the dossier was delivered.
The memo says: #4) According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, CORROBORATION OF THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS IN ITS "INFANCY" AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL PAGE FISA APPLICATION And the memo says, a few sentences later...
The memo quotes
Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
Yet that statement is at odds with what Andrew McCabe said about his testimony

Asked if that was a true representation, a source familiar with McCabe’s testimony responded: “100% not.” Leftyg, let's get real here. Why do you need a source familiar with ANYBODY'S testimony when you have their TESTIMONY on the record?!!!. I am so glad you set the record straight here with an anonymous source "familiar with McCabe's testimony."

A senior Democratic House intelligence committee official agreed. -More sound corroboration here, from a Democrat no less. Well at least now we can remove all doubt. Let's just toss out McCabe's recorded testimony because we now have two anonymous sources agreeing with each other about what somebody else said.

“The Majority purposefully mischaracterizes both what is actually contained in the FISA applications and the testimony of former FBI Deputy McCabe before our committee in December 2017—the Minority’s memo lays out the full facts,” the official said.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-d ... sa-warrant And remember, the committee testimony is probably classified.
Hey Leftyg, why don't you point out what you feel is a mischaracterization just like I asked Juiced to do. I have already corrected your last two sources. And remember there were two senior FBI officials who reviewed the memo, noting that they didn't see ANY FACTUAL INACCURACIES. Besides, Andrew McCabe probably knows if he said that. And he said he did not. Maybe his memory got a little hazy since his recent departure from his official duties? And the probability that he will soon be facing interviews in a new special counsel investigation.

So what Leftyg has presented as his second reference, is a pile of nothing.Sure, if you counter it with lies and speculation.
There is not a lie here from me
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 4th, 2018, 7:14 pm

leftyg wrote:
#1) The memo does not state that the chief allegation is the surveillance of Carter Page.Unfortunately for you, that is what the memo focuses on, the surveillance of Carter Page, an American citizen authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.. The Steele Dossier is also mentioned. But Page had his surveillance reauthorized four times because an agency has to find contact with a foreign actor every 90 days or the surveillance is stopped. Evidently, Carter was pretty active.
The memo states under purpose what it is for. It says:
This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the presidential election cycle.
This would appear to be the chief allegation. The information regarding surveilance of Carter Page would fall under #2)
a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
It would be hard to identify the "chief allegation" from this memo. There are questions here of abuse of power by the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, and the Deputy Attorney General, the securing execution of a document by deception ( and It is possible that this would apply to the renewal applications for the FISA warrant)., Congressional contempt on the part of members of the FBI for failure to produce documents under a subpoena, and as I stated previously other possible charges falling under both Federal and Civil prosecution.
The initial FISA application for Carter Page appears to be made under a false presentation and in absence of relevant facts. And if the initial application was obtained in such a manner, it is also possible that each of the renewals were obtained under false pretenses. Carter Page has or had been a person of interest since 2013. That part is true. I don't know how much of what he claims regarding being a spokesman for the Kremlin is true or perhaps wishful thinking. In any case if the FISA court agreed to issue a warrant for surveillance, wouldn't that surveillance be limited to Carter Page, and his home. Just like Paul Manafort's home was. Somebody authorized the bugging or wiretapping of Trump Tower when Manafort and Page were no longer there.


#2) The memo does not refer to Carter page as an alleged Russian agent.Perhaps, but the fact remains his surveillance was reauthorized four times and three by Trump appointees
As just stated, the reauthorization of his surveillance remains under question because of the the way the initial warrant for surveillance was obtained. It could have been a ruse to wiretap Trump Towers.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » February 5th, 2018, 1:44 am

It would be hard to find a chief reason for this memo. The information in it benefits one person: Vladimir Putin who is sitting in his Kremlin office having a good time as Americans go after one another and compromise their own secret intelligence operations for Russian benefit.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 5th, 2018, 11:12 am

leftyg wrote:It would be hard to find a chief reason for this memo. The information in it benefits one person: Vladimir Putin who is sitting in his Kremlin office having a good time as Americans go after one another and compromise their own secret intelligence operations for Russian benefit.


Leftyg, I never quite understood the reason why a foreign power would concern themselves about the politics of another country. Elections come and go. Usually there is no change in the interactions between countries. The charge made of collusion between the Russians and this president and his campaign team benefits who, and how?
You may feel that Vladimir Putin is laughing at this but how are we compromising our intelligence operations? All governments pretty much know and use the same kind of intelligence operations as all the other countries. Even John Kerry publicly said so. We all seem to know what each other does and is doing and because we do it seems like it has a pretty good way of balancing things out so that no one can really take advantage of another.
Now internally, the use of a scapegoat has the possibility of benefit in a country and we have discussed that. But internally, there is also the potential for risk involved in the use of a scapegoat. The DNC has recently lost a big donor and has been reported to be essentially broke. If the DNC thought that they were going to benefit from trying to blame the election on Russia and/or President Trump, it certainly does not look like that strategy is working out for them.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Scorpion » February 5th, 2018, 1:53 pm

Michaels, as many have inquired, to what benefit is a Trump presidency to Putin?
He was/is a political unknown as far as actions he would take on any foreign policy for the most part.
I have still yet to hear compelling arguments as to why he would work against a known commodity such as Clinton.
A man wants to have sex or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, its like trying to put a marshmallow into a parking meter.
Scorpion
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 2:58 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 5th, 2018, 3:55 pm

Scorpion wrote:Michaels, as many have inquired, to what benefit is a Trump presidency to Putin?
He was/is a political unknown as far as actions he would take on any foreign policy for the most part.
I have still yet to hear compelling arguments as to why he would work against a known commodity such as Clinton.


Are you doubting that he interfered? If so, that's gotta be a joke. It's already been determined that Russia interfered with the election between the hacking and releasing of private emails from Democrats and the disinformation campaign on social media. All the intelligence agencies cite that as fact.

Why would Putin want to interfere with an election? Probably because US politics are very divisive and particularly so with a candidate like Trump. By reinforcing hard-line beliefs, many of them factually / intellectually incorrect, you make the divide even greater and cause more instability in the country. I'd say he's been very successful there.

The fact that Trump wants to be a dictator and has had no problem attempting to discredit many institutions that help hold up our democracy, I'd say he's also been successful in that. Not to mention that Trump wants to absolve many sanctions placed on Russia.

It's also hard to overlook how intertwined so many people around him are with Russia, the fact that multiple campaign people have been charged, his AG secured, and a cabinet member charged in relation to Russia is also difficult to overlook. Well, I guess it's actually quite easy to overlook when you play partisan politics and have to attract Trump voters for your dwindling 2018 chances.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 5th, 2018, 7:45 pm

Scorpion wrote:Michaels, as many have inquired, to what benefit is a Trump presidency to Putin?
He was/is a political unknown as far as actions he would take on any foreign policy for the most part.
I have still yet to hear compelling arguments as to why he would work against a known commodity such as Clinton.


Besides an occasional saber rattling to demonstrate that they were strong, there is no compelling argument. All world leaders interact with each other as required or necessary. And they do so regardless of personal feelings for or against these leaders. And your right, Clinton is a known political "commodity", whereas Trump was an unknown. This is one of the logic arguments against Hilary's contrived conspiracy theory that she was robbed and that the election was stolen from her.

Today, world economics is the leading motivator among nations. To Putin, Trump would only be a benefit if he thought his country would gain with more open trading, and if Trump did not try to interfere in Russia's attempt to maintain their sphere of influence. I don't think it matters much to Putin who is president of this country. If Putin did not stand to benefit economically under a Clinton presidency, he certainly would be assured of a hands off policy in his aim to maintain Russia's sphere of influence. As we can see now, President Trump looks to become a consistent thorn in Putin's side where Russia's sphere of influence includes military aggression. Mutual economic benefit between Russia and the United States is possible. But economic deals of military contracts for Russia will be a source contention.

The bottom line here for Putin, is that I am sure that as far as how he and Russia would benefit, both would probably benefit more from Clinton, and prefer dealing with Clinton on the world stage than Trump.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 5th, 2018, 10:02 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:
Scorpion wrote:Michaels, as many have inquired, to what benefit is a Trump presidency to Putin?
He was/is a political unknown as far as actions he would take on any foreign policy for the most part.
I have still yet to hear compelling arguments as to why he would work against a known commodity such as Clinton.


Are you doubting that he interfered? If so, that's gotta be a joke. It's already been determined that Russia interfered with the election between the hacking and releasing of private emails from Democrats and the disinformation campaign on social media. All the intelligence agencies cite that as fact. Way to go Juiced. Hold your position. Did Hilary win the popular vote? So how did Russia "interfere with the election. Facebook says they can't tell. Not one state can show voter tampering of the votes on election day or night. http://www.dw.com/en/21-us-states-targeted-by-russian-hackers-no-votes-changed/a-40650399

Why would Putin want to interfere with an election? Probably because US politics are very divisive and particularly so with a candidate like Trump. By reinforcing hard-line beliefs, many of them factually / intellectually incorrect, you make the divide even greater and cause more instability in the country. I'd say he's been very successful there.So your reasoning is if a country can elicit chaos and mayhem that would force the country to focus upon itself and ignore what is going on in the world. Well it is not an original point of view, and even if you cast that strategy onto something like the Monroe doctrine, I don't think it would be realistically achieved today. Even without the UN, most countries find themselves involved in other countries. And most countries do not engage others in force except to combat crime, terrorism etc.

The fact that Trump wants to be a dictator I am so glad that you took the time and made the effort to substantiate that "fact?" - that Trump wants to be a dictator. I think your confusing President Trump with the previous occupant of the White House. It was Obama who created his czars contrary to the constitution which called for all appointments to be by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It was Obama who announced that Obamacare would not be implemented as passed and delayed the employer mandate. It was Obama who sued the state of Arizona for enforcing the federal laws regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants. It was Obama who Arizona Governor Jan Brewer battled for three years and said that she was outraged over Fast and Furious, and that the program endangered the lives of innocent people on both sides of the border. {see page 104 of Katie Pavlich's book Fast and Furious} Obama allowed the gun running program which broke existing state laws regarding the selling of weapons and their transfer across state lines. Obama went to court to sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio on charges of discrimination. He ordered border patrol agents not to enforce U.S. law on U.S. land. Obama fired the CEO of General Motors - Rick Wagoner. President Obama's Justice Department dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. Obama violated the constitution when he bypassed the Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board. President Obama ignored the previous 28 years of executing the law and ordered the NRC to end its review of the Yucca Mountain project. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today ruled that ... the President must faithfully execute the law. Obama skirts Congress, funds pre-K through Obamacare. The Obama Administration overturned the ruling where Samsung won a round in when the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in its favor on certain patents. This is the first time in 26 years an Administration has overturned an ITC product ban. Obama gave Congress and their staffs special taxpayer-funded subsidies for Obamacare. When Americans started getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies because Obamacare's new rules were kicking in Obama tried to fix things by telling insurance companies to go back to the old plans that don't comply with Obamacare--just for one year. Obama prevented layoff notices from going out just days before the 2012 election. In violation of law that said that employers must give employees 60 days' notice before mass layoffs; Obama told employers to go against the law and not issue those notices. The administration also offered to reimburse those employers at the taxpayers expense if challenged for failure to give that notice. Obama gutted the work requirement from welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 which required that welfare recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program work or prepare for work to receive the aid. The Obama administration took out that requirement by offering waivers to states, even though the law expressly states that waivers of the work requirement are not allowed.

It was Obama who played dictator, not President Trump. President Trump patiently allowed the court to settle his travel ban even though he clearly had the legal right to implement his plan. President Trump is not discrediting any institution. It is the institutions that you refer to that are discrediting themselves. President Trump does not review the news before it is printed or broadcast. And President Trump does not direct what news will be sent to the presses, or which will go on the air. President Trump did not instruct the FBI to ignore the law. But somehow you equate the President informing the public about fake news and what the FBI is doing is shameful, as discrediting the institutions and not what the institutions are actually doing.
and has had no problem attempting to discredit many institutions that help hold up our democracy, I'd say he's also been successful in that. And you would be part of the partisan minority that would agree to anything that smears this President. Not to mention that Trump wants to absolve many sanctions placed on Russia. - where there is progress, you reward progress by cutting back on punishments. Dictator Obama ended the Cuba embargo.

It's also hard to overlook how intertwined so many people around him are with Russia, the fact that multiple campaign people have been charged, his AG secured, and a cabinet member charged in relation to Russia is also difficult to overlook. Yes it is hard to overlook, but the Senate is investigating the bias and the abuses of the FBI.Well, I guess it's actually quite easy to overlook when you play partisan politics As you have demonstrated by your post here, and by ignoring the previous posts here except for giving me credit for defending my positions.and have to attract Trump voters for your dwindling 2018 chances. Juiced, the polls (both the generic voting polls, and the approval versus the disapproval of President Trump keep rising in favor of the Republicans and Trump, and I think they will continue to do so up to the Mid-term elections. Also, I think that the growth of the economy will encourage people to donate to the GOP out of gratitude and in the hope that the GOP will continue their work to make more opportunities for all Americans. I don't think fundraising will be a problem going into the election for the GOP.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 9th, 2018, 12:35 pm

by Scorpion » February 5th, 2018, 12:53 pm

Michaels, as many have inquired, to what benefit is a Trump presidency to Putin?
He was/is a political unknown as far as actions he would take on any foreign policy for the most part.
I have still yet to hear compelling arguments as to why he would work against a known commodity such as Clinton.

On 2/5/2018 I replied the following:
The bottom line here for Putin, is that I am sure that as far as how he and Russia would benefit, both would probably benefit more from Clinton, and prefer dealing with Clinton on the world stage than Trump.


Two days later, a caller asked Rush Limbaugh basically the same question:
RUSH: This is Steve in Tallahassee, Florida. Great to have you on the program, sir. How are you doing?

CALLER: Great, Rush. A real honor.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I’ll get right to it. No one asked the question, why would Putin want or not want Trump as president versus want or not want Hillary? And I kind of know the answers, but I’m thinking Putin was celebrating at nine o’clock Eastern time thinking Hillary had won.....
But let’s unpack this. When you get right down to brass tacks, the Russians and our old buddy shirtless Vladimir had every reason to want Hillary to win, because Hillary Clinton would continue Obama’s feckless, damaging, dangerous policies which have benefited the Russians hugely, like the Iran deal. ...

So the idea that Putin wanted Trump doesn’t pass the common-sense test. He would much prefer somebody that is gonna continue the policies of Obama, which did nothing but strengthen Iran and strengthen Russia and weaken the United States. Why would he want somebody that’s gonna bring all that to a screeching halt, who would be Trump?
Also Cathy of Alamo Texas called in the third hour to ask the question: Why were all of the mainstream media talking about Russia wanting to get Trump elected rather than Hilary

The answer to this question came to the same conclusion and added more material regarding election night.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/03/07/putin-had-every-reason-to-want-hillary-to-win/
Why Would Putin Want Trump to Win?
Mar 7, 2017

It seems pretty clear that Rush checks to see what I write here so he can prepare for his own broadcasts. ;)
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 9th, 2018, 1:38 pm

So, you can take two roads:

Road 1 - Wild speculation based on your biases that ignore all evidence and sits solely within your echo chamber. If evidence against your pre-conceived viewpoint arises, support a conspiracy theory that "explains" why the evidence is invalid.

Road 2 - Look at the publicly available information that clearly shows Russian interference, which almost entirely focused on damaging Hillary Clinton through theft and publication of private emails and a large scale disinformation campaign on social media.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 9th, 2018, 2:19 pm

Juiced,
Both of your roads are filled with pompous accusations of victimization. What pray tell is the "evidence" that I am ignoring? What Conspiracy theory am I supporting?
You know I have looked at "the publicly available information. What you restate as "Russian interference" had no effect, no impact on the election. Are you forgetting that?
Do you wish to debate what effect Russian interference had on the election? Do you want to make that "Road 3"?
Here, let me help you out, again. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/02/08/russia-voter-rolls-n2446022
...But officials stressed that there’s no evidence the voter rolls were changed.


This thread has only minimally mentioned Hilary, and usually in references to the differential treatment she received from the FBI. But as to her emails, both public and private, if she had not lied about them, if she had abided by governmental policy, and Obama's directive, many of these emails may not have come to light. It was her recklessness in sending her unsecured emails to Huma, that also got her into trouble. And anytime you want to substantiate your claim of a "large-scale disinformation campaign on social media, we can discuss it.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 9th, 2018, 2:34 pm

The problem isn't whether or not Russia was successful in meddling with an election, just like it doesn't matter if a bank robber was successful in getting away with the money.

You also keep asking why Russia would want to help Trump. Does that mean you agree with the evidence that suggests Russia did attempt to help Trump win? Or are you saying they didn't try to help Trump win?
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 9th, 2018, 5:13 pm

Juiced, I dont keep asking "why Russia would want to help Trump except to answer questions posed to me such as Scorpion's.
Next question - what evidence "suggests"? Evidence proves or falsifies something. "Evidence" does not suggest.
Do you want to specify what "suggests" that Russia wanted to help Trump.
You want to remember your bank robber analogy? It does not matter who likes who here.
Did you read what i posted to Scorpion? I dont think Russia really cared who won the election.
What evidence is there that Russia helped Trump win the election? Again, Hilary won the popular vote. No evidence of actual votes being changed in any state. Facebook - can't tell.
In plain English, Hilary lost, Trump won.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 10th, 2018, 10:41 am

Michaels153 wrote:
leftyg wrote:As to Devin Nunez, he was caught going to the White House with information from his House Committee which, if nothing else, is a clear violation of the separation of powers. His loyalty should be to the Constitution and not to the president. He serves the members of the House and the people of his district, not President Trump. He had no business going to the White House with information.....(You also said)...Actaull there is something wrong with a committee chair going to the target of an investigation with evidence about them. I see you are not a lawyer, and you probably slept through civics class. The three branches are separate for a reason, and the founding fathers understood it even if you do not..

Nunes is dirty. He has compromised his integrity. He may not be "guilty" of anything, but he definitely used bad judgment.
[color=#FF0000]I said:

I don't think that there is anything illegal about Mr. Nunez going to see the president or the attorney general about this investigation. He could be going over the problems that Mr. Nunez referred to, they could be discussing the next steps if their is not compliance to the January deadline. If you think there is something wrong here then I would like to see some kind of legal reference. This is an investigation of the FBI and DOJ, It might be different if it were about the Russian Collusion investigation, but even there I am not sure if there is anything wrong here. Couldn't Mr. Nunez call President Trump or Mr. Sessions on the phone and talk about the proceedings as well? And if he did call him on the phone, who would know about it?[/color]


https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/02/08/andy-mccarthys-insight-on-the-strzok-page-text-on-obama/
I got a heads-up last night and this morning from my old buddy Andy McCarthy who says, “Rush, don’t feel bad, but you and everybody are missing the point on this,” and I’m just gonna read what he wrote. He said, “Rush, the issue is not that the FBI was briefing Obama. This is a counterintelligence investigation, not criminal.
“They are supposed to brief Obama. Every intelligence operation, every counterintelligence operation is designed for the president’s eyes. He cannot interfere in a counterintelligence investigation, theoretically, since he is entitled to know everything they learn. In fact, they have to report to him. Counterintelligence is done for the president. In fact, he cannot obstruct it because it’s not a criminal investigation; it’s not a judicial proceeding.”
“So even if the president says, ‘I don’t want to see it,’ he cannot obstruct it.” Now, the point here is that this is a counterintelligence investigation. All of this: The Steele dossier, the investigation of Trump. There is no criminal investigation of this. It’s always been counterintelligence. That’s why collusion isn’t a crime, in part. Mueller was not even given a crime to investigate in his special counsel investigation. There is no crime!


And so Leftyg, when Mr. Nunez went to the White House to see the President, he was doing his job. Mr. Nunez did not do anything wrong. He was not "dirty", he did not compromise his integrity, and he did not "definitely use bad judgement". You were wrong, again. - says Michaels153, who kept his eyes wide open in civics class.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 10th, 2018, 11:06 am

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/02/09/nyt-no-3-official-at-the-justice-department-is-stepping-down-n2447047
NYT: No. 3 Official at Department of Justice Is Stepping Down
By Timothy Meads |Posted: Feb 09, 2018

The New York Times reports that the third-most senior ranking official at the Department of Justice, Rachel L. Brand, plans to resign after only 9 months on the job.

Brand serves directly behind Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is number two in command behind Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Since the release of the “Nunes Memo” last week, it has been speculated that President Donald J. Trump may fire or ask Rosenstein to resign. That House Intelligence Committee memo contained serious allegations that Rosenstein, the FBI, and other authorities displayed damaging bias against President Trump that has been the impetus behind the Russian investigation. ...

Had President Trump decided to fire Rosenstein, Brand would have taken over his post at the DOJ. Instead, Brand will be resigning to join the private sector, according to the Times sources.

According to the Washington Examiner, "The announcement Friday arrives following last week's release of a controversial House Intelligence Committee memo that outlines alleged surveillance authority abuse by the Justice Department and FBI.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 10th, 2018, 12:15 pm

https://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2018/02/10/want-foreign-collusion-with-a-us-presidential-candidate-fbihere-it-is-n2446885
Want Foreign Collusion with a US Presidential Candidate, FBI? Here It Is!
By Humberto Fontova |Posted: Feb 10, 2018

Hope I haven’t missed anything but it seems that: in seeking to investigate and prosecute foreign collusion with the Republican presidential candidate, the FBI and DOJ relied on evidence kindly proffered by the Democrat candidate who colluded with foreigners (as in paying them) for it. And this pimped-up “evidence” of foreign collusion was itself a result of collusion by TWO foreign colluders, a failed British spy and Russian gangsters.

Got it?...OK, now let’s move from FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act.)

In dramatic contrast to the “dossier” the FBI and DOJ used for their FISA warrant, my “dossier” documenting how Putin’s client state colluded with one of our presidential candidates on our very soil is FULLY verified. Simply follow the links. To wit:

“The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.”
BOOM!

The Democrats, with their their slavish adherence to Machiavelli politics; where laws are at best perhaps useful when it suits them, have jumped all in on their jihad against this President. But as the headlines and leading news items on the nightly broadcasts have shown us, there has been an undercurrent exposing them. I am hoping that undercurrent will enlarge itself into a full fledged Tsunami and sweep away this dredge out of Congress, out of the FBI, the DOJ, and anywhere else these treasonous filth have been staying.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 10th, 2018, 2:27 pm

I'd suggest starting out by reading this in its entirety:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i ... _elections
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 10th, 2018, 3:25 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:I'd suggest starting out by reading this in its entirety:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i ... _elections


And for you, take your pick. There are a number of sources that reported on this story. I am sure you can find one source that you would accept.
1. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 12, 2016
2. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/26/obama-campaign-team-arrives-in-israel-to-defeat-netanyahu-in-march-elections/
Obama Campaign Team Arrives in Israel to Defeat Netanyahu in March Elections
by THOMAS ROSE 26 Jan 2015

You still have not answered my questions. What is the point of your objection here? It certainly can't be your taking umbrage at countries spying on each other or "meddling in elections." https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/ ... xit-224863.
U.K.’s Nigel Farage: Obama behaved ‘disgracefully’ by campaigning against Brexit
By CRISTIANO LIMA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10407282/Barack-Obama-approved-tapping-Angela-Merkels-phone-3-years-ago.html
Barack Obama 'approved tapping Angela Merkel's phone 3 years ago'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33253639
President Obama tells Hollande US no longer spying on France

https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/europe-us-surveillance/index.html
Europe falls out of love with Obama over NSA spying claims
By Tim Lister, CNN
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 11th, 2018, 9:21 am

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-treason-paul-gosar-386089
GOP lawmaker calls for FBI, DOJ officials to face 'treason' charges
By CRISTIANO LIMA 02/02/2018

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) said on Friday that the House intelligence memo on alleged FBI malfeasance showed "clear and convincing evidence of treason" by law enforcement officials, despite lingering concerns in the intelligence community over its credibility.
...

"The full-throated adoption of this illegal misconduct and abuse of FISA by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein is not just criminal but constitutes treason," Gosar wrote in a statement.

Gosar said he would urge Attorney General Jeff Sessions to seek "criminal prosecution against these traitors to our nation.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 12th, 2018, 9:01 am

Did you read the Wiki entry on Russia?
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 12th, 2018, 4:34 pm

Yes.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » February 12th, 2018, 10:33 pm

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) said on Friday that the House intelligence memo on alleged FBI malfeasance showed "clear and convincing evidence of treason" by law enforcement officials, despite lingering concerns in the intelligence community over its credibility.

"The full-throated adoption of this illegal misconduct and abuse of FISA by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein is not just criminal but constitutes treason," Gosar wrote in a statement.
Gosar said he would urge Attorney General Jeff Sessions to seek "criminal prosecution against these traitors to our nation.
This Gosar is a piece of work. What evidence does he have? Does he want a revolution? If he does remember Michaels which side the folks with the "intelligence" will be on.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 13th, 2018, 9:31 am

Rep. Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona is applying the definition of treason and treasonous acts to the information he has seen from the House Intelligence committee. He is applying what he believes to be the rule of law to those acts. And in your 12/16/17 post here you seemed concerned about the rule of law when you thought that the
Republicans had broken it.
No, the right does what it always does when it is backed into a corner; it attacks. And it is not afraid to undermine a cherished institution to protect itself and its president. Rule of law be damned.


You asked what evidence does he have, ask him. (gosar.house.gov)
You said: "Does he want a revolution?" - again, ask him.
And then you farted: remember Michaels which side the folks with the "intelligence" will be on.
You have been on the wrong side of this from the start.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 13th, 2018, 11:12 am

Let's just ignore the fact that Mueller is a Republican, drew enormous amounts of support from Republicans previously, as well as when he was named special counsel. Let's also ignore the fact that there have been multiple indictments and guilty pleas from people surrounding Trump, related to the investigation. Let's also ignore that Page was a person of interest prior to the dossier and that these people around Trump had shady ties to Eastern Europe for many years, before their involvement with Trump. Let's also ignore how intertwined Trump and Kushner's real estate businesses are with Russian financiers and how Russia is a hot-bed for real-estate money laundering. Let's also forget that Charles Kusher, Jared's father, is a convicted felon who served time in federal prison. Let's forget all of Trump's comments and actions with him getting involved with the Justice Department in relation to the investigation involving him.

Let's ignore all that and instead peddle two-bit conspiracy theories and use the airwaves to stir up distrust in the FBI where it is completely unwarranted. Let's continue to focus on trying to throw Hillary Clinton in prison because she was our opponent. Let's continue to lend sympathy to white supremacists, domestic abusers, sexual assaulters and harassers. Because when I think of America being great, it involves all those things.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 15th, 2018, 8:30 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:Let's just ignore the fact that Mueller is a Republican, drew enormous amounts of support from Republicans previously, as well as when he was named special counsel. Let's also ignore the fact that there have been multiple indictments and guilty pleas from people surrounding Trump, related to the investigation. Let's also ignore that Page was a person of interest prior to the dossier and that these people around Trump had shady ties to Eastern Europe for many years, before their involvement with Trump. Let's also ignore how intertwined Trump and Kushner's real estate businesses are with Russian financiers and how Russia is a hot-bed for real-estate money laundering. Let's also forget that Charles Kusher, Jared's father, is a convicted felon who served time in federal prison. Let's forget all of Trump's comments and actions with him getting involved with the Justice Department in relation to the investigation involving him.

Let's ignore all that and instead peddle two-bit conspiracy theories and use the airwaves to stir up distrust in the FBI where it is completely unwarranted. Let's continue to focus on trying to throw Hillary Clinton in prison because she was our opponent. Let's continue to lend sympathy to white supremacists, domestic abusers, sexual assaulters and harassers. Because when I think of America being great, it involves all those things.

JuicedTruth wrote:Let's just ignore the fact that Mueller is a Republican, drew enormous amounts of support from Republicans previously, as well as when he was named special counsel.
Let's not forget: Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat said back in December that the closed-door investigation headed up by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is "THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY TO EXAMINE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION." And he said: "Mueller has made too many mistakes."
When asked by Trish Regan about Mueller's credibility, Mr. Dershowitrz said: "I think we have real problems of credibility."
Whatever support that Mr. Mueller had at the beginning of his work has waned considerably. And the reasons why that support has waned is because of the way Mr Mueller has conducted this investigation. As Mr. Dershowitz pointed out; it's a closed-door investigation. We don't know what's happening. They decide what to leak and what not to leak.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/10/26/wsj-editorial-mueller-should-resign-n2400749
He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.



Let's also ignore the fact that there have been multiple indictments and guilty pleas from people surrounding Trump, related to the investigation.
Let's not forget that there have been three indictments. Paul Manafort, Manafort's business associate - Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos. Manafort and Gates were charged that they funneled payments through foreign companies and bank accounts as part of their private political work in the Ukraine. Mr. Papadopoulos was charged with lying to the FBI.
NONE OF THESE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING "RELATED" TO THE INVESTIGATION! NONE OF THE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTION; NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA IN OUR ELECTION, AND NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY ALLEGATION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.
And, Mr. Dershowitz has argued that there is no grounds for an obstruction of justice charge after he fired FBI Director James Comey


Let's also ignore that Page was a person of interest prior to the dossier and that these people around Trump had shady ties to Eastern Europe for many years, before their involvement with Trump.
Let's not forget that Page WAS a person of interest PRIOR TO THE DOSSIER. In 2013 he was approached by Russian intelligence operatives who attempted to recruit him. Page did not become a Russian asset/ (operative), and he cooperated fully with all United States government agencies in explaining to them what happened. Page left Trump, but the dossier was presented to the FISA court as a need for surveillance on Page.
For some unexplained reason, Trump Tower was under surveillance even though Page was not there. They could have found a way to bug Page's living quarters and his phone('s) and would have been able to record any conversations Page may have had with Trump that way. But they bugged/tapped Trump Towers. Let's not forget that.
As to the rest of what we could ignore, perhaps you could be specific and explain exactly about the people around Trump that you said had shady ties to Eastern Europe.


Let's also ignore how intertwined Trump and Kushner's real estate businesses are with Russian financiers and how Russia is a hot-bed for real-estate money laundering.
Let's not forget that while you don't tire of your use on innuendo, which does not satisfy the rules of evidence; Heresay and Character evidence are generally not admissible in legal proceedings. If you have no evidence, and nothing else to say, don't resort to attempts to smear someone. Is Mr. Mueller now investigating real-estate business? Has he checked to see if there are any overdue Library books? And if you want him to be thorough, why hasn't he gone to Russia and interviewed every person who was living and staying in Russia before the election?

Let's also forget that Charles Kusher, Jared's father, is a convicted felon who served time in federal prison.
Let's not forget that you are implying some kind of guilt by association, maybe you want to dig deeper and use the one drop rule. You want to be explicit and explain how Charles Kusher fits into Mr. Mueller's investigation? Is there any limits to your depravity?

Let's forget all of Trump's comments and actions with him getting involved with the Justice Department in relation to the investigation involving him.
Let's not forget that no amendment to the constitution has been passed that disallows President Trump from exercising his first amendment rights. And considering all of the abuses by the FBI and the DOJ that have been revealed thus far, only the left and the members of the democrat party are angered by President Trump defending himself, and speaking out and informing the American people of what is really going on here.

Let's ignore all that and instead peddle two-bit conspiracy theories and use the airwaves to stir up distrust in the FBI where it is completely unwarranted.
What "two-bit conspiracy theory" are you inventing here. The full fledged Conspiracy Theory is the Russian Collusion with Trump and the presidential election that was hatched the day after Hilary lost and could not accept the reality of the situation

Let's continue to focus on trying to throw Hillary Clinton in prison because she was our opponent.
Let's not forget to investigate Hilary Clinton's role in the campaign leading up to the election. And if any investigation into Hilary's actions result in her serving time in prison well then that won't be anyone's fault except hers.

Let's continue to lend sympathy to white supremacists, domestic abusers, sexual assaulters and harassers.
Let's not forget that all of this is what you said starting with Mueller and the investigation and now this.

Because when I think of America being great, it involves all those things.

And when I think of America being great, I think of it being great in spite of people like you.
Last edited by Michaels153 on February 17th, 2018, 3:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 15th, 2018, 8:40 pm

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/15/media-stopped-reporting-russia-collusion-story-helped-create/
The Media stopped reporting the Russia collusion story because they helped create it.
By Lee Smith
Come on JuicedTruth, read this in it's entirety.
Half the country wants to know why the press won’t cover the growing scandal now implicating the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice, and threatening to reach the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and perhaps even the Obama White House.

After all, the release last week of a less-redacted version of Sens. Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham’s January 4 letter showed that the FBI secured a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to search the communications of a Trump campaign adviser based on a piece of opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Fourth Amendment rights of an American citizen were violated to allow one political party to spy on another.


If the press did its job and reported the facts, the argument goes, then it wouldn’t just be Republicans and Trump supporters demanding accountability and justice. Americans across the political spectrum would understand the nature and extent of the abuses and crimes touching not just on one political party and its presidential candidate but the rights of every American.

That’s all true, but irrelevant. The reasons the press won’t cover the story are suggested in the Graham-Grassley letter itself.

Steele Was a Media Informant
The letter details how Christopher Steele, the former British spy who allegedly authored the documents claiming ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, told the FBI he wasn’t talking to the press about his investigation. In a British court, however, Steele acknowledged briefing several media organizations on the material in his dossier. Steele lied to the FBI

According to the British court documents, Steele briefed the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo! News, The New Yorker, and CNN. In October, he talked to Mother Jones reporter David Corn by Skype. It was Corn’s October 31 article anonymously sourced to Steele that alerted the FBI their informant was speaking to the press. Grassley and Graham referred Steele to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation because he lied to the FBI.


The list of media outfits and journalists made aware of Steele’s investigations is extensive. Reuters reported that it, too, was briefed on the dossier, and while it refrained from reporting on it before the election, its national security reporter Mark Hosenball became an advocate of the dossier’s findings after November 2016.

BBC’s Paul Wood wrote in January 2017 that he was briefed on the dossier a week before the election. Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald likely saw Steele’s work around the same time, because he published an article days before the election based on a “Western intelligence” source (i.e., Steele) who cited names and data points that could only come from the DNC- and Clinton-funded opposition research. All of these briefings to the Press, before the election were an effort to get them to publish the dossier in order to affect the outcome of the election.

A line from the Grassley-Graham letter points to an even larger circle of media outfits that appear to have been in contact with either Steele or Fusion GPS, the Washington DC firm that contracted him for the opposition research the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee commissioned. “During the summer of 2016,” the Grassley-Graham letter reads, “reports of some of the dossier allegations began circulating among reporters and people involved in Russian issues.”

Planting the Carter Page Story
Indeed, it looks like Steele and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson may have persuaded a number of major foreign policy and national security writers in Washington and New York that Trump and his team were in league with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Those journalists include New Yorker editor David Remnick, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, former New Republic editor Franklin Foer, and Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum.


A Foer story published in Slate on July 4, 2016 appears to be central. Titled “Putin’s Puppet,” Foer’s piece argues the Trump campaign was overly Russia-friendly. Foer discusses Trump’s team, including campaign convention manager Paul Manafort, who worked with former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovich, a Putin ally; and Carter Page, who, Foer wrote, “advised the state-controlled natural gas giant Gazprom and helped it attract Western investors.”

That’s how Page described himself in a March 2016 Bloomberg interview. But as Julia Ioffe reported in a September 23, 2016 Politico article, Page was a mid-level executive at Merrill Lynch in Moscow who played no role in any of the big deals he boasted about. As Ioffe shows, almost no one in Moscow remembered Page. Until Trump read his name off a piece of paper handed to him during a March interview with the Washington Post, almost no one in the Washington foreign policy world had heard of Page either.

So what got Foer interested in Page? Were Steele and Simpson already briefing reporters on their opposition research into the Trump campaign? (Another Foer story for Slate, an October 31, 2016 article about the Trump organization’s computer servers “pinging” a Russian bank, was reportedly “pushed” to him by Fusion GPS.) Page and Manafort are the protagonists of the Steele dossier, the former one of the latter’s intermediaries with Russian officials and associates of Putin. Page’s July 7 speech in Moscow attracted wide U.S. media coverage, but Foer’s article published several days earlier.

The Slate article, then, looks like the predicate for allegations against Page made in the dossier after his July Russia trip. For instance, according to Steele’s investigations, Page was offered a 19 percent stake in Rosneft, one of the world’s energy giants, in exchange for help repealing sanctions related to Russia’s 2014 incursion into Ukraine.This would only be significant if Page accepted an offer like this (quid pro quo) if accepted. But "offered" is not the same as accepted. And since this dossier was not fully substantiated, this "offer" may never have occurred.

Building an Echo Chamber of Opposition Research

Many have noted the absurdity that the FISA warrant on Page was chiefly based, according to a House intelligence committee memo, on the dossier and Michael Isikoff’s September 23, 2016 news story also based on the dossier. But much of the Russiagate campaign was conducted in this circular manner. Steele and Simpson built an echo chamber with their opposition research, parts of the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and the press all reinforcing one another. Plant an item in the open air and watch it grow—like Page’s role in the Trump campaign.

Why else was Foer or anyone so interested in Page? Why was Page’s Moscow speech so closely watched and widely covered? According to the Washington Post, Page “chided” American policymakers for an “often-hypocritical focus on democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in its dealings with Russia, China, and Central Asia.

As peculiar as it may have sounded for a graduate of the Naval Academy to cast a skeptical eye on American exceptionalism, Page’s speech could hardly have struck the policy establishment as shocking, or even novel. They’d been hearing versions of it for the last eight years from the president of the United States.

In President Obama’s first speech before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), on September 23, 2009, he insisted that no country, least of all America, has the right to tell other countries how to organize their political lives. “Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside,” said Obama. “Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions.”

Obama sounded even more wary of American leadership on his way out of office eight years later. In his 2016 UNGA speech, the 2009 Nobel laureate said: “I do not think that America can — or should — impose our system of government on other countries.” Obama was addressing not just foreign nations but perhaps more pointedly his domestic political rivals. And yet Page, who sounded like President Obama, was branded a "person on interest"

In 2008 Obama campaigned against the Iraq War and the Republican policymakers who toppled Saddam Hussein to remake Iraq as a democracy. All during his presidency, Obama rebuffed critics who petitioned the administration to send arms or troops to advance U.S. interests and values abroad, most notably in Ukraine and Syria.

In 2016, it was Trump who ran against the Republican foreign policy establishment—which is why hundreds of GOP policymakers and foreign policy intellectuals signed two letters distancing themselves from the party’s candidate. The thin Republican bench of foreign policy experts available to Trump is a big reason why he named the virtually unknown Page to his team. So why was it any surprise that Page sounded like the Republican candidate, who sounded like the Democratic president?

Why Didn’t the Left Like Obama’s Ideas from a Republican?
On the Right, many national security and foreign policy writers like me heard and were worried by the clear echoes of Obama’s policies in the Trump campaign’s proposals. Did those writing from the left side of the political spectrum not see the continuities?

Writing in the Washington Post July 21, 2016, Applebaum explained how a “Trump presidency could destabilize Europe.” The issue, she explained, was Trump’s positive attitude toward Putin. “The extent of the Trump-Russia business connection has already been laid out, by Franklin Foer at Slate,” wrote Applebaum. She named Page and his “long-standing connections to Russian companies.”

Did Applebaum’s talking points come from Steele’s opposition research?
Even more suggestive to Applebaum is that just a few days before her article was published, “Trump’s campaign team helped alter the Republican party platform to remove support for Ukraine” from the Republican National Committee’s platform. Maybe, she hinted, that was because of Trump aide Manafort’s ties to Yanukovich.

Did those talking points come from Steele’s opposition research? Manafort’s relationship with Yanukovich had been widely reported in the U.S. press long before he signed on with the Trump campaign. In fact, in 2007 Glenn Simpson was one of the first to write about their shady dealings while he was still working at the Wall Street Journal. The corrupt nature of the Manafort-Yanukovich relationship is an important part of the dossier. So is the claim that in exchange for Russia releasing the DNC emails, “the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.” Remember "CLAIM"

The reality, however, is that the Trump campaign team never removed support for Ukraine from the party platform. In a March 18, 2017 Washington Examiner article, Byron York interviewed the convention delegate who pushed for tougher language on Russia, and got it. So there is no evidence of a quid pro quo,
only an unsubstantiated "CLAIM" that one was offered.


“In the end, the platform, already fairly strong on the Russia-Ukraine issue,” wrote York, “was strengthened, not weakened.” Maybe Applebaum just picked it up from her own paper’s mis-reporting.

For Applebaum, it was hard to understand why Trump would express skepticism about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, except to appease Putin. She referred to a recent interview in which Trump “cast doubt on the fundamental basis of transatlantic stability, NATO’s Article 5 guarantee: If Russia invades, he said, he’d have to think first before defending U.S. allies.”

The Echoes Pick Up
In an article published the very same day in the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg made many of the very same observations. Titled “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” the article opens: “The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin.” What was the evidence? Well, for one, Page’s business interests.

Trump’s expressed admiration for Putin and other “equivocating, mercenary statements,” wrote Goldberg, are “unprecedented in the history of Republican foreign policymaking.” However, insofar as Trump’s fundamental aim was to find some common ground with Putin, it’s a goal that, for better or worse, has been a 25-year U.S. policy constant, across party lines. Starting with George W.H. Bush, every American commander-in-chief since the end of the Cold War sought to “reset” relations with Russia.

Starting with George W.H. Bush, every American commander-in-chief since the end of the Cold War sought to ‘reset’ relations with Russia.
But Trump, according to Goldberg, was different. “Trump’s understanding of America’s role in the world aligns with Russia’s geostrategic interests.” Here Goldberg rang the same bells as Applebaum—the Trump campaign “watered down” the RNC’s platform on Ukraine; the GOP nominee “questioned whether the U.S., under his leadership, would keep its [NATO] commitments,” including Article 5. Thus, Goldberg concluded: “Donald Trump, should he be elected president, would bring an end to the postwar international order.”

That last bit sounds very bad. Coincidentally, it’s similar to a claim made in the very first paragraph of the Steele dossier — the “Russian regime,” claims one of Steele’s unnamed sources, has been cultivating Trump to “encourage splits and divisions in the western alliance.”

The West won the Cold War because the United States kept it unified. David Remnick saw it up close. Assigned to the Washington Post’s Moscow bureau in 1988, Remnick witnessed the end of the Soviet Union, which he documented in his award-winning book, “Lenin’s Tomb.” So it’s hardly surprising that in his August 3, 2016 New Yorker article, “Trump and Putin: A Love Story,” Remnick sounded alarms concerning the Republican presidential candidate’s manifest affection for the Russian president.

Citing the “original reporting” of Foer’s seminal Slate article, the New Yorker editor contended “that one reason for Trump’s attitude has to do with his business ambitions.” As Remnick elaborated, “one of Trump’s foreign-policy advisers, has longstanding ties to Gazprom, a pillar of Russia’s energy industry.” Who could that be? Right—Carter Page. With Applebaum and Goldberg, Remnick was worried about Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine and the fact that Trump “has declared NATO ‘obsolete’ and has suggested that he might do away with Article 5.”

Where Did All These Echoes Come From?
This brings us to the fundamental question: Is it possible that these top national security and foreign policy journalists were focused on something else during Obama’s two terms in office, something that had nothing to do with foreign policy or national security? It seems we must even entertain the possibility they slept for eight years because nearly everything that frightened them about the prospects of a Trump presidency had already transpired under Obama.

Whatever one thinks of Obama’s foreign policy, it is hardly arguable that he ceded American interests in Europe and the Middle East in an effort to avoid conflict with Russia.
The Trump team wanted to stop short of having the RNC platform promise lethal support to Ukraine—which was in keeping with official U.S. policy. Obama didn’t want to arm the Ukrainians. He ignored numerous congressional efforts to get him to change his mind. “There has been a strong bipartisan well of support for quite some time for providing lethal support,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff. But Obama refused.

As for the western alliance or international order or however you want to put it, it was under the Obama administration that Russia set up shop on NATO’s southern border. With the Syrian conflict, Moscow re-established its foothold in the Middle East after 40 years of American policy designed to keep it from meddling in U.S. spheres of influence. Under Obama, Russia’s enhanced regional position threatened three U.S. allies: Israel, Jordan, and NATO member Turkey.

In 2012, Moscow’s Syrian client brought down a Turkish air force reconnaissance plane. According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal article, “Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan raised alarms in the U.S. by suggesting that Turkey might invoke NATO’s Article V.” However, according to the Journal, “neither the U.S. nor NATO was interested in rushing to Article V… NATO was so wary of getting pulled into Syria that top alliance officials balked at even contingency planning for an intervention force to protect Syrian civilians. ‘For better or worse, [Syrian president Bashar al- Assad] feels he can count on NATO not to intervene right now,’ a senior Western official said.”

Whatever one thinks of Obama’s foreign policy, it is hardly arguable that he—wisely, cautiously, in the most educated and creative ways, or unwisely, stupidly, cravenly, the choice of adjectives is yours—ceded American interests and those of key allies in Europe and the Middle East in an effort to avoid conflict with Russia.

When Russia occupied Crimea and the eastern portion of Ukraine, there was little pushback from the White House. The Obama administration blinked even when Putin’s escalation of forces in Syria sent millions more refugees fleeing abroad, including Europe.

Was Anyone Paying Attention When This Happened?
Surely it couldn’t have escaped Applebaum’s notice that Obama’s posture toward Russia made Europe vulnerable. She’s a specialist in Europe and Russia—she’s written books on both. Her husband is the former foreign minister of Poland. So how, after eight years of Obama’s appeasement of a Russia that threatened to withhold natural gas supplies from the continent, did the Trump team pose a unique threat to European stability?

Is it possible that Goldberg never bothered to research the foreign policy priorities of a president he interviewed five times between 2008 and 2016?
What about Goldberg? Is it possible that he’d never bothered to research the foreign policy priorities of a president he interviewed five times between 2008 and 2016? In the last interview, from March 2016, Obama told him he was “very proud” of the moment in 2013 when he declined to attack Assad for deploying chemical weapons. As Obama put it, that’s when he broke with the “Washington playbook.” He chose diplomacy instead. He made a deal with Russia over Assad’s conventional arsenal—which Syria continued to use against civilians throughout Obama’s term.

Again, regardless of how you feel about Obama’s decisions, the fact is that he struck an agreement with Moscow that ensured the continued reign of its Syrian ally, who gassed little children. Yet only four months later, Goldberg worried that a Trump presidency would “liberate dictators, first and foremost his ally Vladimir Putin, to advance their own interests.”

Remnick wrote a 2010 biography of Obama, but did he, too, pay no attention to the policies of the man he interviewed frequently over nearly a decade? How is this possible? Did some of America’s top journalists really sleepwalk through Obama’s two terms in office, only to wake in 2016 and find Donald Trump and his campaign becoming dangerously cozy with a historical American adversary?

All’s Fair in War and Politics
Of course not. They enlisted their bylines in a political campaign on behalf of the Democratic candidate for president and rehearsed the talking points Steele later documented. But weren’t the authors of these articles, big-name journalists, embarrassed to be seen reading from a single script and publishing the same article with similar titles within the space of two weeks? Weren’t they worried it would look like they were taking opposition research, from the same source?

The stories were vessels built only to launch thousands of 140-character salvos to then sink into the memory hole.
No, not really. In a sense, these stories weren’t actually meant to be read. They existed for the purpose of validating the ensuing social media messaging. The stories were written around the headlines, which were written for Twitter: “Putin’s Puppet”; “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton is Running Against Vladimir Putin”; “Trump and Putin: A Love Story”; “The Kremlin’s Candidate.” The stories were vessels built only to launch thousands of 140-character salvos to then sink into the memory hole.

Since everyone took Clinton’s victory for granted, journalists assumed extravagant claims alleging an American presidential candidate’s illicit ties to an adversarial power would fade just as the fireworks punctuating Hillary’s acceptance speech would vanish in the cool November evening. And the sooner the stories were forgotten the better, since they frankly sounded kooky, conspiratorial, as if the heirs to the Algonquin round table sported tin-foil hats while tossing back martinis and trading saucy limericks.

Yes, the Trump-Russia collusion media campaign really was delusional and deranged; it really was a conspiracy theory. So after the unexpected happened, after Trump won the election, the Russiagate campaign morphed into something more urgent, something twisted and delirious.

Quick, Pin Our Garbage Story on Someone
When CNN broke the story—co-written by Evan Perez, a former colleague and friend of Fusion GPS principals—that the Obama administration’s intelligence chiefs had briefed Trump on the existence of the dossier, it not only cleared the way for BuzzFeed to publish the document, it also signaled the press that the intelligence community was on side. This completed the echo chamber, binding one American institution chartered to steal and keep secrets to another embodying our right to free speech. We know which ethic prevailed.

Now Russiagate was no longer part of a political campaign directed at Trump, it was a disinformation operation pointed at the American public.
Now Russiagate was no longer part of a political campaign directed at Trump, it was a disinformation operation pointed at the American public, as the pre-election media offensive resonated more fully with the dossier now in the open. You see, said the press: everything we published about Trump and Putin is really true—there’s a document proving it. What the press corps neglected to add is that they’d been reporting talking points from the same opposition research since before the election, and were now showcasing “evidence” to prove it was all true. From the same, unsubstantiated, fictional source.

The reason the media will not report on the scandal now unfolding before the country, how the Obama administration and Clinton campaign used the resources of the federal government to spy on the party out of power, is not because the press is partisan. No, it is because the press has played an active role in the Trump-Russia collusion story since its inception. It helped birth it.

To report how the dossier was made and marketed, and how it was used to violate the privacy rights of an American citizen—Page—would require admitting complicity in manufacturing Russiagate. Against conventional Washington wisdom, the cover-up in this case is not worse than the crime: Both weigh equally in a scandal signaling that the institution where American citizens are supposed to discuss and debate the choices about how we live with each other has been turned against a large part of the public to delegitimize their political choices.

This Isn’t the 27-Year-Olds’ Fault
I’ve argued over the last year that the phony collusion narrative is a symptom of the structural problems with the press. The rise of the Internet, then social media, and gross corporate mismanagement damaged traditional media institutions. As newspapers and magazines around the country went bankrupt when ownership couldn’t figure out how to make money off the new digital advertising model, an entire generation of journalistic experience, expertise, and ethics was lost. It was replaced, as one Obama White House official famously explained, by 27-year-olds who “literally know nothing.”

But the first vehicles of the Russiagate campaign were not bloggers or recent J-school grads lacking wisdom or guidance to wave off a piece of patent nonsense. They were journalists at the top of their profession—editors-in-chief, columnists, specialists in precisely the subjects that the dossier alleges to treat: foreign policy and national security. They didn’t get fooled. They volunteered their reputations to perpetrate a hoax on the American public.

That’s why, after a year of thousands of furious allegations, all of which concerning Trump are unsubstantiated, the press will not report the real scandal, in which it plays a leading role. When the reckoning comes, Russiagate is likely to be seen not as a symptom of the collapse of the American press, but as one of the causes for it.

Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Last edited by Michaels153 on February 16th, 2018, 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 16th, 2018, 9:57 am

NONE OF THESE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING "RELATED" TO THE INVESTIGATION! NONE OF THE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTION; NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA IN OUR ELECTION, AND NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY ALLEGATION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.


The indictments are related to the investigation because they came from the investigation. You have no idea how deep Mueller is into things because there is very little information besides the public indictments and pleas and whatever interviewees get leaked.

Let me ask you this, Michaels: do you find it strange or troubling that so many people involved in Trump's campaign and administration are either indicted and/or have pleaded guilty?

By the way, Gates is pretty close to a plea deal as well.

It must be the huge FBI conspiracy that unearthered all this criminal activity with Trump. Somehow Obama and Bush managed to make it 8 years with limited criminal activity. I believe Bush had quite a bit more than Obama, but Trump's goons are on pace to shatter all records.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 16th, 2018, 12:19 pm

JuicedTruth
JuicedTruth wrote:
NONE OF THESE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING "RELATED" TO THE INVESTIGATION! NONE OF THE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTION; NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA IN OUR ELECTION, AND NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY ALLEGATION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.


The indictments are related to the investigation because they came from the investigation. Really? is that okay with you? So if these three were indicted for overdue Library books that would be no different because it would be as a result of the investigation as well? Well if it makes no difference what is found because of this investigation, then there is no reason for a timetable either. Just appoint Mueller a lifetime appointment as Special counsel of the United states and when things start to slow down hand him some of the UFO files, and some of the cold cases from any police department.You have no idea how deep Mueller is into things because there is very little information besides the public indictments and pleas and whatever interviewees get leaked. And as Mr. Dershowitz said, that is part of the problem. We have an ongoing Congressional investigation that has members from both parties on it. The Congressional Investigation is open,
and although not completely transparent, it's actions are much more open than those of the Mueller investigation. Did you give any thought as to what Mr. Dershowitz said, and what he recommended in place of what Mueller is doing now?


Let me ask you this, Michaels: do you find it strange or troubling that so many people involved in Trump's campaign and administration are either indicted and/or have pleaded guilty? First, when you say "so many people" we are only talking about three people who are not with the President now, and did not stay very long when they were working with the President. Considering the lighted public microscope overseeing everyone involved in this administration, No I do not think it strange to hear everything that may be construed to be of a negative nature on these people. The amount of public scrutiny and the bias of the sychophants in the main stream media is the reason I no longer look at this as being strange. The ongoing, never-ending campaign against President Trump has almost desensitized me when I see or hear the daily news. All of this troubles me. I can see it troubles you too but in a different wasy. I have shared many articles that at the least, offer a different explanation than that of the main stream media. I would think, that even maintaining a partisan approach to whatever is presented in the media, both sides should be able to discern the difference between substantiated claims or evidence from non substantiated allegations and the absence of any evidence. I would think that articles like the one put out by the Nation, and published in Salon, would lead even the most partisan Trump haters to second guess the claims of Russian hacking the DNC and Podesta emails. Steele is used by the FBI and then when the FBI learn that he has been talking to the media they terminate their relationship with him. Now you can look at that in a couple of ways. It is very hard to advance the position that the FBI appropriately policed themselves by terminating their use of the guy, when they did not appropriately do their job and used this guy. It is fair to look at these circumstances and conclude that Steele was terminated from the FBI after the FBI no longer had any use for him, and in the hopes that that may stop people from investigating the FBI and their relationship with Steele in all of this.
Juiced, how do you explain all of the missing oversight regarding Ohr, his wife, and Fusion GPS? In the Nation article, what did you think when you read this? -> the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Is there nothing from what I have presented here that gives you any pause, any reason to second guess your own beliefs about what is going on here?


By the way, Gates is pretty close to a plea deal as well.

It must be the huge FBI conspiracy that unearthered all this criminal activity with Trump. Somehow Obama and Bush managed to make it 8 years with limited criminal activity. I believe Bush had quite a bit more than Obama, but Trump's goons are on pace to shatter all records.

Just keep reading, and listening to the news Juiced. I really don't see all of this staying in a fog forever.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby hmmmmm » February 16th, 2018, 3:35 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:
NONE OF THESE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING "RELATED" TO THE INVESTIGATION! NONE OF THE INDICTMENTS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTION; NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA IN OUR ELECTION, AND NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY ALLEGATION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.


The indictments are related to the investigation because they came from the investigation. You have no idea how deep Mueller is into things because there is very little information besides the public indictments and pleas and whatever interviewees get leaked.

Let me ask you this, Michaels: do you find it strange or troubling that so many people involved in Trump's campaign and administration are either indicted and/or have pleaded guilty?

By the way, Gates is pretty close to a plea deal as well.

It must be the huge FBI conspiracy that unearthered all this criminal activity with Trump. Somehow Obama and Bush managed to make it 8 years with limited criminal activity. I believe Bush had quite a bit more than Obama, but Trump's goons are on pace to shatter all records.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/16/13-russian-nationals-indicted-for-interfering-in-us-elections.html

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe, said at a Friday press conference.

The 37-page indictment was signed by Mueller.
The worst form of inequality, is to try to make unequal things equal ~~~~~ Aristotle

You can't cure poverty by creating more dependency ~~~~~

"Science flies you to the moon. Radical Islamists fly you in to buildings."
~~~~~ hmmmmm
hmmmmm
 
Posts: 742
Joined: March 2nd, 2011, 1:46 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 18th, 2018, 2:19 pm

https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/russian-indictments-prove-trump-won-fair-and-square/
Russian indictments prove Trump won fair and square
By Michael Goodwin February 16, 2018

And from hmmmmm's previous reference:

"Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President," Trump tweeted. "The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!"

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!
3:18 PM - Feb 16, 2018

The 37-page indictment, signed by Mueller, said the actions detailed by prosecutors date back to 2014.


Yes I know that Mueller has not concluded this investigation. Russia has 17,125, 200 square miles of land mass and a population of over 144 million. And the US had approximately 58 million Republican voters spread across the United States, and all of them have to be interviewed to see that Justice is done.
No, it is not necessary that any Democrat be interviewed. At least I am sure that is the position of James Comey and other present and former FBI employees.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 18th, 2018, 6:12 pm

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/02/17/facebook-vp-of-ads-slams-media-coverage-of-russian-interference-n2450722
Facebook Vice President of Ads Slams 'Main Media Narrative' of Russian Interference
By Timothy Meads |Posted: Feb 17, 2018

Even with the recent news from the indictments that decimated the main media's narrative of Trump colluding with the Russians, there was somethings that still did not make sense to me. At the top of the list was the money. Why would anyone, even in a government spend so much on something without getting something for all their efforts and expenditures? The first answer that I gave to myself was, they wouldn't. No one or no body even a government body would do something like this without something in return. So my next thoughts turned to what that something was that was worthwhile to somebody for what all of their trouble and efforts. My first answer to this was that it had to be something tangible. Since the talk centered around the Russians, I produced something known to try to determine what the end game was. The Russians most famous exports center around food and liquor. I can understand advertising campaigns to sell caviar or vodka, because the thought behind the marketing is that you will recoup that expenditure with your sales. So what kind of arrangement could be made between Trump and Russia. What kind of quid pro quo deal. Well the possibilities are essentially open to the imagination and I thought that if there was a deal, it would become known after the election. But as more time passed, I did not see or hear of any deal between President Trump and Russia.

This article change my thoughts:

First there was this: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein emphasized that no American knew they were “communicating with Russians.” Now if we accept that, then how could a quid pro quo arrangement be made with the Russians if any Americans that communicated with these Russians, thought they were dealing with other Americans?

Then came this article:
After those statements, Goldman took to Twitter to explain Facebook’s role in the ongoing investigation. He pointed out a glaring fact that most anti-Trumpers refuse to accept - a majority of the Russian interference via Facebook occurred after the election and swaying the outcome of the presidential race was not the main goal.


Rob Goldman
@robjective
Very excited to see the Mueller indictment today. We shared Russian ads with Congress, Mueller and the American people to help the public understand how the Russians abused our system. Still, there are keys facts about the Russian actions that are still not well understood.
8:57 PM - Feb 16, 2018
3,381
2,519 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Rob Goldman
@robjective
Replying to @robjective
Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.
8:57 PM - Feb 16, 2018

Rob Goldman
@robjective
Replying to @robjective
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/ha ... -congress/
8:57 PM - Feb 16, 2018


So according to the investigation, certain Russians began to set up shop in 2014, but the majority of their ads came after the election. (?)
What does 2014 have in common with the last presidential election. When I could not come up with reasoned answer because of the various unknowns to Russia. I briefly asked if maybe there was an intangible goal at work here? Nah, and I went back looking for the brass ring on the Merry-go-Round.

Then came this from Rob Goldman.
Still, Goldman warns that Russia's ultimate objective is to divide the nation through misinformation.


Rob Goldman
@robjective
Replying to @robjective
The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.
8:57 PM - Feb 16, 2018
7,148
4,771 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Rob Goldman
@robjective
Replying to @robjective
The single best demonstration of Russia's true motives is the Houston anti-islamic protest. Americans were literally puppeted into the streets by trolls who organized both the sides of protest. https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/arc ... t-in-texas
8:57 PM - Feb 16, 2018

Now I still dont understand this strategy, but it did remind me of my conversation with JuicedTruth. JuicedTruth said: " Probably because US politics are very divisive and particularly so with a candidate like Trump. By reinforcing hard-line beliefs, many of them factually / intellectually incorrect, you make the divide even greater and cause more instability in the country. I'd say he's been very successful there."

And so my hat tips to JuicedTruth, kudos. Because you were right on this one while I was looking historically at the Monroe Doctrine, I could not tie in the present circumstances with an intangible.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 19th, 2018, 11:49 am

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-18/kim-dotcom-let-me-assure-you-dnc-hack-wasnt-even-hack
Kim Dotcom: "Let Me Assure You, The DNC Hack Wasn’t Even A Hack"
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/19/2018

Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In response, Dotcom tweeted "Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. 360 pounds!" alluding of course to Trump's "400 pound genius" comment.


Kim Dotcom

@KimDotcom
Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn’t even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why. Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. 360 pounds!https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/world/us-election/dnchack-did-kim-dotcom-warn-the-world-about-the-democratic-party-hacking-20160622-gpp15a.html … https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 6204003328

1:42 PM - Feb 18, 2018

Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator, who determined that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed typical of file transfers to a memory stick.

The local transfer theory of course blows the Russian hacking narrative out of the water, lending credibility to the theory that the DNC "hack" was in fact an inside job, potentially implicating late DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.

John Podesta's email was allegely successfully "hacked" (he fell victim to a phishing scam) in March 2016, while the DNC reported suspicious activity (the suspected Seth Rich file transfer) in late April, 2016 according to the Washington Post.

On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.

Kim Dotcom

@KimDotcom
If Congress includes #SethRich case into their Russia probe I'll give written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was @Wikileaks source.

5:42 PM - May 19, 2017

On May 19 2017 Dotcom tweeted "I knew Seth Rich. I was involved"

Kim Dotcom

@KimDotcom
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/ ... 7384072194

12:46 PM - May 20, 2017

Three days later, Dotcom again released a guarded statement saying "I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK," adding:

"I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.

If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made. I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, I will make no further comment."

Dotcom knew.

While one could simply write off Dotcom's claims as an attention seeking stunt, he made several comments and a series of tweets hinting at the upcoming email releases prior to both the WikiLeaks dumps as well as the publication of the hacked DNC emails to a website known as "DCLeaks."

In a May 14, 2015 Bloomberg article entitled "Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare In 2016": "I have to say it’s probably more Julian,” who threatens Hillary, Dotcom said. “But I’m aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her.”

Two days later, Dotcom tweeted this:

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Kim Dotcom

@KimDotcom
Hillary Clinton is raising a mountain of cash for her Presidential bid. I think it might turn into ash.

2:08 PM - May 16, 2015
117
109 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Around two months later, Kim asks a provocative question


Kim Dotcom

@KimDotcom
Will hackers 0wn the U.S. presidential election and prevent Hillary Clinton? #Wikileaks

10:45 AM - Jul 12, 2016
209
123 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Two weeks after that, Dotcom then tweeted "Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on the internet who's going to jail?"

Kim Dotcom

@KimDotcom
Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on the Internet who's going to jail? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us ... &referrer=

8:08 PM - Jul 25, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton visiting Greenville Technical College in South Carolina on Thursday.
Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data
Mrs. Clinton pledged accountability as investigators cited four emails from the personal email account she used as secretary of state.

mobile.nytimes.com

It should thus be fairly obvious to anyone that Dotcom was somehow involved, and therefore any evidence he claims to have, should be taken seriously as part of Mueller's investigation. Instead, as Dotcom tweeted, "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied."

NO HACK!
NO COLLUSION!
NO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

But that does not matter. The show must go on. Just ask Maxine
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 19th, 2018, 12:33 pm

Wow, bringing up Seth Rich again :roll:

And Kim Dotcom? Really?
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 19th, 2018, 1:54 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:Wow, bringing up Seth Rich again :roll:

And Kim Dotcom? Really?


You want to check this thread JuicedTruth, because there is no reference to Seth Rich in it. And what was especially revealing was that he tried to go to Mueller through his lawyers for evidence but Mueller did not reply to his lawyers. Now you would think that if Mueller was really interested in conducting a thorough investigation and in answering a lot of the questions that people have that he would explore all tips, to make sure that "he did not leave any stone unturned." But maybe he was not interested in that evidence because it involved a Democrat?
I am waiting to see if we hear anything from this investigation that involves the allegation of the DNC hack. We have outside sources that are adamant that there was no hack, but unless Mueller's investigation comes out and addresses this, the Liberal trolls will continue to say that it was a hack.

As to Kim Dotcom, there appears the timeline of his emails allow him the benefit of the doubt here as to him being credible. The other point of establishing credibility is that he has gone out on a social media and has made these claims publicly. I for one would like to see any evidence he claims to have regarding the alleged hack and find out once and for all who supposedly hacked/leaked the information from the DNC.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 19th, 2018, 3:51 pm

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the FBI did the right thing by ignoring Kim Dotcom. Nothing he has ever done in life has ever lent any credibility to what he says.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Scorpion » February 19th, 2018, 4:36 pm

JuicedTruth wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure the FBI did the right thing by ignoring Kim Dotcom. Nothing he has ever done in life has ever lent any credibility to what he says.

Even a blond squirrel can find a nut Juicy.
Just because they don’t believe a source is credible doesn’t mean the info should be ignored.
Unless you’re Christopher Steele, then you know, full steam ahead, right??
A man wants to have sex or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, its like trying to put a marshmallow into a parking meter.
Scorpion
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 2:58 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » February 19th, 2018, 6:07 pm

Unless you’re Christopher Steele, then you know, full steam ahead, right??
Christopher Steele is widely respected in the intelligence community as a top Russian expert

BTW, I have been listening to Dennis Prager lately, and all I have to say is "what an idiot." If that is where you get your ideas, you need help!~ :D You see Dennis is not highly regarded in the intelligence community because he has none.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 19th, 2018, 10:52 pm

Yes, let's compare someone with a 30 year career in intelligence to Kim Dotcom.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby Scorpion » February 20th, 2018, 8:31 am

leftyg wrote:
Unless you’re Christopher Steele, then you know, full steam ahead, right??
Christopher Steele is widely respected in the intelligence community as a top Russian expert

BTW, I have been listening to Dennis Prager lately, and all I have to say is "what an idiot." If that is where you get your ideas, you need help!~ :D You see Dennis is not highly regarded in the intelligence community because he has none.

Dennis who?
A man wants to have sex or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, its like trying to put a marshmallow into a parking meter.
Scorpion
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 2:58 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby leftyg » February 20th, 2018, 8:38 am

Dennis who?
I thought you knew Dennis. He is the 12-3 host on WHK1420. He is one of the most arrogant asses I have ever heard on the radio. He is the founder of Prager Uniersity where ignorant people go to confirm their biases.
leftyg
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: ...Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election

Postby JuicedTruth » February 20th, 2018, 9:43 am

I think it's worth pointing out that the subject of this thread has been proven wrong, unless you don't believe the FBI indictment.
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Democrats, FBI & Russians meddled in election

Postby Michaels153 » February 20th, 2018, 11:39 am

JuicedTruth wrote:I think it's worth pointing out that the subject of this thread has been proven wrong, unless you don't believe the FBI indictment.


I think that it is worth remembering that the subject of this thread was based on the title of a column that introduced this thread.
But the thread line has been appropriately updated. Thank you Juice.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron