Joe Miner Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 It's as much of a consensus as you will get on anything. There were agents in the FBI helping Whitey Bulger, too. But that doesn't mean entire FBI is corrupted. To raise doubt on the report because there is not supposedly consensus is to be trying to drag the discussion into the rabbit hole, imo. You brought up BF, but he was right that even Trump admitted the Russians were involved in disrupting the election So this consensus is the same as the climate change consensus?
boyst Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 I really imagine a room with Bob, big cat, tibs, meathead all sitting in their chair F5ing WaPo every 30 seconds with a stained white tee shirt, no pants and all feverishly masterbaitjng to anything they can find. In the back of the dim lit room is a picture spotlighted of Hillary. In chalk on the wall are all of the popular phrases and hash tags. Not my president. Rape culture. Resist. Hands up don't shoot. Free hat. Black lives matter. And then there is one fully glazed and crusty vagina hat that they found. Their severe case of pleasuring themselves to ignorance has taken them down a dark dark path. Well that's not creepy. hey. Its their basement.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Why are you engaging him when the DC Tom bot exists? When he tries to have a real conversation, which he might not be doing, I'll oblige. I just try not to get caught (again) in a circle of madness/trolling. I understand that the motives are politically contrived and I also understand that Russia is the new boogieman, Democrats have now reversed roles with many Repubs as the new "Neocons". Putting that aside, he either A) lied or B) forgot, which castes doubt on his capacity to be AG. I have no problem with that. I really don't. I'm not a Trump guy or a Sessions guy, if they broke the law there should be consequences. I'm also for investigating the Russian interference -- investigate all you want. What I am against is reaching a conclusion that isn't merited based on the evidence (in this case I mean the bigger picture with Russia). While the media is running with this story and the left (not saying that as a put down just as a point of fact) is gobbling it up in the throes of their post-election-depression, what's happening is a massive conditioning program -- like the one we saw deployed with WMD in Iraq post 9/11 -- designed to get us in such a fervor we abandon common sense and due process in favor of war. Proving someone disagrees with the assessment is not proving a negative, btw Of course it's not. Which is why I said the proof is actually in the documents themselves. Read them, not the excerpts. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf Of course to understand this fully, you have to understand what DNI is, its scope, and whom they're speaking for in this document. It's not the entirety of the IC. It's certainly not proof of consensus. And in their own methodology and assessments they admit they're relying on speculation from unnamed sources. Edited March 2, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 When he tries to have a real conversation, which he might not be doing, I'll oblige. I just try not to get caught (again) in a circle of madness/trolling. I have no problem with that. I really don't. I'm not a Trump guy or a Sessions guy, if they broke the law there should be consequences. I'm also for investigating the Russian interference -- investigate all you want. What I am against is reaching a conclusion that isn't merited based on the evidence (in this case I mean the bigger picture with Russia). While the media is running with this story and the left (not saying that as a put down just as a point of fact) is gobbling it up in the throes of their post-election-depression, what's happening is a massive conditioning program -- like the one we saw deployed with WMD in Iraq post 9/11 -- designed to get us in such a fervor we abandon common sense and due process in favor of war. Of course it's not. Which is why I said the proof is actually in the documents themselves. Read them, not the excerpts. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf Of course to understand this fully, you have to understand what DNI is, its scope, and whom they're speaking for in this document. It's not the entirety of the IC. It's certainly not proof of consensus. And in their own methodology and assessments they admit they're relying on speculation from unnamed sources. Nice try. Gatorman doesn't read primary sources.
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Of course it's not. Which is why I said the proof is actually in the documents themselves. Read them, not the excerpts. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf Of course to understand this fully, you have to understand what DNI is, its scope, and whom they're speaking for in this document. It's not the entirety of the IC. It's certainly not proof of consensus. And in their own methodology and assessments they admit they're relying on speculation from unnamed sources. Now you are saying there is no proof of consensus? Fine, I'll leave it at that. The Intelligence Community seems pretty confident Putin tried and did help Trump.
Magox Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Or C) he answered honestly, that he did not meet with the Russian ambassador to discuss the election campaign, which is the context in which the questions were asked and answered. I don't buy that explanation. That's not what the question was. As much hyperventilation as there has been over Russia, he should have known better. He either forgot, lied or at best misled.
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Nice try. Gatorman doesn't read primary sources. Yes I do! I've posted some that said the Federal Reserve was part of Federal government! Remember?
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Now you are saying there is no proof of consensus? Fine, I'll leave it at that. The Intelligence Community seems pretty confident Putin tried and did help Trump. This is false, and the entire point. Speaking of the IC as a uniformed entity is the mistake you're making and why you're being so badly misled by this narrative.
B-Man Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 I don't buy that explanation. That's not what the question was. As much hyperventilation as there has been over Russia, he should have known better. He either forgot, lied or at best misled. Yes it was. See reply #74..........right out of the original WAPO article.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Yes I do! I've posted some that said the Federal Reserve was part of Federal government! Remember? I stand corrected. Gatorman doesn't know what a primary source is.
GG Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 I don't buy that explanation. That's not what the question was. As much hyperventilation as there has been over Russia, he should have known better. He either forgot, lied or at best misled. Do you have the exact question that was asked and the context? It's very likely he was not misleading, but not offering up additional information as to his meetings, because these people don't do that.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Do you have the exact question that was asked and the context? It's very likely he was not misleading, but not offering up additional information as to his meetings, because these people don't do that. The transcript is probably on CSPAN. And he probably should have answered "It depends on what your definition of 'meet' is."
Bob in Mich Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Sessions clearly was less than honest with Al Franken under oath. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/02/al-franken-jeff-sessions-misleading-russia-newday.cnn/video/playlists/senator-jeff-sessions/ http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/03/02/jeff-sessions-russia-contact-sergey-kislyak-sje-orig.cnn/video/playlists/mobile-digital-features/ Edited March 2, 2017 by Bob in Mich
Magox Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Yes it was. See reply #74..........right out of the original WAPO article. I just read the question from Franken, and he asked if anyone from the Trump campaign had communicated with any Russian official during the 2016 campaign? He said not to his knowledge. Technically you can make the argument that he wasn't part of the campaign, but he should have known better. Do you have the exact question that was asked and the context? It's very likely he was not misleading, but not offering up additional information as to his meetings, because these people don't do that. Call what you will, at end of the day it was deceptive. I hate that we are discussing this, because it fits right into the media's penchant to over sensationalize every little damn thing. But he screwed up
GG Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 I just read the question from Franken, and he asked if anyone from the Trump campaign had communicated with any Russian official during the 2016 campaign? He said not to his knowledge. Technically you can make the argument that he wasn't part of the campaign, but he should have known better. He did know better, and that's why he was answering the question literally. You know, like an attorney would advise his client to answer. It's not his job to expand on the answers. This is why both chambers suck. They're populated by too many idiots who don't know how to properly ask questions to get the answers they need.
Magox Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) He did know better, and that's why he was answering the question literally. You know, like an attorney would advise his client to answer. It's not his job to expand on the answers. This is why both chambers suck. They're populated by too many idiots who don't know how to properly ask questions to get the answers they need. Does it look like to you that "he knew better"? To me, it looks like he didn't know better or else he wouldn't be going through this unnecessary shitstorm. A simple "we had an informal discussion about ________________, which is usual for members of the senate, but nothing related to the campaign" would have sufficed. Now he plays right into the hands of the media and rather than have a second day of Trump's positive press coverage speech and follow up of the mini rally he had today, the message gets stepped on with this crap. Edited March 2, 2017 by Magox
Nanker Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 But of course, attention to detail was never the strong suite of the left. I''m surprised they didn't try to impeach Trump after finding out he eats his well-done steak with ketchup. This is impeachable IMHO. Oh, brother! You ain't a kiddin'. Stay away from the anti-Republican one!! He's too smart for us!!!
GG Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Does it look like to you that "he knew better"? To me, it looks like he didn't know better or else he wouldn't be going through this unnecessary shitstorm. A simple "we had an informal discussion about ________________, which is usual for members of the senate, but nothing related to the campaign" would have sufficed. Now he plays right into the hands of the media and rather than have a second day of Trump's positive press coverage speech and follow up of the mini rally he had today, the message gets stepped on with this crap. Or consider the alternative scenario in the current witch hunt environment Do you for a second think that if he answered the question in the manner that you prescribe there would be no noise? Of course not. The narrative would be spun as "Sessions is lying that his conversations with Russians did not involve the campaign."
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 This is false, and the entire point. Speaking of the IC as a uniformed entity is the mistake you're making and why you're being so badly misled by this narrative. Well good. We need more investigations then. An independent ivestigation would be great to go along with the senate and houses investigations. Your specticism is healthy! ---- Poor Jeffery! Trump just said he was total confidence in him! Lol!
North Buffalo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Sessions should resign now, former attny gen in his state as well as Senator he should know better. He lied now he gotta resign. Or consider the alternative scenario in the current witch hunt environment Do you for a second think that if he answered the question in the manner that you prescribe there would be no noise? Of course not. The narrative would be spun as "Sessions is lying that his conversations with Russians did not involve the campaign." Sure their would be noise... problem is he lied... no can do..., Noise is one thing, so what, but lying to FBI whole nother kettle of fish... Hes been in DC too long, called DENIAL... Dont Even Know I Am Lying.., Edited March 2, 2017 by North Buffalo
Recommended Posts