Tiberius Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 12 minutes ago, westside said: They don't have facts, they have "feelings". They get a tingle up their leg that let's them know when the truth is being told. They're special like that. Yup, like the Memo! What a joke. DR and all you clowns yelping about it and it was nothing. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 26 minutes ago, garybusey said: It adds plenty that has yet to be reported. It deftly side steps the truth that Steele was burned in Russia - that's why he left, it wasn't of his own accord. He left because the entire MI6 organization was heavily compromised by the KGB who were misleading Steele and his reports for two years (while the KGB moved from government service into organized crime, stealing the wealth from the Russian people along the way) before they publicly exposed him as a spy. This is a deceptive piece of journalism. She's lying to you by omission.
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Does it, in any way, address the fact that Steele never set foot inside Russia during the compilation of the dossier? Or does it address in anyway that the entire dossier was constructed based on third party hearsay rather than first hand witness testimony? yes
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 1 minute ago, garybusey said: yes It doesn't do it in an honest way at all. It talks around it - excluding the fact that Steele was used by his own Russian assets to mislead MI6. In other words, he fell victim to a KGB counterintelligence sting. That is certainly relevant information in light of how the dossier was compiled, is it not?
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It doesn't do it in an honest way at all. It talks around it - excluding the fact that Steele was used by his own Russian assets to mislead MI6. In other words, he fell victim to a KGB counterintelligence sting. That is certainly relevant information in light of how the dossier was compiled, is it not? Evidence?
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, garybusey said: Evidence? Google is your friend. *(Had to edit this because Google is NOT your friend)* Duckduckgo is your friend. The KGB infiltration of MI6 is legendary. There are links to this in other posts I've made over the year about Steele. But it's still secondary to this point - which is the ballgame and one you cannot argue: 21 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Does it, in any way, address the fact that Steele never set foot inside Russia during the compilation of the dossier? Or does it address in anyway that the entire dossier was constructed based on third party hearsay rather than first hand witness testimony? If not, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. Why? Because we know, from Steele's own court testimony, that the two points outlined above happened. He never went to Russia. He never spoke with primary sources. He took down stories told to him by Russian agents which THEY claim to have over heard. That's the key point. And it cuts through all the partisan noise on this topic. For a FISA warrant to be approved, the evidence submitted to the court must be verified. Steele's background or track record is irrelevant in terms of determining whether the evidence he collected meets that standard because he didn't witness anything. Thus, the dossier clearly does not meet this standard. The FBI and DOJ knew this, and hid it from the court - as well as neglecting to inform the court they fired Steele for lying to them about talking with the press - something he confirmed in his UK testimony last year. So, Steele could be James Bond with a flawless record. He could be Jesus himself - and it would not change the weight of the dossier one bit in terms of the eyes of the court. That's the reality. It's unable to be denied by partisan bickering. That standard was never met by Steele's dossier, and we know from McCabe's testimony that without the dossier there would be no FISA. That's the ballgame, Gary. There's no arguing against that. Edited March 5, 2018 by Deranged Rhino
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Can't wait to see your Pulitzer for wrapping up the ballgame on Steele. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 1 minute ago, garybusey said: Can't wait to see your Pulitzer for wrapping up the ballgame on Steele. You can't even muster an argument against it, can you? Why? Because they broke the law, Gary. This isn't a conspiracy. It's provable fact. The way the dossier was constructed does not meet the FISA standards, do you agree?
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Why would I argue with you after you said, "That's the ballgame, Gary. There's no arguing against that." Arguing with you is tiring enough. You'll be proven wrong when Steele is never indicted. 1
boyst Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, garybusey said: Why would I argue with you after you said, "That's the ballgame, Gary. There's no arguing against that." Arguing with you is tiring enough. You'll be proven wrong when Steele is never indicted. You're an autistic savant. Your level of retardation is not that of tiberius but your level of accidentally stupid is on his level. You can't be taken seriously if you simply agree with someone and don't expouse why. You come off as a contrite cynicql douche
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, Boyst62 said: You're an autistic savant. Your level of retardation is not that of tiberius but your level of accidentally stupid is on his level. You can't be taken seriously if you simply agree with someone and don't expouse why. You come off as a contrite cynicql douche Was it 400 photographs?
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, garybusey said: Why would I argue with you after you said, "That's the ballgame, Gary. There's no arguing against that." Arguing with you is tiring enough. You'll be proven wrong when Steele is never indicted. It's called a challenge. You talk big, but never back it up with anything. Why is that? Oh, right, because you've got nothing to offer but partisan talking points. You have no interest in discussing this topic honestly, if you did, you'd recognize the point I was making and acknowledge it. But you won't acknowledge it because you're either too far gone down the partisan slope to admit a truth that doesn't fit into your partisan box - or you're being dishonest. The reality is Steele's dossier is not strong enough to be used as evidence for a FISA warrant, regardless of Steele's background or purity. His background is irrelevant because he's not a witness, he's the author of the document which is a collection of third hand hearsay. You can't deny this because it's a fact. And where have I said Steele is going to be indicted? Your ability to change the topic when you get your ass handed to you intellectually never ceases to amaze. 2
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 The reality is Steele's dossier was not used as the only evidence for a FISA warrant.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, garybusey said: The reality is Steele's dossier was not used as the only evidence for a FISA warrant. False. Per McCabe's testimony which has been confirmed by multiple people, "no dossier, no FISA." That's why this is an issue. That's why the left for the past two months has been trying to distance themselves from the dossier they spent most of last year bolstering. You've been had, Gary. You have no one to blame for it but your own unwillingness to do your own research.
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: False. Per McCabe's testimony which has been confirmed by multiple people, "no dossier, no FISA." Schiff's memo refutes this claim.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: False. Per McCabe's testimony which has been confirmed by multiple people, "no dossier, no FISA." That's why this is an issue. That's why the left for the past two months has been trying to distance themselves from the dossier they spent most of last year bolstering. You've been had, Gary. You have no one to blame for it but your own unwillingness to do your own research. Was this not born out by the fact that they had the FISA application rejected three times before the addition of the Dossier to the application?
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, garybusey said: Dissect this when you're ready https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Someone's not paying attention. DR has shared information and analysis about Mr Steele multiple times. This New Yorker magazine article adds nothing ? . Still reading this... but buried deep in this puff piece is a bombshell: What?! Steele's report, in a page which has yet to be seen, acknowledges the DNC "hack" was really a leak. NOW the real purpose of this puff piece becomes clear. Especially with the timing last week of Rich suddenly popping back up in the news. Get the popcorn ready. Reminder: Buzzfeed is suing the DNC to get access to the servers because they are being sued by the Russian source Buzzfeed named as the "hacker". The DNC never turned the servers over to the FBI. They have yet to turn over the servers to Buzzfeed either. What are they hiding? Oh, right. We know what they're hiding... https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/buzzfeed-dnc-lawsuit-russia-dossier 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Was this not born out by the fact that they had the FISA application rejected three times before the addition of the Dossier to the application? Yes, that's absolutely confirmation of McCabe's testimony. Edited March 5, 2018 by Deranged Rhino
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) So Steele's work is not baseless hearsay when you see the possibility of #SethRich involvement? You either trust his sources, or you don't. Why are you allowed to pick and choose? #deepstate Edited March 5, 2018 by garybusey
B-Man Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, garybusey said: Schiff's memo refutes this claim. 9 hours ago, LA Grant said: HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ahhhh. Ha 9 hours ago, LA Grant said: lolllll That works. .
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, B-Man said: That works. . You always add something great to the conversation, Boy Man.
Recommended Posts