Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, garybusey said: So Steele's work is not baseless hearsay when you see the possibility of #SethRich involvement? #deepstate No, once again you miss the point in a rush to ridicule a position you don't understand or have put no time into understanding. One of the early spin attempts on Rich's murder was that he was working for the Russians to help them steal the emails, and he was killed by Russians for his role in the theft of intellectual property. It's something that the investigator (former DNC pundit) Burkman pushed in earnest in January. Then it faded away. Now here it is again, buried deep in a partisan puff piece. The question is why bring this back up now? The answer is the Buzzfeed lawsuit.
boyst Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 36 minutes ago, garybusey said: Was it 400 photographs? Of your mother. No idea what you're talking about? There have been no photos proving any collusion or link to Nunes.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, garybusey said: 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 For clarity: Steele's work is hearsay by definition, not because I say so. You cannot deny it's otherwise.
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 probably not the best idea to use your last name as part of your handle Just now, Deranged Rhino said: For clarity: Steele's work is hearsay by definition, not because I say so. You cannot deny it's otherwise. Of course. You say it's baseless hearsay, though.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, garybusey said: Schiff's memo refutes this claim. If you read and understood what Schiff wrote, you'd realize why this is wrong. http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375560-democrats-fisa-memo-doesnt-refute-gop-charges Edited March 5, 2018 by Deranged Rhino
B-Man Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, garybusey said: You always add something great to the conversation, Boy Man. When you finally reply with something that deserves a straightforward answer, I might give you one GB until then I will continue to laugh at your flaying efforts. As does the majority of the board. . 2 1
Prickly Pete Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No, once again you miss the point in a rush to ridicule a position you don't understand or have put no time into understanding. DR, why do yo bother with these people? He knows full well the point you were making. He is a weak distraction. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, garybusey said: Of course. You say it's baseless hearsay, though. No. I said it's baseless in terms of meeting the legal standards of acceptable evidence for the FISC because it's hearsay. This, again, is undeniable. It's enough to toss the entire dossier if you're the FISC. But they didn't.... they took it as evidence. Why? Because the FBI and DOJ LIED TO THE COURT. You can try to spin all you want, but that's the ballgame, Gary. You've been had. You allowed yourself to be made a fool of because you outsourced your own independent thinking.
Taro T Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: 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 Yes, that's absolutely confirmation of McCabe's testimony. Good catch on the bolded. Had thought the point of the piece (besides telling the world how apolitical Steele is while highlighting his potical instincts :wacko:) was to hit people over the head with the FACT that 44 & Biden (& even Hillary roundaboutly) knew ABSOLUTELY nothing about the dossier until January '17. Sure they didn't. 1
GG Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Now here it is again, buried deep in a partisan puff piece. The question is why bring this back up now? The answer is the Buzzfeed lawsuit. This is the part that doesn't make sense to me - that Buzzfeed is proceeding with a lawsuit that would take down DNC's claim. Something doesn't add up 1
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You allowed yourself to be made a fool of because you outsourced your own independent thinking. The irony here is fantastic. 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: If you read and understood what Schiff wrote, you'd realize why this is wrong. http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375560-democrats-fisa-memo-doesnt-refute-gop-charges 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, GG said: This is the part that doesn't make sense to me - that Buzzfeed is proceeding with a lawsuit that would take down DNC's claim. Something doesn't add up They are fighting for their life. They are being sued by the Russian they named as the source of the hack - and the only way they can prove their first amendment case is to have the evidence of the hack from the DNC servers since the DNC was the Buzzfeed source for the story. The DNC has prevented the FBI from analyzing the server, instead they did it with CrowdStrike - who was hired, as I've shown, to help engineer the illusion of a hack rather than to be honest brokers of truth. Buzzfeed is doing this because they have no choice. And it's going to sink the DNC in the process. Because they'll have to turn over the servers - which I'm sure have been wiped if not destroyed by now. Just now, garybusey said: The irony here is fantastic. It only is if you're too dim to understand the definition of irony. Schiff does not disprove the McCabe testimony at all. His document makes this clear. But you've made it clear that you don't read primary sources, so I linked an article that spells it out for you.
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Nunes did not read any of the primary sources he based his memo on, either.
Taro T Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 One other thing the New Yorker article does try is to exonerate 44 for not making the Russian "hacking" public. It's now McConnell's fault. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 1 minute ago, garybusey said: Nunes did not read any of the primary sources he based his memo on, either. No, he didn't. Only one person from each side was allowed to read them. So he sent Gowdy - a career prosecutor to read it. That's good sense, isn't it? Gowdy also wrote the bulk of the "Nunes" memo for precisely this reason. Just now, Taro T said: One other thing the New Yorker article does try is to exonerate 44 for not making the Russian "hacking" public. It's now McConnell's fault. This article is fascinating... I'm still reading it with my jaw on the floor. They RUSHED this piece out without even bothering to edit it. Read this: "I can confirm that I attended one of them" - that reads to me (someone who writes a lot and interviews people a lot) like notes from Steele himself. Here's how it works. The reporter writes the piece, sends it to Steele to confirm bits - he includes his notes in the draft - and then the writer takes those out and hands it in to the editor. Yet here, the writer clearly forgot to take these notes out. So did the editor. That doesn't happen unless there is a fire under their butts to get this piece out before something else hits. Wonder what that will be...
B-Man Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No, he didn't. Only one person from each side was allowed to read them. So he sent Gowdy - a career prosecutor to read it. That's good sense, isn't it? Gowdy also wrote the bulk of the "Nunes" memo for precisely this reason. You're going to confuse him with common sense. Try something else 1
Warren Zevon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Gowdy also wrote the bulk of the "Nunes" memo for precisely this reason. The bulk of the Nunes memo was written by Kashyap Patel.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, GG said: This is the part that doesn't make sense to me - that Buzzfeed is proceeding with a lawsuit that would take down DNC's claim. Something doesn't add up I forgot to add, they're also being sued by Trump for defamation. They need access to the servers to prove their case. Just now, garybusey said: The bulk of the Nunes memo was written by Kashyap Patel. If you've ever worked in a law firm, you'd understand how the process works.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) *********** Considering the sloppy nature of the New Yorker article - and the new narratives it's attempting to deploy, the timing of this op ed in the WSJ is also worth mentioning (thanks for the tip, Tasker). https://www.wsj.com/articles/lock-her-up-lock-him-up-they-could-lock-you-up-1520189274?mod=rss_opinion_main Sure seems like certain elements within the MSM are nervous about something coming down the pike. https://www.dailynews.com/2018/03/04/obamas-fbi-withheld-information-from-investigator-now-probing-them/ 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: 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 Yes, that's absolutely confirmation of McCabe's testimony. More from the same article: Almost like Mueller isn't investigating what we thought he was... Edited March 5, 2018 by Deranged Rhino
outsidethebox Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 34 minutes ago, garybusey said: Nunes did not read any of the primary sources he based his memo on, either. Proof?
Recommended Posts