boyst Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I always welcome opposing views, if only to test the merits of my own. So, let's take a dive and show why it's silly to hang your entire premise on a piss poor piece of journalism propaganda: Every word, but for the bolded, in this paragraph is inaccurate and displays a blinding ignorance of geopolitics let alone Russian-US relations. *Putin got everything he wanted out of the Ukraine. If he wanted to take all of it, he could have. He didn't. Not because of sanctions. He won in the Ukraine, he didn't lose. He won because Obama blinked. *Brexit had nothing to do with Putin and everything to do with the death of the unipolar globalist model. If you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be having this discussion. * "Trump won't do anything against them" - which is a lie. Trump has sanctioned the Russians more harshly than the much talked about Congressional sanctions, Trump sent lethal arms to the Ukrainians in defiance of Putin, the US just incinerated over 200+ Russian commandos in Syria just for amassing - signaling a complete shift in the ROE. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-worthy-choice-to-provide-ukraine-weapons/2017/12/30/c780d8d8-ebf9-11e7-8a6a-80acf0774e64_story.html?utm_term=.4149074d8f77 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/world/europe/russia-syria-dead.html Well, I MAY have proof that the moon landing was faked. But I don't. Thus, this is a meaningless point to raise. This is third hand hearsay. Steele didn't hear this himself. The Russian "senior official" didn't make the comments himself. He merely overheard "talk circulating in the Russian Ministry" (if he heard anything at all). None of this is confirmed - more importantly, none of it can be confirmed. This highlights EXACTLY what's wrong with Steele's work in the dossier, and it's a topic Grant and the author of this puff piece goes to great lengths to avoid tackling because it cuts against their mission. Namely, the legal standards that must be met to get a FISA Warrant approved on an American citizen. Steele's credibility is irrelevant, it's the credibility of the witnesses that matter. Steele isn't a witness, the RUSSIAN SOURCES FEEDING HIM INFORMATION are the "witnesses". And they're all nameless, faceless, and repeating hearsay OTHER Russian officials apparently said. That's not evidence. It's gossip which is unable to be confirmed or verified. AND IT'S THE ENTIRETY OF STEELE'S DOSSIER. The dossier which was needed to get a FISA warrant on Page. Another lie. The article goes OUT OF IT'S WAY to avoid telling you the full story about Steele's history and credibility. That he was running Russian agents who were playing him and feeding him, and MI6, bad intel because they knew Steele was a spy and were using him. When you have to use Comey as your source - you're already in trouble considering how deeply connected to the illegalities at play here he is. He has skin in the game - as you'll soon find out. They leave out he was burned and exposed as a Russian spy and is prevented from re-entering the country because he's a known enemy of the state. He's a master spy who was EXPOSED and used by the FSB until they had no more need of him. He hasn't set foot in Russia in almost a decade. He never went to Russia to take statements or witness testimony. He did it all remotely, relying on second and third hand sources from Russian Intelligence who knew Steele was a spy. That's a problem for anyone who has a fully functioning frontal lobe. They concluded the motivations of the witnesses but couldn't verify or confirm any piece of the dossier? THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. That's spin. A lie. You can't know for certain the motivations of witnesses Steele himself NEVER SPOKE TO DIRECTLY. Seriously - this is laughably stupid. Once again, you hit on a REAL issue but completely fumble it. The issue here isn't to take the word of a known liar (Brennan) who has SERIOUS skin in the dossier game - it's to ask the question WHY IS THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SPYING ON TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN? The answer, if you do REAL digging and research, is all there to be found. When the DOJ and FBI failed to get a FISA warrant on Page in June and July of '16, they were doing so because of what Admiral Rogers had done in April of '16 - namely, shut down the spigot of illegal access by FBI subcontractors to NSA 702 data. https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies Relevant page 83: "Certain contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems"... In other words, Fusion GPS, a contractor for the FBI during this time, was reading top secret raw SIGNIT collected on Trump's team without having to get FISA warrants or approval from anyone inside the DOJ. That was until Rogers noticed the unusual number of 702 quarries being filed and investigated in April of 2016 and shut the program down. Rogers saw none of the 702 requests were foreign in nature and acted. This led to 44's administration upping their efforts to fire Adm Rogers - something that surely would have happened had HRC won. With the spigot of raw SIGINT shut off, the black hats in the DOJ had to come up with a valid national security excuse for the earlier 702 requests in addition to getting an actual FISA warrant to get around Rogers and continue their intel gathering for their client (the Clinton campaign). Which is the reason for the dossier's creation in the first place. The black hats in the FBI hired Fusion GPS to use Steele/Ohr (and his wife) to start compiling the dossier in July. In essence, the dossier was the plan B, it was created to justify a FISA warrant which was then used to justify previous 702 quarries and the continued surveillance of select members of team Trump. Plan C was the Brits. This is WHY 44 and Brennan tapped the Brits in June to spy on the Trump campaign. They could not get the FISA warrant on Page with the evidence they had, Rogers had shut off their illegal spigot and they needed a way to keep tabs. Simple - call up the Brits and have them do it. This is the real Brit story in this whole narrative. And you missed it because you're not interested in honesty. Just partisanship. Only to a fascist does "going high" involve violating the constitution to illegally spy on your political opposition - going as far as to lie to the FISC, outsource your spying to the Brits, and feeding the compliant MSM a narrative designed to undercut an incoming and legally elected POTUS. Keep it up. With dynamite logic like this, you're due to win any day now. https://saraacarter.com/house-intelligence-committee-investigation-turns-to-john-kerry-state-department/ Wrong. This is spin designed to fool the simpleminded. Hence, Grant jumped on it. Steele was not hired until June of 16 and was paid by Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie. The dossier NEVER EXISTED before then. It's a complete DNC/HRC paid for product. This is confirmed by Simpson's testimony. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6244a50457d5 The timeline is bunk. Here's a better one with sources and links. https://view.publitas.com/galacticredpill/!@#$ery-timeline/page/1 You fail to understand the FISA abuse point - which ultimately makes the rest of what you said laughably partisan. Here's the facts - undisputed by even the Schiff counter memo: * To get a title I FISA warrant requires PROBABLE CAUSE that the subject (Page) is a FOREIGN AGENT ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN CRIMINALITY. It's a high bar. * To date, Page - who did have a title I warrant sworn out against him - has had no charges brought and is walking around a free man. * Prior to 2016, Page helped the FBI to take down a ring of Russian spies. This happened in 2013. Are we to believe that the Russians decided to work with Page - not just as an asset but AS A FOREIGN AGENT to help them with Trump after Page took down a ring of Russian spies? In what world does that logic track? We've seen how Putin handles backstabbers - do you REALLY think he'd willingly get back into bed with an asset who just sold him out and got several of his officers arrested? * The FBI and DOJ tried, and failed two times to get a FISA title I warrant on Page WITHOUT the dossier's inclusion. * In October they included the dossier in their application while hiding the fact it was paid for by the DNC and that Steele had already been fired by the FBI for lying about his media contacts. The dossier's merit has nothing to do with Steele's credibility as he's not the witness - his sources are, and none of them could be verified or confirmed because it was hearsay and second or third hand hearsay at that. Yet, despite this, the dossier was used to get the FISA approved. * The first FISA was not approved until almost a year after Page left the campaign. Why then did they focus so hard on Page? Because they wanted that third hop. If Page is as dirty as you think, they wouldn't need the dossier. Page, after all, had already proven his willingness to cooperate with the FBI. They could have just called him in. But they didn't. Because they knew Page wasn't dirty and they knew he wasn't connected to Trump anymore. They wanted his communications and the right to hop to his CONTACTS. That's the abuse that's at issue here. It's politically motivated spying of the opposition party by the party in power. You, Grant, don't find this troubling because you're a fascist who has little understanding of the law, geopolitics, or what happened during the election you're raving about. For someone who says they read a lot, you sure have demonstrated a near illiteracy in this post. It's hilarious that you didn't answer your own poll question. Dishonest much? Stop giving this thread any credit, it doesn't deserve it. Let me rip it apart from the inside You know, with with everything that's happened it is very likely that this whole situation does not really involve many verdicts against those who have played in the system, but what it creates is a stronger federal government. Somehow there will be great irony in that Trump, the Republican, creates a stronger federal government in which rights are restored to the individual. It's almost like Trump is no Republican at all and it's almost like Democrats have lost as the individuals disrupting government and manipulating our system.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, row_33 said: nah, Trump gets 2 terms and then The People will just for the sake of "change for change sake" put the Dems in for 2 terms People will get sick of things getting corrected and conclude it's all too fast and too harsh and then go back to the safety net society. In normal times, absolutely, but not in times like ours. I have my doubts that there will even be a Democratic Party anymore following what's coming. The reality of what's coming down, the level of corruption and criminality, the actual evil (yes, evil) that is going to be exposed... They won't survive it.
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Trey Gowdy's role in this will line him up as the 46th President in 2024 in order to see out the work currently being done. If that is to be the case, Trey is going to need to pick a haircut and stick to it. I really like the guy, but every time I see him on TV, I feel like he has a contract with FlowBee. 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I have my doubts that there will even be a Democratic Party anymore following what's coming. The reality of what's coming down, the level of corruption and criminality, the actual evil (yes, evil) that is going to be exposed... They won't survive it. Not to mention, the fruits of Dem policies are there for all to see. California, one of the most beautiful states in the country, now looks like Detroit. National media can't turn a blind eye to how much poverty lines the streets along most of the coast. And yet the state moves farther and farther left. Hell, this state is so far left, it doesn't even like Feinstein any more. Do you have any idea how left you have to be to think THAT hag is not left enough? It's the party of Tiberius/gator/baskin/LAgrant. Even socialism is not far enough left.
LA Grant Posted March 9, 2018 Author Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, LABillzFan said: Not to mention, the fruits of Dem policies are there for all to see. California, one of the most beautiful states in the country, now looks like Detroit. National media can't turn a blind eye to how much poverty lines the streets along most of the coast. And yet the state moves farther and farther left. Hell, this state is so far left, it doesn't even like Feinstein any more. Do you have any idea how left you have to be to think THAT hag is not left enough? It's the party of Tiberius/gator/baskin/LAgrant. Even socialism is not far enough left. Glad you care about poverty. (Genuinely!) I was getting the impression that you didn't care about anything at all. Homelessness & poverty is a horrible problem, not just in California, but throughout the U.S. The amount of homelessness in Los Angeles & San Francisco is criminal, we agree on that at least. But it's reallllllllllly short-sighted to blame it on "Dem policies" or the "left"; they're complicit but it's farcical to place the blame entirely or even mostly at their feet. This is one of the strange contradictions of the Republicans/right. It's a party full of guys who want to abolish social services, then point to the decimation of the lower classes & say "see? government doesn't work. keep voting for us." Real estate developers will keep building luxury condos so ex-Vine stars have an extra place to keep their hoverboards and push out lower-class residents as long as they keep having the ability to do so. This is why government is necessary and why capitalism needs regulations and checks & balances. It's silly to expect money to be moral. I think Universal Basic Income could really help; it streamlines social services and encourages investment and innovation. I've seen budget proposals where UBI could be achieved with only a moderate hike in taxes on the top 1%. Instead, Republicans keep offering that group tax cuts, despite the evidence that "trickle down" doesn't work. ... Moving on. Hi Rhino! Thanks for playing. I'm not going to respond to everything all at once, so I'll just address what I have time for now. 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: I always welcome opposing views, if only to test the merits of my own. So, let's take a dive and show why it's silly to hang your entire premise on a piss poor piece of journalism propaganda: Okay well, you didn't test the merits of your Federalist thing but let's just take you at your word. First of all, I'd like to point out that calling Mayer's work propaganda is preposterous. This isn't some Huffington Post or Breitbart blog post. You're smearing the work of the best investigative journalists we currently have and, even if we say you're on the money with everything you say after, calling it "piss poor" "puff piece" and "propaganda" (P.P.P.?) is a joke. https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/jane-mayer You feel comfortable calling her work trash, and the work of Bob Mueller, Chris Steele — not to mention the entire intelligence community — you feel entirely comfortable saying they're all hacks & liars. (Meanwhile you won't defend the Federalist, a blog started by a plagiarist fired by WaPo, seemingly only trusting the most dubious of sources). This is a reflection on you more than them, though, and betrays a naivety about how the world works. It's hard to imagine you're a professional or established in your field IRL, bc if you were, you'd understand how ignorant and insulting it is to simply outright dismiss work from people with expertise. There is a general cultural distrust of "experts" among the right, labeling them as "elites." Let's say you are an expert in your field IRL, at work. Instead of people listening to you in meetings, they go "yeahhh sure, egghead, but here's what I think." This is frustrating. Sometimes you should want elite. Anybody can throw a football but not everyone can be an elite QB, right? I wanted to address this aspect first because, even if you turn out to have been right all along, it has the appearance of "pfft, I could throw a better ball than that clown." Quote This is third hand hearsay. Steele didn't hear this himself. The Russian "senior official" didn't make the comments himself. He merely overheard "talk circulating in the Russian Ministry" (if he heard anything at all). None of this is confirmed - more importantly, none of it can be confirmed. This highlights EXACTLY what's wrong with Steele's work in the dossier, and it's a topic Grant and the author of this puff piece goes to great lengths to avoid tackling because it cuts against their mission. Namely, the legal standards that must be met to get a FISA Warrant approved on an American citizen. Steele's credibility is irrelevant, it's the credibility of the witnesses that matter. Steele isn't a witness, the RUSSIAN SOURCES FEEDING HIM INFORMATION are the "witnesses". And they're all nameless, faceless, and repeating hearsay OTHER Russian officials apparently said. That's not evidence. It's gossip which is unable to be confirmed or verified. AND IT'S THE ENTIRETY OF STEELE'S DOSSIER. The dossier which was needed to get a FISA warrant on Page. Mayer's report covers exactly what you're talking about, multiple times. His network & sources have wide respect among the intelligence community. Sources that have multiple other sources saying they are entirely credible. The same sources have been proven to be credible time and again over his career. Again, this is all in the report that I'm not sure you were able to get through because your mind is pretty made up on this. "Gossip" is "intelligence." That's what it has to be. Steele, or any intelligence agent, gathering information from sources is not the same as a journalist doing the same job. You get that, right? One is more thoroughly vetted (well maybe not by the Federalist or American Thinker but ethical journalists), and seeks to connect the dots. The other is "here is a series of dots, and a lot of smoke. There may be a fire below." The idea that he's being fed information assumes that Steele is an idiot who wouldn't know the difference, that Mueller wouldn't know the difference, that FISA wouldn't know the difference. You're saying we should be taking your word for it that the entire intelligence community is wrong about the sources. Or that without something in writing from Putin that says "give X to Y so they do Z" which is an absurd expectation. Okay I'll come back to the rest of your post later. Tyrod was just traded. Holy f***ng sh*t!! Edited March 9, 2018 by LA Grant 2
Tiberius Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: I always welcome opposing views, if only to test the merits of my own. So, let's take a dive and show why it's silly to hang your entire premise on a piss poor piece of journalism propaganda: Every word, but for the bolded, in this paragraph is inaccurate and displays a blinding ignorance of geopolitics let alone Russian-US relations. *Putin got everything he wanted out of the Ukraine. If he wanted to take all of it, he could have. He didn't. Not because of sanctions. He won in the Ukraine, he didn't lose. He won because Obama blinked. *Brexit had nothing to do with Putin and everything to do with the death of the unipolar globalist model. If you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be having this discussion. * "Trump won't do anything against them" - which is a lie. Trump has sanctioned the Russians more harshly than the much talked about Congressional sanctions, Trump sent lethal arms to the Ukrainians in defiance of Putin, the US just incinerated over 200+ Russian commandos in Syria just for amassing - signaling a complete shift in the ROE. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-worthy-choice-to-provide-ukraine-weapons/2017/12/30/c780d8d8-ebf9-11e7-8a6a-80acf0774e64_story.html?utm_term=.4149074d8f77 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/world/europe/russia-syria-dead.html Well, I MAY have proof that the moon landing was faked. But I don't. Thus, this is a meaningless point to raise. This is third hand hearsay. Steele didn't hear this himself. The Russian "senior official" didn't make the comments himself. He merely overheard "talk circulating in the Russian Ministry" (if he heard anything at all). None of this is confirmed - more importantly, none of it can be confirmed. This highlights EXACTLY what's wrong with Steele's work in the dossier, and it's a topic Grant and the author of this puff piece goes to great lengths to avoid tackling because it cuts against their mission. Namely, the legal standards that must be met to get a FISA Warrant approved on an American citizen. Steele's credibility is irrelevant, it's the credibility of the witnesses that matter. Steele isn't a witness, the RUSSIAN SOURCES FEEDING HIM INFORMATION are the "witnesses". And they're all nameless, faceless, and repeating hearsay OTHER Russian officials apparently said. That's not evidence. It's gossip which is unable to be confirmed or verified. AND IT'S THE ENTIRETY OF STEELE'S DOSSIER. The dossier which was needed to get a FISA warrant on Page. Another lie. The article goes OUT OF IT'S WAY to avoid telling you the full story about Steele's history and credibility. That he was running Russian agents who were playing him and feeding him, and MI6, bad intel because they knew Steele was a spy and were using him. When you have to use Comey as your source - you're already in trouble considering how deeply connected to the illegalities at play here he is. He has skin in the game - as you'll soon find out. They leave out he was burned and exposed as a Russian spy and is prevented from re-entering the country because he's a known enemy of the state. He's a master spy who was EXPOSED and used by the FSB until they had no more need of him. He hasn't set foot in Russia in almost a decade. He never went to Russia to take statements or witness testimony. He did it all remotely, relying on second and third hand sources from Russian Intelligence who knew Steele was a spy. That's a problem for anyone who has a fully functioning frontal lobe. They concluded the motivations of the witnesses but couldn't verify or confirm any piece of the dossier? THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. That's spin. A lie. You can't know for certain the motivations of witnesses Steele himself NEVER SPOKE TO DIRECTLY. Seriously - this is laughably stupid. Once again, you hit on a REAL issue but completely fumble it. The issue here isn't to take the word of a known liar (Brennan) who has SERIOUS skin in the dossier game - it's to ask the question WHY IS THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SPYING ON TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN? The answer, if you do REAL digging and research, is all there to be found. When the DOJ and FBI failed to get a FISA warrant on Page in June and July of '16, they were doing so because of what Admiral Rogers had done in April of '16 - namely, shut down the spigot of illegal access by FBI subcontractors to NSA 702 data. https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies Relevant page 83: "Certain contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems"... In other words, Fusion GPS, a contractor for the FBI during this time, was reading top secret raw SIGNIT collected on Trump's team without having to get FISA warrants or approval from anyone inside the DOJ. That was until Rogers noticed the unusual number of 702 quarries being filed and investigated in April of 2016 and shut the program down. Rogers saw none of the 702 requests were foreign in nature and acted. This led to 44's administration upping their efforts to fire Adm Rogers - something that surely would have happened had HRC won. With the spigot of raw SIGINT shut off, the black hats in the DOJ had to come up with a valid national security excuse for the earlier 702 requests in addition to getting an actual FISA warrant to get around Rogers and continue their intel gathering for their client (the Clinton campaign). Which is the reason for the dossier's creation in the first place. The black hats in the FBI hired Fusion GPS to use Steele/Ohr (and his wife) to start compiling the dossier in July. In essence, the dossier was the plan B, it was created to justify a FISA warrant which was then used to justify previous 702 quarries and the continued surveillance of select members of team Trump. Plan C was the Brits. This is WHY 44 and Brennan tapped the Brits in June to spy on the Trump campaign. They could not get the FISA warrant on Page with the evidence they had, Rogers had shut off their illegal spigot and they needed a way to keep tabs. Simple - call up the Brits and have them do it. This is the real Brit story in this whole narrative. And you missed it because you're not interested in honesty. Just partisanship. Only to a fascist does "going high" involve violating the constitution to illegally spy on your political opposition - going as far as to lie to the FISC, outsource your spying to the Brits, and feeding the compliant MSM a narrative designed to undercut an incoming and legally elected POTUS. Keep it up. With dynamite logic like this, you're due to win any day now. https://saraacarter.com/house-intelligence-committee-investigation-turns-to-john-kerry-state-department/ Wrong. This is spin designed to fool the simpleminded. Hence, Grant jumped on it. Steele was not hired until June of 16 and was paid by Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie. The dossier NEVER EXISTED before then. It's a complete DNC/HRC paid for product. This is confirmed by Simpson's testimony. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6244a50457d5 The timeline is bunk. Here's a better one with sources and links. https://view.publitas.com/galacticredpill/!@#$ery-timeline/page/1 You fail to understand the FISA abuse point - which ultimately makes the rest of what you said laughably partisan. Here's the facts - undisputed by even the Schiff counter memo: * To get a title I FISA warrant requires PROBABLE CAUSE that the subject (Page) is a FOREIGN AGENT ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN CRIMINALITY. It's a high bar. * To date, Page - who did have a title I warrant sworn out against him - has had no charges brought and is walking around a free man. * Prior to 2016, Page helped the FBI to take down a ring of Russian spies. This happened in 2013. Are we to believe that the Russians decided to work with Page - not just as an asset but AS A FOREIGN AGENT to help them with Trump after Page took down a ring of Russian spies? In what world does that logic track? We've seen how Putin handles backstabbers - do you REALLY think he'd willingly get back into bed with an asset who just sold him out and got several of his officers arrested? * The FBI and DOJ tried, and failed two times to get a FISA title I warrant on Page WITHOUT the dossier's inclusion. * In October they included the dossier in their application while hiding the fact it was paid for by the DNC and that Steele had already been fired by the FBI for lying about his media contacts. The dossier's merit has nothing to do with Steele's credibility as he's not the witness - his sources are, and none of them could be verified or confirmed because it was hearsay and second or third hand hearsay at that. Yet, despite this, the dossier was used to get the FISA approved. * The first FISA was not approved until almost a year after Page left the campaign. Why then did they focus so hard on Page? Because they wanted that third hop. If Page is as dirty as you think, they wouldn't need the dossier. Page, after all, had already proven his willingness to cooperate with the FBI. They could have just called him in. But they didn't. Because they knew Page wasn't dirty and they knew he wasn't connected to Trump anymore. They wanted his communications and the right to hop to his CONTACTS. That's the abuse that's at issue here. It's politically motivated spying of the opposition party by the party in power. You, Grant, don't find this troubling because you're a fascist who has little understanding of the law, geopolitics, or what happened during the election you're raving about. For someone who says they read a lot, you sure have demonstrated a near illiteracy in this post. It's hilarious that you didn't answer your own poll question. Dishonest much? I can see for miles and miles and miles...
row_33 Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: In normal times, absolutely, but not in times like ours. I have my doubts that there will even be a Democratic Party anymore following what's coming. The reality of what's coming down, the level of corruption and criminality, the actual evil (yes, evil) that is going to be exposed... They won't survive it. These are normal times, same as when Reagan and W beat the liberal media darlings the Dems will pick up a lot of House seats in November, maybe even take it over I’ve read the obituary of both parties a dozen times and they come back strong the next chance they get
Deranged Rhino Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, row_33 said: These are normal times, same as when Reagan and W beat the liberal media darlings I promise you, they're not. By the end of the year that will be more clear.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 34 minutes ago, LA Grant said: First of all, I'd like to point out that calling Mayer's work propaganda is preposterous. This isn't some Huffington Post or Breitbart blog post. You're smearing the work of the best investigative journalists we currently have and, even if we say you're on the money with everything you say after, calling it "piss poor" "puff piece" and "propaganda" (P.P.P.?) is a joke. Fascist says what? It's not preposterous when I can prove it - which I already have and will continue to do. As for the bolded - you're saying if I'm right about Mayer having written a spin piece for her USIC masters that it would STILL be a joke to call it as such. Why? Because you aren't interested in the truth, are you? You can't be if you make that kind of statement. Your bias is showing, Grant. The appeal to authority in this post is just comical. It's not about the rag the person writes for, it's about the article and the author. Something you'd understand if you were honest. You're not though. You're a fascist. 35 minutes ago, LA Grant said: You feel comfortable calling her work trash, and the work of Bob Mueller, Chris Steele — not to mention the entire intelligence community — you feel entirely comfortable saying they're all hacks & liars. (Meanwhile you won't defend the Federalist, a blog started by a plagiarist fired by WaPo, seemingly only trusting the most dubious of sources). See? DISHONESTY. The entire intelligence community is not in agreement with Clapper and Brennan - who are PROVEN LIARS. Even the vaunted NYT admitted as much: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C002095420CABEDDBEFD031A1507E261&gwt=pay So, you're already showing you don't understand this story and are a victim of propaganda. Then you double down by defending Clapper and Brennan? They're both liars. That's not me saying they're liars. It's PROVEN: That was perjury, Grant. His record is one of LYING TO CONGRESS TO COVER UP HIS OWN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate Now you want to take the words of two known and proven liars because of their title? They have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF LYING TO COVER UP THEIR OWN MISDEEDS but this time they're telling the truth right? Riiiight. Just like your sorting method for good journalism and propaganda revolves entirely around corporate name on the cover. That's why your analysis is a joke. That's why you're a joke. You know how I know the entire IC isn't in agreement? One, because I can read. and Two because I've been interviewing dozens of them for the past year. 40 minutes ago, LA Grant said: This is a reflection on you more than them, though, and betrays a naivety about how the world works. It's hard to imagine you're a professional or established in your field IRL, bc if you were, you'd understand how ignorant and insulting it is to simply outright dismiss work from people with expertise. You know what's more insulting? When the people who swore oaths to preserve and defend the constitution ABUSE THEIR POWERS TO FEATHER THEIR OWN NESTS. Which is the track records of Brennan and Clapper. That's the ONLY thing they did in their tenures - besides weaken America and sell out our interests to the highest bidders.These are not two men you wish to go down defending. But you're doing so because they're convenient to your politics. See, because you're an asshat who doesn't bother to read or think for himself, you'd understand that I'm not coming at this from a place of ignorance or inexperience. Unlike you. Do the research I've done. I've made it simple for you to do that. Track down people I've talked to. Hear their stories. Then we can talk about what's insulting to the men and women of the IC. 48 minutes ago, LA Grant said: There is a general cultural distrust of "experts" among the right, labeling them as "elites." Let's say you are an expert in your field IRL, at work. Instead of people listening to you in meetings, they go "yeahhh sure, egghead, but here's what I think." This is frustrating. Of course it's frustrating to you, you're a fascist who already made it clear that EXPERTS can only be people with fancy titles or who work for specific outfits. You overlook the fact one can, and should, work to become their own expert. That's intellectual laziness, and your piss poor reasoning and logic are demonstrating why it's a habit we should effort to break, not reinforce. 50 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Mayer's report covers exactly what you're talking about, multiple times. His network & sources have wide respect among the intelligence community. Sources that have multiple other sources saying they are entirely credible. The same sources have been proven to be credible time and again over his career. Again, this is all in the report that I'm not sure you were able to get through because your mind is pretty made up on this. "Gossip" is "intelligence." That's what it has to be. Steele, or any intelligence agent, gathering information from sources is not the same as a journalist doing the same job. You get that, right? One is more thoroughly vetted (well maybe not by the Federalist or American Thinker but ethical journalists), and seeks to connect the dots. The other is "here is a series of dots, and a lot of smoke. There may be a fire below." No. You're wrong and she's wrong. His credibility has NOTHING to do with the dossier's claims because HE'S NOT THE WITNESS. It's about the standard for evidence, asshat. Steele's credibility has nothing to do with the credibility of the people SHARING INFORMATION IN THE DOSSIER. The dossier is UNCONFIRMED because it's second and third hand hearsay. Courts have rules about this kind of evidence. Nothing in the Steele dossier is acceptable as evidence simply because Steele is credible. If you read more than propaganda, or had any understanding of the law, you'd know this. And gossip is NOT how intelligence is gathered. You'd know that if you knew anything about the IC world - but you don't. And it's clear. 53 minutes ago, LA Grant said: The idea that he's being fed information assumes that Steele is an idiot who wouldn't know the difference, that Mueller wouldn't know the difference, that FISA wouldn't know the difference. You're saying we should be taking your word for it that the entire intelligence community is wrong about the sources. Or that without something in writing from Putin that says "give X to Y so they do Z" which is an absurd expectation. No. I don't assume Steele is an idiot. I assume the operation itself was corrupt from the start. Difference. He was hired to tell a story that would get a warrant. He was hired to find evidence to prove their conclusion - which is NOT how intelligence works. That's how WMD got so !@#$ed up in Iraq. Again, if you weren't an asshat fascist who understood history, context, and the American legal system you'd understand all you've done in this thread is reinforce the idea that you do not know what you're talking about. Thanks for the laugh. Now, when you want to get to dealing with any of the ACTUAL primary evidence I provided, please do so. Start by reading the FISC opinion linked above. Sound out the big words if you have to (and you will) and then explain to me why Rogers shut down the 702 access to the FBI CI division. If you can explain that, you will be on your way to unraveling how big of an asshat you actually are. 1
boyst Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Fascist says what? It's not preposterous when I can prove it - which I already have and will continue to do. As for the bolded - you're saying if I'm right about Mayer having written a spin piece for her USIC masters that it would STILL be a joke to call it as such. Why? Because you aren't interested in the truth, are you? You can't be if you make that kind of statement. Your bias is showing, Grant. The appeal to authority in this post is just comical. It's not about the rag the person writes for, it's about the article and the author. Something you'd understand if you were honest. You're not though. You're a fascist. See? DISHONESTY. The entire intelligence community is not in agreement with Clapper and Brennan - who are PROVEN LIARS. Even the vaunted NYT admitted as much: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C002095420CABEDDBEFD031A1507E261&gwt=pay So, you're already showing you don't understand this story and are a victim of propaganda. Then you double down by defending Clapper and Brennan? They're both liars. That's not me saying they're liars. It's PROVEN: That was perjury, Grant. His record is one of LYING TO CONGRESS TO COVER UP HIS OWN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate Now you want to take the words of two known and proven liars because of their title? They have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF LYING TO COVER UP THEIR OWN MISDEEDS but this time they're telling the truth right? Riiiight. Just like your sorting method for good journalism and propaganda revolves entirely around corporate name on the cover. That's why your analysis is a joke. That's why you're a joke. You know how I know the entire IC isn't in agreement? One, because I can read. and Two because I've been interviewing dozens of them for the past year. You know what's more insulting? When the people who swore oaths to preserve and defend the constitution ABUSE THEIR POWERS TO FEATHER THEIR OWN NESTS. Which is the track records of Brennan and Clapper. That's the ONLY thing they did in their tenures - besides weaken America and sell out our interests to the highest bidders.These are not two men you wish to go down defending. But you're doing so because they're convenient to your politics. See, because you're an asshat who doesn't bother to read or think for himself, you'd understand that I'm not coming at this from a place of ignorance or inexperience. Unlike you. Do the research I've done. I've made it simple for you to do that. Track down people I've talked to. Hear their stories. Then we can talk about what's insulting to the men and women of the IC. Of course it's frustrating to you, you're a fascist who already made it clear that EXPERTS can only be people with fancy titles or who work for specific outfits. You overlook the fact one can, and should, work to become their own expert. That's intellectual laziness, and your piss poor reasoning and logic are demonstrating why it's a habit we should effort to break, not reinforce. No. You're wrong and she's wrong. His credibility has NOTHING to do with the dossier's claims because HE'S NOT THE WITNESS. It's about the standard for evidence, asshat. Steele's credibility has nothing to do with the credibility of the people SHARING INFORMATION IN THE DOSSIER. The dossier is UNCONFIRMED because it's second and third hand hearsay. Courts have rules about this kind of evidence. Nothing in the Steele dossier is acceptable as evidence simply because Steele is credible. If you read more than propaganda, or had any understanding of the law, you'd know this. And gossip is NOT how intelligence is gathered. You'd know that if you knew anything about the IC world - but you don't. And it's clear. No. I don't assume Steele is an idiot. I assume the operation itself was corrupt from the start. Difference. He was hired to tell a story that would get a warrant. He was hired to find evidence to prove their conclusion - which is NOT how intelligence works. That's how WMD got so !@#$ed up in Iraq. Again, if you weren't an asshat fascist who understood history, context, and the American legal system you'd understand all you've done in this thread is reinforce the idea that you do not know what you're talking about. Thanks for the laugh. Now, when you want to get to dealing with any of the ACTUAL primary evidence I provided, please do so. Start by reading the FISC opinion linked above. Sound out the big words if you have to (and you will) and then explain to me why Rogers shut down the 702 access to the FBI CI division. If you can explain that, you will be on your way to unraveling how big of an asshat you actually are. Stop giving the !@#$ credit he doesn't deserve dude. The faster we ignore idiots the faster they go away
LA Grant Posted March 10, 2018 Author Posted March 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Fascist says what? It's not preposterous when I can prove it - which I already have and will continue to do. As for the bolded - you're saying if I'm right about Mayer having written a spin piece for her USIC masters that it would STILL be a joke to call it as such. Why? Because you aren't interested in the truth, are you? You can't be if you make that kind of statement. Your bias is showing, Grant. The appeal to authority in this post is just comical. It's not about the rag the person writes for, it's about the article and the author. Something you'd understand if you were honest. You're not though. You're a fascist. You are a kook. It's about the article and the author is exactly what I'm saying. Mayer has a world-class reputation as an investigative journalist and this article is in her area of expertise. The idea that I'm a fascist when you're working overtime to maintain a narrative that a President who likely committed treason is actually innocent is preposterous. He's literally already talked in public about the possibility of being "president for life" and one of his options if indicted by Mueller may be to bomb North Korea, say there's no room for elections due to the circumstances, and suspend elections or some other nightmare scenario, but in that case, you'd say that would be a win. Fascist dictatorship is the slippery slope Trump could lead us down, and you're helping him. Everything you're chirping is "no, down is up! no! look! i've proved it! down is up!" which you're sadly unable to see because your head is so far up your ass. It's why you only post from loony outlets who have not earned any trust whatsoever, yet you trust them implicitly. Your bias is showing, you fool. Quote You know how I know the entire IC isn't in agreement? One, because I can read. and Two because I've been interviewing dozens of them for the past year. ... Do the research I've done. I've made it simple for you to do that. Track down people I've talked to. Hear their stories. Who, where, and how? Quote You know what's more insulting? When the people who swore oaths to preserve and defend the constitution ABUSE THEIR POWERS TO FEATHER THEIR OWN NESTS. Which is the track records of Brennan and Clapper. That's the ONLY thing they did in their tenures - besides weaken America and sell out our interests to the highest bidders.These are not two men you wish to go down defending. But you're doing so because they're convenient to your politics. This sounds like a description of what the Trump campaign would be guilty of doing, no? Quote Of course it's frustrating to you, you're a fascist who already made it clear that EXPERTS can only be people with fancy titles or who work for specific outfits. You overlook the fact one can, and should, work to become their own expert. That's intellectual laziness, and your piss poor reasoning and logic are demonstrating why it's a habit we should effort to break, not reinforce. Er, no... lol. It's not because it's in "The New Yorker" versus "The Federalist." It's because one has demonstrated journalistic ethics, time and again, whereas the other has not. It's this exact reason that I'm more inclined to believe Jane Mayer, proven expert, than Deranged Rhino, guy on message board who says he's an expert. You've spent a lot of time researching, I'll certainly give you that. My mind isn't closed to your theories, they just don't appear to have validity. I don't think we have the full story yet, but the pieces we have are damning. Your version is that the pieces go in a different order to support a different conclusion. It reeks of bias to me, and honestly it looks more like it's about you being unable to see reality because of your ego. I'm sure you will flip that around and say that I'm doing the same thing, but I haven't been doubling down on an alternate narrative for the last year, so I'm less invested in the story "needing" to be a certain way. You've closed your mind, it appears. Quote No. You're wrong and she's wrong. His credibility has NOTHING to do with the dossier's claims because HE'S NOT THE WITNESS. It's about the standard for evidence, asshat. Steele's credibility has nothing to do with the credibility of the people SHARING INFORMATION IN THE DOSSIER. The dossier is UNCONFIRMED because it's second and third hand hearsay. Courts have rules about this kind of evidence. Nothing in the Steele dossier is acceptable as evidence simply because Steele is credible. Didn't FISA approve the warrant based on the credibility of Steele's sources? The article also provides multiple specific examples of when Steele & Orbis' network lead to actionable evidence. As for the dossier being unconfirmed, we'll have to wait to find out at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation. Quote And gossip is NOT how intelligence is gathered. You'd know that if you knew anything about the IC world - but you don't. And it's clear. Okay. How is intelligence gathered? Quote No. I don't assume Steele is an idiot. I assume the operation itself was corrupt from the start. Difference. He was hired to tell a story that would get a warrant. He was hired to find evidence to prove their conclusion - which is NOT how intelligence works. That's how WMD got so !@#$ed up in Iraq. Again, if you weren't an asshat fascist who understood history, context, and the American legal system you'd understand all you've done in this thread is reinforce the idea that you do not know what you're talking about. Is it possible your assumption is wrong? Or no? Totally impossible? He was hired to investigate Trump's links to Russia, and wasn't first hired by the Clinton law firm. They didn't know what they would find. They found what they found. I looked through this timeline. This is what you said is more credible. https://view.publitas.com/galacticredpill/!@#$ery-timeline/page/1 It's full of wacky assumptions, including that Mueller is on Team Trump, although there's no way to shake you from that belief until it all shakes out. I can see that. Maybe you could instead tell me why is this more credible than Jane Mayer's report? From the article: Quote In the spring of 2016, Steele got a call from Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal who, in 2011, had left journalism to co-found Fusion GPS. Simpson was hoping that Steele could help Fusion follow some difficult leads on Trump’s ties to Russia. Simpson said that he was working for a law firm, but didn’t name the ultimate client. The funding for the project originally came from an organization financed by the New York investor Paul Singer, a Republican who disliked Trump. But, after it became clear that Trump would win the Republican nomination, Singer dropped out. At that point, Fusion persuaded Marc Elias, the general counsel for the Clinton campaign, to subsidize the unfinished research. This bipartisan funding history belies the argument that the research was corrupted by its sponsorship. Steele and Simpson had previously worked together, and they shared a mutual fascination with Russian oligarchs and international organized crime. They had symbiotic approaches. Fusion focussed on open-source research—mind-numbing dives into the fine print of public records. Steele’s specialty was gathering intelligence from informed sources, many of them Russian. Singer has historically been a big spender for conservative causes & Republican candidates. Edited March 10, 2018 by LA Grant 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 8 minutes ago, LA Grant said: You are a kook. It's about the article and the author is exactly what I'm saying. Mayer has a world-class reputation as an investigative journalist and this article is in her area of expertise. And yet me, a nobody, can prove she's wrong or misleading about nearly everything she writes in this article. I can, and have, objectively proven it. That's not kooky. That's reality. 10 minutes ago, LA Grant said: The idea that I'm a fascist when you're working overtime to maintain a narrative that a President who likely committed treason is actually innocent is preposterous. That's exactly the argument a fascist would make. I'm not working overtime to maintain a narrative for Trump. I'm working overtime to defend the republic and the constitution. Not for Trump, but for all of us. You've never bothered to figure that out because you're stuck in a partisan duality that's left you deaf, dumb, and blind. I've literally spent years on this site alone writing about my opinions on mass surveillance and the possible abuses of it. This story IS THAT. This isn't about Russia. It's not about Trump. It's about a presidential administration weaponizing the USIC against political opposition. Regardless of your party choice, that's a danger TO ALL OF US. Each and every one. That means we have no voice. It means we have no say. If we just overlook and say, "ah, it was Obama so who cares" we are putting the final nail in the coffin of our Republic and surrendering to an oligarchical authoritarian socialist "democracy", in which "democracy" is just branding. This isn't conspiracy. It happened. That's what's been covered up by a compliant MSM and a DNC apparatus that's pushing partisan division to deflect from the real story. And that's a REAL threat to the country, Grant. It has nothing to do with Trump. I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Tusli !@#$ing Gabbard. 14 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Everything you're chirping is "no, down is up! no! look! i've proved it! down is up!" which you're sadly unable to see because your head is so far up your ass. It's why you only post from loony outlets who have not earned any trust whatsoever, yet you trust them implicitly. Your bias is showing, you fool. Again, I post plenty of primary sources and testimony. You're lying now. Why? Because you can't argue the facts of the case with me. 16 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Who, where, and how? It's my job. I'm a professional writer who gets paid to interview interesting people. This has been detailed in numerous threads. 16 minutes ago, LA Grant said: You've spent a lot of time researching, I'll certainly give you that. My mind isn't closed to your theories, they just don't appear to have validity. Of the two of us, I'm the only one who's provided first hand sources and facts (not just opinion pieces). But you're welcome to dismiss me. I've said from the beginning I'm more than open to being proven wrong. This isn't about being first, or being "right" on an anonymous message board that's read by a few hundred people. It's about sharing information with a community I care about. What they choose to do with that information is entirely up to them. 19 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Your version is that the pieces go in a different order to support a different conclusion. My version relies on primary source material, an understanding and background in the law, and first hand on the ground research done with real intelligence professionals both in the USIC and in private contracting. Your version doesn't want to discuss those facts or primary sources because you've already married yourself to a narrative. I'm open to being proven wrong, I go where the evidence leads me. After a year of investigation there isn't one shred of evidence for actual collusion between Trump and Russia to fix the election. Not one piece. After a year of investigation I have hundreds of pages of articles I've written which rely on primary source material and interviews - many which have been chronicled here for that same time period. Again, you and everyone else is encouraged to NOT take my word for it alone. Confirm what I'm saying for yourself by reading the links and open source material available. 23 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Didn't FISA approve the warrant based on the credibility of Steele's sources? The article also provides multiple specific examples of when Steele & Orbis' network lead to actionable evidence. This is where your ignorance of the law shows. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/5/mccarthy-steeles-reputation-irrelevant-its-his-ano/ Quote Here’s the problem: Steele is not the source of the information. For purposes of the warrant application, he is the purveyor of information from other sources. The actual sources of the information are Steele’s informants — anonymous Russians providing accounts based on hearsay three- and four-times removed from people said to have observed the events alleged. An example makes the point. Say I’m a prosecutor in a narcotics investigation. My DEA case agent is simply the best — many times rewarded by his agency and the Justice Department for his competence, diligence, and expert knowledge of how international drug cartels work. The agent brings me information that three of his sources have told him X is using a shipping container to import cocaine. I thus want to get a search warrant for the shipping container. When the court asks me what my probable cause is, I don’t get to say, “Gee, Judge, I have this fabulous investigative agent who’s got more performance awards than Tom Brady has touchdown passes. He tells me his informants are certain about the container.” If I try that, the judge — assuming he remains calm and doesn’t throw the warrant application in my face — either sends me back to law school or patiently explains that the issue is not the credibility of my investigative agent; it’s the credibility of my investigative agent’s informants. Similarly, if the informants were shown in the application to be creditworthy, it would not matter that my case agent had been fired for dishonesty or incompetence. This is the truly outrageous thing about the Steele dossier saga that I am surprised commentators don’t, or won’t, see. In the case of these FISA applications, the principal problem is not Steele himself but his information. We can never even get to the task of evaluating whether Steele’s anonymous, Russian, multiple-hearsay sources have some bias against Trump or Page. We don’t know who the sources are, and the FBI seems never to have corroborated them. In other words, Steele could be Mother Teresa or Eliott Ness, it doesn’t matter. If his sources weren’t properly vetted, or for that matter even properly identified, they are garbage. And the intelligence they provide is worse than garbage, it is irrelevant in the context of obtaining a warrant to spy on an American citizen. 33 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Okay. How is intelligence gathered? By trained professionals who risk their lives to not only collect the intelligence, but effort to determine its veracity before passing it up the chain. Not by !@#$ing gossip and unconfirmed sources. 36 minutes ago, LA Grant said: I can see that. Maybe you could instead tell me why is this more credible than Jane Mayer's report? Because it's a known fact, from multiple sources including Simpson's own testimony, that Steele wasn't hired until after Perkins Coie and the HRC campaign hired Fusion GPS. The work that was done for the Washington Beacon before then had nothing to do with Steele's work. You're talking about kooky - yet once again you're operating from a place of fantasy while the facts are with me. 1
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 54 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: By trained professionals who risk their lives to not only collect the intelligence, but effort to determine its veracity before passing it up the chain. Not by !@#$ing gossip and unconfirmed sources. But what about the National Enquirer? That collects gossip, and it's part of the federal government - it's got "National" right in the name! 1
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 This thread needs to die. DR has been doing yeoman's work here re the deep state and Grant the nitwit is not only interfering with that work but boring the hell out of everyone but Busey. Busey is still trying to get through the OP so he thinks Grant is one smart fellow. 1
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: This thread needs to die. DR has been doing yeoman's work here re the deep state and Grant the nitwit is not only interfering with that work but boring the hell out of everyone but Busey. Busey is still trying to get through the OP so he thinks Grant is one smart fellow. Don't read his bull **** and you won't be bored by it.
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2018 Posted March 10, 2018 8 minutes ago, DC Tom said: But what about the National Enquirer? That collects gossip, and it's part of the federal government - it's got "National" right in the name! The National Enquirer is the investigative arm of The Federal Reserve. Remember, it all comes back to those Reserves who protect our rear and flanks. 1
LA Grant Posted March 10, 2018 Author Posted March 10, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Again, I post plenty of primary sources and testimony. You're lying now. ... It's my job. I'm a professional writer who gets paid to interview interesting people. This has been detailed in numerous threads. ... Of the two of us, I'm the only one who's provided first hand sources and facts (not just opinion pieces). ... My version relies on primary source material, an understanding and background in the law, and first hand on the ground research done with real intelligence professionals both in the USIC and in private contracting. ... After a year of investigation I have hundreds of pages of articles I've written which rely on primary source material and interviews - many which have been chronicled here for that same time period. Where can I read your work? I haven't read all 22,000 of your posts but I've probably read.... well, a lot of them. If you have published work, I'd be happy to read, particularly the ones with interviews. The posts of yours here that I have read didn't include first-hand sources or interviews. Most of them have been links to opinion pieces. In fact, your post that I'm responding to right now includes a link to an opinion piece from the Washington Times. It's right there at the top. Quote This is where your ignorance of the law shows. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/5/mccarthy-steeles-reputation-irrelevant-its-his-ano/ Right. So this is McCarthy saying the same thing you were a moment ago — that what matters is the people Steele talked to, and the credibility of those sources. But I've yet to see anything that shows his sources to be anything but credible. I've seen you calling it gossip and doubting his methods and sources and doubting those who have said they're credible, I've seen that. But where is the proof his sources are not credible? Seriously. I'm also wondering what credible looks like to you. What would that be? The FBI releasing the names & interviews of Steele's sources so they can be vetted by people online? Quote After a year of investigation there isn't one shred of evidence for actual collusion between Trump and Russia to fix the election. Not one piece. Really. Not one shred of evidence for collusion between Trump and Russia? Even with the indictments already claiming "unwitting" participation from his team with Russia, with the investigation still ongoing in multiple directions? You're the legal expert here so surely you've heard of a thing called "circumstantial evidence." Not one shred, though. ? Quote This isn't conspiracy. It happened. That's what's been covered up by a compliant MSM and a DNC apparatus that's pushing partisan division to deflect from the real story. And that's a REAL threat to the country, Grant. Okay. Is it possible the apparatus attempting a cover-up and pushing partisan division to deflect from the real story... is it possible... that might be the ones pushing the "don't believe the investigation, my client is innocent"? Or no? Not possible? Edited March 10, 2018 by LA Grant
LA Grant Posted March 10, 2018 Author Posted March 10, 2018 (edited) https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyers-seek-deal-with-mueller-to-speed-end-of-russia-probe-1520625944 Kinda strange for Trump to seek a deal to end Mueller's investigation early if the whole probe is a charade. ?Usually, not always, but usually defendants look to settle when they don't want to face trial because they're guilty and seek lenience. That's a strange strategy, since there's not a shred of evidence. Which makes it even weirder for Mueller to not agree to it, since he's secretly working on behalf of Team Trump to clear his name. ? As Tasker might say "why is this coming out now?" Probably just more of the charade, giving false confidence to the real criminals... like whoever actually killed Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman. I have it on good authority they're in on this, too. But the most perplexing thing is how all of the WSJ commenters seem to be insisting on the same alt-narrative as Rhino. I'm guessing they all did their own first hand on the ground research, which makes you wonder why the WSJ isn't just employing the commenters to write for them in the first place. ?But maybe the WSJ are part of the MSM plot, and this is propaganda. Then you have to wonder, why even allow commenters? How can the MSM cabal be so organized yet so inept to just let commenters expose their dastardly plot right there below the copy? What could be going on here? ??? Edited March 10, 2018 by LA Grant
Recommended Posts