Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Chucho]

She doesn't have it right.


What's the right way to have it?

[Pavlov]

What's the right way to have it?The FISA warrant did not depend solely on the dossier. Pretending it did is disingenuous. Also the Trump dipshits knew they were dealing directly with agents of the Russian government.

[TSA]

The FISA warrant did not depend solely on the dossier. Pretending it did is disingenuous. Also the Trump dipshits knew they were dealing directly with agents of the Russian government.

She didn’t say it depended solely on the dossier. So what did she get wrong?

[Chucho]

She didn’t say it depended solely on the dossier. So what did she get wrong?

So he doesn't have it right either? Can someone tell me what is "right" in this?

[Pavlov]

She didn’t say it depended solely on the dossier. So what did she get wrong?She sure didn't mention anything else, did she?

Also the Trump dipshits knew they were dealing directly with agents of the Russian government.

Also, what is your current conspiracy theory, TSA?

You've been dodging that for days.

[Pavlov]

So he doesn't have it right either? Can someone tell me what is "right" in this?He thinks leaving out crucial information is being right.

I'm all for getting all the information out there.

TSA is not.

[Chucho]

He thinks leaving out crucial information is being right.

I'm all for getting all the information out there.

TSA is not.

Thank you for the clarification and indulging me.

[Pavlov]

Thank you for the clarification and indulging me.Oversimplifying something like this works for Darrin.

[DarrinS]

996798328825417728

[Pavlov]

996798328825417728Which dossier information are you talking about, Darrin?

Be specific.

[TSA]

She sure didn't mention anything else, did she?

Also the Trump dipshits knew they were dealing directly with agents of the Russian government.

Also, what is your current conspiracy theory, TSA?

You've been dodging that for days.

My theory has always been this was a set up to frame Trump as colluding with Russians. No, I’m not going to walk you through it as it’s fluid. The Unraveling isn’t a single event.

Did government officials use unverified political oppo research from Russia to obtain a FISA warrant against a Trump campaign member yes or no?

[Pavlov]

My theory has always been this was a set up to frame Trump as colluding with Russians. No, I’m not going to walk you through it as it’s fluid. The Unraveling isn’t a single event.

Did government officials use unverified political oppo research from Russia to obtain a FISA warrant against a Trump campaign member yes or no?Yes.

Why can't you just say what your current theory is, TSA? We know you will change it as soon as blog tells you to. You're very obedient when it comes to that.

So tell us the current conspiracy theory with the caveat that you won't believe it in the future.

[TSA]

He thinks leaving out crucial information is being right.

I'm all for getting all the information out there.

TSA is not.

The people who have actually read the Page FISA application said the dossier was relied upon heavily. Would that make the dossier crucial to obtaining the warrant yes or no? What did McCabe say about the importance of the dossier and the granting of the warrant?

[Pavlov]

The people who have actually read the Page FISA application said the dossier was relied upon heavily. Would that make the dossier crucial to obtaining the warrant yes or no? What did McCabe say about the importance of the dossier and the granting of the warrant?I never said it wasn't important.

Tell us your current conspiracy theory that you will change as soon as you are told to.

[TSA]

Yes.

Why can't you just say what your current theory is, TSA? We know you will change it as soon as blog tells you to. You're very obedient when it comes to that.

So tell us the current conspiracy theory with the caveat that you won't believe it in the future.

I just told you what my theory was, you quoted it.

Is it standard practice to present unverified information to obtain a FISA warrant?

[TSA]

I never said it wasn't important.

Tell us your current conspiracy theory that you will change as soon as you are told to.

You try and downplay the role of the dossier every chance you get. Was the dossier important in obtaining the FISA warrant yes or no?

[Pavlov]

I just told you what my theory was, you quoted it.But how does that theory work?

If that's all you got after a year, you're worse than a 9/11 truther.


Is it standard practice to present unverified information to obtain a FISA warrant?Given the nature of FISA, I would say yes-- I believe unverified intelligence from reliable sources has often been used in FISA warrants. Enough to call it a standard practice. Sure. These are warrants for surveillance.

[boutons_deux]

Wasn't there a comment that Page was considered too stupid by the Russians to be of use?

[spurraider21]

what would the govt need to show to get a FISA warrant renewed?

[TSA]

But how does that theory work?i just told you I’m not going to walk you through it, you quoted that as well.




Given the nature of FISA, I would say yes-- I believe unverified intelligence from reliable sources has often been used in FISA warrants. Enough to call it a standard practice. Sure. These are warrants for surveillance.

Christoper Steele hadn’t been to Russia in a decade.
Christopher Steele was being paid by a firm that worked directly with Russian government officials.
Christopher Steele was so reliable he was dropped by the FBI for lying to them.

Can you provide some background information on how you came to the conclusion that it is standard practice to use unverified information to obtain a FISA warrant, specifically relying heavily on unverified information to obtain said warrant.

[spurraider21]

warrants are based on probable cause... its pretty circular to need proof before getting a warrant. getting proof is the very purpose of the warrant.

[spurraider21]

the only congressman who has read the full FISA warrant application has already said that none of this calls into question the integrity of the investigation or the mueller probe

[Pavlov]

i just told you I’m not going to walk you through it, you quoted that as well. Just say you have no idea how it could possibly work and you are praying that blog will tell you someday. I would respect that.


Christoper Steele hadn’t been to Russia in a decade.
Christopher Steele was being paid by a firm that worked directly with Russian government officials.
Christopher Steele was so reliable he was dropped by the FBI for lying to them.

Can you provide some background information on how you came to the conclusion that it is standard practice to use unverified information to obtain a FISA warrant, specifically relying heavily on unverified information to obtain said warrant.Yeah, they use it to spy on suspected terrorists.

That was easy.

[Chucho]

Wasn't there a comment that Page was considered too stupid by the Russians to be of use?

Unsure. Plenty of comments about how stupid you are right here on this very message board.

[Chucho]

warrants are based on probable cause... its pretty circular to need proof before getting a warrant. getting proof is the very purpose of the warrant.


Whoa, settle down there fella with all your big timing lawyer talk.

[Pavlov]

The sad truth is there is no way that TSA can cobble together anything resembling a workable conspiracy theory given all the known facts and as more becomes known, his chance to do so becomes even more remote.

It's just like 9/11.

[RandomGuy]

.
Christopher Steele was so reliable he was dropped by the FBI for lying to them.

:rollin Nunez claims

[Chucho]

The sad truth is there is no way that TSA can cobble together anything resembling a workable conspiracy theory given all the known facts and as more becomes known, his chance to do so becomes even more remote.

It's just like 9/11.

And the OIG report went absolutely nowhere too.

[Splits]

996766105975906304
:lmao jr

no collusion

[Pavlov]

what would the govt need to show to get a FISA warrant renewed?He will never answer this question.

One can debate the FISA application process, but what cannot be denied is that the standard for renewing the warrant is higher than that of the initial application. The Carter Page warrant passed that higher standard three times.

And that doesn't fit TSA's conspiracy nontheory.

[Splits]

996779255441784844
:lmao wow

no collusion

[Pavlov]

And the OIG report went absolutely nowhere too.It's not done yet, but judging from previous OIG reports like the one covering Fast and Furious, chances are it won't be everything Dennisonistas want it to be.

It has to be absolutely everything they want it to be in order for there to be anything close to an actual conspiracy.

[RandomGuy]

Can you provide some background information on how you came to the conclusion that it is standard practice to use unverified information to obtain a FISA warrant, specifically relying heavily on unverified information to obtain said warrant.

Can you provide some background information on how you came to the conclusion that the FISA warrant "heavily relied" on the Steele Dossier?

[Spurminator]

One can debate the FISA application process, but what cannot be denied is that the standard for renewing the warrant is higher than that of the initial application. The Carter Page warrant passed that higher standard three times.

FISA once ordered Verizon to turn over call information and metadata for all of its users. Essentially they used unverified suspicion against the entire (Verizon-using) population of the United States. Reasonable suspicion has been the standard since GWB expanded its powers in the mid-00's.

Trumpbots who don't like this should call for their representatives to rein in FISA's powers. They won't.

[Pavlov]

Can you provide some background information on how you came to the conclusion that the FISA warrant "heavily relied" on the Steele Dossier?The dossier was accurate to within a few percentage points on the Roseneft deal -- so that's verified and was probably the most relevant part of the dossier used in the Page application.

But pee pee.

[Chris]

The dossier was accurate to within a few percentage points on the Roseneft deal -- so that's verified and was probably the most relevant part of the dossier used in the Page application.

But pee pee.


996777359566131201

[RandomGuy]

Because you’re a dipshit who takes MSM reporting at face value.

The newest indictment has zero to do with Trump. The newest indictment is closely linked to the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, the Podesta Group, the White House counsel to Obama/assistant to the President and special counsel in the White House for Clinton (Craig), and the associate White House counsel to Clinton (Sloan). These were the people directly involved with Manafort and his work in Ukraine and what got him indicted. None of this had anything to with Trump.

They will, it just won’t be coming from your side.

Still waitin on that Clinton connection. :rollin

[Pavlov]

996777359566131201lol Chris literally did what I just said.

But thanks for clearing Obama of any wrongdoing RE: the dossier, I guess.

lol

[Chris]

996844302327336960

[Chris]

"By that weekend, as a result of consultations within these government agencies, Strzok was headed to London."

Interesting.

996808235196661760

[TSA]

And the OIG report went absolutely nowhere too.

The OIG report hasn't been released and the release date has been pushed back due to new information/witnesses.

[Splits]

The OIG report hasn't been released and the release date has been pushed back due to new information/witnesses.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c9454e8259b508f2d7a826/57602d14a3360cd18ee08896/58bb2b88d1758e6cdb863ea8/1490125114012/all+in.jpg?format=1000w

with a 2/7 off

[RandomGuy]

The dossier was accurate to within a few percentage points on the Roseneft deal -- so that's verified and was probably the most relevant part of the dossier used in the Page application.

But pee pee.


That is the problem for the people saying how politically motivated this thing is so it isn't trustworthy.

Everything that can be verified, has been.

[spurraider21]

996844302327336960
new york times good now

[TSA]

warrants are based on probable cause... its pretty circular to need proof before getting a warrant. getting proof is the very purpose of the warrant.

FISA warrants are held to a higher standard, especially a Title 1. Until Horowitz releases his findings on possible FISA abuse we are all just pissing in the wind.

[Pavlov]

996844302327336960CONFIMRED:

“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” said Mary McCord, a 20-year Justice Department veteran and the top national security prosecutor during much of the investigation’s first nine months....

“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” [Senator Marco Rubio] said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”

[Chris]

Chucho trying to come in here talking about OIG reports. gtfo scrub :lol

[TSA]

FISA once ordered Verizon to turn over call information and metadata for all of its users. Essentially they used unverified suspicion against the entire (Verizon-using) population of the United States. Reasonable suspicion has been the standard since GWB expanded its powers in the mid-00's.

Trumpbots who don't like this should call for their representatives to rein in FISA's powers. They won't.

:lol dipshit

Trumpbots called their representatives and did exactly that

https://intelligence.house.gov/fisa-702/

[Pavlov]

996808235196661760CONFIRMED:

In July, a retired British spy named Christopher Steele approached a friend in the F.B.I. overseas and provided reports linking Trump campaign officials to Russia. But the documents meandered around the F.B.I. organizational chart, former officials said. Only in mid-September, congressional investigators say, did the records reach the Crossfire Hurricane team.

[spurraider21]

FISA warrants are held to a higher standard, especially a Title 1. Until Horowitz releases his findings on possible FISA abuse we are all just pissing in the wind.
no, it's still probable cause

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

[Pavlov]

CONFIRMED:

In October, agents flew to Europe to interview him. But Mr. Steele had become frustrated by the F.B.I.’s slow response. He began sharing his findings in September and October with journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, according to congressional testimony.

So as agents tried to corroborate Mr. Steele’s information, reporters began calling the bureau, asking about his findings. If the F.B.I. was working against Mr. Trump, as he asserts, this was an opportunity to push embarrassing information into the news media shortly before the election.

That did not happen. News organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.

Conspiracy nontheory officially dieded today under the sheer weight of logic.

[TSA]

Can you provide some background information on how you came to the conclusion that the FISA warrant "heavily relied" on the Steele Dossier?

“The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier,”

“The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.”

Chuck Grassley-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman

[Chris]

Steele was frustrated :lol

[Pavlov]

Steele was frustrated :lollolWhiteChris didn't read the rest of it.

[Chris]

Report on DOJ’s Handling of Clinton Email Probe Nears Release


Subjects of report have been notified they can review the document and comment on any criticisms


https://images.wsj.net/im-10849?width=1260&aspect_ratio=1.5
Michael Horowitz, inspector general, Justice Department, in a July 2017 hearing before a Senate committee. PHOTO: RON SACHS/ZUMA PRESS



By Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman
Updated May 16, 2018 4:38 p.m. ET
16 COMMENTS
Multiple subjects of a report on the Justice Department’s handling of a 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use have been notified that they can privately review the report by week’s end, signaling the long-awaited document is nearing release.

The report is likely to reignite the volatile debate over the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton probe, and it will put Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, in a familiar place—taking aim at members of the law enforcement community.

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks.

Mr. Horowitz told lawmakers last month he expected to issue the report in May, but Tuesday’s notification is the first indication that Mr. Horowitz has largely completed his inquiry. Congressional committees are expected to review the report in coming weeks.

Mr. Horowitz’s office issued a related report last month, which laid the groundwork for the firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, finding that he misled investigators probing his role in providing information to a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Mr. McCabe disputed the allegations, which have been referred to the Washington U.S. attorney’s office to determine whether he should be charged with a crime.

The inspector general’s yearlong review is expected to yield sharp criticism of actions by several top officials, including former FBI Director James Comey’s announcement in July 2016 that Mrs. Clinton had been reckless with the nation’s secrets but he was recommending against prosecuting her.

The report is also expected to scrutinize whether Mr. McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation, since his wife’s campaign for the Virginia legislature was aided by then- Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally. And it is likely to criticize the numerous texts exchanged by two FBI employees critical of President Donald Trump and others.

Beyond that, the document’s release will shine an unusual spotlight on Mr. Horowitz, the Justice Department’s in-house watchdog since 2012.

Inspectors general, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, don’t automatically change with administrations, a way of maintaining their independence. Their probes often involve interviews with dozens of witnesses and can produce reports months or even years after a problem comes to light.

In January 2017, Mr. Horowitz announced a review of Mr. Comey’s public statements on the Clinton investigation and related matters. Since then, officials have been bracing for his report, which has occasionally been in the news, such as when he released the related report on Mr. McCabe last month.

The McCabe report drew the ire of one of Mr. Horowitz’s predecessors, Michael Bromwich, an attorney who now represents Mr. McCabe and who said he had evidence that contradicted the initial report’s findings.

No stranger to antagonizing his colleagues, Mr. Horowitz spent several years as chief of the public-corruption unit in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office in the 1990s. In that role he helped prosecute more than a dozen police officers from New York’s 30th Precinct who were accused of stealing money and drugs from criminal suspects and reselling the drugs.

He authorized the arrest of the officers just as a colleague was planning to use them as witnesses in a major drug case.

“It not only involved proceeding against law enforcement, which is your day-to-day partner in fighting crime...it also had negative impacts on other cases in the office, and needed to be handled with skill, sensitivity and all those things Michael has,” said Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney and Mr. Horowitz’s boss at the time.

Mr. Horowitz also served as an official at Justice Department headquarters in Washington and spent a decade in private practice. He was appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Sentencing Commission and nominated by President Barack Obama to the inspector general post, which his supporters cite as a sign of bipartisan respect.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Horowitz cited the police corruption case and another prosecution involving the Teamsters that also disrupted colleagues’ work, saying they showed he could maintain his independence from people he had worked with for many years.

“I wasn’t interested in winning popularity contests as the head of the corruption unit,” he said. “I was instructed by the U.S. attorney to doggedly pursue corruption, to be independent of the other units in the office, and that’s precisely what I did.”

At that hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) pressed Mr. Horowitz on whether he could be impartial toward the then-head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Lanny Breuer, whom Mr. Horowitz had publicly supported. Mr. Horowitz said he would pursue “every avenue in that case, no matter who’s involved.”

Several months later, Mr. Horowitz’s office released a report on the botched “Fast and Furious” gun-trafficking operation, in which officials lost track of guns sold to suspected smugglers. The report faulted Mr. Breuer for not promptly informing superiors about a similar operation he had learned of in 2010.

Some Obama Justice Department officials criticized that report as applying simplistic hindsight to complex episodes during which the proper course of action wasn’t always clear.

Officials generally say they expect Mr. Horowitz to reach good faith conclusions in the coming report. “Horowitz is open-minded and fair,” said Matthew Miller, who ran the Justice Department’s public affairs office when the “Fast and Furious” operation first became public.

Write to Aruna Viswanatha at [email protected]

Corrections & Amplifications
Michael Horowitz has been inspector general, Justice Department, since 2012. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that he started in the position in 2011. (May 16, 2018)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/report-nears-release-on-justice-departments-handling-of-probe-into-clinton-email-use-1526495401

[TSA]

no, it's still probable cause

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

Which brings us back to believing the FBI was able to show probable cause that Carter Page was an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities". That is fucking laughable. Until Horowitz releases his findings on possible FISA abuse we are all just pissing in the wind.

[spurraider21]

Which brings us back to believing the FBI was able to show probable cause that Carter Page was an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities". That is fucking laughable. Until Horowitz releases his findings on possible FISA abuse we are all just pissing in the wind.
well at least you're backtracking off your claim that the standard is higher than probable cause

you've been pissing in the wind for 1.5 years now

[Pavlov]

Which brings us back to believing the FBI was able to show probable cause that Carter Page was an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities". That is fucking laughable. Until Horowitz releases his findings on possible FISA abuse we are all just pissing in the wind.Nah, you could present a plausible conspiracy theory without the OIG report if one existed.

You can't.

You're the one that's pissing in the wind.

You're waiting for blog to read the report for you and tell you how to spin it.

[TSA]

well at least you're backtracking off your claim that the standard is higher than probable cause

you've been pissing in the wind for 1.5 years now

No backtracking, I said the standard is higher for a FISA warrant than a regular warrant.

you've been standing on the fence getting pissed on from both sides for 1.5 years now

[spurraider21]

No backtracking, I said the standard is higher for a FISA warrant than a regular warrant.

you've been standing on the fence getting pissed on from both sides for 1.5 years now
i said the standard is probable cause. you said it's a higher standard. i showed you the law that says the standard is probable cause.

i haven't made extravagant claims based on information i don't have. if that's fence sitting, then yeah, sure. i'll ive done is assess the info we currently have and go from there.

in the meantime, you still haven't told us the standard for having a fisa warrant renewed/extended and how it differs from the original application

[spurraider21]

No backtracking, I said the standard is higher for a FISA warrant than a regular warrant.

you've been standing on the fence getting pissed on from both sides for 1.5 years now
tell me though, before the OIG releases their report on the FISA process... if the report doesn't expose this whole thing as an obvious witch-hunt/setup/entrapment, are you going to point to some other unknown future event? as in, are you going to say "this doesn't mean anything! we're still waiting for _______"

or are you all-in on the OIG report? if not, tell me now what future events you'd be waiting on.

[Chucho]

Chucho trying to come in here talking about OIG reports. gtfo scrub :lol


You're "all in" on something that is going to be, at the very best, as ineffectual as the Mueller report. I'd bet my worthless ST account against your even more worthless ST account that this useless report doesn't net half the results as Mueller's investigation.

You're the absolute same person as djohn- a retarded partisan that doesn't understand what they're reciting 50% of the time and you're mind frame is wired to the "us vs them" rhetoric.

TSA isn't retarded, he has far fetched concepts and theories, but he understands what he's talking about. You, not so much and hence you're the punching bag you are here. You're the kind of Conservative that makes other people who do practice some conservative values re-think even identifying with these values because of the stink of the stigma you give them. You make Leftists feel the way people like Boots make Righties feel.

[spurraider21]

or you'll just write him off as an obama guy?

[spurraider21]

You're "all in" on something that is going to be, at the very best, as ineffectual as the Mueller report. I'd bet my worthless ST account against your even more worthless ST account that this useless report doesn't net half the results as Mueller's investigation.

You're the absolute same person as djohn- a retarded partisan that doesn't understand what they're reciting 50% of the time and you're mind frame is wired to the "us vs them" rhetoric.

TSA isn't retarded, he has far fetched concepts and theories, but he understands what he's talking about. You, not so much and hence you're the punching bag you are here. You're the kind of Conservative that makes other people who do practice some conservative values re-think even identifying with these values because of the stink of the stigma you give them. You make Leftists feel the way people like Boots make Righties feel.
dudleygetsdunkedonbyshaqandthenpushedtothegroundan dthenthrowstheballbackatshaq.gif

[Spurminator]

:lol dipshit

Trumpbots called their representatives and did exactly that

https://intelligence.house.gov/fisa-702/

I don't see how linking to Section 702, which was reauthorized in 2018 by a majority Republican vote, contradicts anything I said. Care to expand, dipshit?

Did Trumpbots call the wrong reps/Senators?

[TSA]

tell me though, before the OIG releases their report on the FISA process... if the report doesn't expose this whole thing as an obvious witch-hunt/setup/entrapment, are you going to point to some other unknown future event? as in, are you going to say "this doesn't mean anything! we're still waiting for _______"

or are you all-in on the OIG report? if not, tell me now what future events you'd be waiting on.

The OIG report on the FISA process isn't going to be out for a while, Sessions just recently told Horowitz to expand and investigate it. But yes I'm all in on the OIG report.

[Chris]

dudleygetsdunkedonbyshaqandthenpushedtothegroundan dthenthrowstheballbackatshaq.gif

FU_Yi37On1c

[TSA]

I don't see how linking to Section 702, which was reauthorized in 2018 by a majority Republican vote, contradicts anything I said. Care to expand, dipshit?

Did I need to link you to every single amendment Nunes added before it was passed?

[Pavlov]

The OIG report on the FISA process isn't going to be out for a while, Sessions just recently told Horowitz to expand and investigate it. But yes I'm all in on the OIG report.What's the best case OIG scenario that apparently would complete your conspiracy theory that is currently too fluid to discuss?

[Spurminator]

Did I need to link you to every single amendment Nunes added before it was passed?

No, you can just link to the one that stipulates that information must be verified prior to issuance of a FISA warrant.

[TSA]

What's the best case OIG scenario that apparently would complete your conspiracy theory that is currently too fluid to discuss?

Anyone who committed crimes is held accountable and charged accordingly.

[spurraider21]

Anyone who committed crimes is held accountable and charged accordingly.
so your best case scenario could be members of the trump campaign going down and having no democrats or clinton/obama loyalists being punished at all?

[Pavlov]

Anyone who committed crimes is held accountable and charged accordingly.So if it finds no one committed crimes and no one is charged with anything, that's the best case scenario for you?

lol

[Chris]

"So what you're saying is..."

Typical Liberal gibberish.

[TSA]

so your best case scenario could be members of the trump campaign going down and having no democrats or clinton/obama loyalists being punished at all?

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/doj-oig-investigation.jpg

Where exactly would crimes be uncovered by the OIG concerning Trump/Trump campaign considering the scope of their investigation?

[TSA]

So if it finds no one committed crimes and no one is charged with anything, that's the best case scenario for you?

lol

Already found crimes.

[Pavlov]

Already found crimes.process crimes bad now.

And what crimes are you praying for?

[TSA]

process crimes bad now.

And what crimes are you praying for?

I don't pray, I don't hope.

[Pavlov]

I don't pray, I don't hope.:lol of course you are hoping something big is going to come out of this OIG report. You'll look stupid if it doesn't.

Why lie about that?

[spurraider21]

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/doj-oig-investigation.jpg

Where exactly would crimes be uncovered by the OIG concerning Trump/Trump campaign considering the scope of their investigation?
i dont think the OIG would be finding the crimes itself... but you've been cheerleading for the OIG finding to essentially shut down the existing trump/russia investigation. if the OIG finds no crimes, and nobody get arrested, the trump/russia investigation will continue, and its plausible that people will be convicted.

but that could be your best case scenario, so hey

[spurraider21]

btw i dont think anybody here has called for the OIG investigation to be halted, i could be wrong though

[Brazil]

at the end of the day if trump was not president he would have been indicted by now, this is pretty much all we need to know

[Pavlov]

btw i dont think anybody here has called for the OIG investigation to be halted, i could be wrong thoughOn the contrary, I encourage this one. I keep pointing back to Fast and Furious, but that OIG report absolutely destroyed a slew of right wing conspiracies itself. I expect this one to do the same.

TSA will call for the Mueller investigation to be shut down when the right blog tells him to.

[DarrinS]

at the end of the day if trump was not president he would have been indicted by now, this is pretty much all we need to know

Indicted for what?

[Chris]

lol Brazil

[djohn2oo8]

996894472913981441
:lol Rudy

[boutons_deux]

NYT: Papadopoulos, Page Met With ‘Govt Informant’ Ahead Of Election

“At least one” U.S. government informant met with Trump campaign officials in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election,

the New York Times reported (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) Wednesday.


That person met “several times” with campaign national security advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos,

according to the report,

which offered no additional information on the informant’s identity or connection with U.S. authorities.


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/report-papadopoulos-page-met-government-informant-2016

[TSA]

NYT: Papadopoulos, Page Met With ‘Govt Informant’ Ahead Of Election



Halper is about to be exposed. Brennan immediately after. NYT unknowingly reporting on the set up :lol

[Chris]

996917899825590272
996917901683707904
996917903709499393
996917905815027714

[TSA]

996917899825590272
996917901683707904
996917903709499393
996917905815027714

I’m not going to refute her but I’ll tell you right now that she is wrong.

[Chris]

I’m not going to refute her but I’ll tell you right now that she is wrong.

The conflicting dates on Downer are the most compelling to me.

[Chris]

Here you go Reck


996920924552159232
996921182472486912
996921900629508096
996925295817998336
996925860731994113
996926435997634560
996927252406284288

[BD24]

You're "all in" on something that is going to be, at the very best, as ineffectual as the Mueller report. I'd bet my worthless ST account against your even more worthless ST account that this useless report doesn't net half the results as Mueller's investigation.

You're the absolute same person as djohn- a retarded partisan that doesn't understand what they're reciting 50% of the time and you're mind frame is wired to the "us vs them" rhetoric.

TSA isn't retarded, he has far fetched concepts and theories, but he understands what he's talking about. You, not so much and hence you're the punching bag you are here. You're the kind of Conservative that makes other people who do practice some conservative values re-think even identifying with these values because of the stink of the stigma you give them. You make Leftists feel the way people like Boots make Righties feel.
Fucking Savage and spot on :lol:worthy::worthy:

[Reck]

T-Rex baby.

[TSA]

The conflicting dates on Downer are the most compelling to me.

I was just fucking with you :lol

[Chris]

I was just fucking with you :lol

Damn it Jim! :lol

[Pavlov]

I’m not going to refute her but I’ll tell you right now that she is wrong.

I was just fucking with you :lol
Great, what's the correct conspiracy theory?

[Chris]

The 'HQ Special' :lol


996940512245493763

[Chris]

Who violated the NDA from the OIG draft to produce the NYT article? Guess it doesn't matter at this point, but it must be some pretty good stuff.

[Pavlov]

The 'HQ Special' :lol


996940512245493763:lol fired by his law firm.

[Chris]

Russian company indicted by Mueller responds, says he charged it with ‘make-believe crime’


https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/gettyimages-75719583-3-1280x720.jpg
A Russian company indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller is asking a federal judge to dismiss Mueller's charge against them, arguing it is a "make-believe crime." (Alex Wong/Getty Images)



One of the Russian companies special counsel Robert Mueller indicted in February asked a federal judge Monday to determine whether Mueller charged it with a “sham crime,” CNN reported.

In February, Mueller indicted three Russian companies — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, and Concord Catering — and 13 Russian individuals, accusing them of conspiring to interfere in the “US political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.”

What are the details?
Court documents show Concord Management alleged that foreign election interference is a “make-believe crime” that Mueller is using to “justify his own existence.”

Concord said Mueller’s motive is his desire “to indict a Russian — any Russian.”

Citing the fact the Department of Justice has “never brought any case like” Mueller’s to court, Concord accused Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein of having “rejected the history and integrity of the DOJ and instead licensed a Special Counsel who for all practical political purposes cannot be fired, to indict a case that has absolutely nothing to do with any links or coordination between any candidate and the Russian Government.”

Concord’s lawyers, Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, said they plan to ask the judge to dismiss the charge against them, explaining in exhaustive detail that Mueller’s indictment failed to prove, given judicial precedents, how Concord’s alleged actions violated a single federal statue.

In addition, Dubelier and Seikaly asked the judge to review the instructions Mueller gave the grand jury that indicted Concord and its co-defendants.

What’s the background?
So far, Concord is the only company or person listed in Mueller’s indictment to challenge the charges against them. Concord’s attorneys entered a plea of “not guilty” during the arraignment last week.

Because the case’s defendants are foreigners, Mueller and his team likely did not expect any of the indicted would challenge the crimes against them. That all changed last month when Concord’s lawyers surfaced, making a series of evidentiary requests from Mueller’s team, which they are entitled to do as counsel.

Some believe the lawyers only did so to obtain sensitive documents related to Mueller’s investigation. However, it’s clear the lawyers are determined to prove its client has been unfairly charged and that Mueller’s investigation is a sham.

Since the lawyers surfaced in court, Mueller has suffered many embarrassing stories. Just last week, it was revealed that one of the companies Mueller charged — Concord Catering — did not exist as a legal entity during the time period Mueller alleged it committed a crime against the U.S.

And earlier in May, a federal judge told Mueller’s team in court he suspects, given the evidence before him, that Mueller’s case against Paul Manafort really is not about Russian interference, but about using Manafort as a pawn in a larger scheme to prosecute or impeach President Donald Trump.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/05/15/russian-company-indicted-by-mueller-responds-says-he-charged-it-with-make-believe-crime

[Reck]

Chris holding a flag for det russians. Sad and funny at the same time.

[djohn2oo8]

996958598310846464
Rudy is a national gem

[Chris]

:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

996948177872879616
:lol

[Chris]

Giuliani is a straight shooter and pulls no punches just like Trump.

[djohn2oo8]

996749706381406209

[djohn2oo8]

996744158458105856

[djohn2oo8]

996747126238531584

[Pavlov]

996744158458105856I'm sure that number can be uncovered.

[djohn2oo8]

996854387241824257
:)

[AaronY]

Hope the clock has a really fucking long battery

[AaronY]

Or maybe its like one of those solar watches where it recharges and the battery lasts 50 years

[Chris]

996854387241824257
:)

:lmao

[monosylab1k]

Giuliani is a straight shooter and pulls no punches just like Trump.

:lmao

[Pavlov]

Giuliani is a straight shooter and pulls no punches just like Trump.
https://i.imgur.com/LozvAZ9.gif

[Brazil]

Indicted for what?

you tell me...

when your lawyer goes.. they won't indict my client not because he is innocent but because he is potus.. this tells me that if not for being president he would already have been indicted. don't you think ?

[Brazil]

lol Brazil

:lol 2/90 = 14%
:lol close enough come back
:lol all I need to know about you

[boutons_deux]

(white male supremacist) Bannon and Cambridge Analytica planned suppression of black voters, whistleblower tells Senate

“One of the things that provoked me to leave was discussions about ‘voter disengagement’ and the idea of targeting African Americans,” he said.

“I didn’t participate on any voter suppression programs, so I can’t comment on the specifics of those programs.”

“I can comment on their existence, and I can comment more generally on my understanding of what they were doing,”

“If it suited the client’s objective, the firm [SCL, Cambridge Analytica’s (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/cambridge-analytica/) parent company] was eager to capitalize on discontent and to stoke ethnic tensions,”

“Steve Bannon believes that politics is downstream from culture. They were seeking out companies to build an arsenal of weapons to fight a culture war,”

“Racial characteristics can be modeled and I’m not sure about the studies that my colleague here was referencing but we were able to get an AUC score, which is a way of measuring accuracy for race that was .89 I believe,”

https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/16/bannon-and-cambridge-analytica-planned-suppression-of-black-voters-whistleblower-tells-senate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29

So Cambridge Analytica and Pootin's troll army both targeted White Identity Politics / White Resentment for inflaming.

"studies have shown" the race was the top issue for Trash's base, with their fucked economic status/future coming after.

America's Original Sin of slavery (of blacks) is still a major part of the American Dream/Nightmare, augmented by browns, whom America has always screwed, indigenous or immigrants.

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32849486_2086714968088213_7840791080378302464_n.jp g?_nc_cat=0&oh=0a039787c4c22005b50950818e003fcd&oe=5B8E1B90

[djohn2oo8]

997113322192490497
"I have no deals in Russia" :lol

[DarrinS]

you tell me...

when your lawyer goes.. they won't indict my client not because he is innocent but because he is potus.. this tells me that if not for being president he would already have been indicted. don't you think ?

innocent or guilty of what exactly? Name the crime

[djohn2oo8]

innocent or guilty of what exactly? Name the crime

It has been named many times. Fuck your obtuseness. The self permaban will look good on you. Darryl.

[DarrinS]

It has been named many times. Fuck your obtuseness. The self permaban will look good on you. Darryl.

What is the crime?

[djohn2oo8]

What is the crime?

Already named it. Multiple times. Carry that Russian flag Darryl.

[djohn2oo8]

One has to wonder what his mindset is today. Keep the investigation going or shut it down.

[Brazil]

innocent or guilty of what exactly? Name the crime

ask Trump Lawyer, he brought it up not me.. Mueller won't indict Trump because he is president, the underline here is if he was a regular citizen, Mueller would have indicted him

[DarrinS]

Already named it. Multiple times. Carry that Russian flag Darryl.

Why can’t you name it?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao


ut the fact that the meeting was unproductive apparently did little to diminish the appreciation of the Agalarovs for Trump.

“I have a delivery question,” Goldstone wrote in an email the next day to Rhona Graff, Trump’s secretary. “Emin and Aras have a fairly sizable birthday gift for Mr. Trump and I would like to know exactly how and where we should deliver it on Tuesday.”

Goldstone later in his testimony described the gift as a large painting. After being told by Trump’s security chief, Keith Schiller, that there was now “TSA-style scanning and security” at Trump Tower, Goldstone arranged to have a New Jersey-based friend of Emin Agalarov deliver the gift, along with a personal note from Aras Agalarov to Trump.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-testimony-trump-tower-meeting-russians-details-ties-campaign-224925066.html

[RandomGuy]

Why can’t you name it?

Money laundering. Not sure how many times I have to step you through it.

Accepting gifts from foreign nationals during a campaign probably trigger others.

Obstruction of justice, also a crime.

Enough for impeachment, unless the presidents party betrays the country to protect itself. Not that will stop you from clapping your hands, singing happy songs, and keep pulling the lever for a group of people who put their interests over that of the country at every chance they get.

[djohn2oo8]

996783906136436737

[djohn2oo8]

Why can’t you name it?

Already did and you ignored it. Good to see that you supposedly don't care if Trump goes to jail :lol

[DarrinS]

Money laundering. Not sure how many times I have to step you through it.

Accepting gifts from foreign nationals during a campaign probably trigger others.

Obstruction of justice, also a crime.

Enough for impeachment, unless the presidents party betrays the country to protect itself. Not that will stop you from clapping your hands, singing happy songs, and keep pulling the lever for a group of people who put their interests over that of the country at every chance they get.


Yes, those are crimes. Has he been accused of those by Mueller?

[boutons_deux]

unless the presidents party betrays the country to protect itself

Repugs won't convict Trash, because all the Repugs care about is pleasing the oligarchy, and Trash's crimes, ethics, morals don't impinge.

[djohn2oo8]

Yes, those are crimes. Has he been accused of those by Mueller?

:lmao holy shit that goalpost move

[DarrinS]

996917898898649088

996917899825590272

996917900786069509

996917901683707904

996917902828699649

996917903709499393

996917904837722112

996917905815027714

[djohn2oo8]

Oh yeah Darrin surely doesn't care.

[Pavlov]

996917898898649088

996917899825590272

996917900786069509

996917901683707904

996917902828699649

996917903709499393

996917904837722112

996917905815027714lol wall of tweets already posted

What is your concern, Darrin?

And since I know you haven't, I suggest you read the actual NYT article and not just the spin.

[TSA]

996959979449016321

[djohn2oo8]

996959979449016321

Whats the new conspiracy theory?

[TSA]

997133375906369537

The Unraveling

[Pavlov]

996959979449016321Yeah, that's not what "spawned" it at all.

Nice spin attempt tho.

[djohn2oo8]

997151527725862912
All these Russians

[djohn2oo8]

997151537246896128

[TSA]

Yeah, that's not what "spawned" it at all.

Nice spin attempt tho.

Ok what "spawned" it?

[Pavlov]

Ok what "spawned" it?The NYT's guilt for running the "no ties" article.

Pretty simple.

[Pavlov]

997133375906369537

The UnravelingI'll ask again, TSA -- what is the conspiracy theory today and how does it work?

[TSA]

997133375906369537

The UnravelingHalper, a veteran of the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, unsolicitedly contacted Papadopoulos on Sept. 2 with an offer to fly the Trump associate to London for several nights to discuss a policy paper about energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel. Papadopoulos, who has worked on energy issues at various think tanks, accepted the offer and flew to London.

Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during that stay, having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, an Old London gentleman’s club frequented by international diplomats. They were accompanied by Halper’s assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos’s claims about his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges.

Papadopoulos wrote the paper and delivered it in early October. He was paid $3,000 for the work. Days before making that payment, Halper had finalized a contract with the Office of Net Assessment, the Pentagon’s think tank. Federal records show that Halper has been paid $928,800 since 2012 for work on four policy projects for the Pentagon

"Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos’s meetings with Halper, though not by the Trump associate, according to sources familiar with his version of events. The sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails. Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark."

[TSA]

The NYT's guilt for running the "no ties" article.

Pretty simple.

:rollin

[Pavlov]

Halper, a veteran of the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, unsolicitedly contacted Papadopoulos on Sept. 2 with an offer to fly the Trump associate to London for several nights to discuss a policy paper about energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel. Papadopoulos, who has worked on energy issues at various think tanks, accepted the offer and flew to London.

Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during that stay, having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, an Old London gentleman’s club frequented by international diplomats. They were accompanied by Halper’s assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos’s claims about his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges.

Papadopoulos wrote the paper and delivered it in early October. He was paid $3,000 for the work. Days before making that payment, Halper had finalized a contract with the Office of Net Assessment, the Pentagon’s think tank. Federal records show that Halper has been paid $928,800 since 2012 for work on four policy projects for the Pentagon

"Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos’s meetings with Halper, though not by the Trump associate, according to sources familiar with his version of events. The sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails. Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark."What is today's conspiracy theory and how does it work, TSA?

[boutons_deux]

Mueller's team issued new subpoenas, appear to be closing in on Roger Stone and the DNC hacking (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/16/1764842/-Mueller-s-team-issued-new-subpoenas-appear-to-be-closing-in-on-Roger-Stone-and-the-DNC-hacking)

During the campaign, Stone appeared on InfoWars to let viewers know WikiLeaks was about to drop the goods on Hillary Clinton.

Stone later denied any meeting, saying he was merely “joking” about the dinner with Assange.

It has been confirmed that Stone was privately communicating with the WikiLeaks account via direct messages on Twitter. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/roger-stones-secret-messages-with-wikileaks/554432/)

Now Robert Mueller’s team has issued subpoenas to Stone’s social media director.

Mueller also has been probing whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign may have helped Assange or the Russians time or target the release of hacked emails and other social media promoting Trump or critical of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Sullivan told Reuters that he heads Cyphoon.com, a social media firm, and "worked on the Trump campaign serving as Chief Strategist directly to Roger J. Stone Jr."

Was Roger Stone the conduit between the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks and the Russian hacking of the DNC?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/05/16/1764842/-Muellers-team-issued-new-subpoenas,-appear-to-be-closing-in-on-Roger-Stone-and-the-DNC-hacking?detail=emaildkre

[TSA]

What is today's conspiracy theory and how does it work, TSA?

your begging and ankle biting is pathetic

[Pavlov]

:rollinOh, the conspiracy you can't actually reveal or explain is the reason?

:rollin

[Pavlov]

your begging and ankle biting is patheticIt's a simple question that you can't answer.

What is today's conspiracy theory and how does it work, TSA?


Just say you can't explain your conspiracy theory or how it works. I will respect that.

[TSA]

It's a simple question that you can't answer.

What is today's conspiracy theory and how does it work, TSA?


Just say you can't explain your conspiracy theory or how it works. I will respect that.
You keep claiming I have a conspiracy theory, do tell me what my "conspiracy theory" is as you understand it.

[Pavlov]

You keep claiming I have a conspiracy theory, do tell me what my "conspiracy theory" is as you understand it.I don't understand it. It never makes any sense and changes with every blog you read.

That's why I am asking you for a third time today: What is today's conspiracy theory and how does it work, TSA?

Thank you in advance for being so forthright and honest about your theory.

[TSA]

I don't understand it. It never makes any sense and changes with every blog you read.

That's why I am asking you for a third time today: What is today's conspiracy theory and how does it work, TSA?

Thank you in advance for being so forthright and honest about your theory.

You claimed I have a conspiracy theory. Tell me what it is or stay clammed up.

[Pavlov]

You claimed I have a conspiracy theory.Yeah Spurtacular, I claimed you have a conspiracy theory.

And you already said you have one so you can't weasel out of it now.

I'm asking you what it is and how it works because your innuendo doesn't make any logical sense.

[RandomGuy]

997151527725862912
All these Russians

Remember when TSA was claiming no meetings ever took place? ah, good times.

[boutons_deux]

https://media.newyorker.com/cartoons/5afda36d57c31b66bfbd9d2d/master/w_1298,c_limit/DC051718.jpg

[TSA]

Yeah Spurtacular, I claimed you have a conspiracy theory.



:lol you clammed up quickly.

You claimed I have a conspiracy theory. Tell me what it is or stay clammed up.

[RandomGuy]

Susan Rice needs to be subpoenaed asap. Get this party started.

:rollin

[RandomGuy]

This thread will go down in Spurstalk history as the political forums GOAT when the only person indicted is Susan Rice

:rollin

[Pavlov]

:lol you clammed up quickly.

You claimed I have a conspiracy theory. Tell me what it is or stay clammed up.You admitted you have a conspiracy theory just yesterday. This is on the record.

The conspiracy theory is your claim.

Explain your theory and how it works or clam up quickly.

[TSA]

The New York Times published an article yesterday confirming the United States’ intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Here are a few quick takeaways.
1. FBI Officials Admit They Spied On Trump Campaign

The New York Times‘ story, headlined “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is a dry and gentle account of the FBI’s launch of extensive surveillance of affiliates of the Trump campaign. Whereas FBI officials and media enablers had previously downplayed claims that the Trump campaign had been surveiled, in this story we learn that it was more widespread than previously acknowledged:

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said…

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.

This is a stunning admission for those Americans worried that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies might use their powers to surveil, leak against, and target Americans simply for their political views or affiliations. As Sean Davis wrote, “The most amazing aspect about this article is how blasé it is about the fact that the Obama admin was actively spying on four affiliates of a rival political campaign weeks before an election.”

The story says the FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would “only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.” It is easy to understand how learning that the FBI was spying on one’s presidential campaign might reinforce claims of election-rigging.
2. Terrified About Looming Inspector General Report

People leak for a variety of reasons, including to inoculate themselves as much as they can. For example, only when the secret funders of Fusion GPS’s Russia-Trump-collusion dossier were about to be revealed was their identity leaked to friendly reporters in the Washington Post. In October of 2017 was it finally reported that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee secretly paid for the Russia dossier, hiding the arrangement by funneling the money through a law firm.

The friendly reporters at the Washington Post wrote the story gently, full of reassuring quotes to downplay its significance. The information only came about because House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes subpoenaed the bank records of Fusion GPS, over the objections of Democrats on the committee. Even in this Times story, Clinton’s secret funding was not mentioned.

Likewise, the admissions in this New York Times story are coming out now, years after selective leaks to compliant reporters, just before an inspector general report detailing some of these actions is slated to be released this month. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that people mentioned in the report are beginning to get previews of what it alleges. It’s reasonable to assume that much of the new information in the New York Times report relates to information that will be coming out in the inspector general report.

By working with friendly reporters, these leaking FBI officials can ensure the first story about their unprecedented spying on political opponents will downplay that spying and even attempt to justify it. Of note is the story’s claim that very few people even knew about the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, which means the leakers for this story come from a relatively small pool of people.
3. Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia

In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.

The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.

It is somewhat funny, then, to read what The New York Times buries in paragraph 70 of the story:

A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts.

No evidence of collusion after two years of investigation with unlimited resources? You don’t say! What could that mean?
4. Four Trump Affiliates Spied On

Thanks to the work of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee, Americans already learned that the FBI had secured a wiretap on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. That wiretap, which was renewed three times, was already controversial because it was secured in part through using the secretly funded opposition research document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The secret court that grants the wiretap was not told about Hillary Clinton or the DNC when the government applied for the wiretap or its renewals.

Now we learn that it wasn’t just Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy advisor, and a low-level advisor whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign. The bureau says Trump’s top foreign policy advisor and future national security advisor — a published critic of Russia — was surveiled because he spoke at an event in Russia sponsored by Russia Today, a government-sponsored media outlet.
5. Wiretaps, National Security Letters, and At Least One Spy

The surveillance didn’t just include wiretaps, but also national security letters and at least one government informant to spy on the campaign.:

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.

This paragraph is noteworthy for the way it describes spying on the campaign — “at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos” — before suggesting that might not be spying. The definition of spying is to secretly collect information, so it’s not really in dispute whether a government informant fits the bill.

Despite two years of investigation and surveillance, none of these men have been charged with anything even approaching treasonous collusion with Russia to steal a U.S. election.
6. More Leaks About a Top-Secret Government Informant

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently subpoenaed information from the FBI and Department of Justice. They did not publicly reveal what information they sought, but the Department of Justice responded by claiming that they were being extorted by congressional oversight. Then they leaked that they couldn’t share the information because it would jeopardize the life of a government informant. They also waged a public relations battle against HPSCI Chairman Nunes and committee staff.

But far from holding the information close to the vest, the government has repeatedly leaked information about this informant, and even that it was information about an informant that was being sought by Congress. From leaks of personally identifying information to the Washington Post, we’ve learned that this source works with the FBI and CIA, and is a U.S. citizen.

In The New York Times, additional information about a government informant leaked, including that the source met with Papadopoulos and Page to collect information. The information on an alleged source in the Trump campaign is so sensitive they can’t give it to Congress, but they can leak it to friendly press outlets like the Post and Times. It’s an odd posture for the Justice Department to take.

It is unknown at this point whether the informants were specifically sent by a U.S. agency or global partner, or whether the sources voluntarily provided information to the U.S. government.
7. Ignorance of Basic Facts

One thing that is surprising about the story is how many errors it contains. The problems begin in the second sentence, which claims Peter Strzok and another FBI agent were sent to London. The New York Times reports that “[t]heir assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.”

Of course, it was previously reported that Strzok had a meeting with the Australian ambassador. He describes the embassy where the meeting took place as the longest continually staffed embassy in London. The ambassador was previously reported to have had some information about a Trump advisor saying he’d heard that Russia had Clinton’s emails.

It’s also inaccurate to say this was “election meddling,” necessarily. Clinton had deleted 30,000 emails that were housed on her private server even though she was being investigated for mishandling classified information. This could be viewed as destruction of evidence. She claimed the emails had to do with yoga.

FBI Director James Comey specifically downplayed for the public the bureau’s belief that foreign countries had access to these emails. There is no evidence that Russia or any other country had these emails, and they were not released during the campaign. To describe this legitimate national security threat as “election meddling” is insufficient to the very problem for which Clinton was being investigated.

The story claims, “News organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.” That’s demonstrably untrue. Here’s an October 31, 2016, story headlined “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” It is sourced entirely to Steele. In September, Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff took a meeting with Steele then published “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin” on September 23, 2016. That story was even used in the Foreign Intelligence Service Act application against Page.

The New York Times writes, “Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. ‘I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,’ Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.”

There are multiple problems with this claim. For one, Strzok wrote that text in all caps with obvious eagerness. As the Wall Street Journal noted months ago, “Mr. Strzok emphasized the seriousness with which he viewed the allegations in a message to Ms. Page on Aug. 11, just a few days before the ‘insurance’ text. ‘OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS,’ he texted.”

For another, Strzok repeatedly talked about how important and time-sensitive he felt the investigation was. As Andrew McCarthy highlighted in his deep look at some of these texts, as Strzok prepared for his morning flight to London, he compared the investigations of Clinton and Trump by writing, “And damn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure that we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS.”

Another New York Times error was the claim, repeated twice, that Page “had previously been recruited by Russian spies.” In fact, while Russian agents had tried to recruit him, they failed to do so, and Page spoke at length with the FBI about the attempt before the agents were arrested or kicked out of the country.

The New York Times falsely reported that “Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them.” Comey has told multiple journalists that he specifically did not brief Trump on the Steele reports. He didn’t tell Trump there were reports, or who funded them. He didn’t tell him about the claims in the reports that the campaign was compromised. He only told him that there was a rumor Trump had paid prostitutes to urinate on a Moscow hotel bed that the Obamas had once slept in.

The story also repeats long-debunked claims about the Republican platform and Ukraine.
8. Insurance: How Does It Work?

The story reminds readers that Strzok once texted Page “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” The article says Trump thought this “insurance policy” referred to a plan to respond to the unlikely event of a Trump victory. It goes on:

But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.

Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.

It’s worth asking whether reporters understand how insurance works. As reader Matt noted, “The fundament intent of Insurance is ‘Indemnification.’ Restoring back to original condition prior to loss. Trump was the peril, MSM the adjuster & his impeachment, the policy limits.”

The article’s repeated claims that the FBI didn’t think Trump would win do not counter the notion that an “insurance policy” investigation was in the extremely rare case he might win. People don’t insure their property against fire damage because they expect it to happen so much as they can’t afford to fix things if it does happen.
9. Eavesdropping, Not Spying, And Other Friendly Claims

The story could not be friendlier to the FBI sources who are admitting what they did against the Trump campaign. A few examples:

“[P]rosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page,” The New York Times writes, making the wiretapped spying on an American citizen sound almost downright pleasant. When Comey briefs Trump only on the rumor about the prostitutes and urination, we’re told “he feared making this conversation a ‘J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,’ with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.” Reporters don’t ask, much less answer, why someone fearing a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation would go out of his way to create an extreme caricature of a J. Edgar Hoover situation.

The story also claimed, “they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department,” before using controversial political appointee Sally Yates to claim that there was nothing worrisome. In fact, the subtext of the entire story is that the FBI showed good judgment in its handling of the spying in 2016. Unfortunately, the on-the-record source used to substantiate this claim is Yates.

Yates, who was in the news for claiming with a straight face that she thought Flynn had committed a Logan Act violation, is quoted as saying, “Folks are very, very careful and serious about that [FISA] process. I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.” If Yates, who had to be fired for refusing to do her job under Trump, tells you things are on the up and up, apparently you can take it to the bank.
10. Affirms Fears of Politicized Intelligence

This New York Times story may have been designed to inoculate the FBI against revelations coming out of the inspector general report, but the net result was to affirm the fears of many Americans who are worried that the U.S. government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies abused their powers to surveil and target Americans simply for their political views and affiliations. The gathered information has been leaked to media for years, leading to damaged reputations, and the launch of limitless probes, but not any reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/17/10-key-takeaways-from-new-york-times-error-ridden-defense-of-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign/#.Wv1qT0mUqvc.twitter

[Pavlov]

:rollinLet's call that version 1.0 of TSA's conspiracy theory.

[Pavlov]

The New York Times published an article yesterday confirming the United States’ intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Here are a few quick takeaways.
1. FBI Officials Admit They Spied On Trump Campaign

The New York Times‘ story, headlined “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is a dry and gentle account of the FBI’s launch of extensive surveillance of affiliates of the Trump campaign. Whereas FBI officials and media enablers had previously downplayed claims that the Trump campaign had been surveiled, in this story we learn that it was more widespread than previously acknowledged:

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said…

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.

This is a stunning admission for those Americans worried that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies might use their powers to surveil, leak against, and target Americans simply for their political views or affiliations. As Sean Davis wrote, “The most amazing aspect about this article is how blasé it is about the fact that the Obama admin was actively spying on four affiliates of a rival political campaign weeks before an election.”

The story says the FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would “only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.” It is easy to understand how learning that the FBI was spying on one’s presidential campaign might reinforce claims of election-rigging.
2. Terrified About Looming Inspector General Report

People leak for a variety of reasons, including to inoculate themselves as much as they can. For example, only when the secret funders of Fusion GPS’s Russia-Trump-collusion dossier were about to be revealed was their identity leaked to friendly reporters in the Washington Post. In October of 2017 was it finally reported that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee secretly paid for the Russia dossier, hiding the arrangement by funneling the money through a law firm.

The friendly reporters at the Washington Post wrote the story gently, full of reassuring quotes to downplay its significance. The information only came about because House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes subpoenaed the bank records of Fusion GPS, over the objections of Democrats on the committee. Even in this Times story, Clinton’s secret funding was not mentioned.

Likewise, the admissions in this New York Times story are coming out now, years after selective leaks to compliant reporters, just before an inspector general report detailing some of these actions is slated to be released this month. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that people mentioned in the report are beginning to get previews of what it alleges. It’s reasonable to assume that much of the new information in the New York Times report relates to information that will be coming out in the inspector general report.

By working with friendly reporters, these leaking FBI officials can ensure the first story about their unprecedented spying on political opponents will downplay that spying and even attempt to justify it. Of note is the story’s claim that very few people even knew about the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, which means the leakers for this story come from a relatively small pool of people.
3. Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia

In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.

The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.

It is somewhat funny, then, to read what The New York Times buries in paragraph 70 of the story:

A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts.

No evidence of collusion after two years of investigation with unlimited resources? You don’t say! What could that mean?
4. Four Trump Affiliates Spied On

Thanks to the work of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee, Americans already learned that the FBI had secured a wiretap on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. That wiretap, which was renewed three times, was already controversial because it was secured in part through using the secretly funded opposition research document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The secret court that grants the wiretap was not told about Hillary Clinton or the DNC when the government applied for the wiretap or its renewals.

Now we learn that it wasn’t just Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy advisor, and a low-level advisor whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign. The bureau says Trump’s top foreign policy advisor and future national security advisor — a published critic of Russia — was surveiled because he spoke at an event in Russia sponsored by Russia Today, a government-sponsored media outlet.
5. Wiretaps, National Security Letters, and At Least One Spy

The surveillance didn’t just include wiretaps, but also national security letters and at least one government informant to spy on the campaign.:

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.

This paragraph is noteworthy for the way it describes spying on the campaign — “at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos” — before suggesting that might not be spying. The definition of spying is to secretly collect information, so it’s not really in dispute whether a government informant fits the bill.

Despite two years of investigation and surveillance, none of these men have been charged with anything even approaching treasonous collusion with Russia to steal a U.S. election.
6. More Leaks About a Top-Secret Government Informant

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently subpoenaed information from the FBI and Department of Justice. They did not publicly reveal what information they sought, but the Department of Justice responded by claiming that they were being extorted by congressional oversight. Then they leaked that they couldn’t share the information because it would jeopardize the life of a government informant. They also waged a public relations battle against HPSCI Chairman Nunes and committee staff.

But far from holding the information close to the vest, the government has repeatedly leaked information about this informant, and even that it was information about an informant that was being sought by Congress. From leaks of personally identifying information to the Washington Post, we’ve learned that this source works with the FBI and CIA, and is a U.S. citizen.

In The New York Times, additional information about a government informant leaked, including that the source met with Papadopoulos and Page to collect information. The information on an alleged source in the Trump campaign is so sensitive they can’t give it to Congress, but they can leak it to friendly press outlets like the Post and Times. It’s an odd posture for the Justice Department to take.

It is unknown at this point whether the informants were specifically sent by a U.S. agency or global partner, or whether the sources voluntarily provided information to the U.S. government.
7. Ignorance of Basic Facts

One thing that is surprising about the story is how many errors it contains. The problems begin in the second sentence, which claims Peter Strzok and another FBI agent were sent to London. The New York Times reports that “[t]heir assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.”

Of course, it was previously reported that Strzok had a meeting with the Australian ambassador. He describes the embassy where the meeting took place as the longest continually staffed embassy in London. The ambassador was previously reported to have had some information about a Trump advisor saying he’d heard that Russia had Clinton’s emails.

It’s also inaccurate to say this was “election meddling,” necessarily. Clinton had deleted 30,000 emails that were housed on her private server even though she was being investigated for mishandling classified information. This could be viewed as destruction of evidence. She claimed the emails had to do with yoga.

FBI Director James Comey specifically downplayed for the public the bureau’s belief that foreign countries had access to these emails. There is no evidence that Russia or any other country had these emails, and they were not released during the campaign. To describe this legitimate national security threat as “election meddling” is insufficient to the very problem for which Clinton was being investigated.

The story claims, “News organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.” That’s demonstrably untrue. Here’s an October 31, 2016, story headlined “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” It is sourced entirely to Steele. In September, Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff took a meeting with Steele then published “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin” on September 23, 2016. That story was even used in the Foreign Intelligence Service Act application against Page.

The New York Times writes, “Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. ‘I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,’ Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.”

There are multiple problems with this claim. For one, Strzok wrote that text in all caps with obvious eagerness. As the Wall Street Journal noted months ago, “Mr. Strzok emphasized the seriousness with which he viewed the allegations in a message to Ms. Page on Aug. 11, just a few days before the ‘insurance’ text. ‘OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS,’ he texted.”

For another, Strzok repeatedly talked about how important and time-sensitive he felt the investigation was. As Andrew McCarthy highlighted in his deep look at some of these texts, as Strzok prepared for his morning flight to London, he compared the investigations of Clinton and Trump by writing, “And damn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure that we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS.”

Another New York Times error was the claim, repeated twice, that Page “had previously been recruited by Russian spies.” In fact, while Russian agents had tried to recruit him, they failed to do so, and Page spoke at length with the FBI about the attempt before the agents were arrested or kicked out of the country.

The New York Times falsely reported that “Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them.” Comey has told multiple journalists that he specifically did not brief Trump on the Steele reports. He didn’t tell Trump there were reports, or who funded them. He didn’t tell him about the claims in the reports that the campaign was compromised. He only told him that there was a rumor Trump had paid prostitutes to urinate on a Moscow hotel bed that the Obamas had once slept in.

The story also repeats long-debunked claims about the Republican platform and Ukraine.
8. Insurance: How Does It Work?

The story reminds readers that Strzok once texted Page “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” The article says Trump thought this “insurance policy” referred to a plan to respond to the unlikely event of a Trump victory. It goes on:

But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.

Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.

It’s worth asking whether reporters understand how insurance works. As reader Matt noted, “The fundament intent of Insurance is ‘Indemnification.’ Restoring back to original condition prior to loss. Trump was the peril, MSM the adjuster & his impeachment, the policy limits.”

The article’s repeated claims that the FBI didn’t think Trump would win do not counter the notion that an “insurance policy” investigation was in the extremely rare case he might win. People don’t insure their property against fire damage because they expect it to happen so much as they can’t afford to fix things if it does happen.
9. Eavesdropping, Not Spying, And Other Friendly Claims

The story could not be friendlier to the FBI sources who are admitting what they did against the Trump campaign. A few examples:

“[P]rosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page,” The New York Times writes, making the wiretapped spying on an American citizen sound almost downright pleasant. When Comey briefs Trump only on the rumor about the prostitutes and urination, we’re told “he feared making this conversation a ‘J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,’ with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.” Reporters don’t ask, much less answer, why someone fearing a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation would go out of his way to create an extreme caricature of a J. Edgar Hoover situation.

The story also claimed, “they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department,” before using controversial political appointee Sally Yates to claim that there was nothing worrisome. In fact, the subtext of the entire story is that the FBI showed good judgment in its handling of the spying in 2016. Unfortunately, the on-the-record source used to substantiate this claim is Yates.

Yates, who was in the news for claiming with a straight face that she thought Flynn had committed a Logan Act violation, is quoted as saying, “Folks are very, very careful and serious about that [FISA] process. I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.” If Yates, who had to be fired for refusing to do her job under Trump, tells you things are on the up and up, apparently you can take it to the bank.
10. Affirms Fears of Politicized Intelligence

This New York Times story may have been designed to inoculate the FBI against revelations coming out of the inspector general report, but the net result was to affirm the fears of many Americans who are worried that the U.S. government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies abused their powers to surveil and target Americans simply for their political views and affiliations. The gathered information has been leaked to media for years, leading to damaged reputations, and the launch of limitless probes, but not any reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/17/10-key-takeaways-from-new-york-times-error-ridden-defense-of-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign/#.Wv1qT0mUqvc.twitter:lol another wall of spin.

What is your conspiracy theory and how does it work, TSA?

[TSA]

You admitted you have a conspiracy theory just yesterday. This is on the record.

The conspiracy theory is your claim.

Explain your theory and how it works or clam up quickly.

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.

[TSA]

:lol another wall of spin.

What exactly is the spin in that article?

[Pavlov]

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.Wait, are you now claiming you don't have a conspiracy theory?

:lmao

[Pavlov]

What exactly is the spin in that article?All of it.

lol gentry Breitbart

#whofundsthefederalist?

[TSA]

Wait, are you now claiming you don't have a conspiracy theory?

:lmao

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.

[Pavlov]

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.Are you now saying you have no conspiracy theory?

This is important.

[TSA]

Are you now saying you have no conspiracy theory?

This is important.

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.

[Pavlov]

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.Are you now saying you have no conspiracy theory?

Answer or clam up quickly.

[TSA]

Are you now saying you have no conspiracy theory?

Answer or clam up quickly.

The only one clamming up here is you when I ask you to back your claim up.

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.

[Pavlov]

The only one clamming up here is you when I ask you to back your claim up.

Please show the quote from yesterday with me on record admitting I have a conspiracy theory.


My theory has always been this was a set up to frame Trump as colluding with Russians.http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266387&page=976&p=9390745&viewfull=1#post9390745

Is this not a conspiracy theory, TSA?

Explain.

[RandomGuy]

I am offering $100 bets that Trump will neither be convicted of anything or resign.

It a great opportunity for you guys like Reck and djohn making these claims to make some easy money if you actually believe the shit you post.

Line up and put your money down bitches.

Be happy to pony up. "convicted" though is a hard stretch. Any legal fight will go for years. Not really a very feasible bet IMO.

[RandomGuy]

I was focusing more on Benghazi.

They can keep claiming Russian collusion for years but the facts will be out long before then. Top Dems are already starting to back away from the Russian collusion

heh. No, they didn't.

[Pavlov]

Now that we've established TSA in fact has a conspiracy theory, he can now explain it or clam up again.

[RandomGuy]

If Trump is impeached over this, I'll self-permaban :lol

That will be interesting.

[TSA]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266387&page=976&p=9390745&viewfull=1#post9390745

Is this not a conspiracy theory, TSA?

Explain.

It is not a conspiracy theory in the way you are trying to frame it (moon landing/9-11)

[spurraider21]

Now that we've established TSA in fact has a conspiracy theory, he can now explain it or clam up again.
he's going to wrestle over the semantics of what a conspiracy theory is, just like chris did in the novichok thread

[spurraider21]

damn he beat me to it by about 4 seconds

[Pavlov]

It is not a conspiracy theory in the way you are trying to frame it (moon landing/9-11)It's a theory that involves, no, requires a conspiracy.

It's a conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you'd be less defensive about it if you explained how your theory actually works given the facts that are known.

Or you can just clam up.

[TSA]

It's a theory that involves, no, requires a conspiracy.

It's a conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you'd be less defensive about it if you explained how your theory actually works given the facts that are known.

Or you can just clam up.

I've already explained what I think happened and have told you I don't care to explain it to you over and over again day after day when you repeatedly ask me to. In a nutshell it was a set up to frame Trump.

[Pavlov]

I've already explained what I think happened and have told you I don't care to explain it to you over and over again day after day when you repeatedly ask me to. In a nutshell it was a set up to frame Trump.So you're clamming up again.

Probably the best course of action since your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

It's ridiculous and I will ridicule you every time you try to pimp it.

You deserve it.

[spurraider21]

I've already explained what I think happened and have told you I don't care to explain it to you over and over again day after day when you repeatedly ask me to. In a nutshell it was a set up to frame Trump.
so you would agree that your theory is that a covert but influential organization is responsible for these events?

or that these political events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public?

[TSA]

So you're clamming up again.

Probably the best course of action since your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

It's ridiculous and I will ridicule you every time you try to pimp it.

You deserve it.

What is my conspiracy theory as you understand it?

[RandomGuy]

I'm trying to lose my shit here but you are being too much of a pussy and won't give out the information.

Who is implicated?
Who is being arrested?
What are they being charged with?

Remember when TSA's schtick was "no one is going to be charged with anything"?

[TSA]

so you would agree that your theory is that a covert but influential organization is responsible for these events?

or that these political events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public?

Thank you Merriam-Webster.

[Pavlov]

What is my conspiracy theory as you understand it?
A 70 year old professor who worked for Nixon, Reagan and Bush is the secret superspy of Obama's conspiracy to frame Trump.

The conspiracy includes actually allowing Trump to be elected by not releasing all the information they got on him before the election.

Because reasons.

Feel free to amend this description, or clam up and let it stand as your conspiracy theory.

[TSA]

Remember when TSA's schtick was "no one is going to be charged with anything"?

Remember when Mueller finally got an indictment for Trump/Russia election collusion?

[Pavlov]

Remember when Mueller finally got an indictment for Trump/Russia election collusion?Giuliani sure wrapped up the investigation in a couple weeks, didn't he?

[RandomGuy]

Everything is panning out as expected, not a single charge, indictment, or arrest. Even Flynn isn't in major trouble. :lol

hehehehehehehehehehe

or:

:lol

[TSA]

A 70 year old professor who worked for Nixon, Reagan and Bush is the secret superspy of Obama's conspiracy to frame Trump.

The conspiracy includes actually allowing Trump to be elected by not releasing all the information they got on him before the election.

Because reasons.

Feel free to amend this description, or clam up and let it stand as your conspiracy theory.

It's a bit more complicated than that but I'll let it stand :bobo

[TSA]

hehehehehehehehehehe

or:

:lol

Is there a single charge, indictment, or arrest concerning Trump colluding with Russia during the election yes or no?

And Flynn still isn't in major trouble.

[Pavlov]

It's a bit more complicated than thatIn what way?

Why does the conspiracy involve not releasing any information until well after the election?

[TSA]

In what way?

Why does the conspiracy involve not releasing any information until well after the election?

There was no verifiable damning information to release running up to the election. Clinton's campaign said they would not put out such information that could not be verified.

[Pavlov]

There was no verifiable damning information to release running up to the election. Clinton's campaign said they would not put out such information that could not be verified.The people you accuse of child trafficking and ritual sexual abuse somehow clutched their pearls when it came to leaking a story about prostitutes peeing on a bed?

[DarrinS]

A 70 year old professor who worked for Nixon, Reagan and Bush is the secret superspy of Obama's conspiracy to frame Trump.

The conspiracy includes actually allowing Trump to be elected by not releasing all the information they got on him before the election.

Because reasons.

Feel free to amend this description, or clam up and let it stand as your conspiracy theory.


Huh?

And lol “allowing”

[Pavlov]

Huh?

And lol “allowing”It's not my conspiracy theory.

TSA says it's accurate.

Let me know what your conspiracy theory is, Darrin.

[RandomGuy]

Remember when Mueller finally got an indictment for Trump/Russia election collusion?

Man, that is one rough bit of ground to plant your flag on. Low lying swamp with a nicely walled hill with clear fields of fire next to it.

You and the rest of the Trumpettes stay right there...

[TSA]

The people you accuse of child trafficking and ritual sexual abuse somehow clutched their pearls when it came to leaking a story about prostitutes peeing on a bed?

Clinton's campaign said they would not put out such information that could not be verified.

[RandomGuy]

Huh?

And lol “allowing”


It's a bit more complicated than that but I'll let it stand :bobo

[DarrinS]

It's not my conspiracy theory.

TSA says it's accurate.

Let me know what your conspiracy theory is, Darrin.


What’s your conspiracy on how Trump colluded with Russia?

[RandomGuy]

Clinton's campaign said they would not put out such information that could not be verified.

So your theory hinges on Hillary Clinton being principled. :lmao

Make up your damn mind.

[TSA]

Man, that is one rough bit of ground to plant your flag on. Low lying swamp with a nicely walled hill with clear fields of fire next to it.

You and the rest of the Trumpettes stay right there...

:lol make sure to IM when when Mueller finally gets one

[RandomGuy]

What’s your conspiracy on how Trump colluded with Russia?

I think that Cambridge analytica was given data from the RNC, which in turn was passed on to Russia to improve its targeting for its disinformation campaign.

I think various Russian oligarchs contributed money to more than a few dark PACs.

I think messaging was coordinated.

Does that all count as collusion?

[Pavlov]

Clinton's campaign said they would not put out such information that could not be verified.You believe the people you accuse of child trafficking and ritual sexual abuse somehow clutched their pearls when it came to leaking a story about prostitutes peeing on a bed?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

So your theory hinges on Hillary Clinton being principled. :lmao

Make up your damn mind.

Do you have a better explanation on why the Russian pee story wasn't released?

[spurraider21]

Thank you Merriam-Webster.
you're welcome, conspiracy theorist

[Pavlov]

What’s your conspiracy on how Trump colluded with Russia?I have already stated my theories several times.

Including when you demanded them about a week ago.

Now, let me know what your conspiracy theory is, Darrin.

[Pavlov]

Do you have a better explanation on why the Russian pee story wasn't released?Too busy trafficking children for ritual sex abuse.

[RandomGuy]

:lol make sure to IM when when Mueller finally gets one

(shrugs)

I would say it is more likely than not at this point given what we know. What will you do then? Make more excuses? Move the goalposts again?

[TSA]

(shrugs)

I would say it is more likely than not at this point given what we know. What will you do then? Make more excuses? Move the goalposts again?

The longer we go without Mueller indicting anyone concerning Trump/Russia election collusion somehow makes it more likely than not he will indict someone concerning Trump/Russia election collusion. Explain how that works.

[TSA]

I have already stated my theories several times.

What is your conspiracy theory for today?

[Pavlov]

What is your conspiracy theory for today?Sorry, it hasn't changed since day 1.

Yours has changed so much, you can't even explain it. You've clammed up and are bitter about it :lol

[TSA]

John Brennan’s ‘Exceptionally Sensitive’ Issue

Under John Brennan, the CIA operated as an opposition research outfit for the Hillary Clinton campaign. It appears from leaked news stories in the British press that Brennan’s oafish spying on Trump began around April 2016, right after Trump’s biggest primary victories. As it became urgently clear to Brennan that Trump was going to face off against Hillary, Brennan turned to “intelligence partners” in Europe for dirt on Trump. But they didn’t have any, save some pretty skimpy material on “contacts” between Trump campaign officials and Russians.

Whatever Brennan collected was so insubstantial that Robert Mueller hasn’t even interviewed him about it. Consider that for a second: Mueller was supposedly appointed to complete the counterintelligence probe into Trumpworld, and he hasn’t felt the need to talk to the father of it. Brennan has tried to explain this astonishing discrepancy away by vaguely saying that whatever Mueller needs he could find in “CIA files.”

Those files are no doubt as elliptical as the formal document starting the probe. It appears that Brennan’s alleged “tips” were too flaky and unofficial for the Obama administration to commit to print. Brennan had his own partisan hunches, fueled by his feverish hatred of Trump and perhaps a few spit-balling conversations with other Trump-hating spy chiefs abroad (the “special relationship” had turned sinister against Trump, as evident from Britain’s sorry role in this mess), but he had no evidence to meet any reasonable threshold for a counterintelligence probe of a presidential campaign, especially one undertaken by an administration supporting that candidate’s opponent. Brennan’s espionage against Trump was as audacious as a paranoid LBJ wiretapping Nixon’s campaign plane in the thick of a race against LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey.

In his own clumsy way, Brennan knew that he was treading on a political minefield. He referred to the FBI/CIA’s spying on the Trump campaign as an “exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue.” That helpful crumb comes from Russian Roulette, the book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff.

Brennan dimly understood that there would be hell to pay if it came out that Hillary partisans in the U.S. government were spying on her opponent’s campaign, making use of opposition research that she had purchased. But Brennan, who was auditioning to be Hillary’s CIA director and choking on his anger at the thought of Trump as president, couldn’t help himself apparently. From April 2016 to July 2016, according to leaked stories in the British press, he assembled a multi-agency taskforce that served as the beginnings of a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. During these months, he was “personally briefing” Obama on “Russian interference” — Brennan’s euphemism for spying on the Trump campaign — and was practically camped out at the White House. So in all likelihood Obama knew about and had given his blessing to Brennan’s dirt-digging.

The FBI’s liaison to Brennan was Peter Strzok, whose hatred for Trump equaled Brennan’s. But even Strzok knew that Brennan was blowing smoke about Trump-Russian collusion. Strzok would later tell his mistress that he sensed the probe would prove a crock — that “there’s no big there there.”

What’s valuable about the Corn/Isikoff account is that it inadvertently provides a picture of Brennan running an anti-Trump spying operation right out of Langley. Even after the FBI probe formally began in July 2016, Brennan was bringing CIA agents, FBI officials, and NSA officials into the same room at CIA headquarters to pool their anti-Trump hunches. To give these outrageous meetings a patina of respectability, Brennan invoked the post-9/11 rationale of interagency cooperation. Corn and Isikoff, obviously supportive of Brennan’s operation, use absurdly sanitized language to describe these meetings, but the shocking political import of them is still unmistakable:

Brennan spoke with FBI Director James Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the NSA, and asked them to dispatch to the CIA their experts to form a working group at Langley that would review the intelligence and figure out the full scope and nature of the Russian operation. Brennan was thinking about the lessons of the 9/11 attack. Al Qaeda had been able to pull off that operation partly because US intelligence agencies — several of which had collected bits of intelligence regarding the plotters before the attack — had not shared the material within the intelligence community. Brennan wanted a process in which NSA, FBI, and CIA experts could freely share with each other the information each agency had on the Russian operation — even the most sensitive information that tended not to be disseminated throughout the full intelligence community.

Brennan realized this was what he would later call “an exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue.” Here was an active counterintelligence case — already begun by the FBI — aiming at uncovering and stopping Russian covert activity in the middle of a US presidential campaign. And it included digging into whether it involved Americans in contact with Russia.

So until election day, the “working group at Langley” was trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign and wasn’t coming up with any. But Brennan didn’t want his efforts to go to waste, so he leaked to Senator Harry Reid the existence of the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. He couldn’t leak any damning findings from that probe because there weren’t any. But he could inflict political damage by getting Reid to tell the press darkly of the probe’s existence. He also got Reid to write a public letter to Comey about the probe, which was designed to deepen the FBI’s reliance on Hillary’s paid dirt-digger, Christopher Steele. Reid, as a reliable Democratic hack in the tank for Hillary, went along with Brennan’s scheme, but he felt manipulated enough by Brennan that he complained to Corn and Isikoff about Brennan’s odd intensity — an “ulterior motive” that Reid sensed in Brennan.

The scope of that ulterior motive encompassed several elements: a hysterical hatred of Trump (now on display in Brennan’s unhinged tweets), a desire to continue as CIA director under Hillary, and a special animus toward Michael Flynn, whose determination to rip up Obama’s “re-set” with the Islamic world, a matter near and dear to Brennan’s heart, sent him into red-faced rages. Brennan, notorious for his Islamophilia, had refused to take his oath as CIA director on the Bible, regarding that practice as the disgusting relic of a once-Christian America. He had played a leading role in Obama’s outreach to the Islamic world and saw Flynn as an odious threat to that work. What Brennan’s “working group at Langley” couldn’t achieve in nailing Flynn was accomplished later by Sally Yates and Comey through entrapment and Mueller’s leveraged prosecution in which he got Flynn to confess to a crime he didn’t commit.

Many questions in all of this remain unanswered, but this much is clear: John Brennan’s transformation of the CIA into a branch office of the Hillary campaign will go down as one of the grossest abuses in the agency’s history.

https://spectator.org/john-brennans-exceptionally-sensitive-issue/

[TSA]

Sorry, it hasn't changed since day 1.

Yours has changed so much, you can't even explain it. You've clammed up and are bitter about it :lol

What has been your conspiracy theory since day 1?

[Pavlov]

John Brennan’s ‘Exceptionally Sensitive’ Issue

Under John Brennan, the CIA operated as an opposition research outfit for the Hillary Clinton campaign. It appears from leaked news stories in the British press that Brennan’s oafish spying on Trump began around April 2016, right after Trump’s biggest primary victories. As it became urgently clear to Brennan that Trump was going to face off against Hillary, Brennan turned to “intelligence partners” in Europe for dirt on Trump. But they didn’t have any, save some pretty skimpy material on “contacts” between Trump campaign officials and Russians.

Whatever Brennan collected was so insubstantial that Robert Mueller hasn’t even interviewed him about it. Consider that for a second: Mueller was supposedly appointed to complete the counterintelligence probe into Trumpworld, and he hasn’t felt the need to talk to the father of it. Brennan has tried to explain this astonishing discrepancy away by vaguely saying that whatever Mueller needs he could find in “CIA files.”

Those files are no doubt as elliptical as the formal document starting the probe. It appears that Brennan’s alleged “tips” were too flaky and unofficial for the Obama administration to commit to print. Brennan had his own partisan hunches, fueled by his feverish hatred of Trump and perhaps a few spit-balling conversations with other Trump-hating spy chiefs abroad (the “special relationship” had turned sinister against Trump, as evident from Britain’s sorry role in this mess), but he had no evidence to meet any reasonable threshold for a counterintelligence probe of a presidential campaign, especially one undertaken by an administration supporting that candidate’s opponent. Brennan’s espionage against Trump was as audacious as a paranoid LBJ wiretapping Nixon’s campaign plane in the thick of a race against LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey.

In his own clumsy way, Brennan knew that he was treading on a political minefield. He referred to the FBI/CIA’s spying on the Trump campaign as an “exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue.” That helpful crumb comes from Russian Roulette, the book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff.

Brennan dimly understood that there would be hell to pay if it came out that Hillary partisans in the U.S. government were spying on her opponent’s campaign, making use of opposition research that she had purchased. But Brennan, who was auditioning to be Hillary’s CIA director and choking on his anger at the thought of Trump as president, couldn’t help himself apparently. From April 2016 to July 2016, according to leaked stories in the British press, he assembled a multi-agency taskforce that served as the beginnings of a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. During these months, he was “personally briefing” Obama on “Russian interference” — Brennan’s euphemism for spying on the Trump campaign — and was practically camped out at the White House. So in all likelihood Obama knew about and had given his blessing to Brennan’s dirt-digging.

The FBI’s liaison to Brennan was Peter Strzok, whose hatred for Trump equaled Brennan’s. But even Strzok knew that Brennan was blowing smoke about Trump-Russian collusion. Strzok would later tell his mistress that he sensed the probe would prove a crock — that “there’s no big there there.”

What’s valuable about the Corn/Isikoff account is that it inadvertently provides a picture of Brennan running an anti-Trump spying operation right out of Langley. Even after the FBI probe formally began in July 2016, Brennan was bringing CIA agents, FBI officials, and NSA officials into the same room at CIA headquarters to pool their anti-Trump hunches. To give these outrageous meetings a patina of respectability, Brennan invoked the post-9/11 rationale of interagency cooperation. Corn and Isikoff, obviously supportive of Brennan’s operation, use absurdly sanitized language to describe these meetings, but the shocking political import of them is still unmistakable:

Brennan spoke with FBI Director James Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the NSA, and asked them to dispatch to the CIA their experts to form a working group at Langley that would review the intelligence and figure out the full scope and nature of the Russian operation. Brennan was thinking about the lessons of the 9/11 attack. Al Qaeda had been able to pull off that operation partly because US intelligence agencies — several of which had collected bits of intelligence regarding the plotters before the attack — had not shared the material within the intelligence community. Brennan wanted a process in which NSA, FBI, and CIA experts could freely share with each other the information each agency had on the Russian operation — even the most sensitive information that tended not to be disseminated throughout the full intelligence community.

Brennan realized this was what he would later call “an exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue.” Here was an active counterintelligence case — already begun by the FBI — aiming at uncovering and stopping Russian covert activity in the middle of a US presidential campaign. And it included digging into whether it involved Americans in contact with Russia.

So until election day, the “working group at Langley” was trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign and wasn’t coming up with any. But Brennan didn’t want his efforts to go to waste, so he leaked to Senator Harry Reid the existence of the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. He couldn’t leak any damning findings from that probe because there weren’t any. But he could inflict political damage by getting Reid to tell the press darkly of the probe’s existence. He also got Reid to write a public letter to Comey about the probe, which was designed to deepen the FBI’s reliance on Hillary’s paid dirt-digger, Christopher Steele. Reid, as a reliable Democratic hack in the tank for Hillary, went along with Brennan’s scheme, but he felt manipulated enough by Brennan that he complained to Corn and Isikoff about Brennan’s odd intensity — an “ulterior motive” that Reid sensed in Brennan.

The scope of that ulterior motive encompassed several elements: a hysterical hatred of Trump (now on display in Brennan’s unhinged tweets), a desire to continue as CIA director under Hillary, and a special animus toward Michael Flynn, whose determination to rip up Obama’s “re-set” with the Islamic world, a matter near and dear to Brennan’s heart, sent him into red-faced rages. Brennan, notorious for his Islamophilia, had refused to take his oath as CIA director on the Bible, regarding that practice as the disgusting relic of a once-Christian America. He had played a leading role in Obama’s outreach to the Islamic world and saw Flynn as an odious threat to that work. What Brennan’s “working group at Langley” couldn’t achieve in nailing Flynn was accomplished later by Sally Yates and Comey through entrapment and Mueller’s leveraged prosecution in which he got Flynn to confess to a crime he didn’t commit.

Many questions in all of this remain unanswered, but this much is clear: John Brennan’s transformation of the CIA into a branch office of the Hillary campaign will go down as one of the grossest abuses in the agency’s history.

https://spectator.org/john-brennans-exceptionally-sensitive-issue/:lol more stupid spin

Foreign agencies were just passing shit on to the CIA. That's how the multi-agency probe I told you about three times got started. If Brennan was super rogue evil there's no way he would've involved multiple other agencies not under his control.

Unless you believe all the agencies were in on your conspiracy.

lol

[RandomGuy]

The longer we go without Mueller indicting anyone concerning Trump/Russia election collusion somehow makes it more likely than not he will indict someone concerning Trump/Russia election collusion. Explain how that works.

Strawman.

Nothing to explain, since that isn't what I was saying.

More like than not means that from what we do know about meetings and backchannels the likelihood of something illegal happening is pretty great. Enough collaborating witnesses like Flynn and Papawhateverthefuck, and eventually Manafort you can build a pretty fair case.

There is an awful lot about what Mueller has found that we don't know, or only find out about months after Mueller did.

[RandomGuy]

The longer we go without Mueller indicting anyone concerning Trump/Russia election collusion somehow makes it more likely than not he will indict someone concerning Trump/Russia election collusion. Explain how that works.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/atd-indictments-0514.png?w=575

[Spurminator]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/atd-indictments-0514.png?w=575

Fantastic chart

[Pavlov]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/atd-indictments-0514.png?w=575lol det Espy investigation

[TSA]

Sorry, it hasn't changed since day 1.

Yours has changed so much, you can't even explain it. You've clammed up and are bitter about it :lol

What has been your conspiracy theory since day 1?

[Pavlov]

What has been your conspiracy theory since day 1?Trump is too stupid to play an active part in a collusion scheme with the Russians RE: the election, but members of his campaign certainly could -- since one of their attempts to do just that is a matter of record. Their motivations are simple -- power and money. If he has any, Trump's legal exposure would be mainly financial (i.e. money laundering), blackmail related to the financial issues and obstruction-- crimes of stupidity, mainly.

You should bookmark that since you keep asking me the same question and I keep answering it the same.

[boutons_deux]

"Trump's legal exposure would be mainly financial"

I think Trash knew about, even encouraged his mafiya, to obtain any and all help from Pootin, but of course, he didn't report Pootin's meddling to the FBI, while, among other stuff, dictating that stupid coverup letter for Junior about the June 9 mtg with Russians.

Trash's inclination towards Russia, as Junior said years ago, was based on Russian oligarchs' $100Ms pouring into Trash's orgs, esp buying real estate to launder money.

[TSA]

Trump is too stupid to play an active part in a collusion scheme with the Russians RE: the election, but members of his campaign certainly could -- since one of their attempts to do just that is a matter of record. which attempt are you referring to?

[Pavlov]

We're going to find out whom Uday called the day of the meeting someday. If it's daddeh, he'll deserve everything that has happened up to now and more.

[Pavlov]

which attempt are you referring to?Adoptions, of course.

Your claim is it's a set up, but you can't explain how it works. Stay clammed up about it.

[RandomGuy]

Trump is too stupid to play an active part in a collusion scheme with the Russians RE: the election, but members of his campaign certainly could -- since one of their attempts to do just that is a matter of record. Their motivations are simple -- power and money. If he has any, Trump's legal exposure would be mainly financial (i.e. money laundering), blackmail related to the financial issues and obstruction-- crimes of stupidity, mainly.

You should bookmark that since you keep asking me the same question and I keep answering it the same.

+1

I would add "lazy" to "stupid". I am pretty sure he knew about the efforts going on, as the "Russia if you are listening" bit appears to imply.

That will be the bombshell. Some email or call record that shows that he almost certainly knew of some of the efforts that will strip away any plausible deniability.

TSA's low lying swamp will seem awfully lonely as the line of muskets at the top of the hill start firing.

[DarrinS]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

[RandomGuy]

We're going to find out whom Uday called the day of the meeting someday. If it's daddeh, he'll deserve everything that has happened up to now and more.

That's it.

Who was the 4 minute phone call to?

Hard to think that his suck-up not-too-bright kids wouldn't want rich daddy to know how hard they were working for him, in order to curry favor.

Bannon was right about that one thing at least.

[RandomGuy]

[deflection/distraction attempt #28355]

Meh.

[Pavlov]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/Look everyone, another non-take from Darrin.

Darrin, you never told everyone what your conspiracy theory is.

What is your conspiracy theory, Darrin?

[Pavlov]

That's it.

Who was the 4 minute phone call to?

Hard to think that his suck-up not-too-bright kids wouldn't want rich daddy to know how hard they were working for him, in order to curry favor.

Bannon was right about that one thing at least.Dude was upstairs.

[TSA]

Adoptions, of course.

Your claim is it's a set up, but you can't explain how it works. Stay clammed up about it.


Was Natalia Veselnitskaya at the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Was Natalia Veselnitskaya working with Fusion GPS at the time of the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night before the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night after the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no

[Pavlov]

Was Natalia Veselnitskaya at the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Was Natalia Veselnitskaya working with Fusion GPS at the time of the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night before the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night after the "adoptions" meeting? yes or noHere we go again with the innuendo.

How does your conspiracy theory work, TSA?

I accept any matters of fact as proved. Explain your theory or clam up.

[Pavlov]

See the adoption meeting was real and it did happen and there was a record of it with many witnesses.

And the Clinton campaign that you accuse of setting up the meeting did not use it before the election.

You need to explain how they did it and why they went through all that trouble to not use it.

Or clam up.

[TSA]

Here we go again with the innuendo.

How does your conspiracy theory work, TSA?

I accept any matters of fact as proved. Explain your theory or clam up.

They are yes or no questions, and they clam you up every time.

Try again.

Was Natalia Veselnitskaya at the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Was Natalia Veselnitskaya working with Fusion GPS at the time of the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night before the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night after the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no

[Pavlov]

They are yes or no questions, and they clam you up every time.

Try again.

Was Natalia Veselnitskaya at the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Was Natalia Veselnitskaya working with Fusion GPS at the time of the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night before the "adoptions" meeting? yes or no
Did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson have dinner with Natalia Veselnitskaya the night after the "adoptions" meeting? yes or noLet's say yes to everything.

How does your conspiracy theory work, TSA?

I accept any matters of fact as proved. Explain your theory or clam up.

[TSA]

Meh.

:lol meh

But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

[baseline bum]

And Flynn still isn't in major trouble.

Felonies good now?

[DarrinS]

See the adoption meeting was real and it did happen and there was a record of it with many witnesses.

And the Clinton campaign that you accuse of setting up the meeting did not use it before the election.

You need to explain how they did it and why they went through all that trouble to not use it.

Or clam up.


And Uday tried and failed to get Hillary dirt.

Meanwhile, team Hillary (ding) paid Russians for dirt on Drumpf that was then used as the basis for spying on team Drumpf.

:lol

[Pavlov]

:lol meh

But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.:lol this article conflates criminal and counterintel investigations.

[Pavlov]

And Uday tried and failed to get Hillary dirt.

Meanwhile, team Hillary (ding) paid Russians for dirt on Drumpf that was then used as the basis for spying on team Drumpf.

:lolWhat is your conspiracy theory, Darrin?

[TSA]

Let's say yes to everything.

How does your conspiracy theory work, TSA?

I accept any matters of fact as proved. Explain your theory or clam up.
Fusion GPS set up a meeting for Don Jr with a known Russian informant.

[Pavlov]

Fusion GPS set up a meeting for Don Jr with a known Russian informant.For whom Fusion GPS was working.

And?

Keep going.

This is your theory.

[Pavlov]

Also how did Fusion GPS set this up through Goldstone?