Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[spurraider21]

well looks like TSA had his eggs in the virginia basket (considering he specifically said "one of the five" when we only knew that there were five immunized witnesses in Virginia)... tho that goalpost will clearly shift to DC

[Pavlov]

well looks like TSA had his eggs in the virginia basket (considering he specifically said "one of the five" when we only knew that there were five immunized witnesses in Virginia)... tho that goalpost will clearly shift to DC:lol he can only pray that there are five immunity deals there too.

[Spurminator]

Anonymous sources good again.


:lol "Tucker confirmed" by reporting info from anonymous sources, which TSA pretends to hate when it doesn't suit him.

Cucked.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like Podesta is one of the five that got use immunity. Very interesting.


Within hours of Ellis’ ruling, the names of those witnesses were unsealed: Dennis Raico, Cindy Laporta, Conor O’Brien, Donna Duggan, and James Brennan

:rollin

[Pavlov]

TSA suddenly a lot more interested in the DPRK than this thread.

lol

[RandomGuy]

:lol "Tucker confirmed" by reporting info from anonymous sources, which TSA pretends to hate when it doesn't suit him.

Cucked.

"Our sources maintain that Tony Podesta has been offered immunity to testify in Paul Manafort’s criminal trial in D.C. regarding criminal FARA violations. The witness list released today surrounds Manafort’s VA trial which mainly involves tax violations."

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III pushed Manafort's Virginia trial back until July 31 to give Manafort's lawyers more time to review thousands of pages of data and documents turned over by Mueller's office in the last several weeks.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/20/tony-podesta-offered-immunity-to-testify-against-paul-manafort.html

It does concern the DC trial. TSA just got the deets wrong, in a sloppy rush to publish.

[TSA]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/20/tony-podesta-offered-immunity-to-testify-against-paul-manafort.html

It does concern the DC trial. TSA just got the deets wrong, in a sloppy rush to publish.

As sloppy a rush to publish as this one from you?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-slowly-starts-realize-his-north-korea-gambit-failing

[Pavlov]

As sloppy a rush to publish as this one from you?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-slowly-starts-realize-his-north-korea-gambit-failing:lmao setting a record for quickest subject change in ST history

[ducks]

Manafort trial could reveal embarrassing details about Dem consultants

[spurraider21]

Manafort trial could reveal embarrassing details about Dem consultants
and about manafort

[Pavlov]

Manafort trial could reveal embarrassing details about Dem consultantsAnd maybe even Trump.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[clambake]

Manafort trial could reveal embarrassing details about Dem consultants

you're okay with that, right?

[Chris]

1021447063492423680

[Chris]

1021523277091627008
1021524678282801152
1021525325438754818
1021527315212328961
1021528395228884993
1021529276137566208
1021529943728185345
1021530519027245057
1021531456504573953
1021532421668438017
1021533853087948800
1021534541104799745
1021535458617188353
1021536127155613697
1021536898815279104
1021537953238183936
1021538724184842245
1021539805430251520
1021541285226864641
1021542478766399488
1021548533760049152

[Chris]

Nunes was right :tu


1021473813643644929

lol Pavlov

[DarrinS]

Nunes was right :tu


1021473813643644929

lol Pavlov


But, according to the FISA warrant...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaR3WO71j4

:lmao

[clambake]

hallelujah!

[Chris]

But, according to the FISA warrant...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaR3WO71j4

:lmao

:lol

[Pavlov]

1021523277091627008
1021524678282801152
1021525325438754818
1021527315212328961
1021528395228884993
1021529276137566208
1021529943728185345
1021530519027245057
1021531456504573953
1021532421668438017
1021533853087948800
1021534541104799745
1021535458617188353
1021536127155613697
1021536898815279104
1021537953238183936
1021538724184842245
1021539805430251520
1021541285226864641
1021542478766399488
1021548533760049152Too bad Comey never had any clearance after he was fired.

Nice conspiracy theory tho.

[Pavlov]

Nunes was right :tu


1021473813643644929

lol Pavlovlol Sara Carter

[TeyshaBlue]

Trial by Twitter. SMH.

[Chris]

DNC dipped in to the FBI and other agencies for opposition research.

DNC weaponized the FBI to investigate a sitting president.

DNC utilized the FBI and other agencies to leak information (mostly fake) to the Media in an attempt to discredit a sitting president.

These people were so arrogant they left a paper trail (texts;emails)

They never thought they were going to get caught.

We dodged a major bullet in 2016.

[Pavlov]

DNC dipped in to the FBI and other agencies for opposition research.
lol no


DNC weaponized the FBI to investigate a sitting president.lol no


DNC utilized the FBI and other agencies to leak information (mostly fake) to the Media in an attempt to discredit a sitting president.lol no


These people were so arrogant they left a paper trail (texts;emails)

They never thought they were going to get caught.

We dodged a major bullet in 2016.twitter/blog/Qanon regurgitation

[Chris]

1021547878270099461

[Chucho]

Trial by Twitter. SMH.

.

[Pavlov]

1021547878270099461A FISA warrant isn't a "case" Chris.

lol Chris.

[Chris]

A FISA warrant isn't a "case" Chris.

lol Chris.

How was the FISA warrant obtained? Hint: Tom Fitton

lol Pavlov

[Chris]

Flashback:

1021575099038801922

[Pavlov]

How was the FISA warrant obtained? Hint: Tom Fitton

lol PavlovBy applying for it in FISC.

[Pavlov]

Flashback:

1021575099038801922Page wasn't an official of the Trump campaign.

Are you saying he was?

[Chris]

By applying for it in FISC.

You tried to get snarky and fucked up.

lol

[Pavlov]

You tried to get snarky and fucked up.

lolI answered your question.

[Chris]

Page wasn't an official of the Trump campaign.

Are you saying he was?

Page was a campaign advisor.

[Pavlov]

Page was a campaign advisor.Just like he said he was for the Kremlin?

OK.

[pgardn]

Manafort trial could reveal embarrassing details about Dem consultants


Let her rip.

Catch crooks and traitors yeah ducks?

[Reck]

1021447063492423680

Is Gowdy bipolar? One week he's saying the Russian investigation is legit! I'VE SEEN EVIDENCE.

The next he's saying they should warp it up because NO COLLUSION.

:lol

[pgardn]

Stealth Jeff.

Seriously....

[TSA]

Is Gowdy bipolar? One week he's saying the Russian investigation is legit! I'VE SEEN EVIDENCE.

The next he's saying they should warp it up because NO COLLUSION.

:lol
He’s not bipolar you’re just a dunce. He said Russia meddled and he hasn’t seen any evidence of collusion with Trump.

[Reck]

He’s not bipolar you’re just a dunce. He said Russia meddled and he hasn’t seen any evidence of collusion with Trump.

Tomayto tohmato. Gowdy good now.

[Pavlov]

He’s not bipolar you’re just a dunce. He said Russia meddled and he hasn’t seen any evidence of collusion with Trump.OK but Trump said there wasn't even any Russian meddling.

1021158915206152193

Whom do you believe, TSA?

Gowdy or Trump?

[boutons_deux]

Trash today reversed himself AGAIN and twitted Russian meddling is a hoax

White House seeks to clarify Trump 'hoax' tweet on Russian interference

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/23/donald-trump-russian-election-meddling-big-hoax

[dabom]

Just like he said he was for the Kremlin?

OK.

:lmao

[Pavlov]

:lmaoI mean when a guy says he's a foreign adviser in a letter to the academic press, I'm going to believe him.

[dabom]

I mean when a guy says he's a foreign adviser in a letter to the academic press, I'm going to believe him.

"I was kidding" :lol

[Reck]

I mean when a guy says he's a foreign adviser in a letter to the academic press, I'm going to believe him.

Remember when TSA couldn't wait for Carter Page to testify to congress? Well...

[Spurtacular]

I remember you talking about tomatoes after your point was shown to be bull shit. :lmao

[Chris]

CNN getting sonned by Nunes :lmao


1021610785397596160

[Chris]

1021599769515515905

[Winehole23]

FBI warned DJT in 2016. What more were they supposed to do?

[Winehole23]

Both candidates were briefed starting around mid August -- after the nominating conventions.

[Pavlov]

FBI warned DJT in 2016. What more were they supposed to do?


Both candidates were briefed starting around mid August -- after the nominating conventions.
Chris only cares about his conspiracy fantasy he's too afraid to post here.

[Winehole23]

hiding behind tweets tends to confirm his temerity

[RandomGuy]

As sloppy a rush to publish as this one from you?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-slowly-starts-realize-his-north-korea-gambit-failing

Aw, isums fee fees hurt?

[RandomGuy]

He’s not bipolar you’re just a dunce. He said Russia meddled and he hasn’t seen any evidence of collusion with Trump.

Jesus, dude keep up. Russia meddling is a hoax now. Again.






:lmao

[Pavlov]

:lol TSA's anonymous heroes scrambling as bad as TSA himself.

1021488256855236608

1021489258182455296

[spurraider21]

:rollin

[spurraider21]

1021784726217142273



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFcqGGMPc3k

[spurraider21]

and back to the post above :lol... as if the judge on the spot would allow a swap of immunity deals without making any reference to the last minute change :lmao

and judge ellis was the one who was scolding mueller's team early may so you can't now pivot and pretend he's in on the conpsiracy

"highly respected judge"
"judge ellis who is reall something very special i hear from many standpoints"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFWoAE_Gc2Q

[Spurminator]

and judge ellis was the one who was scolding mueller's team early may so you can't now pivot and pretend he's in on the conpsiracy

According to @DeepStateKilla1776, Judge Ellis was just throwing off the scent with his early criticisms.

[spurraider21]

According to @DeepStateKilla1776, Judge Ellis was just throwing off the scent with his early criticisms.
1021491723472646144

[TSA]

1021772362793013249

1021789065795063809

[TSA]

1021807996609986567

Still waiting for Pavlov to list all of the Nunes memo lies.

[Pavlov]

1021772362793013249

1021789065795063809Can kicked.


1021807996609986567

Still waiting for Pavlov to list all of the Nunes memo lies.Nunes fought to keep the names of non-target people and organizations in FISA applications masked.

That's the big lie.

Do you understand that?

Yes or no.

[spurraider21]

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

[Pavlov]

The fact you keep bringing this up after being told over and over again that masking is standard practice makes you as dishonest as Nunes.

Just like you can't face how wrong you were here:


Looks like Podesta is one of the five that got use immunity. Very interesting.

lol TSA

[TSA]

Can kicked.

Nunes fought to keep the names of non-target people and organizations in FISA applications masked.

That's the big lie.

Do you understand that?

Yes or no.

So there are no lies you can point out in the actual Nunes memo?

[TSA]

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

“Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts.”

Did the FBI mention the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign that funded Steele’s efforts yes or no?

[spurraider21]

“Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts.”

Did the FBI mention the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign that funded Steele’s efforts yes or no?
No.

What would be the significance of mentioning the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign that funded Steele's efforts?

[Pavlov]

So there are no lies you can point out in the actual Nunes memo?Question pending.

Actually more than one.

Nunes fought to keep the names of non-target people and organizations in FISA applications masked.

That's the big lie.

Do you understand that?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

No.

What would be the significance of mentioning the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign that funded Steele's efforts?

Seriously?

[TSA]

Question pending.

Actually more than one.

Nunes fought to keep the names of non-target people and organizations in FISA applications masked.

That's the big lie.

Do you understand that?

Yes or no.

Explain how that’s a lie. And then answer the question.

So there are no lies you can point out in the actual Nunes memo?

[spurraider21]

Seriously?
Question pending, but I'll answer.

Seriously.


Now, in your own words, what would be the significance of mentioning the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign that funded Steele's efforts?

[Pavlov]

Seriously?Yes, seriously.

You really need to flesh out your conspiracy theory because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Your contention is that Republican FISA judges are too stupid to see the potential for bias given the information they had and that the non-target parties needed to be extraordinarily unmasked because you don't like Hillary Clinton.

[boutons_deux]

TSA, etc tactic is that if Dems funded Steele, then ALL of his findings, esp the ones that have been verified by FBI, etc, are illegit.

I'm sure Pootin can verify the pee-pee episode

[spurraider21]

TSA, etc tactic is that if Dems funded Steele, then ALL of his findings, esp the ones that have been verified by FBI, etc, are illegit.

I'm sure Pootin can verify the pee-pee episode
here DarrinS i have some low hanging fruit for you. its been too long since you made a peepee comment

[TSA]

Yes, seriously.

You really need to flesh out your conspiracy theory because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Your contention is that Republican FISA judges are too stupid to see the potential for bias given the information they had and that the non-target parties needed to be extraordinarily unmasked because you don't like Hillary Clinton.

Who said they need to be extraordinarily unmasked? Referring to Clinton as candidate #2 and her campaign as campaign #2 would have been sufficient. It’s the same way they referred to Trump and his campaign. Why obfuscate other than to hide who funded it?

[Pavlov]

Explain how that’s a lie. I already did.

Twice.

You're simply dishonest, TSA.

[TSA]

I already did.

Twice.

You're simply dishonest, TSA.

Then you haven’t explained it well. What did Nunes lie about? And what in the Nunes memo was a lie?

[Pavlov]

Who said they need to be extraordinarily unmasked? Referring to Clinton as candidate #2 and her campaign as campaign #2 would have been sufficient. It’s the same way they referred to Trump and his campaign. Why obfuscate other than to hide who funded it?There was no obfuscation. You think this is the most important part of the application and that it never would've been approved had the Republican judges you think were so stupid as to be fooled by this.

Take a step back and understand just how ridiculous this is.

[TSA]

Question pending, but I'll answer.

Seriously.


Now, in your own words, what would be the significance of mentioning the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign that funded Steele's efforts?

I don’t believe a FISC judge would sign off on the warrant had they known a significant portion of the evidence provided in the application was unverified dirt paid for by the opposing campaign.

[Pavlov]

Then you haven’t explained it well.I can explain things you you.

I can't understand things for you.

You think it's a conspiracy.

You believe in multiple conspiracy theories for no other reason than they confirm your political bias. There is no logical reason for you to be adopt all the conspiracy theories you have adopted here.

[TSA]

There was no obfuscation. You think this is the most important part of the application and that it never would've been approved had the Republican judges you think were so stupid as to be fooled by this.

Take a step back and understand just how ridiculous this is.

Of course there was obfuscation. The FBI knew who funded it and hid that from the court.

[Pavlov]

I don’t believe a FISC judge would sign off on the warrant had they known a significant portion of the evidence provided in the application was unverified dirt paid for by the opposing campaign.Well, what evidence did they actually use?

[TSA]

I can explain things you you.

I can't understand things for you.

You think it's a conspiracy.

You believe in multiple conspiracy theories for no other reason than they confirm your political bias. There is no logical reason for you to be adopt all the conspiracy theories you have adopted here.

Why the constant dodging? Explain how Nunes lies and then point out the lies in the Nunes memo. Your claims, back them up.

[Pavlov]

Of course there was obfuscation. The FBI knew who funded it and hid that from the court.To prove that, you would have to produce other FISA warrants where such information was provided as relevant and necessary.

[spurraider21]

I don’t believe a FISC judge would sign off on the warrant had they known a significant portion of the evidence provided in the application was unverified dirt paid for by the opposing campaign.
So you're saying it's important for the FISA judge to have known that the information from Steele was political opposition research meant to discredit Trump's campaign?

[Pavlov]

Why the constant dodging? Explain how Nunes lies and then point out the lies in the Nunes memo. Your claims, back them up.I already did.

You said you didn't understand.

I accept that.

[TSA]

So you're saying it's important for the FISA judge to have known that the unverified information from Steele was political opposition research paid for by the opposing campaign meant to discredit Trump's campaign?

FIFY

[TSA]

I already did.

You said you didn't understand.

I accept that.

I’ll accept you not clarifying your position. Moving on.

What were all the lies in the Nunes memo?

[TSA]

To prove that, you would have to produce other FISA warrants where such information was provided as relevant and necessary.

Was the FBI straightforward with the court on who funded the dossier yes or no?

[Pavlov]

I’ll accept you not clarifying your position. Moving on.

What were all the lies in the Nunes memo?I already said where. You didn't understand.

Moving on.

[Pavlov]

Was the FBI straightforward with the court on who funded the dossier yes or no?So you're saying you have no such evidence to prove it was hidden.

I accept your complete lack of evidence.

And seriously -- you won't even say what dossier information was used.

You flat out refuse to discuss it.

You can't be serious about any of this if you can't even say how it was used.

[TSA]

So you're saying you have no such evidence to prove it was hidden.

I accept your complete lack of evidence.

And seriously -- you won't even say what dossier information was used.

You flat out refuse to discuss it.

You can't be serious about any of this if you can't even say how it was used.

Was the court ever told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier yes or no?

[Pavlov]

Was the court ever told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier yes or no?No.

Moving on.

What information from the dossier was used?

[TSA]

I already said where. You didn't understand.

Moving on.

:lol so you’ve got no lies from the Nunes memo. I’ll accept your white flag pussy.

[Pavlov]

:lol so you’ve got no lies from the Nunes memo. I’ll accept your white flag pussy.I already said where.

You said you didn't understand.

I accepted your lack of understanding.

Moving on.

What information from the dossier was used?

[TSA]

So you're saying you have no such evidence to prove it was hidden.


Was the court ever told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier yes or no?


No.

:lol

[Pavlov]

:lolYou already admitted you have no evidence proving it would normally be included in a FISA application.

:lol TSA

Question pending.

[TSA]

I already said where.

You said you didn't understand.

I accepted your lack of understanding.

Moving on.

What information from the dossier was used?

No. You never stated where in the Numes memo were the lies. Try again. Where were the lies?

[spurraider21]

Was the court ever told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier yes or no?
No.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

[TSA]

You already admitted you have no evidence proving it would normally be included in a FISA application.

:lol TSA

Question pending.

You are admitting the FBI was not straightforward with the court.

:lol Pavlov

[Pavlov]

No. You never stated where in the Numes memo were the lies. Try again. Where were the lies?I already explained to you.

You said you didn't understand.

You want to pretend such a disclosure would be necessary and standard on a FISA application.

You admitted you have no evidence it would be necessary and required.

Moving on.

What information from the dossier was used?

[Pavlov]

You are admitting the FBI was not straightforward with the court.

:lol PavlovI admitted the information you demanded was not there.


What information from the dossier was used?

[TSA]

No.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

If it was insignificant the FBI would not have hesitated to include it in the application.

[TSA]

I already explained to you.

You said you didn't understand.

You want to pretend such a disclosure would be necessary and standard on a FISA application.

You admitted you have no evidence it would be necessary and required.

Moving on.

What information from the dossier was used?

List the lies from the Nunes memo one by one. I’ll wait.

[Pavlov]

If it was insignificant the FBI would not have hesitated to include it in the application.You're saying it's the FBI's goal to include as much insignificant information as possible in a FISA warrant.

:lol TSA

[Pavlov]

List the lies from the Nunes memo one by one. I’ll wait.:lol You don't even know what information they used!

[spurraider21]

If it was insignificant the FBI would not have hesitated to include it in the application.
a) That doesn't answer my question. So I'll re-ask: What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

b) You are saying the FBI would have included it if it was insignificant? lol. That makes no sense. Should they also include their favorite color since it's insignificant?

But don't answer part b. That was rhetorical. I just want you to tell me what the significance would be.

[Spurminator]

If it was insignificant the FBI would not have hesitated to include it in the application.

:lol

[TSA]

:lol You don't even know what information they used!

Still waiting.

[TSA]

a) That doesn't answer my question. So I'll re-ask: What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

b) You are saying the FBI would have included it if it was insignificant? lol. That makes no sense. Should they also include their favorite color since it's insignificant?

But don't answer part b. That was rhetorical. I just want you to tell me what the significance would be.

Using an opposing campaign’s opposition research to obtain a FISA warrant would be significant. Do you not think the court would want to know that?

[Spurminator]

The conspiracy theory about the FBI withholding the Steele Dossier's funding source requires the following two beliefs:

1. Funding sources dictate the results of research
2. The FBI thought they could hide the funding source forever

[Pavlov]

Still waiting.I told you. You don't want to accept it and you don't even know what information from the dossier was used.

You can't even admit that Podesta wasn't on of the five people pardoned.

:lol TSA

[Pavlov]

Using an opposing campaign’s opposition research to obtain a FISA warrant would be significant. Do you not think the court would want to know that?So the court would then know it was political opposition research meant to discredit Trump!

Oh, they already knew that.

[TSA]

The conspiracy theory about the FBI withholding the Steele Dossier's funding source requires the following two beliefs:

1. Funding sources dictate the results of research
2. The FBI thought they could hide the funding source forever

1. They most definitely do.
2. The top 3 from the FBI are gone and all under investigation for the FISA application.

[TSA]

So the court would then know it was political opposition research meant to discredit Trump!

Oh, they already knew that.

Did the court know who funded it?

[TSA]

I told you. You don't want to accept it and you don't even know what information from the dossier was used.

You can't even admit that Podesta wasn't on of the five people pardoned.

:lol TSA

I can admit Podesta wasn’t one of the five granted immunity.

Can you list all the lies in the Nunes memo?

[Pavlov]

Did the court know who funded it?No.

What would that change, TSA?

[Pavlov]

I can admit Podesta wasn’t one of the five granted immunity.A day later and after making excuses.

[TSA]

No.

What would that change, TSA?

I don’t think they would have approved the warrant.

[Spurminator]

1. They most definitely do.

I know you believe this. I'm just pointing out what you have to believe to buy into this.

And you're wrong. No research company who wants to continue getting projects is going to invent results to please a client. Why would you hire a company you expect will return bullshit?


2. The top 3 from the FBI are gone and all under investigation for the FISA application.

Are you trying to suggest Comey, McCabe and Strozk were fired over the FISA application? :lol

As for the investigation, consider the investigators.

[TSA]

A day later and after making excuses.

You’re on day 2 of refusing to list all the lies in the Nunes memo.

[Pavlov]

Can you list all the lies in the Nunes memo?The lie was pretending all the names and payment amounts should have been included in the application. There was nothing about masking those in the memo.

Multiple names and figures. Multiple lies.

[Pavlov]

You’re on day 2 of refusing to list all the lies in the Nunes memo.Listed.

Moving on.

What parts of the dossier were used in the FISA application?

[Spurminator]

1021850839709827074

Nunes quickly finding himself on an island.

[RandomGuy]

I don’t believe a FISC judge would sign off on the warrant had they known a significant portion of the evidence provided in the application was unverified dirt paid for by the opposing campaign.

On what do you base this belief? Your intense hatred of Hillary Clinton?

[TSA]

The lie was pretending all the names and payment amounts should have been included in the application. There was nothing about masking those in the memo.

Multiple names and figures. Multiple lies.

That isn’t a lie from the Nunes memo. You really don’t have any lies from the Nunes memo :lol

[Pavlov]

That isn’t a lie from the Nunes memo. You really don’t have any lies from the Nunes memo :lolYou are free to believe that.

What information from the dossier was used in the FISA warrant?

[TSA]

I know you believe this. I'm just pointing out what you have to believe to buy into this.

And you're wrong. No research company who wants to continue getting projects is going to invent results to please a client. Why would you hire a company you expect will return bullshit?

Fusion GPS is a smear factory that does exactly that., invent results to please their client. I can’t believe you are going to bat for them knowing their history. Do you believe Bill Browder is guilty?



Are you trying to suggest Comey, McCabe and Strozk were fired over the FISA application? :lol

As for the investigation, consider the investigators.I’m suggesting it’s hard to keep something hidden when you are no longer in control.

[spurraider21]

Using an opposing campaign’s opposition research to obtain a FISA warrant would be significant. Do you not think the court would want to know that?
Sorry, question pending.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

[TSA]

You are free to believe that.its the truth


What information from the dossier was used in the FISA warrant? let me get my unredacter glasses on and get back to you.

[Pavlov]

Fusion GPS is a smear factory that does exactly that., invent results to please their client. I can’t believe you are going to bat for them knowing their history.Is Orbis a smear factory that invents results to please their client?

What is their history?

What is Steele's history?

[Pavlov]

let me get my unredacter glasses on and get back to you.ALL of it's use is redacted, TSA?

[TSA]

Sorry, question pending.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

That is the significance in and of itself.

Do you not think it is significant? Why would the FBI purposely leave that out?

[spurraider21]

1. They most definitely do.
2. The top 3 from the FBI are gone and all under investigation for the FISA application.


The #1and #2 have been fired, #2 is charged with a crime. #3 is demoted to HR, reported to FBI OPR, and under investigation. I have confidence the institution is being cleaned and will most definitely survive.


why was the #1 fired


It’s an impossible question for me to answer that’s why I’ve ignored your repeated attempts. Only Trump can answer your question.

:lol still pimping comey firing to back up his claims despite admittedly not being able to answer why he was fired

[spurraider21]

That is the significance in and of itself.

Do you not think it is significant? Why would the FBI purposely leave that out?
Question pending.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

[TSA]

Is Orbis a smear factory that invents results to please their client?

What is their history?

What is Steele's history?

Don’t care about Orbis we are talking about Fusion GPS and Steele. Steele is a liar who was terminated by the FBI and presently being sued in court for claims he made in the dossier. You really trying to paint him as credible? Is Fusion GPS credible?

[TSA]

:lol still pimping comey firing to back up his claims despite admittedly not being able to answer why he was fired

I can only provide you Rosenstein’s letter.

[TSA]

Question pending.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

Question answered and 2 questions pending.

[spurraider21]

Question answered and 2 questions pending.
question #1 was not answered

I asked "What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?"

You said "That is the significance in and of itself."

That's circular. "The significance of A is A."

[Pavlov]

Don’t care about Orbis we are talking about Fusion GPS and Steele.Steele is Orbis.

Fusion GPS hired Orbis, which is Steele.

Steele went to the FBI.

You're trying to say Fusion GPS took the extra step of hiring Orbis/Steele because he would somehow be better at making things up.

What is your evidence Steele had a bad reputation before the dossier?

[RandomGuy]

That is the significance in and of itself.

:lol

Circular logic is circular.

TSA loves him pee pee play, because pee pee play is something he loves.

[Spurminator]

The conspiracy theory about the FBI withholding the Steele Dossier's funding source requires the following two beliefs:

1. Funding sources dictate the results of research
2. The FBI thought they could hide the funding source forever

I should add a third.

3. The judges who granted the FISA application, knowing it was politically funded, would have acted differently if they knew it was politically funded specifically by the DNC and Clinton campaign.

[RandomGuy]

That isn’t a lie from the Nunes memo. You really don’t have any lies from the Nunes memo :lol


"Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."



To ignore what your eyes and ears tell you.

[Spurminator]

"This dossier was politically funded..."
"Okay, we'll allow it."
"...by the Clinton campaign and the DNC."
"Hold on a second!"

[RandomGuy]

I should add a third.

3. The judges who granted the FISA application, knowing it was politically funded, would have acted differently if they knew it was politically funded specifically by the DNC and Clinton campaign.

So brilliantly devious. HOW COULD THEY?!?!?! (clutches pearls)

[TSA]

Steele is Orbis.

Fusion GPS hired Orbis, which is Steele.

Steele went to the FBI.

You're trying to say Fusion GPS took the extra step of hiring Orbis/Steele because he would somehow be better at making things up.

What is your evidence Steele had a bad reputation before the dossier?

I never said Steele had a bad reputation before the dossier. Why do you lie?

[TSA]

question #1 was not answered

I asked "What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?"

You said "That is the significance in and of itself."

That's circular. "The significance of A is A."

Are you aware of the FISC court ever granting a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign knowing the evidence was funded and provided by the opposing campaign? If you’re answer is no, would that then make such a thing significant?

[Spurminator]

Are you aware of the FISC court ever granting a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign knowing the evidence was funded and provided by the opposing campaign? If you’re answer is no, would that then make such a thing significant?

Are you aware of a FISA court granting a warrant to spy on a Presidential campaign knowing the evidence was politically funded, but thinking it was funded by that campaign?

[spurraider21]

Are you aware of the FISC court ever granting a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign knowing the evidence was funded and provided by the opposing campaign? If you’re answer is no, would that then make such a thing significant?
Sorry, question pending.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

[Pavlov]

I never said Steele had a bad reputation before the dossier. Why do you lie?So Steele had a good reputation.

Do you think Steele was hired to make up things better than Fusion GPS could on it's own?

[Pavlov]

Are you aware of the FISC court ever granting a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign knowing the evidence was funded and provided by the opposing campaign? If you’re answer is no, would that then make such a thing significant?You need to provide other FISA applications to make that argument.

[TSA]

Are you aware of a FISA court granting a warrant to spy on a Presidential campaign knowing the evidence was politically funded, but thinking it was funded by that campaign?

The court was never told it was politically funded.

[TSA]

You need to provide other FISA applications to make that argument.

They don’t exist, therefore it’s significant.

[Chris]

List the lies from the Nunes memo one by one. I’ll wait.

73tGe3JE5IU

[TSA]

So Steele had a good reputation.

Do you think Steele was hired to make up things better than Fusion GPS could on it's own?

Steele was hired to give the dossier a appearance of credibility. Steele is not credible.

[spurraider21]

The court was never told it was politically funded.
they told them the research was meant to discredit the trump campaign :lmao

[TSA]

Sorry, question pending.

What would be the significance of the court being told candidate #2/campaign #2 funded the dossier?

The court has never granted a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign based on opposition dirt funded by the opposing campaign.

[TSA]

they told them the research was meant to discredit the trump campaign :lmao

Was the court ever told it was politically funded yes or no?

[spurraider21]

Was the court ever told it was politically funded yes or no?
No.

What would be the significance of the court being told it was politically funded?

[spurraider21]

The court has never granted a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign based on opposition dirt funded by the opposing campaign.
Has the court ever granted a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign based on opposition dirt funded by someone other than the opposing campaign?

[TSA]

No.so you agree with me yet laugh at that fact? You’re strange.


What would be the significance of the court being told it was politically funded?

Already answered two posts above.

If you agree the court was never told it was politically funded I’m not sure what you found so funny.

[Chris]

so you agree with me yet laugh at that fact? You’re strange.

Fence sniper :tu

[TSA]

Has the court ever granted a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign based on opposition dirt funded by someone other than the opposing campaign?

I’m not aware of the FISC granting any warrant to spy on any campaign. Are you?

[Pavlov]

They don’t exist, therefore it’s significant.You can't use your lack of evidence as evidence.

[Pavlov]

I’m not aware of the FISC granting any warrant to spy on any campaign. Are you?This warrant wasn't for spying on a campaing. You got me there.

[boutons_deux]

I’m not aware of the FISC granting any warrant to spy on any campaign. Are you?

so if you're not aware, it doesn't exist

I'm sure tranny J Edgar Hoover had his corrupt FBI spy on everybody, including Pres candidates and campaigns, is how he stayed in power for 40 years. Are "you aware" of that?

and even if Trash's was the first Pres campaign tatooed with FISA warrants, so what?

FISA been around since the 1980 campaign. JEH FBI spy goes back to 1919.

[Pavlov]

No.

What would be the significance of the court being told it was politically funded?IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE I SAID IT IS SIGNIFICANT

[spurraider21]

so you agree with me yet laugh at that fact? You’re strange.
I agree that they weren't told who specifically funded. I laugh at how you make it seem like it is a game changer.


Already answered two posts above.

Two posts above you just said (with nothing to corroborate) that the court has never granted a warrant under those circumstances.

That doesn't answer my question. Why would that information be relevant to the FISA judges?


If you agree the court was never told it was politically funded I’m not sure what you found so funny.
answered above in this post

what's the significance of knowing it was politically funded?


you keep dodging so i'll answer. it's significant because it would alert the judge to potential bias in the source, and the judge would then look at the claims with more scrutiny. By informing the court that the information was collected in an effort to discredit the trump campaign, the judge was alerted to potential bias in the source, and therefore likely looked at the claims with more scrutiny.

and he granted the warrant anyway.

and it was granted 4 times by 4 different republican judges

[spurraider21]

I’m not aware of the FISC granting any warrant to spy on any campaign. Are you?
nah not really.

but then that sorta calls into question your position that the disclosure of the precise source of funding would typically be such a difference maker

[RandomGuy]

Steele was hired to give the dossier a appearance of credibility. Steele is not credible.

Steele is very credible. That is why you fail.

[TSA]

You can't use your lack of evidence as evidence.

You mean like trying to say all the redacted portions of the FISA application you can’t see somehow supports your theory the FBI did it by the book? That kind of lack of evidence as evidence? :rollin

[TSA]

Steele is very credible. That is why you fail.

:lmao is that why the FBI terminated him and he’s facing multiple lawsuits for defamation? :lmao

[TSA]

This warrant wasn't for spying on a campaing. You got me there.

Sure it was. Do you not understand a Title 1 warrant?

[RandomGuy]

The court was never told it was politically funded.


But The Washington Post reported late Friday night that the court that approved the warrant was aware at the time that the dossier's production was politically motivated.

One official with knowledge of the matter told The Post that the DOJ made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the FISC which revealed "the research was being paid for by a political entity."

"No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion" other than that the dossier's production was carried out "at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump," they added.

The revelation appears to corroborate claims made in a 10-page rebuttal memo crafted by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. Sources told The New York Times on Friday that the Democratic memo also says the FBI informed the FISC that the dossier was politically motivated, but did not reveal which political entity specifically financed it.

Not my understanding. Have I missed something?
https://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-memo-fisa-court-steele-dossier-argument-debunked-2018-2

[RandomGuy]

n many instances, the Republican and Democratic memos present the same set of facts. But the Republican and Democratic members present or interpret these facts differently.

Both memos, for example, agree that the “Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016,” as the GOP memo says. But that means, as the Democratic memo notes, that the FBI investigation started “more than seven weeks” before the FBI received Steele’s intelligence reporting in mid-September.

Both memos agree that the government did not disclose the names of the parties — the Clinton campaign and the DNC — that paid for Steele’s information. But the Democratic memo quotes extensively from the initial FISA application to show the court was aware that Steele’s information was paid political opposition research and likely to be used against Trump’s campaign.

The memos also agree that the FBI “sought and received a FISA probable cause order … authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page” on Oct. 21, 2016, as the Republican memo says. And they agree that there were three subsequent renewals of the initial surveillance request and “each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause,” as the GOP memo says.

But the Republican memo accuses the FBI and DOJ of omitting “material and relevant information” that was “potentially favorable” to Page on all four occasions. The FBI disagrees with that assessment, accusing the Republican memo of distorting the facts.

In a statement issued two days before the Republican memo was released, the FBI said: “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

The common set of facts contained in both reports leads the president to claim that the Democratic memo “really verifies the Nunes memo.” But it doesn’t. The memos represent a fundamental disagreement about the U.S. government’s methods and motives as it investigates Russia’s attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign and whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign was involved in those efforts.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/

[TSA]

I agree that they weren't told who specifically funded. I laugh at how you make it seem like it is a game changer.



Two posts above you just said (with nothing to corroborate) that the court has never granted a warrant under those circumstances.

That doesn't answer my question. Why would that information be relevant to the FISA judges?


answered above in this post

what's the significance of knowing it was politically funded?


you keep dodging so i'll answer. it's significant because it would alert the judge to potential bias in the source, and the judge would then look at the claims with more scrutiny. By informing the court that the information was collected in an effort to discredit the trump campaign, the judge was alerted to potential bias in the source, and therefore likely looked at the claims with more scrutiny.

and he granted the warrant anyway.

and it was granted 4 times by 4 different republican judges

The court wasn’t told it was politically funded. You just admitted that and then omitted that when forming your answer.

[spurraider21]

Sure it was. Do you not understand a Title 1 warrant?
:lmao arguing in circles

we addressed this months ago... at LENGHTS. theres a whole discussion in this page and the surrounding ones

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272157&page=22

Title I authorizes surveillance where...

(B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-502677702-1534214680&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) of any communication to which a United States person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1081524982-1534214676&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) is a party;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802



so no, you cant be surveilling the trump campaign under title I

[spurraider21]

The court wasn’t told it was politically funded. You just admitted that and then omitted that when forming your answer.
i never denied it.

the court wasn't told it was politically funded. agreed. so no need to keep crawling back to this point.

what is the significance of being told it was politically funded? the stronger possibility of bias. do you agree that this would be why is significant? or are there other reasons? this is your chance to explain your reasoning, TSA.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao is that why the FBI terminated him and he’s facing multiple lawsuits for defamation? :lmao

He wasn't fired for bad intelligence.

He was fired, for leaking, which doesn't really affect the quality of his work previous. How very dishonest of you for suggesting otherwise.

LOL oligarch's lawsuits. It takes a true sophist to lean on that. Brah-vo.

[TSA]

Not my understanding. Have I missed something?
https://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-memo-fisa-court-steele-dossier-argument-debunked-2018-2

Politically funded. Not politically motivated.

[TSA]

i never denied it.

the court wasn't told it was politically funded. agreed. so no need to keep crawling back to this point.

what is the significance of being told it was politically funded? the stronger possibility of bias. do you agree that this would be why is significant? or are there other reasons? this is your chance to explain your reasoning, TSA.

Politically funded by the opposition party makes it severely biased. So biased it should have have thrown out immediately. If the FBI could not get a warrant on their own without Clinton paid for opposition research they never should have tried.

[TSA]

He wasn't fired for bad intelligence.

He was fired, for leaking, which doesn't really affect the quality of his work previous. How very dishonest of you for suggesting otherwise.

LOL oligarch's lawsuits. It takes a true sophist to lean on that. Brah-vo.

He lied to the FBI and was terminated for it. He is not credible.

You should read Steele’s testimony in the lawsuits he’s fighting. He’s backtracking like crazy and calling his own sources unreliable.

[boutons_deux]

Politically funded. Not politically motivated.

political oppo research spending that is motivation-free? :lol

holy fucking shit, you rightwingnutjobs are fucking stupid.

[spurraider21]

Politically funded by the opposition party makes it severely biased. So biased it should have have thrown out immediately. If the FBI could not get a warrant on their own without Clinton paid for opposition research they never should have tried.
but being told that the information was gathered with the intent of discrediting the trump campaign doesn't alert the judge to that degree of bias? lol

[TSA]

:lmao arguing in circles

we addressed this months ago... at LENGHTS. theres a whole discussion in this page and the surrounding ones

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272157&page=22

Title I authorizes surveillance where...

(B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-502677702-1534214680&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) of any communication to which a United States person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1081524982-1534214676&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) is a party;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802



so no, you cant be surveilling the trump campaign under title I

:lol believing that was followed
:lol believing minimization procedures were followed

[TSA]

but being told that the information was gathered with the intent of discrediting the trump campaign doesn't alert the judge to that degree of bias? lol

No, it doesn’t. And that is precisely why the court was not informed.

[Pavlov]

You mean like trying to say all the redacted portions of the FISA application you can’t see somehow supports your theory the FBI did it by the book? That kind of lack of evidence as evidence? :rollinNo, I need to see evidence they didn't do it by the book to believe they didn't do it by the book.

You have failed to provide any.

[TSA]

:lmao arguing in circles

we addressed this months ago... at LENGHTS. theres a whole discussion in this page and the surrounding ones

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272157&page=22

Title I authorizes surveillance where...

(B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-502677702-1534214680&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) of any communication to which a United States person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1081524982-1534214676&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) is a party;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802



so no, you cant be surveilling the trump campaign under title I

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop

[TSA]

No, I need to see evidence they didn't do it by the book to believe they didn't do it by the book.

You have failed to provide any.

I need to see evidence they did it by the book to believe they did it by the book.

You have failed to provide any.

Redactions are fun.

[spurraider21]

:lol believing that was followed
:lol believing minimization procedures were followed

luckily you tried arguing this crap months ago so i already have answers for them


you keep moving goalposts

you keep telling me that Title I surveillance of Page allows something, and then when I point out it doesn't, you just say "well they break the rules anyway. Do you really think they do everything by the book?"

pick a lane

1 - Does Title I allow this shit (the route you chose when you started pimping the Title I vs Title VII differences pointed out by sundance aka whole foods)

2 - It doesn't matter what Title I allows, and the differences between Title I and Title VII are irrelevant since they just break the rules anyway

[Pavlov]

Sure it was. Do you not understand a Title 1 warrant?Yes. You have no evidence the campaign was spied upon.

[Pavlov]

I need to see evidence they did it by the book to believe they did it by the book.

You have failed to provide any.

Redactions are fun.Actually all the existing evidence shows they did it by the book.

You kicked the can just like I said you would.

Again.

[boutons_deux]

Kushner Dodges Subpoena, Judge Says Stop Playing “Game”. Game’s Over. (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/21/1782483/-Kushner-Dodges-Subpoena-Judge-Says-Stop-Playing-Game-Game-s-Over)

According to Politico (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/18/jared-kushner-dnc-lawyers-court-summons-731593) a court filing on July 17 claims that

Kushner has avoided the service of a subpoena at least six times since June.

The complaint is the most recent development in the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit claiming Trump’s presidential campaign conspired with Russia in 2016 at the expense of Hillary Clinton.
The court filing said court documents were

sent three times to Kushner’s Manhattan apartment but were refused,

they were sent to Kushner’s Washington home, whereSecret Service (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/18/jared-kushner-dnc-lawyers-court-summons-731593) agents told the process server to “You’re going to need to find another way to serve that” and

then DNC lawyers tried to send the court documents by certified mail. They were returned to sender.

This is about as mature as closing your eyes, plugging your ears and then saying it doesn’t exist.

After the story broke, and a New York federal judge said formal delivery of a lawsuit isn’t a “game”.

This finally provoked Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/kushner-lawyer-accepts-service-of-russia-suit-by-dnc-after-delay) to accept service of the DNC’s complaint on July 18.

In its filing, the DNC said it served all the defendants in their lawsuit.

These include the Trump Campaign,

Donald Trump Jr.,

Roger Stone,

George Papadopoulos,

Paul Manafort,

Richard Gates and

Emin Agalarov.

The DNC suit (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2018-04-20/trump-campaign-russia-sued-by-dnc-over-election-interference) also names foreign defendants including

Russia,

WikiLeaks and

Julian Assange.
Game’s up, Kushner!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/21/1782483/-Kushner-Dodges-Subpoena-Judge-Says-Stop-Playing-Game-Game-s-Over?detail=emaildkre

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao is that why the FBI terminated him and he’s facing multiple lawsuits for defamation? :lmao
No. The FBI terminated him as a source because he went public with information. And after that 3 more applications were granted for renewals. I know you did not read that application

[Pavlov]

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop:lol a bunch of "can"s and "possible"s

You just filled in the blanks with your conspiracy.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Expert David Cay Johnston Warns that Russia Has 'More Than 30 Years' of Blackmail Material on the President

He also explained how the president's narcissism factors into the equation.

“We know the Russians have been courting Donald,

spending money on him and

putting money in his pocket for more than 30 years,” Johnston said.

“Donald’s son, one of his sons, has said they were getting lots of money from Russians,

and he’d been deeply involved with deals […] with Russian gangsters.”


“He believes in his own mind he’s better than the rest of us, and he should be in charge for life,” Johnston explained of the president's narcissism.

“But Donald also knows that his tax returns are a real problem [...]

Russian money is very important to Donald’s position."

Johnston elaborated that

Trump's financial ties to Russia

explain "why when

he has no money and

he had no credit,

he was flush with cash

through all sorts of deals as well as being bailed out a few years ago.”

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-expert-david-cay-johnston-warns-russia-has-more-30-years-blackmail-material

Nobody knows where Trash got $100Ms to buy those Scottish properties.

====================

Where Did Donald Trump Get Two Hundred Million Dollars to Buy His Money-Losing Scottish Golf Club?

https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk/swamp-chronicles/where-did-donald-trump-get-200-million-dollars-to-buy-his-money-losing-scottish-golf-club

[spurraider21]

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop
metadata collection =/= surveillance

[Pavlov]

No, it doesn’t. And that is precisely why the court was not informed.You need to show me the "degree of possible bias" case history for FISA warrants. "Because muh conspiracy theory says so" doesn't cut it.

[djohn2oo8]

1021891270862548992

[TSA]

1021850839709827074

Nunes quickly finding himself on an island.

Yes it’s Nunes on the island and not the committee who’s director of security was arrested for leaking the Page FISA :rollin

1021880099027726337

1021881430446628867

[TSA]

1021891270862548992

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-butina-exclusive/exclusive-accused-russian-agent-butina-met-with-u-s-treasury-fed-officials-idUSKBN1KC0DC

Russian collusion with Obama administration :bobo

[Chris]

Clapper ran his yapper and sold out Obama :lol

[Chris]

1021892906024464384

[Pavlov]

Yes it’s Nunes on the island and not the committee who’s director of security was arrested for leaking the Page FISA :rollin

1021880099027726337

1021881430446628867That's the same dude who was positive Podesta was one of the five pardoned by Mueller.

It was clear as day to him.

Also, how do the actions of a guy who started his job in 1987 affect Burr's opinion of the warrant application, TSA?

[Pavlov]

1021892906024464384That doesn't say what your anonymous twitter douche thinks it says.

[Chris]

That doesn't say what your anonymous twitter douche thinks it says.

What is the anonymous twitter douche thinking Pavlov and what does it actually say. Break it down for me.

[Pavlov]

What is the anonymous twitter douche thinking Pavlov and what does it actually say. Break it down for me.Your douche thinks somehow Clapper is saying bad things about Obama. Clapper is giving him credit. Clapper thinks the Mueller investigation is a good thing.

Any other questions?

[TSA]

That's the same dude who was positive Podesta was one of the five pardoned by Mueller.

It was clear as day to him.

Also, how do the actions of a guy who started his job in 1987 affect Burr's opinion of the warrant application, TSA?

Hold up. You don’t think the 82 texts that Wolfe sent to Watkins on the 17th were the same 82 pages of the Page FISA that Wolfe’s committee received on the 17th? :rollin

[Chris]

Any other questions?

Next time I want a vague nothingburger answer you will be the first to know Pavlov.

[Pavlov]

Hold up. You don’t think the 82 texts that Wolfe sent to Watkins on the 17th were the same 82 pages of the Page FISA that Wolfe’s committee received on the 17th? :rollinI'm saying he's been proved to be completely wrong before.

He could be right here.

Question pending: How do the actions of a guy who started his job in 1987 affect Burr's opinion of the warrant application, TSA?

[Pavlov]

Next time I want a vague nothingburger answer you will be the first to know Pavlov.What more do you need to know about it, Chris?

Be specific.

[TSA]

I'm saying he's been proved to be completely wrong before.

He could be right here.

Question pending: How do the actions of a guy who started his job in 1987 affect Burr's opinion of the warrant application, TSA?

Who said they did?

[DarrinS]

Your douche thinks somehow Clapper is saying bad things about Obama. Clapper is giving him credit. Clapper thinks the Mueller investigation is a good thing.

Any other questions?


Obama admin always played by the book. Susan Rice said so in her last email to herself after meeting between Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Rogers, et. al. Because, that’s what people who play by the book do. :lol

[TSA]

Your douche thinks somehow Clapper is saying bad things about Obama. Clapper is giving him credit. Clapper thinks the Mueller investigation is a good thing.

Any other questions?

Clapper is covering his ass.

[Pavlov]

Who said they did?So you're saying Wolfe's actions in no way affect Burr's opinion of the validity of the warrants and you only brought it up as distracting innuendo?

I agree with you.

[Chris]

1021905463632375809


4gPVRckG2sY

[Pavlov]

Clapper is covering his ass.By saying what is already a matter of record?

lol you conspiracy guys.

Tell me, what laws are you saying Clapper broke?

[Chris]

1021781707450667011

[Pavlov]

1021781707450667011What's his conspiracy theory?

[Chris]

What's his conspiracy theory?

DNC weaponized the FBI and other agencies to win the election. Pretty simple.

[Pavlov]

DNC weaponized the FBI and other agencies to win the election. Pretty simple.But why didn't they actually use the alleged FBI weapon before the election?

Explain.

[Spurminator]

DNC weaponized the FBI and other agencies to win the election. Pretty simple.

And they almost got away with it! If only they had known when the election was.

[Chris]

They were spying on his campaign using Carter Page and a two hop system. Have you read anything?

[Pavlov]

And they almost got away with it! If only they had known when the election was.And if they hadn't spent all that time investigating Clinton instead of Trump.

lol Chris's stupid conspiracy theory

[DarrinS]

muhRussiaCollusion is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever

But keep asking people about their conspiracy theories, Chump.

[boutons_deux]

Former US attorney says Trump’s lies help Mueller — here’s how

A former U.S. federal prosecutor urged investigators and prosecutors in the cases against President Donald Trump not to be discouraged, because his lies can be helpful.

lies can still be helpful, according to former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, who said that there is “no such thing as too much evidence.”

“Believe it or not, lies are helpful to a prosecutor, too,” he continued.

“Not just because you can charge them separately.

There’s another reason why lies are helpful:

people who lie, box themselves into a corner.”

He explained that someone like Trump will ultimately commit himself to a story, even if he knows the truth is something different.

“Even if you don’t believe it, you know what the story is, subsequently, at trial, they’re stuck, right?” he noted.

“And disproving a lie, proving that they lied to put it in plain English, is sometimes just as valuable to a prosecutor as obtaining the truth.”

“In the end, if Bob Mueller feels he must talk to the president, and I imagine that any prosecutor would want to, there’s another avenue, of course,” Rosenberg explained.

“He can issue a grand jury subpoena.

That will likely be litigated and my guess is, the special counsel will win.

And the president will be compelled to sit for an interview.

It’s a long path. It might be a tortured path,

but it makes more sense to me than this back and forth with Mr. Giuliani.”

He also noted that most of what Giuliani says is nonsense and

he’s intentionally trying to sow deceit.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/former-us-attorney-says-trumps-lies-help-mueller-heres/

And issuing the President a grand jury subpoena is CONSTITUTIONAL,

as SCOTUS ruled in the Bill Clinton case.

[Spurminator]

muhRussiaCollusion is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever

Verifiably false. But we know you hate it more than the other conspiracies, particularly muh"FBI Conspired to Set Up Trump"gate.

[djohn2oo8]

muhRussiaCollusion is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever

But keep asking people about their conspiracy theories, Chump.
What is your theory

[Chris]

Pavlov uses conspiracy theory because it is a conversation ender. It writes off the source and information in one fell swoop. A product of cognitive dissonance.

It's just another variation of a white flag. I'm familiar with this strategy, because I deal with low energy reptilian brains daily.

[Pavlov]

They were spying on his campaign using Carter Page and a two hop system. Have you read anything?So your theory is they waited until two weeks before the election to even apply for the Carter Page warrant, even though Trump's campaign had disavowed Page a full month earlier?

All the while publicly investigating Clinton?

How does this work?

[DarrinS]

Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”

:lol

[Pavlov]

muhRussiaCollusion is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories everExcept multiple members of the Trump campaign tried multiple times to collude, sure.


But keep asking people about their conspiracy theories, Chump.Chris's is especially stupid.

I'm sure yours is too but you're terrified to say what it is.

[Pavlov]

Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”

:lolAnd how are you saying that affected the FBI's actions before the election, Darrin?

[Pavlov]

Pavlov uses conspiracy theory because it is a conversation ender. It writes off the source and information in one fell swoop.I am discussing your conspiracy theory right now.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266387&p=9491913&viewfull=1#post9491913

Waiting for your answer.

[spurraider21]

muhRussiaCollusion is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever

But keep asking people about their conspiracy theories, Chump.
nah, dumbest conspiracy theory ever was when you thought ST mods were censoring your super badass anti-pc takes

[Pavlov]

nah, dumbest conspiracy theory ever was when you thought ST mods were censoring your super badass anti-pc takesSo edgy the mods couldn't take it!

[boutons_deux]

MSNBC analyst explains how Trump may be priming Republicans to blame Russia and refuse to concede midterm losses

On Tuesday, Donald Trump tweeted to claim that

Russia would interfere in the 2018 midterm elections to help Democrats.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/msnbc-analyst-explains-trump-may-priming-republicans-blame-russia-refuse-concede-midterm-losses/

So if Russia helps Dems win, it's not legit, so Repugs should be prepared, ain't Trash's fault that Dems would win,

but if Russia helped/helps Trash and Repugs win, it's legit :lol

Trash is so fuckin stupid, can't keep his own shit, his lies straight.

[Pavlov]

Puts it pretty succinctly:

1021365552806232064

[TSA]

Puts it pretty succinctly:

1021365552806232064

The FBI told the FISA court that Page "has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government"

Why is Carter Page not sitting in a jail cell?

[Pavlov]

The FBI told the FISA court that Page "has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government"

Why is Carter Page not sitting in a jail cell?It was a counterintelligence investigation. The evidence is quite clear the warrants generated quite a bit of intel and the warrant expired only late last October.

Did Q ever predict any of Mueller's indictments?

[Chris]

yikes


1021919637188079622

[TSA]

It was a counterintelligence investigation. The evidence is quite clear the warrants generated quite a bit of intel and the warrant expired only late last October.Who has been indicted due to intel gathered with the Page FISA? If Page was collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government why has he not been indicted?


Did Q ever predict any of Mueller's indictments?

You’ll have to expend energy in the thread you don’t expend energy in.

[TSA]

yikes


1021919637188079622

Even Cooper sees the writing on the wall.

[Pavlov]

Who has been indicted due to intel gathered with the Page FISA?It's a counterintellignece investigation. I've asked you several times why Clinton hasn't been indicted by the Trump DOJ since you claim the case is cut and dry. You disappear every time.


If Page was collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government why has he not been indicted?Dunno. Could be many, many reasons including insufficient evidence.



You’ll have to expend energy in the thread you don’t expend energy in.So Q didn't predict any Mueller indictments.

Cool. Just as I thought.

[Pavlov]

Even Cooper sees the writing on the wall.What are you saying will happen to Mook, TSA?

[TSA]

It's a counterintellignece investigation. I've asked you several times why Clinton hasn't been indicted by the Trump DOJ since you claim the case is cut and dry. You disappear every time.No, I ask you how long these investigations take, just like you ask about Mueller’s investigation when I ask where are the Russian collusion charges.


Dunno. Could be many, many reasons including insufficient evidence.The FBI told the FISA court that Page "has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government"



So Q didn't predict any Mueller indictments.

Cool. Just as I thought.no need to lie about reading every Q post

[Chris]

Even Cooper sees the writing on the wall.

I noticed he was incredulous as well.

[TSA]

What are you saying will happen to Mook, TSA?

Nothing Pavlov where did I say anything would happen to Mook?

[TSA]

I noticed he was incredulous as well.

He was so flustered he had to ask those questions that he couldn’t get the name right of the guy they’ve reported on for over a year