Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Reck]

you might have a gambling problem.

That's what I said a while back. I apparently hit a nerve because he went months without talking to me. :lol

[Pavlov]

I take pride knowing he can't post on his main account because of me.I take pride in knowing all he does now is plagiarize walls of text.

[Splits]

I take pride in knowing all he does now is plagiarize walls of text.

last one is also sundance quoting some crazy congressman lol

[Pavlov]

last one is also sundance quoting some crazy congressman lolPretty sure he had already posted a link to Jim Jordan's demands.

Just completely ignoring the Wray/Rosenstein visit to the Speaker today. That shit is big. Guess we'll have to wait for sundance to weigh in.

[Chris]

That shit is big.

Big booms coming. (for real this time!)

[Reck]

Pretty sure he had already posted a link to Jim Jordan's demands.

Just completely ignoring the Wray/Rosenstein visit to the Speaker today. That shit is big. Guess we'll have to wait for sundance to weigh in.

People who TSA puts his support behind as gospels of truth:
Jim Jordan twitter
Trump twitter

People whom TSA thinks are in on the joke
Flynn

People whom TSA thinks are part of the deep red state
FBI
CIA
DOJ
Soros

What a guy. :lol

[Pavlov]

Big booms coming. (for real this time!)The meeting itself is a boom, you idiot.

[TSA]

Lol more like you threw 5 pick sixes with the defense highstepping to the end zone on your ass and are down 35-0 at the end of the third quarter.

Should be a simple victory for you then. Here’s your chance to kill my last account.

Do you accept the ELE yes or no?

[TSA]

The meeting itself is a boom, you idiot.

What did they discuss in the meeting?

[Pavlov]

What did they discuss in the meeting?I can only speculate, but since Sessions wasn't there, I'd say the Mueller investigation. And since this was Nunes' deadline to meet his demands, probably something about the shit he's been pouting about.

If you can find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, you let me know about it, sundance. I'll look for it in your next blog entry.

Thanks in advance.

[Chris]

you idiot.

https://media.giphy.com/media/vk7VesvyZEwuI/giphy.gif

[Pavlov]

https://media.giphy.com/media/vk7VesvyZEwuI/giphy.gifIf you can find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, you let me know about it.

And tell sundance. I know he'll give you credit.

[Chris]

If you can find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, you let me know about it.

And tell sundance. I know he'll give you credit.

Can I have a cool nickname too?

[Pavlov]

Can I have a cool nickname too?If you plagiarize the right guy, sure.

Can you find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, Chris?

[TSA]

If you plagiarize the right guy, sure.

Can you find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, Chris?

:lol plagiarized

I quoted and linked the entire article in this very thread today, no need to do it twice. I’m truly surprised you missed it. No more ST notebook for 2018?

[Pavlov]

:lol plagiarized

I quoted and linked the entire article in this very thread today, no need to do it twice. I’m truly surprised you missed it. No more ST notebook for 2018?The entire unlawful exoneration article?

:lol

Can you find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, sundance?

[Chris]

948689273905131525

[DarrinS]

The entire unlawful exoneration article?

:lol

Can you find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, sundance?


Did they meet on a tarmac?

[Chris]

Just a reminder

948533233129525249

[Pavlov]

948689273905131525"adoptions"

[AaronY]

I take pride knowing he can't post on his main account because of me.
thats kinda sad tbh

[Pavlov]

Did they meet on a tarmac?Hey, a snarky *ding*.

OK Darrin, I will ask you directly. Can you find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house?

[DarrinS]

948689273905131525

I read several excerpts today and that book reads like some tabloid bs, tbh.

[Chris]

948709866159427584

[Chris]

I read several excerpts today and that book reads like some tabloid bs, tbh.

It's already number one on Amazon. 'Murica.

https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Fury-Inside-Trump-White/dp/1250158060

[DarrinS]

It's already number one on Amazon. 'Murica.

https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Fury-Inside-Trump-White/dp/1250158060


You only know djohn mustard preordered. :lol

[Chris]

You only know djohn mustard preordered. :lol

:lol

[djohn2oo8]

You only know djohn mustard preordered. :lol

What are you here for? Still don't have the nuts to call yourself a Trump supporter? Sad!

[DarrinS]

What are you here for? Still don't have the nuts to call yourself a Trump supporter? Sad!

Agent orange couldn’t collude to save his life. He’d be bragging about it on Twitter.

[Chris]

948729592759513088

[DarrinS]

Always enter into a conspiracy with a loudmouth braggart. -Putin

[Chris]

948720495238766592

[Reck]

I read several excerpts today and that book reads like some tabloid bs, tbh.

Cool. Then Bannon should come out and correct the record.

[Reck]

948729592759513088

Whoah.

You want Wray in jail already? :lol

[Chris]

Whoah.

You want Wray in jail already? :lol

I want this.

https://images.iacpublishinglabs.com/reference-production-images/question/aq/700px-394px/lady-justice-blindfolded_55d3389af74020f6.jpg

[DarrinS]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455105/fusion-gps-steele-dossier-collusion-narrative-falls-apart

[Spurtacular]

:cry The law matters, except when it doesn't :cry

[djohn2oo8]

Agent orange couldn’t collude to save his life. He’d be bragging about it on Twitter.

Why would he be bragging about something that there would be charges resulting from? No not collusion. Conspiracy against the US, shit like that. Why would he be bragging about accepting foreign help?

[Chucho]

I want this.

https://images.iacpublishinglabs.com/reference-production-images/question/aq/700px-394px/lady-justice-blindfolded_55d3389af74020f6.jpg

Classy scales. But I don't see the practicality of them aside from weighing a few grams of blow.

[djohn2oo8]

BTW, Darrin. Why did you come to that conclusion before the investigation is even over?

[DarrinS]

Why would he be bragging about something that there would be charges resulting from? No not collusion. Conspiracy against the US, shit like that. Why would he be bragging about accepting foreign help?

Personality

[DarrinS]

BTW, Darrin. Why did you come to that conclusion before the investigation is even over?

You seem to have formed your own opinion before the investigation is over. Almost 600 pages worth.

[tlongII]

I want this.

https://images.iacpublishinglabs.com/reference-production-images/question/aq/700px-394px/lady-justice-blindfolded_55d3389af74020f6.jpg

Those are nice titties IMO.

[Pavlov]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455105/fusion-gps-steele-dossier-collusion-narrative-falls-apart:lol McCarthy goes full Uranium One.

[TSA]

The entire unlawful exoneration article?

:lol

Can you find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house, sundance?

No more questions from you until you either accept or decline the ELE bet. If the thought of losing your ability to post on spurstalk in too unbearable we can make it a money bet. Which do you prefer?

[Chris]

Those are nice titties IMO.

:cry Quit objectifying women :cry

[Pavlov]

No more questions from you until you either accept or decline the ELE bet. If the thought of losing your ability to post on spurstalk in too unbearable we can make it a money bet. Which do you prefer?:lol tough guy laying down the rules.

I ignore all bets.

If you don't like it, no problem. You don't want to want to discuss anything anymore. I get it. Things don't go well for you and you make up little games and rules for yourself to avoid actual discussion. It's your pattern.

[Reck]

I want this.

https://images.iacpublishinglabs.com/reference-production-images/question/aq/700px-394px/lady-justice-blindfolded_55d3389af74020f6.jpg

What laws did the FBI director break now?

I mean, he's been in that job for how long, Chris? 3-4 months? :lol You're a caricature.

[TSA]

:lol tough guy laying down the rules.

I ignore all bets.

If you don't like it, no problem. You don't want to want to discuss anything anymore. I get it. Things don't go well for you and you make up little games and rules for yourself to avoid actual discussion. It's your pattern.

:lol coward ignoring all bets

[Pavlov]

:lol coward ignoring all bets:lol coward ignoring all discussion

[DarrinS]

:lol McCarthy goes full Uranium One.

Not so much. He’s a rational voice.

[TSA]

:lol coward ignoring all discussion

:lol liar and a coward

[Chris]

What laws did the FBI director break now?

I mean, he's been in that job for how long, Chris? 3-4 months? :lol You're a caricature.

I'm more familiar with Bird Law. I'm guessing contempt like the tweet stated, or possibly obstruction of justice?

[Pavlov]

:lol liar and a coward:lol coward still ignoring all discussion

:crymuh bet:cry

[Pavlov]

Not so much. He’s a rational voice.Especially when he completely contradicts himself. :lol

[DarrinS]

Especially when he completely contradicts himself. :lol

Please elaborate

[DarrinS]

Maybe one of you guys can post your collusion theory?

Be specific

[Pavlov]

Please elaborateYou'd have to read his October column about the FBI and Trump DOJ appointees. You won't bother, so no big deal.


Maybe one of you guys can post your collusion theory?

Be specificLike you I think Trump is too stupid to collude with Russia. His underlings aren't though.

Trump is stupid enough to obstruct justice and to be compromised by Russians one way or the other -- so we'll see.

[djohn2oo8]

You seem to have formed your own opinion before the investigation is over. Almost 600 pages worth.

I've posted facts. You haven't.

[djohn2oo8]

Maybe one of you guys can post your collusion theory?

Be specific

We have already. You said you wanted Mueller's investigation to continue yet you say everything is bogu. you contradict yourself.

[djohn2oo8]

948764708626161670
lol Ol Bannon wasn't lying

[DarrinS]

We have already. You said you wanted Mueller's investigation to continue yet you say everything is bogu. you contradict yourself.

A bunch of random meetings don’t count. How did they collude? Be specific.

[DarrinS]

You'd have to read his October column about the FBI and Trump DOJ appointees. You won't bother, so no big deal.


Link?



Like you I think Trump is too stupid to collude with Russia. His underlings aren't though.

Trump is stupid enough to obstruct justice and to be compromised by Russians one way or the other -- so we'll see.

We will see

[djohn2oo8]

948767026964606978

[djohn2oo8]

948768092213018625
:lol Trump

[DMX7]

948764708626161670
lol Ol Bannon wasn't lying

It's essentially confirmation they know Bannon has got dirt and what he's already said isn't just fabrication. Steve hates Jervanka! :lol

[Chris]

Bannon pee pee tape confirmed.

[AaronY]

Bannon pee pee tape confirmed.
how does this make sense?

[AaronY]

Chrisbot.exe malfunctioning here

[djohn2oo8]

It's essentially confirmation they know Bannon has got dirt and what he's already said isn't just fabrication. Steve hates Jervanka! :lol

This is where we are
https://media.giphy.com/media/qrggsgd0OUReE/giphy.gif

[DarrinS]

So, I guess this thread will be filled with people re-retweeting news reports until the investigation is over.

[djohn2oo8]

So, I guess this thread will be filled with people re-retweeting news reports until the investigation is over.

And you'll be posting articles with theories that you have no clue how to support.

[djohn2oo8]

BTW, Darrin. You have the option to not come in here.

[Reck]

Darrins has almost 1000 posts on a thread where he doesn't support or care about Trump. :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Darrins has almost 1000 posts on a thread where he doesn't support or care about Trump. :lol

:lol

[TSA]

We told Congress that from Manhattan to Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., and from Toronto to Panama, we found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering. Likewise, those deals don’t seem to interest Congress.

Suck on that jizz-nugget.

Which brings us to a remarkable aspect of the op-ed: If Simpson and Fritsch have evidence of criminal or otherwise corrupt Trump-Russia contacts, why don’t they just tell us what it is. Why do they write a lengthy column caterwauling about how the Republican-controlled committees are supposedly withholding the information they’ve provided? We are not talking about classified information here; we are talking about Fusion’s own investigation. They say the Republicans refuse to release their testimony. Why wait for the Republicans? There’s nothing stopping Simpson and Fritsch from fully disclosing what their testimony was. Why don’t they tell the story instead of complaining about its not being told?

[TSA]

:lol coward still ignoring all discussion

:crymuh bet:cry

I’m ignoring any discussion concerning the bet, you pussed out. You only have your cowardly self to blame.

[DMX7]

Darrins has almost 1000 posts on a thread where he doesn't support or care about Trump. :lol

:rollin

[TSA]

I've posted facts. You haven't.

:rollin you could have a 20 page thread of everything you’ve posted that were the opposite of facts.

I’ll start.


Republicans funded the Steele dossier
:rollin

[TSA]

948768092213018625
:lol Trump

That’s hotter than a Louise Mensch take. Well done.

[djohn2oo8]

:rollin you could have a 20 page thread of everything you’ve posted that were the opposite of facts.

I’ll start.


:rollin

Susan Rice Indictment
Hillary indictment

Where are they?

[djohn2oo8]

Pizzagate :lol

[TSA]

Susan Rice Indictment
Hillary indictment

Where are they?

deflect.exe functioning perfectly

I never claimed those as facts those are called predictions.

You can come clean with the facts right here right now. Who funded the Steele dossier Democrats or Republicans?

[djohn2oo8]

deflect.exe functioning perfectly

I never claimed those as facts those are called predictions.

You can come clean with the facts right here right now. Who funded the Steele dossier Democrats or Republicans?
"I never claimed those as facts"
:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Reck]

:rollin you could have a 20 page thread of everything you’ve posted that were the opposite of facts.

I’ll start.


:rollin

They funded THE dossier at the early stages. Steele came later to add more content.


WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.
The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-nomination.html).




It has long been known that Fusion GPS was first hired by Republicans, but it was not known who was the source of the funding.


The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee retained Fusion GPS (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html) to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this week. Working for them, the firm retained Christopher Steele, a respected former British intelligence officer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

Keep laughing I supposed though. That bitter sweet taste you think it's apple juice is piss you're drinking.

[TSA]

"I never claimed those as facts"
:lmao :lmao :lmao

You’re embarrassing yourself here.

[djohn2oo8]

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

Lord have mercy!

[TSA]

They funded THE dossier at the early stages. Steele came later to add more content.



:lol village idiot jumping in to semen shield and shitting on himself with his own links at the same time

Not surprising from the dipshit who doesn’t know the difference between “from Hillary” or “on Hillary”

Republicans did not fund THE dossier. Steele complied THE dossier. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Democrats paid Fusion GPS.





https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

Keep laughing I supposed though. That bitter sweet taste you think it's apple juice is piss you're drinking.

:lol village idiot jumping in to semen shield and shitting on himself with his own links at the same time

Not surprising from the dipshit who doesn’t know the difference between “from Hillary” or “on Hillary”

Republicans did not fund THE dossier. Steele complied THE dossier. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Democrats paid Fusion GPS.

[djohn2oo8]

"Susan Rice the only one to be indicted"

[TSA]

Lord have mercy!

Lord have mercy you found the prediction I said I made!


Republicans funded the Steele dossier

^^^

Is this a fact yes or no?

[TSA]

djohn and Reck in a stubborn battle to continue being wrong. Who will hold hold out the longest? :lol

[Reck]

You’re embarrassing yourself here.

Are you sure about that?

I seem to remember a few months back where you said she would get Hillary would indicted. I found the post and so did spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905).

I can look around and prove it if you like.


:lol village idiot jumping in to semen shield and shitting on himself with his own links at the same time

Not surprising from the dipshit who doesn’t know the difference between “from Hillary” or “on Hillary”

Republicans did not fund THE dossier. Steele complied THE dossier. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Democrats paid Fusion GPS.


I'm not going to argue this with you. You either believe what's in front of your face or you dont. No skin off my back.

[djohn2oo8]

- No one besides Susan will be indicted
- Obama wiretapped Trump
- Hillary will be indicted
- Flynn a free man
- Flynn got caught on purpose
- Seth Rich Murder theory
- Pizzagate
- Comet ping pong pizza
- No FISA Warrants

Lordy!

[TSA]

Are you sure about that?

I seem to remember a few months back where you said she would get Hillary would indicted. I found the post and so did spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905).

I can look around and prove it if you like.




I'm not going to argue this with you. You either believe what's in front of your face or you dont. No skin off my back.

You can look around all night for predictions if you want to waste your time.

It’s already known who funded the Steele dossier, the article you quoted confirmed it. Democrats. There isn’t anything to argue. Admit you were wrong and make yourself look less stupid than djohn tonight :tu

[TSA]

948574260477513730

948581707506159617

948587259930046474

948587259930046474

:lol Pavlov — pet project scandal

In case anyone was wondering about Horowitz past

942227779579498496

This OIG investigation is going to be brutal. Heads will roll. ELE bet still stands to any and all takers. 3 have pussed out so far when offered directly, step right up. :bobo

[Pavlov]

I’m ignoring any discussion concerning the bet, you pussed out. You only have your cowardly self to blame.You're ignoring any discussion at all. You pussed out long ago before :crymuh bet:cry. You only have your cowardly, lying self to blame.

[Pavlov]

948574260477513730

948581707506159617

948587259930046474

948587259930046474

:lol Pavlov — pet project scandal

In case anyone was wondering about Horowitz past

942227779579498496

This OIG investigation is going to be brutal. Heads will roll. ELE bet still stands to any and all takers. 3 have pussed out so far when offered directly, step right up. :boboWhat does the OIG pour over agencies?

:lmao

[Mikeanaro]

Everything is a nothing burglar, nothing will happen Trump will be president for 7 more years.
Clinton lied under oath, nothing happened.
Obozo funded ISIS, nothing happened.
Hillaria Uranus one, nothing happened.

This is a dumb screen to sell and keep limbtards jumping and pumping, hoping for something that will never come.

[TSA]

You're ignoring any discussion at all. You pussed out long ago before :crymuh bet:cry. You only have your cowardly, lying self to blame.

Classic Chumpdumper projection again. Log off coward, there’s always tomorrow.

[TSA]

948454489563987968

Another good thread on the pet project scandal OIG investigation.

[Reck]

You can look around all night for predictions if you want to waste your time.

You're a pain in the ass sometimes because you simply won't admit when you said something and then won't fess up to it even though its there for everyone to read.

Here you you.


She'll be indicted after receiving the nomination and then the Democrats will throw out a Biden/Warren ticket giving Obama the third term he's always wanted.


I think she'll be indicted in March on the server issue and indicted again over the summer on her foundation issue.


They've already got enough, it will be up to Lynch. I almost hope Lynch refuses to indict, the shitstorm of leaks that would come out from the FBI would be amazing.

:lol Credit to Spurraider who found most of them. I just did the first one.

[TSA]

You're a pain in the ass sometimes because you simply won't admit when you said something and then won't fess up to it even though its there for everyone to read.

Here you you.







:lol Credit to Spurraider who found most of them. I just did the first one.

You took the same English as a second language class that djohn did :lmao

Thank you for wasting your time finding my predictions. Every quote is predicting a future event.

“she will”

“I think she will”

“it will”


Republicans funded the Steele dossier

:rollin

Now answer the question, who funded THE Steele dossier, Democrats or Republicans?

[TSA]

You're a pain in the ass sometimes because you simply won't admit when you said something and then won't fess up to it even though its there for everyone to read.


:lmao “on Hillary”
:lmao “from Hillary”
:lmao welcher

[Reck]

You took the same English as a second language class that djohn did :lmao

Thank you for wasting your time finding my predictions. Every quote is predicting a future event.

“she will”

“I think she will”

“it will”



:rollin

Now answer the question, who funded THE Steele dossier, Democrats or Republicans?

:lol proving me 100% right when I say you just cant admit when you fuck up.

If you say this or that person will get indicted that's your opinion. It's what you said and it's what you aren't admitting to saying.

This weak ass pussy cop out strategy that this was a prediction is shit.

Nowhere in those posts are you talking about predictions. That is you saying something that backfired on you per par. Retard

[Reck]

:lmao “on Hillary”
:lmao “from Hillary”
:lmao welcher

Look at you skating all over the place.

:cry shit I got no real rebuttal so let's *DING this shit and HILLARY!
:lol She will get indicted in March
:lol wake me up when the FBI calls Trumps a liar
:lol what the FBI is doing is patriotic :cry
:lol The FBI is now the enemy

[Reck]

what? :lol... any time somebody claims something will happen, that means they think it will happen.

that is a pretty awful attempt at spin, but i cant really blame you since you've backed yourself into a corner


Means you think Hillary will be indicted.
Means you think Hillary will be indicted.


Not only did you state she was going to get indicted. (Blatant admission) But you also managed to make yourself look pretty basic with your ABCs.

Fighting the actual facts is futile.

:lol Why did you even bring that up tonight anyway?

Shit for brains.

[Reck]

Only caveat is Wolff doesn't have the greatest reputation as a writer. Still worth the lols and the reaction of Trump supporters here.


If he was smart, he'd have Bannon on tape dictating quotes. :lol

948878530686980097

https://i.imgur.com/vIKMoye.gif

:lmao

[dabom]

948878530686980097

https://i.imgur.com/vIKMoye.gif

:lmao
:lol

[djohn2oo8]

948920761993089025

[Reck]

948920761993089025

Trump not being aware of that first ammendment thingy.

[djohn2oo8]

948921069624229889

[TSA]

:lol proving me 100% right when I say you just cant admit when you fuck up.

If you say this or that person will get indicted that's your opinion. It's what you said and it's what you aren't admitting to saying.

This weak ass pussy cop out strategy that this was a prediction is shit.

Nowhere in those posts are you talking about predictions. That is you saying something that backfired on you per par. Retard

Are opinions facts?

[RandomGuy]

Are opinions facts?

It is a fact that my opinion of your critical thinking abilities is low.

[djohn2oo8]

Are opinions facts?

Well your opinions never turn out to be facts.

[Pavlov]

Damn, TSA still trying to deny his failed predictions. No wonder he doesn't make them anymore.

[Reck]

Are opinions facts?

Looks like you got shit on again. Wipe yourself off.

[RandomGuy]

- No one besides Susan will be indicted
- Obama wiretapped Trump
- Hillary will be indicted
- Flynn a free man
- Flynn got caught on purpose
- Seth Rich Murder theory
- Pizzagate
- Comet ping pong pizza
- No FISA Warrants

Lordy!

TSA still thinks that ritual satanic child abuse exists, despite some rather good evidence that people made that shit up out of whole cloth.

[Pavlov]

TSA still thinks that ritual satanic child abuse exists, despite some rather good evidence that people made that shit up out of whole cloth.He suddenly stopped talking about that. I think his mind is being controlled by the abusers' hand signals and folk music tbh. Only possible explanation.

[RandomGuy]

A bunch of random meetings don’t count. How did they collude? Be specific.

Random meetings always count. :D

They used data garnered from the RNC databases to give to the Russians for their targeted disinformation campaign. The campaign staff also was used as a conduit to give information on Russian oligarch economic activity to Putin, so he can keep tabs on his "allies".

This was outlined in the Steele Dossier, if you had read it. The attempts by Carter Page and Manafort to coordinate with the Russians was part of that, and both were mentioned, as one of the facts that actually panned out from this document.

Cambridge Analytica likely shared data and methodology, either knowingly, or unknowingly, with Russian intelligence services for that. I say unknowingly, because they were likely tasked by the Trump campaign, who passed on whatever reports, or downloads of data that were given to the Trump campaign.

Specific enough for you?

[djohn2oo8]

He suddenly stopped talking about that. I think his mind is being controlled by the abusers' hand signals and folk music tbh. Only possible explanation.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

He suddenly stopped talking about that. I think his mind is being controlled by the abusers' hand signals and folk music tbh. Only possible explanation.

I have come to think even he doesn't believe the bullshit he posts here anymore. He does it out of spite to show them dumb liberals how wrong they are, while blithely ignoring any introspection as to how often he is proven wrong, and why that is.

I think if he had any self-awareness at all, he would have stopped posting a long time ago on this subject. Still, I hold out some small hope.

[TSA]

Damn, TSA still trying to deny his failed predictions. No wonder he doesn't make them anymore.

I’m not denying my predictions. Here you go lying again.

[TSA]

Looks like you got shit on again. Wipe yourself off.

The only one getting shit on is you and djohn as neither one of you understands the difference between a prediction and a fact.

Democrats funded THE Steele dossier. Fact or fiction?

[Pavlov]

I’m not denying my predictions. Here you go lying again.You tried to deny they were predictions. :lol

[TSA]

You tried to deny they were predictions. :lol


Lord have mercy you found the prediction I said I made!



Thank you for wasting your time finding my predictions. Every quote is predicting a future event.


You can look around all night for predictions if you want to waste your time.

Why do you lie so much?

[Pavlov]

Oh right -- now you're trying to say other people's predictions are facts.

:lol

You flip-flop so much it's hard to keep track. Do you have a notebook to tell you how many times you changed what you said?

[TSA]

Oh right -- now you're trying to say other people's predictions are facts.

:lol

You flip-flop so much it's hard to keep track. Do you have a notebook to tell you how many times you changed what you said?

More lies.


Republicans funded the Steele dossier

That isn't a prediction dipshit, it also isn't a fact.

[TSA]

I have come to think even he doesn't believe the bullshit he posts here anymore. He does it out of spite to show them dumb liberals how wrong they are, while blithely ignoring any introspection as to how often he is proven wrong, and why that is.

I think if he had any self-awareness at all, he would have stopped posting a long time ago on this subject. Still, I hold out some small hope.

I so don't believe anything I post that I've offered to bet money on what I post, yet no one accepted. Who really doesn't believe what they post?

[Pavlov]

More lies.Been a rough week for you and your Dear Leader.

[Pavlov]

I so don't believe anything I post that I've offered to bet money on what I post, yet no one accepted. Who really doesn't believe what they post?:crymuh bets:cry

Do you realize how stupid you look right now?

Oh, sorry -- I violated your "no questions" rule because :crymuh bets:cry

[TSA]

:crymuh bets:cry

Do you realize how stupid you look right now?

Oh, sorry -- I violated your "no questions" rule because :crymuh bets:cry

The opinion of a liar and coward hold no weight.

[Pavlov]

The opinion of a liar and coward hold no weight.:lol projection

Yours also hold no weight since you change and deny them so often.

[TSA]

Been a rough week for you and your Dear Leader.

Forcing your tail between your legs and watching the FBI run from the dossier has been tons of fun to watch. Been a great week for me and looks to be an excellent month as the OIG starts reporting to congress on the 15th.

[TSA]

:lol projection

Yours also hold no weight since you change and deny them so often.

You've been caught lying 3 times just this morning.

[djohn2oo8]

948962500460077056
lolwut

[Pavlov]

Forcing your tail between your legs and watching the FBI run from the dossier has been tons of fun to watch.Run? They went over Nunes head yesterday and you said fuck all about it.
Been a great week for me and looks to be an excellent month as the OIG starts reporting to congress on the 15th.Not good enough to make any predictions about convictions for unlawful exonerations, sundance.

[Pavlov]

You've been caught lying 3 times just this morning.:crymuh non-prediction prediction fact bets:cry

[djohn2oo8]

:lol unlawful exoneration

[TSA]

:lol unlawful exoneration

:lol Republicans funded the Steele dossier

[djohn2oo8]

:lol Republicans funded the Steele dossier

What's an unlawful exoneration?

[TSA]

948964303012425728

ruh roh Comey

[Pavlov]

948964303012425728

ruh roh ComeyHOW DARE COMEY HAVE PROOF OF HIS MEETINGS WITH DEAR LEADER! IT MIGHT LEAD TO UNLAWFUL EXONERATION!

[TSA]

948964303012425728

ruh roh Comey

948965117944827909

[djohn2oo8]

948964303012425728

ruh roh Comey

What's an unlawful exoneration?

[TSA]

HOW DARE COMEY HAVE PROOF OF HIS MEETINGS WITH DEAR LEADER! IT MIGHT LEAD TO UNLAWFUL EXONERATION!

Proof of his meetings isn't illegal, giving the classified memo to someone without clearance is. You are embarrassing yourself just stop already.

[TSA]

What's an unlawful exoneration?

I'll answer that as soon as you answer my question you keep dodging. Who funded the Steele dossier, Republicans or Democrats?

[RandomGuy]

948964303012425728

ruh roh Comey

This bit got debunked a while back. Comey's memos don't qualify under the statutes, or any NDA.

[djohn2oo8]

I'll answer that as soon as you answer my question you keep dodging. Who funded the Steele dossier, Republicans or Democrats?

What's an unlawful exoneration?

[Pavlov]

Proof of his meetings isn't illegal, giving the classified memo to someone without clearance is. You are embarrassing yourself just stop already.What was classified and what was the classification?

Or do questions still scare you?

Including that question.

Pussy.

[RandomGuy]

I'll answer that as soon as you answer my question you keep dodging. Who funded the Steele dossier, Republicans or Democrats?

Circumstantial ad hominem

Funding source is irrelevant to underlying truth of any claims in them.

I told your dumb ass to look this up, but you can't seem to pass up an opportunity to play in your own waste.

Fallacy occurs when someone uses unsound reasoning to support a claim or argument. Circumstantial Ad Hominem occurs when someone attacks a claim by saying that the person making the claim is only making it because it's in his/her interest or because of his/her circumstances.

Correct critical thinking answer to your question is: Doesn't really matter.


Is the document false because of who paid for it?

[Pavlov]

The funny thing about TSA is he is praying for legal technicalities to save his Dear Leader. He doesn't give a shit if anything about him is true or not.

[djohn2oo8]

The funny thing about TSA is he is praying for legal technicalities to save his Dear Leader. He doesn't give a shit if anything about him is true or not.

Yep. Sad!

[Pavlov]

Poster: I believe it has been reported much of the dossier's information has been verified.

TSA: WHO PAID FOR IT? LOCK THEM UP!




Poster: Comey has contemporaneous memos of his meetings with Trump that he distributed so people would know he didn't make shit up.

TSA: NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT! CLASSIFIED! LOCK HIM UP!

[djohn2oo8]

Somebody do something!!!! http://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/damn.png

[TSA]

This bit got debunked a while back. Comey's memos don't qualify under the statutes, or any NDA.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-justice-department-about-classification-comey-memos

Jan 03, 2018
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is today raising questions about when the memos memorializing interactions between former FBI Director James Comey and President Trump were classified and the chain of custody for the classified memos.

After a review of the seven memoranda created by former Director Comey, it is now clear that four are marked classified at various levels of sensitivity. Former Director Comey reportedly provided copies of four memos to Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman. If true, that would mean at least one disclosed memo contained information now-marked classified.

In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Grassley asks about the chain of custody of the memos, when they were marked classified and by whom. Grassley also asks what steps the Justice Department has taken to determine if any classified information was provided to Professor Richman and whether such a disclosure violated department rules or policy.

Full text of Grassley’s letter to Rosenstein follows.

January 3, 2018

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

This Committee has previously written to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the memoranda that former Director Comey created purportedly memorializing his interactions with President Trump.[1] My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security. The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified. Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the “SECRET” or “CONFIDENTIAL” levels. Only three did not contain classified information. FBI personnel refused to answer factual questions during the document reviews, including questions about the chain of custody of the documents I was reviewing, the date that they were marked classified, and who marked them as classified.

According to press reports, Professor Daniel Richman of Columbia Law School stated that Mr. Comey provided him four of the seven memoranda and encouraged him to “detail [Comey’s] memos to the press.”[2] If it’s true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information.[3] Professor Richman later read a portion of one of the memos to a New York Times reporter.[4]

When the Committee contacted Professor Richman seeking copies of the memos Mr. Comey had provided him, he refused to provide them, did not say how many he had received from Mr. Comey, and refused to say whether he retained copies.[5] It is unclear whether any of the memos reviewed by the Committee were retrieved from Professor Richman. The Committee has accordingly not determined which of the seven memos Mr. Comey provided him. Professor Richman did tell Committee investigators that he was working with the Special Counsel’s Office, and he reportedly told the media that he had turned over to the FBI copies of the memos he’d received from Mr. Comey.[6] If true, the Justice Department should know which memos were provided and be able to share that information with the Committee.

In order for the Committee to further assess this situation, please respond to the following in writing by no later than January 17, 2018:
Has the Justice Department or FBI in fact determined that any of the memoranda Mr. Comey sent Professor Richman contained classified information? If so, what steps were taken to retrieve and safeguard the information?

Which of the seven memoranda the FBI made available for the Committee’s review did Mr. Comey give to Professor Richman?

When did Mr. Comey give Professor Richman the memoranda?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, were any marked as classified?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, did any contain classified information, regardless of markings?

Please explain the method by which Mr. Comey transmitted the memoranda to Professor Richman. If the transmittal was electronic:

Please provide the account information that Mr. Comey and Mr. Richman used.

Please describe what steps the FBI has taken to recover all copies of any classified memoranda that might reside on computers, servers, or at other locations.

Have you initiated an investigation into the matter of whether Mr. Comey improperly disclosed classified information by providing these memoranda to Professor Richman? If so, what is the status of the investigation? If not, why not?

Has there been any review of whether the disclosure of the memoranda by Mr. Comey was otherwise improper, such as whether it violated his employment agreement or any Department rule or policy? If so, what is the status of the review? If not, why not?

When did the FBI mark the four memoranda as classified, and who made the classification decision?

As noted above, it has been reported that Professor Richman returned the memoranda to the FBI.[7] If so, on what date did this occur?

Did anyone from the FBI or Special Counsel’s Office discuss with Professor Richman this Committee’s request for copies of the memos? If so, please provide all records related to any such communications.

Does Professor Richman still have possession of any of the memoranda or copies?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,



Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary


cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

[djohn2oo8]

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-justice-department-about-classification-comey-memos

Jan 03, 2018
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is today raising questions about when the memos memorializing interactions between former FBI Director James Comey and President Trump were classified and the chain of custody for the classified memos.

After a review of the seven memoranda created by former Director Comey, it is now clear that four are marked classified at various levels of sensitivity. Former Director Comey reportedly provided copies of four memos to Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman. If true, that would mean at least one disclosed memo contained information now-marked classified.

In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Grassley asks about the chain of custody of the memos, when they were marked classified and by whom. Grassley also asks what steps the Justice Department has taken to determine if any classified information was provided to Professor Richman and whether such a disclosure violated department rules or policy.

Full text of Grassley’s letter to Rosenstein follows.

January 3, 2018

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

This Committee has previously written to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the memoranda that former Director Comey created purportedly memorializing his interactions with President Trump.[1] My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security. The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified. Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the “SECRET” or “CONFIDENTIAL” levels. Only three did not contain classified information. FBI personnel refused to answer factual questions during the document reviews, including questions about the chain of custody of the documents I was reviewing, the date that they were marked classified, and who marked them as classified.

According to press reports, Professor Daniel Richman of Columbia Law School stated that Mr. Comey provided him four of the seven memoranda and encouraged him to “detail [Comey’s] memos to the press.”[2] If it’s true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information.[3] Professor Richman later read a portion of one of the memos to a New York Times reporter.[4]

When the Committee contacted Professor Richman seeking copies of the memos Mr. Comey had provided him, he refused to provide them, did not say how many he had received from Mr. Comey, and refused to say whether he retained copies.[5] It is unclear whether any of the memos reviewed by the Committee were retrieved from Professor Richman. The Committee has accordingly not determined which of the seven memos Mr. Comey provided him. Professor Richman did tell Committee investigators that he was working with the Special Counsel’s Office, and he reportedly told the media that he had turned over to the FBI copies of the memos he’d received from Mr. Comey.[6] If true, the Justice Department should know which memos were provided and be able to share that information with the Committee.

In order for the Committee to further assess this situation, please respond to the following in writing by no later than January 17, 2018:
Has the Justice Department or FBI in fact determined that any of the memoranda Mr. Comey sent Professor Richman contained classified information? If so, what steps were taken to retrieve and safeguard the information?

Which of the seven memoranda the FBI made available for the Committee’s review did Mr. Comey give to Professor Richman?

When did Mr. Comey give Professor Richman the memoranda?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, were any marked as classified?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, did any contain classified information, regardless of markings?

Please explain the method by which Mr. Comey transmitted the memoranda to Professor Richman. If the transmittal was electronic:

Please provide the account information that Mr. Comey and Mr. Richman used.

Please describe what steps the FBI has taken to recover all copies of any classified memoranda that might reside on computers, servers, or at other locations.

Have you initiated an investigation into the matter of whether Mr. Comey improperly disclosed classified information by providing these memoranda to Professor Richman? If so, what is the status of the investigation? If not, why not?

Has there been any review of whether the disclosure of the memoranda by Mr. Comey was otherwise improper, such as whether it violated his employment agreement or any Department rule or policy? If so, what is the status of the review? If not, why not?

When did the FBI mark the four memoranda as classified, and who made the classification decision?

As noted above, it has been reported that Professor Richman returned the memoranda to the FBI.[7] If so, on what date did this occur?

Did anyone from the FBI or Special Counsel’s Office discuss with Professor Richman this Committee’s request for copies of the memos? If so, please provide all records related to any such communications.

Does Professor Richman still have possession of any of the memoranda or copies?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,



Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary


cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
http://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/yawn3.png

[Pavlov]

Wow, Grassley seems ultra concerned about what the memos say about Trump.

:lol

[TSA]

Circumstantial ad hominem

Funding source is irrelevant to underlying truth of any claims in them.

I told your dumb ass to look this up, but you can't seem to pass up an opportunity to play in your own waste.

Fallacy occurs when someone uses unsound reasoning to support a claim or argument. Circumstantial Ad Hominem occurs when someone attacks a claim by saying that the person making the claim is only making it because it's in his/her interest or because of his/her circumstances.

Correct critical thinking answer to your question is: Doesn't really matter.


Is the document false because of who paid for it?

Irrelevant to the question at hand. I’m not arguing whether or not the document is true or false. djohn2oo8 continues to falsely claim the Steele dossier was funded by Republicans and I want to know if he still believes that.

[djohn2oo8]

Poor TSA, can't explain what an unlawful exoneration is. Anybody ever heard of that?

[TSA]

What was classified and what was the classification?

Or do questions still scare you?

Including that question.

Pussy.



Four are marked secret or confidential. Asking what was classified is like asking what color underwear Comey is wearing today and expecting an answer.

[Pavlov]

Four are marked secret or confidential. Asking what was classified is like asking what color underwear Comey is wearing today and expecting an answer.And all this is so much more important to you than the actual record of the meetings with Trump.

Why is that?

:lol question you'll never answer

[spurraider21]

And all this is so much more important to you than the actual record of the meetings with Trump.

Why is that?

:lol question you'll never answer
yes. its like when LEAKS were more important than wrongdoings of Flynn

basically doing exactly what they (rightfully) called Donna Brazile out for when she claimed she was being "persecuted" for passing debate questions to shillary...

in that one:

Q: Ms. Brazile, emails confirm that you sent them questions.
A: How did they acquire those emails??

[djohn2oo8]

And all this is so much more important to you than the actual record of the meetings with Trump.

Why is that?

:lol question you'll never answer

Because Hillary's emails http://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/skip1.png

[RandomGuy]

Irrelevant to the question at hand. I’m not arguing whether or not the document is true or false. djohn2oo8 continues to falsely claim the Steele dossier was funded by Republicans and I want to know if he still believes that.

If memory serves:
Beginning funding was paid by one of his opponents during the primary runs. What was paid for became less relevant after Trump defeated whoever paid for the beginning of the work. Democrats funded the rest after Trump won the nomination.

Now the question remains:
Is the document false because of who paid for it?

[Pavlov]

If memory serves:
Beginning funding was paid by one of his opponents during the primary runs. What was paid for became less relevant after Trump defeated whoever paid for the beginning of the work.

Now the question remains:
Is the document false because of who paid for it?Oh, you're gonna have to acknowledge :crymuh bet:cry before he'll dodge your question.

[TSA]

948706905756766209
:lol big ass grin

948752898661539841

:lmao
:lmao
:lmao

[Pavlov]

948752898661539841

:lmao
:lmao
:lmao:lol "I believe."

Nunes gonna arrest people himself!

[djohn2oo8]

948752898661539841

:lmao
:lmao
:lmao

"I believe"

Jesus, they haven't provided anything yet. :rollin

[TSA]

If memory serves:
Beginning funding was paid by one of his opponents during the primary runs. What was paid for became less relevant after Trump defeated whoever paid for the beginning of the work.

Now the question remains:
Is the document false because of who paid for it?

Incorrect. Republicans never funded any of the Steele dossier as Steele wasn’t hired by Fusion GPS until Democrats started paying Fusion GPS.

Who paid for it has no bearing on it’s validity.

[djohn2oo8]

BTW, has the DOJ/FBI confirmed anything? Or just Nunes, who can't even be sure:lol

[Pavlov]

Incorrect. Republicans never funded any of the Steele dossier as Steele wasn’t hired by Fusion GPS until Democrats started paying Fusion GPS.

Who paid for it has no bearing on it’s validity.So you bring up the funding all the time for no reason whatsoever.

[TSA]

:lol "I believe."

Nunes gonna arrest people himself!

:lol right over Nunes head only to meet with him and fulfill his request
:lol and you were so giddy last night

[djohn2oo8]

:lol right over Nunes head only to meet with him and fulfill his request
:lol and you were so giddy last night

Its been hours. Why hasn't anybody confirmed Nunes' story? "I believe" :lol

[TSA]

So you bring up the funding all the time for no reason whatsoever.

Gotta CTR every time djohn says Republicans funded it

[RandomGuy]

Oh, you're gonna have to acknowledge :crymuh bet:cry before he'll dodge your question.


WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.

The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had begun paying Fusion GPS in April for research that eventually became the basis for the dossier.

The Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee on Friday that it had retained the firm. That committee is one of a number of congressional committees investigating Russian attempts to disrupt the 2016 election and whether there was any collusion with Mr. Trump’s associates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

Given that consulting is always done on a hourly basis, if any part of the dossier used any of the older information, or built on work began during the primaries, then yes, part of the funding for the dossier was from Republicans.

This means the dossier's work appears to have been funded by both Republicans, and Democrats, at different time.

Impossible to know definitively without sifting through the billing invoices and report though. The above statement is a reasonable conclusion to make, based on what is available publicly.

[Pavlov]

:lol right over Nunes head only to meet with him and fulfill his request
:lol and you were so giddy last night:lol giddy
:lol fulfill

I have no problem with any of this being investigated AT ALL -- you're the one shitting your pants over any tiny piece of evidence, dossier funding and classification of memos.

[TSA]

Its been hours. Why hasn't anybody confirmed Nunes' story? "I believe" :lol

:lol resisting the huge L

[djohn2oo8]

:lol resisting the huge L

So nobody has confirmed it. Not even the DOJ :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Btw, Nunes is a proven liar. This looks like an about face.

[TSA]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

Given that consulting is always done on a hourly basis, if any part of the dossier used any of the older information, or built on work began during the primaries, then yes, part of the funding for the dossier was from Republicans.

This means the dossier's work appears to have been funded by both Republicans, and Democrats, at different time.

Impossible to know definitively without sifting through the billing invoices and report though. The above statement is a reasonable conclusion to make, based on what is available publicly.

No. The Steele dossier funding isn’t up for debate.


“After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

[RandomGuy]

Incorrect. Republicans never funded any of the Steele dossier as Steele wasn’t hired by Fusion GPS until Democrats started paying Fusion GPS.

Who paid for it has no bearing on it’s validity.

Fair enough. Depending on who hired who when.

Can you rule out the possibility that Steele might have been given information from previous research efforts to better brief him as to what to look for?

[Pavlov]

No. The Steele dossier funding isn’t up for debate.And TSA says it has no bearing on it's veracity so we should definitely keep talking about the funding.

[Pavlov]

Fair enough. Depending on who hired who when.

Can you rule out the possibility that Steele might have been given information from previous research efforts to better brief him as to what to look for?Oh, I'm pretty sure the germ of the idea to call Steele was Simpson's reading the Post's report about Trump's ties to Russia.

[RandomGuy]

Btw, Nunes is a proven liar. This looks like an about face.

I am inclined to believe Nunes in this case.

I can't wait for him to try and drag FBI agents in front of Congress. Not a way to win friends and influence people.

Just like I can't wait for Trump to try going after pot dispensaries. More self-inflicted dick-stepping on the part of Republicans.

[Pavlov]

I am inclined to believe Nunes in this case.

I can't wait for him to try and drag FBI agents in front of Congress. Not a way to win friends and influence people.

Just like I can't wait for Trump to try going after pot dispensaries. More self-inflicted dick-stepping on the part of Republicans.Q says the army will do that when martial law is declared.

[TSA]

:lol giddy
:lol fulfill

I have no problem with any of this being investigated AT ALL -- you're the one shitting your pants over any tiny piece of evidence, dossier funding and classification of memos.
Yes giddy.


Can you find another such meeting between an AG/acting AG, FBI director and speaker of the house?

You were spamming this last night and so excited they were going over Nunes head. You even called it a BOOM :rollin

It BOOM’d alright, just the exact opposite of what you hoped for.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, I'm pretty sure the germ of the idea to call Steele was Simpson's reading the Post's report about Trump's ties to Russia.

That makes a lot of sense given Steele's background. That I do believe.

Seems that Steele's work was funded by Democratic election officials, not the Republican party. John probably misread/remembered the NYTimes article I referenced.

All of which matters :jack except for someone desperate for a win.

[Pavlov]

Yes giddy.



You were spamming this last night and so excited they were going over Nunes head. You even called it a BOOM :rollin

It BOOM’d alright, just the exact opposite of what you hoped for.It was big news. I made no predictions about what would come of it.

You REALLY have a problem figuring out what a prediction is. :rollin


:lol giddy

I have no problem with any of this being investigated AT ALL -- you're the one shitting your pants over any tiny piece of evidence, dossier funding and classification of memos.

[TSA]

Btw, Nunes is a proven liar. This looks like an about face.

What has Nunes been proven to have lied about?

[RandomGuy]

Q says the army will do that when martial law is declared.

"Q" is that the book of Q thing?

Euyuch, I will have to wade into another Alex Jones inspired fanfic, if I want to find out.

[Pavlov]

That makes a lot of sense given Steele's background. That I do believe.

Seems that Steele's work was funded by Democratic election officials, not the Republican party. John probably misread/remembered the NYTimes article I referenced.

All of which matters :jack except for someone desperate for a win.The only thing TSA has now are technicalities. He just said the funding doesn't matter except when he wants it to matter.

[djohn2oo8]

948986248278036480

[TSA]

It was big news. I made no predictions about what would come of it.

You REALLY have a problem figuring out what a prediction is. :rollin


:lol giddy

I have no problem with any of this being investigated AT ALL -- you're the one shitting your pants over any tiny piece of evidence, dossier funding and classification of memos.

Here you go just making shit up again. I never said you made any predictions.

[Pavlov]

"Q" is that the book of Q thing?

Euyuch, I will have to wade into another Alex Jones inspired fanfic, if I want to find out.:lol I exaggerated the use of the army for drugs -- but yeah, he did say Trump would declare martial law while he's on AF1. It's funny how TSA wants to destroy the entire FBI because they maybe dared do something to make him look bad on SpursTalk.

[Pavlov]

Here you go just making shit up again. I never said you made any predictions.:lol wanted
:lol giddy
:lol predictions
:lol facts

I have no problem with any of this being investigated AT ALL -- you're the one shitting your pants over any tiny piece of evidence, dossier funding and classification of memos.

[TSA]

"Q" is that the book of Q thing?

Euyuch, I will have to wade into another Alex Jones inspired fanfic, if I want to find out.

Q has been confirmed to be in Trump’s circle.

[Pavlov]

Q has been confirmed to be in Trump’s circle.By whom?

You?

4chan?

ar15.com

Give us a link to the proof.

[djohn2oo8]

:lol wanted
:lol giddy
:lol predictions
:lol facts

I have no problem with any of this being investigated AT ALL -- you're the one shitting your pants over any tiny piece of evidence, dossier funding and classification of memos.

Damn. So he doesn't even care about the funding.

[Pavlov]

Damn. So he doesn't even care about the funding.Except when he does.

[spurraider21]

i like when Q saying "blunt and direct time" was translated as him having predicted an attempted terror attack from a bangladeshi immigrant

[djohn2oo8]

948999249596964864
:lol

[baseline bum]

948999249596964864
:lol

It'll be hilarious when he starts saying the same shit about Cuckner.

[djohn2oo8]

949025676392214528
:lmao

[hitmanyr2k]

It'll be hilarious when he starts saying the same shit about Cuckner.

When Don "Fredo" Jr turns the administration line will be "he's adopted".

[djohn2oo8]

949030174288379904
:lmao what

[Spurminator]

Why are Mooch and Spicer suddenly getting airtime again?

[spurraider21]

well, the mooch was right about bannon trying to suck his own dick all the time

[Chris]

No. The Steele dossier funding isn’t up for debate.


“After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

According to RandomGuy though this is impossible without sifting through the billing invoices and report though. I mean how full of shit is this guy?

[TSA]

949025676392214528
:lmao

I was wondering why this Bannon story was being pushed so hard. Now I know.

DOJ prepares new probe of Clinton’s email server

https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/doj-prepares-new-probe-of-clintons-email-server/

[Pavlov]

I was wondering why this Bannon story was being pushed so hard. Now I know.

DOJ prepares new probe of Clinton’s email server

https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/doj-prepares-new-probe-of-clintons-email-server/Yes, it was all a Democrat conspiracy for Trump to let Wolff into the White House and interview all the staff for almost a year.

YOU GOT 'EM!

[Chris]

I was wondering why this Bannon story was being pushed so hard. Now I know.

DOJ prepares new probe of Clinton’s email server

https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/doj-prepares-new-probe-of-clintons-email-server/

https://media1.tenor.com/images/328cbe71a9f5e69117064d016b2e7f51/tenor.gif?itemid=5639416

[djohn2oo8]

Yes, it was all a Democrat conspiracy for Trump to let Wolff into the White House and interview all the staff for almost a year.

YOU GOT 'EM!

Poor TSA. Gotta post his trash stories that are going nowhere in here because his thread will take a whole year to clear 10 pages. Sorry, no Hillary indictment.

[Pavlov]

No shit. TSA has been *ding*ing this thread for 600 pages.

Clearly shook.

[Chris]

949046353136627713

https://media1.tenor.com/images/328cbe71a9f5e69117064d016b2e7f51/tenor.gif?itemid=5639416

[Pavlov]

:lol Judicial Watch

[Chris]

949052429143814145

[Chris]

The 18 classified emails were among 798 documents recently turned over by the State Department.

There are five new classified emails among 147 new Abedin work-related documents released by the State Department on Friday, December 29, 2017.

Thirteen emails containing classified information were also found on the Weiner laptop computer that had already been released to the public. This classified material includes discussions about Saudi Arabia, The Hague, Egypt, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the identity of a CIA official, Malawi, the war in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, and the PLO.

On two occasions, classified material was sent by Abedin on her clintonemail.com account to Weiner’s laptop (sent to “Anthony Campaign”) on November 25, 2010. The email discusses an upcoming call with Prince Saud of “expected WikiLeaks leaks.” Abedin sent classified information the following day to Weiner’s laptop concerning a call that “Jeff” (presumably then- US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman) had with United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Abdullah bin Zayed.

The Weiner laptop also contains classified material from Abedin’s Blackberry.

Former Secret Service agent Daniel Bongino tweeted Thursday, “Incredibly ironic that Dems are whining about the reopening of the Hillary email investigation, despite mounds of new public information, while simultaneously celebrating the Trump-Russia fairytale/investigation, despite not having a scintilla of evidence of collusion.”

https://dmlnews.com/breaking-new-developments-hillary-clinton-email-case-video/



Lawdy!

[spurraider21]

:cry mueller investigation taking too long and wasting too much money

:madrun lets re-hash and re-open the clinton investigation!

[dabom]

:cry mueller investigation taking too long and wasting too much money

:madrun lets re-hash and re-open the clinton investigation!

:lol

[Chris]

:cry mueller investigation taking too long and wasting too much money

:madrun lets re-hash and re-open the clinton investigation!

949043908096544770

[spurraider21]

thanks for confirming you think the mueller probe is a waste of money but think it's a good idea to re-hash and re-open the clinton investigation

[Chris]

thanks for confirming you think the mueller probe is a waste of money but think it's a good idea to re-hash and re-open the clinton investigation

"new public information"

vs.

"not having a scintilla of evidence of collusion"


https://media2.giphy.com/media/xUPGcmF2iGsTGEFVL2/giphy.gif

[dabom]

949043908096544770


thanks for confirming you think the mueller probe is a waste of money but think it's a good idea to re-hash and re-open the clinton investigation

Dang Son. :lol

[Chris]

dabom the 'retired' cheerleader :lol

[spurraider21]

"new public information"

vs.

"not having a scintilla of evidence of collusion"


https://media2.giphy.com/media/xUPGcmF2iGsTGEFVL2/giphy.gif
4 indicments = "not a scintilla" :lol

[dabom]

dabom the 'retired' cheerleader :lol

No meme? Must be triggered. :lol

[TSA]

Poor TSA. Gotta post his trash stories that are going nowhere in here because his thread will take a whole year to clear 10 pages. Sorry, no Hillary indictment.

Sorry, Hillary won’t be getting the “HQ” special this time around and it won’t be treated like a “matter”. Aren’t you at least curious to see the results of an actual honest investigation done by the NY field office instead of a select few in DC?

[TSA]

Lawdy!

According to the resident legal expert djohn none of that is illegal.

[vy65]

4 indicments = "not a scintilla" :lol

I'll take the pepsi challenge on him not being able to define "scintilla" on his own.

[spurraider21]

Sorry, Hillary won’t be getting the “HQ” special this time around and it won’t be treated like a “matter”. Aren’t you at least curious to see the results of an actual honest investigation done by the NY field office instead of a select few in DC?
how is a matter treated differently than an investigation according to the FBI?

i just dont see the point of re-hashing the issue unless you want to win partisan points vs the big bad dems. hillary isn't in office, isnt running for office, and is no longer a relevant player.

[vy65]

An ally of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who is familiar with the thinking at the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters described it as an effort to gather new details on how Clinton and her aides handled classified material. Officials’ questions include how much classified information was sent over Clinton’s server; who put that information into an unclassified environment, and how; and which investigators knew about these matters and when. The Sessions ally also said officials have questions about immunity agreements that Clinton aides may have made.

Also, conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Thursday that at least 18 classified emails were found on the laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, who is Hillary Clinton’s long-time top aid.

This doesn't sound politicized. At all.

scintill:lol

[vy65]

Frankly, I'd like to see a re-opened investigation into Hillary (not that she matters anymore) just to stem the constant barrage of *ding* from Trump supporters.

[Pavlov]

So classified emails were found in emails released to the public.

Who released THAT classified information?

:lol

[Pavlov]

Sorry, Hillary won’t be getting the “HQ” special this time around and it won’t be treated like a “matter”. Aren’t you at least curious to see the results of an actual honest investigation done by the NY field office instead of a select few in DC?No problem with any investigations. I believe the result will be the same and you'll still be whining about it.

[hitmanyr2k]

No one gives a rat's ass about Hillary anymore to be honest. She's no longer running for office and barely registers a blip on the news. The unmasking stuff, Pizza-gate, Seth Rich, Uranium One and all the other stuff that got played was B-side level shit so now they're going back to the Greatest hits. There's so much desperation here to find another distraction that I'm almost expecting Benghazi to resurface :lol

[Pavlov]

No one gives a rat's ass about Hillary anymore to be honest. She's no longer running for office and barely registers a blip on the news. The unmasking stuff, Pizza-gate, Seth Rich, Uranium One and all the other stuff that got played was B-side level shit so now they're going back to the Greatest hits. There's so much desperation here to find another distraction that I'm almost expecting Benghazi to resurface :lolTSA cares. It's really all he has in this thread. Dude can't even bring himself to admit Bannon shit on Trump.

[vy65]

https://thewiddershins2.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/planet-of-the-apes-but-her-emails.jpg?w=480&h=248

[TSA]

how is a matter treated differently than an investigation according to the FBI?Have Hillary testify under oath, record her testimony, don’t allow a subject of the investigation to also act as her lawyer, let the field office run the investigation like they always do, don’t give out immunity deals like candy, don’t reward someone with immunity after lying under oath, actually charge someone who lied under oath, don’t ask for evidence subpoena it, don’t destroy evidence for subject of investigation, don’t add intent as a requirement for criminality when the law says nothing of intent.


i just dont see the point of re-hashing the issue unless you want to win partisan points vs the big bad dems. hillary isn't in office, isnt running for office, and is no longer a relevant player.
Hillary broke the law multiple times, no one should be above the law. As a lawyer I’m shocked you would even ask this question.

[vy65]

Hillary broke the law multiple times, no one should be above the law. As a lawyer I’m shocked you would even ask this question.

I don't think he or anyone else disagrees with this. The problem is that :cry but her emails :cry has been politicized to excuse a lot of bad shit coming from the Executive Branch -- or to suggest that Mueller's investigation is bad/should stop.

[TSA]

So classified emails were found in emails released to the public.

Who released THAT classified information?

:lol
State dept released them heavily redacted.

[Pavlov]

State dept released them heavily redacted.So lock them up?

Or release good now?

[Pavlov]

I don't think he or anyone else disagrees with this. The problem is that :cry but her emails :cry has been politicized to excuse a lot of bad shit coming from the Executive Branch -- or to suggest that Mueller's investigation is bad/should stop.TSA does not give one shit about the independence of the DoJ. He thinks Dear Leader should be the sole arbiter of justice.

[Chris]

how is a matter treated differently than an investigation according to the FBI?

You should re-watch the Comey testimony.



i just dont see the point of re-hashing the issue unless you want to win partisan points vs the big bad dems. hillary isn't in office, isnt running for office, and is no longer a relevant player.

Read this and objectively tell why me there's no reason for a re-hash.


Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case

http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/comeyjames_060817getty_lead2.jpg?itok=VXwV9uKz


Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.


The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America’s top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.

Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said.

Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities. The Clinton email server in question was based in New York.

In normal FBI cases, field offices where crimes are believed to have been committed investigate the evidence and then recommend to bureau hierarchy whether to pursue charges with prosecutors. In this case, the bureau hierarchy controlled both the investigation and the charging decision from Washington, a scenario known in FBI parlance as a “special,” the lawmakers said.

The FBI declined comment on McCabe’s closed-door testimony and the evidence being shared with Congress.

Some Republicans on the committee say the findings and revelations have left them more convinced than ever that FBI leadership rigged the outcome to clear Clinton.

“This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a House Judiciary Committee member who attended the McCabe briefing before the holidays. “Hillary Clinton obviously benefited from people taking actions to ensure she wasn’t held accountable.”

Gaetz said he could not divulge the specifics of what McCabe told lawmakers, but that he left the Dec. 21 session believing the FBI had deviated from its “normal objective practices” while investigating Clinton.

The top Democrat on the panel acknowledged the FBI’s handling of the case was unique, but argued Republicans are politicizing their own panel’s work.

“To the extent that the Assistant Director of the FBI was involved in that investigation, and recognizing that the investigation itself presented a unique set of circumstances, his testimony did not raise any concerns that would justify the Republicans’ outsized obsession with Hillary Clinton’s emails two years after the fact,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) who recently took over as the top Democrat on House Judiciary after former Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) stepped aside after sexual misconduct allegations were made against him.

Gaetz said he has growing questions about the role the Obama Justice Department played in the case.

Former FBI Director James Comey has testified he made the decision not to seek criminal charges against Clinton — with no Justice Department input — because he feared any involvement from the department might taint the findings after then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac during the closing days of the probe in June 2016.

He also argued in an initial July 5, 2016, press conference announcing the decision that he did not believe he could show that Clinton intended to send classified information over her server.

But Gaetz said his panel has evidence the FBI took actions while writing the exoneration statement that required Justice input, such as immunizing witnesses in June 2016. He said he would like to learn more about what instructions, sentiments and communications were conveyed between the department and the FBI.

“I think we have more questions than answers based on what we’ve learned,” Gaetz said.

Both parties are likely to learn more in the first quarter of 2018 when the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release initial findings in what has become a wide-ranging probe into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email case as well as whether agents and supervisors had political connections, ethical conflicts or biases that affected their work.

In the meantime, Republicans on three House committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee have pieced together new evidence from recent interviews and document productions.

That information wasn’t available to them when Comey announced in July 2016 that he would not seek charges against Clinton even though she and her aides had transmitted more than 110 pieces of classified information through her insecure email server, some of it at the “top secret” and “secret” levels.

One storyline that has emerged is that the FBI’s own documents stated there was evidence some laws had been broken, but bureau leaders declined to pursue charges on the grounds they could not prove Clinton and her aides intended to violate the law.

Those concerns were reflected in the initial draft statements Comey and his leadership team began writing in spring 2016. The Hill first reported in November that Comey’s original May 2, 2016, draft included the words “grossly negligent” — the language supporting a criminal charge for mishandling classified information — but it was later changed to the softer “extremely careless.”

GOP congressional investigators told The Hill multiple drafts of the statement also included specific language acknowledging there was “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.”

Furthermore, the May 2, 2016, draft included a second passage that suggested the large amount of highly classified information — eight top secret passages and 37 secret passages — that passed through Clinton’s private server suggested criminality.

“The sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the “up classified” emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information,” the FBI’s original draft read, according to a source who has seen it.

Comey used some of the language the agents had put in the initial drafts of the memo when he made his announcement of no charges.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.

The FBI also confirmed that a key witness, a computer technician who deleted Clinton emails from her server in March 2015 after a congressional subpoena had been issued for them, originally lied to the FBI during his interviews, memos show. The witness's name was redacted from documents released by the FBI but he was identified as an employee of a computer firm that helped maintained Clinton’s email server.

His admission of false statements came one day after the Comey statement was already being drafted, investigators told The Hill.

The computer employee originally told the FBI in a February 2016 interview that he did not recall making any deletions from Clinton’s server in March 2015, FBI records show.

But then on May 3, 2016, the same employee in a subsequent FBI interview told agents he had an “oh shit moment” and in late March 2015 deleted Clinton’s email archive from the server, according to FBI documents reviewed by The Hill.

Lying to the FBI is a federal felony, a crime that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn recently pleaded guilty to. But the FBI decided not to pursue criminal charges against the witness, and instead gave the technician an immunity deal so he could correct his story, congressional investigators said.

Republican investigators say the most glaring irregularity they have found is the decision to begin drafting a statement exonerating Clinton before much of the investigative interviewing and evidence gathering was even done.

While the first draft of the statement was dated May 2, 2016, FBI records gathered by congressional investigators show agents were still receiving evidence responsive to grand jury subpoenas well after that, including documents and other evidentiary items logged on May 13, May 19 and May 26.

A House GOP lawmaker told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted after the drafting effort began, including of some figures who would have key information about intent or possible destruction of evidence.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17 witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made.

“Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it,” the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release.

A senior law enforcement official directly familiar with the investigation, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, told The Hill that the FBI “did have evidence of statutory violations” but the decision not to prosecute was driven by a belief that there wasn’t enough proof Clinton and aides intended to violate those laws or even knew they were violating them.

The official also acknowledged evidence gathering continued even as Comey began drafting the public statement, including the execution of an immunity deal on June 10, 2016, with Clinton advisers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson that resulted in laptops with evidence being turned over to agents late in the probe.

“The leadership had a sense of where the evidence was likely headed and the idea was they would begin drafting their conclusions and if we found anything that changed that sense we’d alert them,” the official said.

The official said the decision to grant immunity to the Clinton advisers as well as the computer technician involved in the email deletions was made “with the idea it would be better to know all the circumstances” before the case was closed out.

Comey has told Congress he made the decision not to charge Clinton after she was interviewed on July 2, 2016.

Congressional investigators told The Hill they also have found some contradictions between the FBI’s official account of what happened and what more recently released documents show.

One that is being pursued aggressively by Grassley involves whether the FBI actually investigated possible violations of the Federal Records Act, which required the preservation of all of Clinton’s work-related emails.

The FBI admits it recovered thousands of State emails that originated or passed through Clinton’s private server — some which had been deleted — that were never turned over to the State Department as government records by Clinton’s team.

While the FBI believed none of those were deleted intentionally to keep them from the government, the Records Act allows for a misdemeanor charge in each instance where a government document is destroyed carelessly, investigators said.

Comey told Grassley back in 2016 that the FBI did investigate whether the unlawful destruction of federal records occurred.

But Grassley’s staff has now obtained a sworn affidavit from an FBI agent that directly contradicts the former director’s assurance. The agent testified under penalty of perjury that the Clinton email case did not address the destruction of federal records, Grassley said.

The longtime Senate chairman went to the Senate floor before the holidays to raise another concern: the FBI did not pursue criminal charges when Clinton’s email archives were permanently deleted from her private server days after a subpoena for them was issued by a congressional committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton’s former chief of staff and her lawyer had a call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called BleachBit, Grassley said.

“You have a conference call with Secretary Clinton’s attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on that very same day her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call using special BleachBit software,” Grassley said. “The emails were State Department records under subpoena by Congress.

“What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction?” Grassley asked. “According to affidavits filed in federal court — absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the handling of classified information.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367141-congressional-investigators-find-irregularities-in-fbis-handling-of

[Chris]

Report: Trump Org Gave Mueller A Slew Of Documents, Some Regarding An Alleged Dossier Source


The Trump Organization has given Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Congress a slew of emails and documents about meetings involving the real estate companies’ executives, according to CNN.

And some of those records pertain to a Belarusian-American businessman who is said to be a major source for the infamous Steele dossier.

CNN reports that sometime last year, the Trump Organization, the Trump family’s real estate company, provided records dated from June 2015 through Jan. 2017.

According to CNN, the records are for “the activities of the company’s executives as well as meetings and events, including emails and calendar entries, mostly connected to campaign-related matters.”

The records include information about the June 9, 2016 meeting held at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians, the billionaire Agalarov family, which has done business with the Trumps, and a speech that Trump Jr. gave in Oct. 2016 to a pro-Russia think tank in Paris.

Trump Organization also handed over documents related to Sergei Millian, the chairman of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce who is reported to be a source cited heavily in the dossier.

Millian was identified by The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, and The Washington Post last year as a source for some of the most troubling allegations from the dossier — including that Trump engaged with prostitutes in Moscow and that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Kremlin.

Millian, whose real name is Siarhei Kukuts, has previously claimed to have ties to Trump and his real estate empire. He was also in frequent contact during the presidential campaign with George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser whose activities were reportedly the spark for the FBI’s Russia investigation, which began in July 2016.

Millian has remained low-key since the dossier was published by BuzzFeed nearly a year ago, issuing only vague denials about being a source for the report.

ABC News reported that Millian may have unwittingly talked to someone who was relaying information to Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier on behalf of Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm that was working for the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Millian is not identified in the version of the dossier published by BuzzFeed, but ABC reported that he is identified in a copy provided to the FBI.

Trump associates have insisted that Millian has overstated his ties to Trump and his real estate firm.

Michael Cohen, a lawyer for the Trump Organization who was in contact with Millian in 2016, has called Millian a “phony.”

He told The Daily Caller last year that he was last in contact with Millian on Nov. 2, 2016, just days before the presidential election. Millian was attempting to have Trump speak at a business event in New York or Switzerland, said Cohen.

But Cohen claimed that he rejected Millian’s request, telling him via email that “you’re clearly seeking attention, something that I have no interest in giving you.”

Cohen declined to share that email, which is now likely in the hands of Russia investigators.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/04/report-trump-org-gave-mueller-a-slew-of-documents-some-regarding-an-alleged-dossier-source/

[djohn2oo8]

949079333091643392

[djohn2oo8]

949080634160447488
Lordy!!!!!!!

[djohn2oo8]

949081053645459456

[djohn2oo8]

949081797010317312

[djohn2oo8]

949084288494047233
Obstruction like a motherfucker

[Fabbs]

:lol politicians investigating politicians :lol

Does anyone have a guestimate how long til this dog n pony show ends?
Costs to taxpayers?