Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Chucho]

NoNo, don't keep Chucho up late by responding to him.

He has to get up early in the morning to get to work. Those oranges are not going to sell themselves on the street corner.

1. It's your mother I'm putting on the corner to sell them oranges. She's got to feed her disappointment of a child.

Keep having fun with your alts and palms, sweetie. No one likes you.

[Chucho]

"In 2022, Los Angeles had a sobering 2,106 more aggravated assaults compared to 2021, 41 percent of which were committed with weapons – for a total crime increase of over 11 percent. Police in the San Francisco Bay Area’s 15 most populous cities recorded a 5 percent homicide increase in 2022, which was nearly 50 percent higher than 2019’s figure."

And we can't find a genuine source to give us accurate death figures in the streets of California because they want to cook numbers on that.

California Democrats kill. More dangerous than guns.

[ElNono]

This is the top 10 of most dangerous cities by crime in the US:

1. Memphis, Tennessee
2. Detroit, Michigan
3. Little Rock, Arkansas
4. Pueblo, Colorado
5. Tacoma, Washington
6. Kansas City, Missouri
7. Rockford, Illinois
8. St. Louis, Missouri
9. Cleveland, Ohio
10. Springfield, Missouri

Includes links to the data:
https://www.populationu.com/gen/most...ties-in-the-us

The first California town is Stockton at #15, and then you won't see any other until #68, which is still not one of the big metro areas.
On the other hand, plenty of red cities and states in there, including the top spot.

But realistically, if you look up crime rates compared to the 90's, they've decreased dramatically overall in the US.

[ElNono]

No sir. Go look'er up. We've not seen crime rates this high since South Central LA was a warzone.

It is what it is and it's do ented.

I did look it up. Here:



Link: https://www.ppic.org/publication/cri...in-california/

That's cool man, you like being in filthy cities where your elected officials want the lowest rungs of society to kill themselves. Nothing wrong with that, you got the money to keep it from affecting you, conscience doesn't have to dictate where you live.

I don't really care what adult people choose to do with their own lives. Plus, it's not like junkies aren't everywhere in the country. Some States simply put them in jail so they die there, which pretty much amounts to not really addressing anything, but simply getting it out of public view.

I visit Texas every year, plenty of homeless and junkies there too. They just get thrown in jail instead of camping under a bridge.

[ElNono]

[FONT="]"In 2022, Los Angeles had a sobering 2,106 [/FONT]more aggravated assaults[FONT="] compared to 2021, 41 percent of which were committed with weapons – for a total crime increase of over 11 percent. Police in the San Francisco Bay Area’s 15 [/FONT]most populous cities recorded a 5 percent homicide increase in 2022, which was nearly 50 percent higher than 2019’s figure."

And we can't find a genuine source to give us accurate death figures in the streets of California because they want to cook numbers on that.

California Democrats kill. More dangerous than guns.

We do have statistics for that. You just won't like what they look like compared to the 90s. And that applies to pretty much everywhere in the US, not just California.

And, obviously, that decreasing trend happened with both Red and Blue in power.

[Blake]

1. It's your mother I'm putting on the corner to sell them oranges. She's got to feed her disappointment of a child.

Keep having fun with your alts and palms, sweetie. No one likes you.

Everyone loves Chucho

[Spurs Homer]

man, im guessing fat hands tried to wear his 2x large size gloves and found out 2x large does not fit anymore!

try 3x pal!

[Ef-man]

Everyone loves Chucho

The low iq idiot getting owned left and right from that brilliant deductive reasoning of his!!!!

Derp would be so proud knowing there was someone dumber than him.

[TSA]

I'm not around here much, but wanted to swing through and remind you that you're a loser and that no likes you and you are a try-hard who never gets acknowledgement, you and your alt and if he isn't your alt, you're both giant losers no one likes and are always trying so desperately to get someone to cosign and validate them. That's your entire time here summed up accurately.

I don't think they are the same person although I can see why you thought that as they each pathetically beg for acknowledgement every day and try their best to mimic shticks they've seen here in attempt to gain acceptance and are basically ignored by the entire board.

[Spurs Homer]

I don't think they are the same person although I can see why you thought that as they each pathetically beg for acknowledgement every day and try their best to mimic shticks they've seen here in attempt to gain acceptance and are basically ignored by the entire board.

hry comrade, did you watch the durham hearing?

I hear he solved the CRIME OF THE CENTURY -AND - EXONERATED THE COUP PLOTTER!

[Spurs Homer]

[TSA]

But it isn't wrong, because "properly predicated" in that context is merely an opinion. In terms of illegality or criminality, there was none, otherwise Durham would've prosecuted.

He didn't, because despite whatever tools were afforded to him, there was nothing illegal there. I know this doesn't work for your conspiracy of a shadow and corrupt FBI, but it is what it is.

Outside of Clinesmith, the other two cases he prosecuted were for lying to the FBI, which he couldn't prove.

Under the same premise and with the results at hand, one could also conclude that the Durham investigation was also not "properly predicated", considering he didn't find anything improper on it, and that whatever recommendations about internal procedures at the FBI in his report were already in place by the time he made his report available.



All investigations start as preliminary, then move on to a full investigation if warranted. This isn't rocket science. As Mueller proved and Durham agreed, there was enough evidence of interference to conduct an investigation.

You could argue the investigation shouldn't have included collusion from the GOP, but that's an opinion, nothing more. The allegation was directly tied to interference, so it makes sense it would be investigated as well.

You clearly don't understand predication when it comes to these investigations. The FBI has to follow guidelines given by the Attorney General.

"Predicated investigations that concern federal crimes or threats to the national security are
subdivided into preliminary investigations and full investigations. Preliminary investigations
may be initiated on the basis of any allegation or information indicative of possible criminal or
national security-threatening activity, but more substantial factual predication is required for full
investigations."

3. Cir stances Warranting Investigation
A predicated investigation may be initiated on the basis of any of the following
cir stances:
a. An activity cons uting a federal crime or a threat to the national security
has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and
the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the
involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such
activity.
b. An individual, group, organization, en y, information, property, or
activity is or may be a target of attack, victimization, acquisition,
infiltration, or recruitment in connection with criminal activity in violation
of federal law or a threat to the national security and the investigation may
obtain information that would help to protect against such activity or
threat.
c. The investigation may obtain foreign intelligence that is responsive to a
foreign intelligence requirement

b. Full Investigations
i. Predication Required for Full Investigations
A full investigation may be initiated if there is an articulable
factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates that a
cir stance described in paragraph 3.a.-.b. exists or if a
cir stance described in paragraph 3.c. exists.
ii. Methods Allowed in Full Investigations
All lawful methods may be used in a full investigation.


https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/guidelines.pdf

Crossfire Hurricane was never warranted to be opened. There was no articulable factual basis for the investigation, that isn't an opinion, that is a statement of fact based on the Attorney General guidelines.

At this point I can't figure out of you are trolling or not.

[TSA]

Why does his presence in the country have anything to do with the veracity of the report? Did you read the report/dossier at all?

--

That is some more of what was confirmed by the do ent.

Every WHO mentioned in this dossier as having contacts with Russians that people have done any digging about has panned out. I care less about grammar, and more about things that can be verified.

The dossier, for all its faults, is the roadmap for the investigation.

--

Steele's dossier describes a consistent, high-level effort to coordinate efforts between the Russian government, and the Trump campaign. It names Manafort directly.

The same Manafort at the meeting in Trump tower.

As would be expected with any raw intelligence compilation some of it has been actively corroborated, some not, but the overall assertions contained in this, outside of the pee tape, have begun to be borne out.

If you haven't actually read the whole thing, you probably should.

--

The Steele Dossier is evidence. Not evidence you like, or consider valid, but it is evidence.

--

What is interesting is how many things that can be corroborated out of the Steele dossier have panned out, as time goes by.

At this point, I am sadly confident that, as soon as Trump is out of office and not useful to the Russian government anymore, sex tapes of Donny are going to come out.

--

Pretty much what the Steele dossier alleges. A sustained effort of coordination and intelligence sharing.

--

Steele dossier details a sustained relationship, with information flowing both ways, and meetings between Trump campaign and various levels of campaign officials.

--

After Trump has ceased being useful, whatever the Russians have has a good chance of coming out. Putin has enough money, so he might not care if Trumps businesses don't pay back the loans.

At that point, the sheer mayhem that such tapes would create will be irresistible to someone attempting to de-stabilize the western political system, and liberal democracy.

--

I think the Steele dossier is broadly accurate, as it has proven so far.

Russian intelligence has compromised Donald Trump in some way, and Crooked Donny knows this.

As noted in the dossier, there has been a concerted effort on the part of Russian intelligence services to recruit assets for decades, as they have always done.

Specifically, I think they have given Trump a list of people they find "acceptable" for certain posts, with the criteria "acceptable" being that these people are either Russia-friendly or the Russians have leverage on them. This would explain how so many people in Trumps orbit just "happen" to have Russian ties.

Below Trump there was data flowing back and forth, again outlined fairly clearly in the dossier.

--

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 do ent.

--

Cir stantial 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. Cir stantial 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 cir stances.

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


Is the do ent false because of who paid for it?

--

Steele's contacts were somewhat unique, which is why he was brought in.

--

I find it... bizarre... how badly the right wants Steele to be some sort of villain here. Steele has paid an incredible price, as have some of his likely sources[Russian KGB general murdered, spy and daughter poisoned], for coming forward.

IF that dossier was made up out of whole cloth.. Russian intelligence certainly seems to be awfully determined to kill people it knows weren't involved... just sayin

--

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

--

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

Everything that can be verified, has been.

--

Oddly enough, everything in the Steele dossier that can be independently verified... checks out.

--

So basically the Steele Dossier was right, and the more they dug, the more stuff of what he was doing they found, exactly what one would expect from someone actually doing something wrong that is investigated.

--

Steele is very credible. That is why you fail.

--

There has already been collusion, you witted simpleton.

The Steele dossier outlined a bunch of people in Trumps orbit, including Cohen who met with various Russian officials. Every single one of those meetings was confirmed to one degree or another, but they could never quite find enough on Cohen to 100% confirm it. *from what was available publicly.

So now, Cohen is going to detail just how he committed treason with the S bag Donny.

--

trying to laugh it all off.

You are one deluded chicken er.

Steele Dossier is batting 100% when it comes to outlining people related to Trump that colluded with Russia in some way.

What will your dumb ass say when Cohen starts talking about his meeting in Prague, moron?

--

I think, as the Steele dossier said waaaay back, that there was some high level coordination of efforts, i.e. collusion, with Russian intelligence. I guessed it was data sharing, because there were and are open source reports of such. We are starting to see that, like just about everything else that can be verified, pan out.

--
RandomGuy you keep coming in the thread and forgetting to choose your favorite Steele dossier quote. If you don't answer soon I'll be forced to use your tactic of spamming this whole post in every non-related thread I see you posting in. Stop being a pussy and pick one.

[Blake]

Who doesn't love text wall spam

[Ef-man]

Who doesn't love text wall spam

You forgot the “answer me, answer me!”

[ChumpDumper]

So the Trump campaign connections to Russia should never have been investigated because they did, in fact, exist?

Weird reasoning.

[Ef-man]

So the Trump campaign connections to Russia should never have been investigated because they did, in fact, exist?

Weird reasoning.

Well Mueller did note 101 known points of contact between people associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government-linked individuals or en ies from November of 2015 all the way up to January of 2017.

[ElNono]

You clearly don't understand predication when it comes to these investigations. The FBI has to follow guidelines given by the Attorney General.

"Predicated investigations that concern federal crimes or threats to the national security are
subdivided into preliminary investigations and full investigations. Preliminary investigations
may be initiated on the basis of any allegation or information indicative of possible criminal or
national security-threatening activity, but more substantial factual predication is required for full
investigations."

3. Cir stances Warranting Investigation
A predicated investigation may be initiated on the basis of any of the following
cir stances:
a. An activity cons uting a federal crime or a threat to the national security
has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and
the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the
involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such
activity.
b. An individual, group, organization, en y, information, property, or
activity is or may be a target of attack, victimization, acquisition,
infiltration, or recruitment in connection with criminal activity in violation
of federal law or a threat to the national security and the investigation may
obtain information that would help to protect against such activity or
threat.
c. The investigation may obtain foreign intelligence that is responsive to a
foreign intelligence requirement

b. Full Investigations
i. Predication Required for Full Investigations
A full investigation may be initiated if there is an articulable
factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates that a
cir stance described in paragraph 3.a.-.b. exists or if a
cir stance described in paragraph 3.c. exists.
ii. Methods Allowed in Full Investigations
All lawful methods may be used in a full investigation.


https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/guidelines.pdf

Crossfire Hurricane was never warranted to be opened. There was no articulable factual basis for the investigation, that isn't an opinion, that is a statement of fact based on the Attorney General guidelines.

At this point I can't figure out of you are trolling or not.

I understand it clearly. Who determines if "there is an articulable factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates that a cir stance described..."?

"Reasonably indicates" is a pretty open ended standard, and basically based entirely on opinion of the people reviewing the evidence. In other words, it's entirely discretional.

At this point I can't figure out if you don't read what you post, or just don't understand what you read.

[TSA]

I understand it clearly. Who determines if "there is an articulable factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates that a cir stance described..."?

"Reasonably indicates" is a pretty open ended standard, and basically based entirely on opinion of the people reviewing the evidence. In other words, it's entirely discretional.

At this point I can't figure out if you don't read what you post, or just don't understand what you read.

You clearly don't understand it. If you did understand it you wouldn't have asked who determines if there is an articulable factual basis for the inves ation. Did you not read the link to the Attorney General guidelines I linked or did you just not understand it? It literally says who can determine it and who needs to be notified.

In this case it was Peter Strzok who determined there was an articulable factual basis for the investigation based on statements made by Papadopolous. The FBI didn't even interview Papadopolous and opened a full investigation 3 days after receiving the tip on Papadopolous. When Durham was given access to the evidence and investigative steps it was absolutely clear that the Attorney General guidelines were not followed and Crossfire Hurricane was not properly predicated.

What should have happened was a preliminary investigation would have been opened on Papadopolous, an interview/interrogation with Papadopolous would have occurred, and after that the FBI would have found out Papadopolous had zero credible information and zero contacts with Russians. Preliminary investigation would have been closed.

”[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”--Lisa Page

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it"---Peter Strzok

That's the guy running the investigation. Of course he isn't going to follow protocol and of course he opened a full investigation.

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't Papadopolous lie to investigators?

That wouldn't have been su ious at all....

[TSA]

Papadopolous wasn't interviewed by the FBI until January 2017. Crossfire Hurricane was opened July 2016.

stupid

[ChumpDumper]

Papadopolous wasn't interviewed by the FBI until January 2017. Crossfire Hurricane was opened July 2016.

stupid

But he did lie then, did he not?

Your whole point is they should've interviewed him earlier.

What if he lied then?

[ChumpDumper]

And wasn't the campaign meeting with Russian agents in July 2016?

It's weird that you think none of this merited an investigation but Silsby and Ukrainium One did.

[Spurs Homer]

You clearly don't understand it. If you did understand it you wouldn't have asked who determines if there is an articulable factual basis for the inves ation. Did you not read the link to the Attorney General guidelines I linked or did you just not understand it? It literally says who can determine it and who needs to be notified.

In this case it was Peter Strzok who determined there was an articulable factual basis for the investigation based on statements made by Papadopolous. The FBI didn't even interview Papadopolous and opened a full investigation 3 days after receiving the tip on Papadopolous. When Durham was given access to the evidence and investigative steps it was absolutely clear that the Attorney General guidelines were not followed and Crossfire Hurricane was not properly predicated.

What should have happened was a preliminary investigation would have been opened on Papadopolous, an interview/interrogation with Papadopolous would have occurred, and after that the FBI would have found out Papadopolous had zero credible information and zero contacts with Russians. Preliminary investigation would have been closed.

”[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”--Lisa Page

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it"---Peter Strzok

That's the guy running the investigation. Of course he isn't going to follow protocol and of course he opened a full investigation.

Still defending trumps treason - and sadly (or funny to any sane people that humor you)

you dont know what the you are talking about!

Just ing plainly wrong on all your longshot what ifs -

McCabe already explained it when he was grilled in a hearing of why an FBI investigation was opened and he explained exactly why the FBI would have been DERELICT in their duty had they NOT opened an investigation.

your cherry picking of - oh if papadouchalaka would/should have been interviewed -

stfu already - it makes zero sense!

Here is my example to show your stupidity:

If someone credible from australia calls the FBI - especially an Australian intel agent who is trained- you dumb -
and this intel agent reports that he heard me making all kinds of allegations -

and that I was working on Obamas campaign or bidens campaign and the iranians were mentioned and I said that the iranians were going to attack - the GOP offices and were going to flood the zone with to hurt the GOP candidate-and that these same Iranians were going to help the Obama/Biden campaign and hurt the GOP candidate -

the FBI would EVALUATE this report from australia

then

they would see what OTHER info and reports and intel had been surfacing lately...they would check with their other australian counterparts, the brits, the israelis, etc...
from there they would pick up that i had also emailed some iranian dudes and had also given a speech on hating america

then they would have found that another dude named Parter Tage had also been in iran and had openly criticised the usa and this same Parter Tage dude was also working for the obama/biden campaign

the FBI would eventually decide that there was enough SMOKE to start an investigation to SEE WHERE IT WOULD LEAD -

It would NOT mean:

a)that they were SPYING ON ME
b)that they violated my rights
c)that they WERE OBLIGATED TO INTERVIEW ME -(as this would just tip me off and i would disappear into ing TEHRAN)
d)that the FBI was corrupt
e)that some FBI schmuck having a texting session with their girl who hated obama was some deep state corrupt
- it would simply mean that that fbi was unprofessional in his job and was cheating on his wife - this so-called
"exculpatory" evidence would NOT mean that the FBI had to stop investigating my treason - or leave the country unprotected- it would simply mean that the fbi had some unprofessionals that need some basic discipline - no matter how hard gym jordan or ant other traitor tries to convince you otherwise you moron...

or any of your ING IDIOCIES

They would be correct in NOT EVEN INTERVIEWING ME - YET STILL INVESTIGATING ME
because they were obligated to PROTECT THE COUNTRY from my POSSIBLE SPYING FOR THE IRANIANS

You are a stupid piece of whiny kunt who really really wants to protect the worst traitors in our history.

[TSA]

Still defending trumps treason - and sadly (or funny to any sane people that humor you)

you dont know what the you are talking about!

Just ing plainly wrong on all your longshot what ifs -

McCabe already explained it when he was grilled in a hearing of why an FBI investigation was opened and he explained exactly why the FBI would have been DERELICT in their duty had they NOT opened an investigation.

your cherry picking of - oh if papadouchalaka would/should have been interviewed -

stfu already - it makes zero sense!

Here is my example to show your stupidity:

If someone credible from australia calls the FBI - especially an Australian intel agent who is trained- you dumb -
and this intel agent reports that he heard me making all kinds of allegations -

and that I was working on Obamas campaign or bidens campaign and the iranians were mentioned and I said that the iranians were going to attack - the GOP offices and were going to flood the zone with to hurt the GOP candidate-and that these same Iranians were going to help the Obama/Biden campaign and hurt the GOP candidate -

the FBI would EVALUATE this report from australia

then

they would see what OTHER info and reports and intel had been surfacing lately...they would check with their other australian counterparts, the brits, the israelis, etc...
from there they would pick up that i had also emailed some iranian dudes and had also given a speech on hating america

then they would have found that another dude named Parter Tage had also been in iran and had openly criticised the usa and this same Parter Tage dude was also working for the obama/biden campaign

the FBI would eventually decide that there was enough SMOKE to start an investigation to SEE WHERE IT WOULD LEAD -

It would NOT mean:

a)that they were SPYING ON ME
b)that they violated my rights
c)that they WERE OBLIGATED TO INTERVIEW ME -(as this would just tip me off and i would disappear into ing TEHRAN)
d)that the FBI was corrupt
e)that some FBI schmuck having a texting session with their girl who hated obama was some deep state corrupt
- it would simply mean that that fbi was unprofessional in his job and was cheating on his wife - this so-called
"exculpatory" evidence would NOT mean that the FBI had to stop investigating my treason - or leave the country unprotected- it would simply mean that the fbi had some unprofessionals that need some basic discipline - no matter how hard gym jordan or ant other traitor tries to convince you otherwise you moron...

or any of your ING IDIOCIES

They would be correct in NOT EVEN INTERVIEWING ME - YET STILL INVESTIGATING ME
because they were obligated to PROTECT THE COUNTRY from my POSSIBLE SPYING FOR THE IRANIANS

You are a stupid piece of whiny kunt who really really wants to protect the worst traitors in our history.

The Australian, Alexander Downer, wasn't an Australian intel agent. The FBI did reach out to British intelligence and when they heard the FBI was opening a full investigation on the Papadoplous info they laughed at how flimsy it was and said they weren't helping us based on that flimsy info.

Try typing out another long winded hypothetical. This attempt was a failure from the start.