Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Chris]

WHY?!

[Pavlov]

WHY?!

Still bashing Republicans.

[boutons_deux]

Still bashing Republicans.

Clinton/Dem "collusion" with Russia is a Repug/Fox/Trash fantasy, fabricated as a distraction for Trash and his mafiya going down.

Pootin's cyber army didn't create Repug/Dem polarization (Repug did that by themselves, since early 90s), but Pootin's people did work to amplify the polarization, probably targeting swing states, like MI, WI, PA

Then Comey/Nunez executed the coup de grace, according to Nate Silver, on Clinton with "maybe there's something there" bull about Huma's PC.

[Chris]

yep just a fantasy and fabrication eh boots

[Chris]

[pgardn]

I recall someone saying this was one of their favorite news sources.

I love it.

Thanks for the opinion.
I also don't think Russian bots helped Trump win. He beat a whole slew of Republicans. What I do believe is Russians tried to create chaos in our elections. So Chris, what do you think about Russia playing with our elections? Should it be investigated by our intelligence as well as tried courts? And this bot stuff was fake as well, and you are posting it? What?

Pick a rock to hide under Chris, you can't use them all.

[Chris]

I love it.

Thanks for the opinion.
I also don't think Russian bots helped Trump win. He beat a whole slew of Republicans. What I do believe is Russians tried to create chaos in our elections. So Chris, what do you think about Russia playing with our elections? Should it be investigated by our intelligence as well as tried courts? And this bot stuff was fake as well, and you are posting it? What?

Pick a rock to hide under Chris, you can't use them all.

You just can't stay away. How adorable

[Pavlov]

You just can't stay away. How adorable

You didn't answer his questions.

[Chris]

You didn't answer his questions.

He's lucky he's not on the ignore list. I don't answer questions on demand, and he/she knows exactly where we stand, but presses the issue regardless. A habitual line stepper much like yourself.

[Pavlov]

He's lucky he's not on the ignore list. I don't answer questions on demand, and he/she knows exactly where we stand, but presses the issue regardless. A habitual line stepper much like yourself.

So you're a hypocrite too.

OK.

[TSA]

Interesting breakdown of the actual writing in the dossier

Did Christopher Steele Write His Dossier, or Did a Russian Associate?

Among the few givens in the unfolding drama of alleged Russia-Trump collusion is that former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele wrote the Donald Trump-Russia dossier, alternately known as the "Steele Dossier."

This is the notorious do ent that purports to detail "Republican candidate Donald Trump's activities in Russia and compromising relationship with the Kremlin."

The above quote is from the subhead of the do ent, led "Company Intelligence Report 2016/080." Yet the same subhead hints at a disturbing pattern evident throughout the do ent: it appears to be written by someone whose native language is something other than English.

The phrase should read, "Republican candidate Donald Trump's activities in Russia and his compromising relationship with the Kremlin." As shall be seen, it is hard to believe that Christopher Steele actually wrote the original phrase or much of the rest of the eponymous dossier.

Christopher Steele, or "Chris Steele," as he bylined his reporting, attended Cambridge University and wrote for the student publication, Varsity. At Cambridge, he also served as president of the Cambridge Union Society, a debating club.

Contemporaries remember him as an "avowedly [l]eft-wing student with CND credentials." CND is shorthand for "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament," a British organization that was particularly active when Steele arrived at Cambridge in the early 1980s. At the time, MI5 monitored CND for its reported communist ties.

As the British Guardian observed in an article on Steele, "Cambridge had produced some of MI6's most talented cold war officials. A few of them, it turned out – to great embarrassment – had secret second jobs with the KGB." But this is a story for another day.

The story for today is how a Cambridge journalist and debater could write a sentence like the following: "Alpha held 'kompromat' on Putin and his corrupt business activities from the 1990s whilst although not personally overly bothered by Alpha's failure to reinvest the proceeds of its TNK oil company sale into the Russian economy since, the Russian president was able to use pressure on this count from senior Kremlin colleagues as a lever on Fridman and AVEN to make them do his political bidding."

The articles we have unearthed from Steele's tenure at Varsity read like someone who knew his own language. Much of the Steele dossier reads like the sentence above: a syntactical nightmare with a near random use of punctuation.

The author of the dossier was, however, schooled in British English. The do ent contains distinctly English usages such as "programme," "defence," "authorised," and "manoeuvre." The use of such words as "regime," "apparatus," and "compatriot" indicates someone fluent in Cold War terminology.

That said, too many of the sentences read as though written by an individual not fully fluent in English, British or American. Here is one of several: "Trump's previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St. Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end Trump had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local pros utes rather than business success." The very idea of linking "sexual services" and "business success" is jarring, as is the stand-alone use of "business success."

There are several basic misuses of the language that should have cautioned officials who read this do ent. One sentence, for instance, begins with the phrase "Speaking to a trusted compatriot." After parsing the sentence, it becomes clear that the author meant "According to a trusted compatriot." The "speaking to" misdirection makes a jumble out of the sentence.

In writing about sex, the author is particularly maladroit. He famously claims that Russian authorities had compromised Trump by catching him in his "personal obsessions and sexual perversion."

In one instance, Trump was alleged to have gotten revenge on the Obamas, "whom he hated." He did this by "defiling the bed where they had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia by employing a number of pros utes to perform a 'golden showers' urination show." The common phrase is "golden shower," and what native English speaker would say "'golden showers' urination show"?

Another discordant pattern throughout the dossier is the absence of an article where one expects to see one. For instance, the phrase "to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance" is missing a "the" before "western alliance." The phrase "anchored upon countries' interest" should read, in context, "anchored upon the country's interest." More than once, the author misuses the possessive, as he does here.

The punctuation is bewildering throughout the dossier. As a case in point, several sentences begin with the word "however" without a following comma: "However it has not as yet been distributed abroad." In other instances, the "however" is followed by a comma: "However, there were other aspects ..." The latter is correct. On the use of commas before or after conjunctions such as "and" and 'but," there is no consistency whatsoever.

It is possible that the do ent had more than one author, one perhaps Russian, one most likely Steele. At one point, the reader is told that the Trump campaign leaked the DNC do ents to WikiLeaks "to swing supporters of Bernie SANDERS away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP." The "summary" section straightens out the language. Now the goal is to switch voters "away from CLINTON and over to TRUMP."

There are many other little details that bug the reader. The author writes, "Things had become even 'hotter' since August on the TRUMP-RUSSIA track." Why put "hotter" in quotes? It is much too common a metaphor to demand that kind of attention.

What is most disturbing is that no one in the media appears to have reviewed the language of the dossier. Whether the primary author is Steele or a Russian associate, the dossier is a mess, both in its content and in its style.

A former KGB spy who defected to the United States, Konstantin Preobrazhenky, did not feel qualified to assess the language of the dossier. English is not his first language. As to content, however, he told us, "There is no information in the dossier whatsoever. It's just foolish speculation. There are no references. It is not an intelligence do ent of any kind. I was laughing when I was reading it."

One content point that reasserts itself repeatedly toward the end of the do ent is the notion of "Moscow's interference in the US Presidential election campaign." Another is Trump's perceived "unfitness" for office. Jammed in out of nowhere, these assertions read less like Russian intel than like Democrat talking points.

The question remains: who did the colluding? Was it the Trump campaign or the Clinton campaign? Much hinges on the authorship of this dossier. The media have an obligation to ask who else was involved in its creation. If Christopher Steele wrote it himself, Cambridge should rescind his degree.

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...associate.html

[Pavlov]

Interesting breakdown of the actual writing in the dossier

Did Christopher Steele Write His Dossier, or Did a Russian Associate?

Among the few givens in the unfolding drama of alleged Russia-Trump collusion is that former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele wrote the Donald Trump-Russia dossier, alternately known as the "Steele Dossier."

This is the notorious do ent that purports to detail "Republican candidate Donald Trump's activities in Russia and compromising relationship with the Kremlin."

The above quote is from the subhead of the do ent, led "Company Intelligence Report 2016/080." Yet the same subhead hints at a disturbing pattern evident throughout the do ent: it appears to be written by someone whose native language is something other than English.

The phrase should read, "Republican candidate Donald Trump's activities in Russia and his compromising relationship with the Kremlin." As shall be seen, it is hard to believe that Christopher Steele actually wrote the original phrase or much of the rest of the eponymous dossier.

Christopher Steele, or "Chris Steele," as he bylined his reporting, attended Cambridge University and wrote for the student publication, Varsity. At Cambridge, he also served as president of the Cambridge Union Society, a debating club.

Contemporaries remember him as an "avowedly [l]eft-wing student with CND credentials." CND is shorthand for "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament," a British organization that was particularly active when Steele arrived at Cambridge in the early 1980s. At the time, MI5 monitored CND for its reported communist ties.

As the British Guardian observed in an article on Steele, "Cambridge had produced some of MI6's most talented cold war officials. A few of them, it turned out – to great embarrassment – had secret second jobs with the KGB." But this is a story for another day.

The story for today is how a Cambridge journalist and debater could write a sentence like the following: "Alpha held 'kompromat' on Putin and his corrupt business activities from the 1990s whilst although not personally overly bothered by Alpha's failure to reinvest the proceeds of its TNK oil company sale into the Russian economy since, the Russian president was able to use pressure on this count from senior Kremlin colleagues as a lever on Fridman and AVEN to make them do his political bidding."

The articles we have unearthed from Steele's tenure at Varsity read like someone who knew his own language. Much of the Steele dossier reads like the sentence above: a syntactical nightmare with a near random use of punctuation.

The author of the dossier was, however, schooled in British English. The do ent contains distinctly English usages such as "programme," "defence," "authorised," and "manoeuvre." The use of such words as "regime," "apparatus," and "compatriot" indicates someone fluent in Cold War terminology.

That said, too many of the sentences read as though written by an individual not fully fluent in English, British or American. Here is one of several: "Trump's previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St. Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end Trump had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local pros utes rather than business success." The very idea of linking "sexual services" and "business success" is jarring, as is the stand-alone use of "business success."

There are several basic misuses of the language that should have cautioned officials who read this do ent. One sentence, for instance, begins with the phrase "Speaking to a trusted compatriot." After parsing the sentence, it becomes clear that the author meant "According to a trusted compatriot." The "speaking to" misdirection makes a jumble out of the sentence.

In writing about sex, the author is particularly maladroit. He famously claims that Russian authorities had compromised Trump by catching him in his "personal obsessions and sexual perversion."

In one instance, Trump was alleged to have gotten revenge on the Obamas, "whom he hated." He did this by "defiling the bed where they had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia by employing a number of pros utes to perform a 'golden showers' urination show." The common phrase is "golden shower," and what native English speaker would say "'golden showers' urination show"?

Another discordant pattern throughout the dossier is the absence of an article where one expects to see one. For instance, the phrase "to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance" is missing a "the" before "western alliance." The phrase "anchored upon countries' interest" should read, in context, "anchored upon the country's interest." More than once, the author misuses the possessive, as he does here.

The punctuation is bewildering throughout the dossier. As a case in point, several sentences begin with the word "however" without a following comma: "However it has not as yet been distributed abroad." In other instances, the "however" is followed by a comma: "However, there were other aspects ..." The latter is correct. On the use of commas before or after conjunctions such as "and" and 'but," there is no consistency whatsoever.

It is possible that the do ent had more than one author, one perhaps Russian, one most likely Steele. At one point, the reader is told that the Trump campaign leaked the DNC do ents to WikiLeaks "to swing supporters of Bernie SANDERS away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP." The "summary" section straightens out the language. Now the goal is to switch voters "away from CLINTON and over to TRUMP."

There are many other little details that bug the reader. The author writes, "Things had become even 'hotter' since August on the TRUMP-RUSSIA track." Why put "hotter" in quotes? It is much too common a metaphor to demand that kind of attention.

What is most disturbing is that no one in the media appears to have reviewed the language of the dossier. Whether the primary author is Steele or a Russian associate, the dossier is a mess, both in its content and in its style.

A former KGB spy who defected to the United States, Konstantin Preobrazhenky, did not feel qualified to assess the language of the dossier. English is not his first language. As to content, however, he told us, "There is no information in the dossier whatsoever. It's just foolish speculation. There are no references. It is not an intelligence do ent of any kind. I was laughing when I was reading it."

One content point that reasserts itself repeatedly toward the end of the do ent is the notion of "Moscow's interference in the US Presidential election campaign." Another is Trump's perceived "unfitness" for office. Jammed in out of nowhere, these assertions read less like Russian intel than like Democrat talking points.

The question remains: who did the colluding? Was it the Trump campaign or the Clinton campaign? Much hinges on the authorship of this dossier. The media have an obligation to ask who else was involved in its creation. If Christopher Steele wrote it himself, Cambridge should rescind his degree.

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...associate.html

Another conspiracy!

[Chris]

A lot of people contributed to the dossier, but we all know who paid for it. #LockHerUp

[Spurtacular]

Darrin is outraged!

lol old lady even *dings* during the interview. Just like Darrin.

Hillary wasn't in contact with the Russians? She was talking about an election that involved Hillary, nitwit.

Also at your intrinsic support of CNN harassing senior citizens.

[Spurtacular]

Of course. Why would I want a felon to run for office?

spurraider21

Huh?

[Spurtacular]

wut

Mueller is Colin Powell 2.0 he will go in hiding after he either resigns or gets fired

How so?

[Pavlov]

Hillary wasn't in contact with the Russians?

When was Hillary herself in contact with the Russians?

Be specific.

[TSA]

Another conspiracy!

Is calling everything you disagree with a “conspiracy!” the new version of your white flag?

Can you state with certainty that Steele and only Steele was the author of the dossier yes or no?

[Chris]

Think Horowitz. Inspector general report is coming soon which might be what Sessions is waiting on. If Trump fires Sessions, as indicated by a perceived rift through a Trump tweet, then he may face backlash from the Senate. After all Sessions gave up a seat to take on the job as AG. This won't stop Trump though if that is the case.

[Pavlov]

Is calling everything you disagree with a “conspiracy!” the new version of your white flag?

Can you state with certainty that Steele and only Steele was the author of the dossier yes or no?

It's not my claim to prove.

It is now your conspiracy claim, so say why it's the latest big thing for you to exclaim here.

[Spurtacular]

When was Hillary herself in contact with the Russians?

Be specific.

Uranium One.

[Pavlov]

Uranium One.

Not specific.

Be specific.

[TSA]

It's not my claim to prove.

It is now your conspiracy claim, so say why it's the latest big thing for you to exclaim here.

I made no claim at all and posted it for discussion. After reading the article do you think Steele was the only author of the dossier yes or no?

[Spurtacular]

Muh hero gave twenty percent of our uranium to the Russia

#StillWithHer

[Chris]

It's Sullivan time you heard it here first