The Trump Presidency...

You don't have to be Miss Marples to see what is obviously clear from that timeline. The FBI were running an entrapment operation against Papadopoulos to stitch up the Trump Campaign based on “Russia Russia, Russia, even before the Democrats had confirmation that they even been compromised.
So the FBI ran an operation against Papadopolous, who fortunately got pissed with a Five Eyes diplomat in London giving them [the FBI] a pretext for the rest of their operation against Trump?
 
We're through the looking glass, people.
 
Drippy Dicks Russia theory is simple.

A-minus happened before A+ therefore even though A+, B+ and C+ are true they can't be true because A-minus happened before A+ therefore A+ B+ and C+ is really a box of rotten bananas that should be thrown in the bin.
(or some other bat sh!t idea).

Oh, While I am here.
LEST WE FORGET
1565210870608.png

  • As usual, the party divide in Trump's job approval rating is vast -- 89% of Uneducated Truppits and only 7% of blind & deaf Democrats who cannot read or own a TV approve of the job he is doing.
 
Drippy Dicks Russia theory is simple.

A-minus happened before A+ therefore even though A+, B+ and C+ are true they can't be true because A-minus happened before A+ therefore A+ B+ and C+ is really a box of rotten bananas that should be thrown in the bin.
(or some other bat sh!t idea).
Perhaps it is just my style, but I don't find it necessary to be rude.

I do think it an example of something noted before.

"But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high".


That was from 1964.

This is incredibly prescient.

One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed....But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates “evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.


I'd say I find it all funny, because mainly I visit this site the same way Victorians allegedly used to visit Bedlam to rattle the cages and watch the inmates.

However, Russian information operations have flourished off the back of the sort of nonsense I see infested this site (and wider society).
 
Amazing what you can do with an absence of journalists.

Grieving people, just turn that frown upside down with your caring President.

He appears to have turned a mass shooting into a campaign ad. Quality.

 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Amazing what you can do with an absence of journalists.

Grieving people, just turn that frown upside down with your caring President.

He appears to have turned a mass shooting into a campaign ad. Quality.

Never fails to lower the bar that man.
 
Never fails to lower the bar that man.
Thing is, the fact checking for his 2020 run will be impossible because of this sort of thing.
Which might be the point.
 
And just to prove the point.

 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Thing is, the fact checking for his 2020 run will be impossible because of this sort of thing.
Which might be the point.
I believe it's entirely the point, based on the fact that you can fool some of the people, all of the time.
 
I believe it's entirely the point, based on the fact that you can fool some of the people, all of the time.
I would venture it is because some of them want to be fooled by you?

 
So the FBI ran an operation against Papadopolous, who fortunately got pissed with a Five Eyes diplomat in London giving them [the FBI] a pretext for the rest of their operation against Trump?
Almost correct. The meeting with Papadopolous and Downer did not last long enough for anyone to get pissed.

And partly correct because the FBI FISA abuse relied partly on the Papadoplous/Mifsud/Downer stitch up and partly on the now completely discredited 'Steele Dossier" to stitch up Carter Page.

This is what the Horowitz investigation is examining. Whether the FBI and the Justice Department filing of four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications and renewals beginning in October 2016 to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was an abuse of the FISA process?

Largely unreported is the fact that Horowitz met with Christopher Steele in London in June 2019. ;)

The separate DOJ enquiry headed by John Durham is looking into the origins of the Trump-Russia Hoax.

Interestingly,Durham’ has just “obtained an audiotaped deposition of Joseph Mifsud, where he describes his work, why he targeted Papadopoulos, who directed him to do that, what directions he was given, and why he set that entire process of introducing George Papadopoulos to Russia in motion in March of 2016.” ;)

So we'll wait and see what Horowitz and Durham have to say?

We know that Horowitz has already referred James Comey for possible prosecution and the DOJ has declined. That's a leading indicator of the fact that AG Barr thinks he has bigger fish to fry...

Perhaps the most important meeting that the MSM is ignoring is the one that occurred on November 17, 2016, When Mike Rogers met President-Elect Trump in Trump Tower, . Director Rogers did not inform his boss – Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. ;)
 
Can I just check again, this is the same Carter Page who was meeting with undeclared Russian intelligence officers a couple of years ago?
 
Can I just check again, this is the same Carter Page who was meeting with undeclared Russian intelligence officers a couple of years ago?
Yes that Carter Page!

He was the subject of the now completely discredited "Steele Dossier" which claimed he was meeting with undeclared Russian intelligence officers.

The same Carter Page who had the entire investigative might of the FBI, the DOJ and the CIA and was a specific target of the Mueller Inquiry. Who has never been charged with anything.;)

The other FISA warrant target was Papadopolous. He too was alleged to have met with a Russian Intelligence officer - Josef Mifsud who told him that the Kremlin had buckets of Democrat emails. We know this because that's what James Comey claimed. ;)

You've been given chapter and verse Boumer. You are clearly not stupid, I put it down to severe cognitive dissonance.

I was an original skeptic of the Steele Dossier and was howled down here. I was proved correct.

I accurately predicted the outcome of the 'Nunes inquiry' and was howled down here. I was proved correct.

I accurately predicted the outcome of the Mueller inquiry and was howled down here. I was proved correct.

I'm now predicting the outcome of the Horowitz and Durham investigations. Being howled down again but as has always been the case here, I will be proven correct...

The 'flash point' of the Trump Russia Hoax was the meeting between Mifsud, who Comey claimed was a Russian Agent, and Papadopolous.

If it turns out that Mifsud - the cornerstone of the Trump Russia hoax was not in fact working for Russia but was actually a long standing US intelligence asset and was in fact working for the FBI - Will that be enough to convince you?

I know the answer now. I'm happy for Durham to confirm it later. ;)
 
The Steele Report: (My bold)
The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate.

With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time. In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.

These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.
 
No reason for the reply, other than some things should be kept from deletion: later.
4 Jan 2018

chippymick said:
Thanks I haven't seen your list.

Once you've found them I would be interested to know from that long list what you consider to be the top 5 most heinous untruths. Your personal opinion.

I note too that Comey is looking pretty shaky. The next few weeks are going to be pretty interesting. The evidence pendulum seems to be swinging away from Russiagate and back towards the Clinton email scandal and the Steele Dossier.

Too early to call, but the rest of January are going to be interesting times.
How am I looking?;)
 
The Steele Report: (My bold)
The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate.

With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time. In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.


These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.
Pathetic.

A blog post dated Friday, December 14, 2018?

When Mueller was asked in July 2019

“You had two years to investigate, Not once did you deem it worth to investigate how an ‘unverified’ document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition of a political campaign. Did you do any investigation into that —”

“I do not accept your characterization of what occurred,” Mueller replied.

The Steele Dossier became deader than disco...
 
Pathetic.

A blog post dated Friday, December 14, 2018?

When Mueller was asked in July 2019

“You had two years to investigate, Not once did you deem it worth to investigate how an ‘unverified’ document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition of a political campaign. Did you do any investigation into that —”

“I do not accept your characterization of what occurred,” Mueller replied.

The Steele Dossier became deader than disco...
So, which bit of "I do not accept your characterization" did you not understand?

Which bit of the Steele document has been CONCLUSIVELY disproved? None.

The windbaggery and misdirection of a politician who has signally failed to demolish the meat of the report, and instead has to focus on some tinfoil hat conspiracy about the funding chain has more weight than a flat out rebuttal. Weird.
 
Is this the same President that has claimed many, many times, "I have the best memory"?

Keep in mind that Trump hasn’t been cleared of charges that he conspired with the Russian government to interfere in the election. In his summary of that part of his investigation, Mueller noted that there were gaps in the information they obtained, including the fact that some individuals provided information that was false or incomplete.

On the question of conspiracy, Donald Trump has uttered the words “no collusion” in public over 400 times since the beginning of the special counsel’s investigation. But as John Walasik has documented, when the president provided written answers to Mueller’s questions under oath, he didn’t assert that no collusion happened. Instead, he claimed over and over again that he couldn’t recall. In his report, Mueller notes that “the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall or remember or have an independent recollection’ of information called for by the questions.”

For example, when asked whether he knew about Russia’s plans to hack DNC emails, here is how Trump responded.

Question 1: “Did you know about Russian plans to hack the DNC…”
“I do not remember… To the best of my recollection… I do not remember…”
Questions 2–3
, regarding Wikileaks release of 20,000 Democratic party emails and whether Trump knew about it beforehand, or knew if they had more emails to release later.
“I have no recollection of any particular conversation…”
Question 4
, regarding whether Trump knew about any communications between people associated with his campaign and Wikileaks, or anyone associated with Russian hacking and leaking.
“I do not recall being aware…”
It Trump didn’t know about Russia’s plans for hacking DNC emails or the timing of their release, why wouldn’t he just say so? He responded similarly to questions about whether he was aware of the fact that his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, shared campaign data with Russian operatives. Walasik writes, “In summary, Trump would like everyone to believe that when it comes to Russian interference in the 2016 election, he does not remember the specifics of what he knew at the time.”

This is, indeed, perplexing. If Trump can’t recall what happened in 2016, how can he state so emphatically that there was “no collusion” (ie, conspiracy)? Is it possible that his public statements are lies? That wouldn’t be a stretch, given that he has lied well over 10,000 times as president. But when questioned under oath, he simply couldn’t recall whether he conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. If that is the case, then we’re talking about a pretty serious case of dementia—or he’s guilty as hell.
 

Latest Threads

Top