-
@siam rabid narrative distortion???
What a meaningless piece of nonsense.
How do you distort a narrative?
Dysfunctional US electorate? Why? Because they elected Trump?...the guy you supposedly don't give a fig about. Yeah right. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@siam rabid narrative distortion???
What a meaningless piece of nonsense.
How do you distort a narrative?
Dysfunctional US electorate? Why? Because they elected Trump?...the guy you supposedly don't give a fig about. Yeah right.Errrr ok.....
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
Ok.. now you are just making stuff up.
Please tell us what parts they verified as facts before continuing, and how much of the dossier was verified? That dossier is a steaming pile of horse manure. Unproven salacious crap. I get you want to like it because it is a nasty hit job against a politician you don't like, but don't pretend it is remotely credible.Considering the the FISA application I am referring to was for surveillance on Page, I think it is a fair assumption that the part about Page was used. The 'dossier' is just that, a dossier. A collection of various things that Steele's investigations lead him to assess. The FBI decided that the Page allegations were grounded in enough factual evidence that they could take them to a judge for a FISA warrant. The judge agreed that there was enough evidence there to grant it.
I guess that your assumption was that they used untested and unverifiable allegations and pulled the wool over a judge's eyes? 'Look, this pommy bloke says Trump plays watersports with Russian hookers! Can I have a warrant to snoop on something unrelated?'
Yep, that sounds stupid.
Which of the above is most likely to be closest to fact?And did you seriously say
"Does it then matter what the origin is?"Yes, In context.
It does matter where the evidence/allegation came from and the Judge was told exactly where and who funded it.
However, despite the origin, if there is a fact in Steele's work that is proven independently (yes, the FBI is not the democratic party despite Mr Trumps tweets saying they are) then surely you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'll re-word my previous example. The Mongrel Mob tell the police about a whole load of shit they reckon Black Power are up to. The police put aside much of it as unprovable hearsay from an unreliable source but among the allegations is some strong and provable facts linked to an unsolved murder. They want to follow that lead. Should they totally ignore it instead?WTF? That is the whole point, but I am guessing you don't care if Russians provide lies and propaganda as long as it is against Trump, but as soon as they organise a rally for 45 people.. that is the big news.
You just cannot make up this level of double standard.
Being russian doesnt matter when providing info to Democrat paid for Steele...
Being Russian is a huge deal if they organise a Facebook gathering for 40 odd people.Now who is getting silly? Have I said, or implied any of that?
Yes, I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him, and certainly not anywhere near your own declared levels of hatred for Obama and Clinton.
I'm happy if someone less biased calls my out on having double standards but shouting from way over the other side of the fence carries no weight.
I have quite clearly stated that I don't think that Trump personally ran, directed or even instructed some great plan with Russia. Nor do I think there is any way to judge how the election was affected. I'm not campaigning for a reversal either.
I am simply stating how I see things, which differs to other views and for the most part am happy to try and support my opinion.
No, I don't agree with Trump's 'world view' but most of all I dislike his childish, narcissistic behaviour.
None of this is going to lead anywhere good. I tend to believe that as the pressure comes harder on Trump he will reach a point where he will just quit and claim a high ground leading disenfranchised supporters to feel shit upon and dividing the country even further. Metaphorically he will set fire to those tacky gold drapes and walk out of the office. -
@crucial said in US Politics:
Considering the the FISA application I am referring to was for surveillance on Page, I think it is a fair assumption that the part about Page was used. The 'dossier' is just that, a dossier. A collection of various things that Steele's investigations lead him to assess. The FBI decided that the Page allegations were grounded in enough factual evidence that they could take them to a judge for a FISA warrant. The judge agreed that there was enough evidence there to grant it.
I guess that your assumption was that they used untested and unverifiable allegations and pulled the wool over a judge's eyes? 'Look, this pommy bloke says Trump plays watersports with Russian hookers! Can I have a warrant to snoop on something unrelated?'I think your safe assumption is anything but safe, and you have no evidence to back up your claim. The FISA details haven't been released, and the people who have read them, have a very different opinion than you.
Yes, In context.
It does matter where the evidence/allegation came from and the Judge was told exactly where and who funded it.That is just completely and utterly 100% factually wrong.. where the heck do you get your information from??????
However, despite the origin, if there is a fact in Steele's work that is proven independently (yes, the FBI is not the democratic party despite Mr Trumps tweets saying they are) then surely you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'll re-word my previous example. The Mongrel Mob tell the police about a whole load of shit they reckon Black Power are up to. The police put aside much of it as unprovable hearsay from an unreliable source but among the allegations is some strong and provable facts linked to an unsolved murder. They want to follow that lead. Should they totally ignore it instead?Proven independently??? By who?? Please share as this is the first I have heard of this.
Your analogy is just silly.Yes, I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him, and certainly not anywhere near your own declared levels of hatred for Obama and Clinton.
Oh so you dont like Trump but apparently I hated Obama... I barely mentioned US politics during Obamas time, I certainly didnt post as much about him as you have about Trump..... And where did I declare hatred of Obama? Or is that something else you just made up?
I have quite clearly stated that I don't think that Trump personally ran, directed or even instructed some great plan with Russia. Nor do I think there is any way to judge how the election was affected. I'm not campaigning for a reversal either.
I am simply stating how I see things, which differs to other views and for the most part am happy to try and support my opinion.You dont really support your opinion at all, I have tried numerous times to get you to o that, you never really do.
None of this is going to lead anywhere good. I tend to believe that as the pressure comes harder on Trump he will reach a point where he will just quit and claim a high ground leading disenfranchised supporters to feel shit upon and dividing the country even further. Metaphorically he will set fire to those tacky gold drapes and walk out of the office.
The US is divided because the left there see compromise as everyone agreeing with everything they say. Do have an example of them compromising over Trump?
-
But the good news is that this will all come out. The scab has well and truly been picked.
-
That dastardly Rooskie “troll farm” that the unimpeachable Bob Mueller and the FBI just indicted looks like it’s, well, maybe not the sinister conspiracy the mainstream news media is hypervebntilating about, and much more likely a marketing company seeking “likes” and “followers” with virtual “memes” from everything-and-everybody, from 4chan Trump supporters, to BLM and LGBT organizations, as well as kitten & puppy appreciation groups. Great work guys. Oh, and some of the 13 people indicted, haven’t worked at the “troll farm” since 2014. Incredible.
-
Russia Today has a vested interest in this story. The opinions of one of their hosts isn't a great source
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
And where did I declare hatred of Obama? Or is that something else you just made up?
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
I loath Obama and think he was an arrogant nasty tool.
(Sic)
-
@duluth said in US Politics:
Russia Today has a vested interest in this story. The opinions of one of their hosts isn't a great source
I wish I could like this more than once. Russia today is usually as credible as infowars .
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
Considering the the FISA application I am referring to was for surveillance on Page, I think it is a fair assumption that the part about Page was used. The 'dossier' is just that, a dossier. A collection of various things that Steele's investigations lead him to assess. The FBI decided that the Page allegations were grounded in enough factual evidence that they could take them to a judge for a FISA warrant. The judge agreed that there was enough evidence there to grant it.
I guess that your assumption was that they used untested and unverifiable allegations and pulled the wool over a judge's eyes? 'Look, this pommy bloke says Trump plays watersports with Russian hookers! Can I have a warrant to snoop on something unrelated?'I think your safe assumption is anything but safe, and you have no evidence to back up your claim. The FISA details haven't been released, and the people who have read them, have a very different opinion than you.
Do they? Might depend on whose bedtime stories you read and what barrow they were pushing.
BTW I said fair assumption not safe assumption. Please don't twist meanings.
My evidence is that the FISA application was about Page. Therefore presented supporting evidence would also be about Page and stand up to scrutiny.Yes, In context.
It does matter where the evidence/allegation came from and the Judge was told exactly where and who funded it.That is just completely and utterly 100% factually wrong..
Is it? You have just declared above that as I haven't seen the application I can't even make fair assumptions about it yet you apparently know enough to declare the next statement 100% factually wrong. I didn't realise your US clearance levels were so high.
However, despite the origin, if there is a fact in Steele's work that is proven independently (yes, the FBI is not the democratic party despite Mr Trumps tweets saying they are) then surely you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'll re-word my previous example. The Mongrel Mob tell the police about a whole load of shit they reckon Black Power are up to. The police put aside much of it as unprovable hearsay from an unreliable source but among the allegations is some strong and provable facts linked to an unsolved murder. They want to follow that lead. Should they totally ignore it instead?Proven independently??? By who?? Please share as this is the first I have heard of this.
Your analogy is just silly.Why is it silly? Independently by the FBI.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
Do they? Might depend on whose bedtime stories you read and what barrow they were pushing.
BTW I said fair assumption not safe assumption. Please don't twist meanings.
My evidence is that the FISA application was about Page. Therefore presented supporting evidence would also be about Page and stand up to scrutiny.I believe Trey Gowdy. He is by far the most credible person who has read the documents.
Is it? You have just declared above that as I haven't seen the application I can't even make fair assumptions about it yet you apparently know enough to declare the next statement 100% factually wrong. I didn't realise your US clearance levels were so high.
Yes because even Democrats have admitted the courts were not told who funded the Dossier. And that is ignoring the fact you brazenly claimed the judge was told. Evidence??? I can provide quotes form all sides who actually have readf the FISA documents stating the judge was not informed.
Why is it silly? Independently by the FBI.
The FBI didn't verify it. Why are you just making this stuff up?
-
This is a great vid if you actually want to cut through the spin and crap form both sides
Gowdy is an awesome congressmen, so smart he is quitting. -
Full version, longer but has some interesting stuff on all sorts of topics.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
Do they? Might depend on whose bedtime stories you read and what barrow they were pushing.
BTW I said fair assumption not safe assumption. Please don't twist meanings.
My evidence is that the FISA application was about Page. Therefore presented supporting evidence would also be about Page and stand up to scrutiny.I believe Trey Gowdy. He is by far the most credible person who has read the documents.
Both Nunes and Gowdy have conceded that the FBI did declare in the application that some evidence provided to them had been 'politically motivated'. Something Nunes forgot to mention in his memo.
"I read the footnote. I know exactly what the footnote says," Gowdy said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It took longer to explain it the way they did, than if they just come right out and said, 'Hillary Clinton for America and DNC paid for it.' But they didn't do that."
Perhaps the reason it was long winded was that the story is a wee bit more complicated than HC writing out a cheque, but hey, let's throw more smoke around...
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
Do they? Might depend on whose bedtime stories you read and what barrow they were pushing.
BTW I said fair assumption not safe assumption. Please don't twist meanings.
My evidence is that the FISA application was about Page. Therefore presented supporting evidence would also be about Page and stand up to scrutiny.I believe Trey Gowdy. He is by far the most credible person who has read the documents.
Both Nunes and Gowdy have conceded that the FBI did declare in the application that some evidence provided to them had been 'politically motivated'. Something Nunes forgot to mention in his memo.
"I read the footnote. I know exactly what the footnote says," Gowdy said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It took longer to explain it the way they did, than if they just come right out and said, 'Hillary Clinton for America and DNC paid for it.' But they didn't do that."
Perhaps the reason it was long winded was that the story is a wee bit more complicated than HC writing out a cheque, but hey, let's throw more smoke around...
Exactly. They said in a footnote and apparently danced around the fact that not only was it politically motivated, but that it was paid for by the Democrats and Clinton Campaign, based on a previous dossier by a Clinton hit job artist and that Steele had demonstrable animus towards Trump. NONE of that was mentioned, and ALL of it is very relevant. As Gowdy stated, it took more effort to hide that than it did to just tell it. The judge should have known all that information. They had ZERO right to hide that form the judge.They were officers of the court. Not prosecutors.
But are you now saying you don't believe it was funded by Clinton and written by Steele? Are you now saying that the information the FBI had on the level of animus the author had for Trump wasn't relevant? Really?
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
Do they? Might depend on whose bedtime stories you read and what barrow they were pushing.
BTW I said fair assumption not safe assumption. Please don't twist meanings.
My evidence is that the FISA application was about Page. Therefore presented supporting evidence would also be about Page and stand up to scrutiny.I believe Trey Gowdy. He is by far the most credible person who has read the documents.
Both Nunes and Gowdy have conceded that the FBI did declare in the application that some evidence provided to them had been 'politically motivated'. Something Nunes forgot to mention in his memo.
"I read the footnote. I know exactly what the footnote says," Gowdy said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It took longer to explain it the way they did, than if they just come right out and said, 'Hillary Clinton for America and DNC paid for it.' But they didn't do that."
Perhaps the reason it was long winded was that the story is a wee bit more complicated than HC writing out a cheque, but hey, let's throw more smoke around...
Exactly. They said in a footnote and apparently danced around the fact that not only was it politically motivated, but that it was paid for by the Democrats and Clinton Campaign, based on a previous dossier by a Clinton hit job artist and that Steele had demonstrable animus towards Trump. NONE of that was mentioned, and ALL of it is very relevant. As Gowdy stated, it took more effort to hide that than it did to just tell it. The judge should have known all that information. They had ZERO right to hide that form the judge.
Where is your support on that? I have quoted Gowdy and he says what he says, not what you do.
Does he say hide? 'Danced around'? Anything to back that up?
Gowdy says it took longer to explain than he would have, but then provides no proof that his short statement is the full facts as expected in a legal document.But are you now saying you don't believe it was funded by Clinton and written by Steele? Are you now saying that the information the FBI had on the level of animus the author had for Trump wasn't relevant? Really?
You still don't get that if something is true, it is still true irrespective of who says it.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
Where is your support on that? I have quoted Gowdy and he says what he says, not what you do.
Does he say hide? 'Danced around'? Anything to back that up?
Gowdy says it took longer to explain than he would have, but then provides no proof that his short statement is the full facts as expected in a legal document.Yes. Watch the video. You clearly haven't.
You still don't get that if something is true, it is still true irrespective of who says it.
Who determines if it is true? In this case the judge, and to do that he needs all relevant facts. He didn't get the relevant facts, they were hidden. The lawyers were supposed to be acting as officers of the court, not prosecutors.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
When I saw the biased news channel logo on the video I didn't bother.
Would you like a CNN clip in reply?And that sums you up your knowledge on the topic nicely.
How could you post a CNN reply to something you haven't watched?
US Politics