-
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? -
Newsweak really is in the toilet these days. I’m surprised they’re still holding on by their fingernails. That retraction is a beauty.
Some related reading for those of you who aren’t afraid to pull the curtain back:
- ”How The Media Enable Rep. Adam Schiff’s Russian Bot Conspiracy Theories,” by the great Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist, exposes the neocon scam-artists and hoaxsters (Bill Kristol et al) who are playing the media for fools (kinda the same way these same warmonger propagandists snowed news media with fiction about yellowcake and aluminum tubes and greeted-as-liberators etc.).
...and...
- ”Mueller’s Fraudulent Indictment: The Internet Research Agency: clickbait farm or KGB plot?” by the inimitable editorial director at Antiwar.com Justin Raimondo, who is on his last legs with cancer but still kicking more arse from a hospital bed than a thousand CNN toadies crashing the homes of old ladies with Facebook pages.
-
Democrats get campaign cash from banks ahead of deregulation vote
Senate bill would exempt regional lenders from post-crisis oversight rules
-
Note that one of the main donors for this partial roll back of the Dodd-Frank regulations is Signature:
Signature, a specialist in lending to small and mid-sized companies, has enjoyed rapid organic growth since its founding in 2001 by Mr Shay, a former Salomon Brothers banker. Its board includes Barney Frank, the former congressman and co-architect of the Dodd-Frank bill, and Al D’Amato, former New York senator. Ivanka Trump, the daughter of the president, was also a director between 2011 and 2013.
-
The US neighbours in the north have a leader who’s made virtue signalling a way of life for himself . This is hilarious
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12001039
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
The US neighbours in the north have a leader who’s made virtue signalling a way of life for himself . This is hilarious
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12001039
"How did ... a feminist man, with movie-star good looks, a 50 per cent female cabinet and a political lexicon that has replaced "mankind" with "peoplekind" (making millions swoon), end up looking silly, diminished and desperate..?"
Question answers itself.
-
Politico feature, today:
”Trump Is Winning: Are you sick and tired of it yet?”
Money quote: “Who speaks for the Democratic Party? Depends on what time it is. What does the Democratic Party stand for? Well, they hate Trump and Russia. Oh, and they oppose tax cuts, always a popular proposition, especially at a time when Trump’s supposedly satanic tax bill has now found favor with a majority of the nation.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/25/trump-reelection-2020-approval-ratings-217037
-
Trudeau, being both a drama teacher and the Ultimate Virtue-Signaller is likely trying to cover his left flank with the Ultimate Pander — even risking the political danger of controversially dragging an attempted-murderer with him.
Point is, Jagmeet Singh, the federal leader of Canada’s NDP (New Democratic Party) (socialists wingnuts) is a genuine Sikh, turban, dagger, the whole deal.
Trudeau probably thought he was being a clever boy. He is, of course, a fuckinembarrassment.
US Politics