Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

What parts of the dossier have been dis-proven?

You need to turn the question around and ask, Which parts have been proven?

Patience grasshopper.  You have no idea of the classified material behind - it will be revealed in time.

You're so anxious in winning the debate - you're letting all of the bad guys get a pass while the process is still ongoing.  Let Mueller do his job - I know you're anxious to discredit him and give the Trump team a pass - but give it another month. 

And please discredit Hillary more - that's what this thread is alive for you to prove after all.

IOW you have nothing, as I have already pointed out. Mueller has been allowed to do his job and so far as Trump is concerned he has come up with nothing we know of. If you know of something, please so inform us.

As far as HRC is concerned, while we await IG Horowitz's report we already know of the various ways she has violated laws and directives.

The question is, why was the FBI investigation of her so fukced up both Pro and Con.

BCC said:

IOW you have nothing, as I have already pointed out. Mueller has been allowed to do his job and so far as Trump is concerned he has come up with nothing we know of. If you know of something, please so inform us.

I wouldn't call this nothing, unless you're saying Trump did not hire Manafort - Gates - Page - Flynn, etc:  Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 19 people and three companies so far — with most of those being announced just in the past two weeks.

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

What parts of the dossier have been dis-proven?

You need to turn the question around and ask, Which parts have been proven?

FWIW

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/20/christopher-steele-hedges-russia-dossier-claims-ag/

jamie said:

BCC said:

IOW you have nothing, as I have already pointed out. Mueller has been allowed to do his job and so far as Trump is concerned he has come up with nothing we know of. If you know of something, please so inform us.

I wouldn't call this nothing, unless you're saying Trump did not hire Manafort - Gates - Page - Flynn, etc:  Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 19 people and three companies so far — with most of those being announced just in the past two weeks.
Yes - nothing on the orangeman yet - but investigation is not complete - I await the final findings.

I have already disposed of all the people you mention. I'm not going to repeat it but as  one example, Mueller  indicted Manifort and Gates on various charges for something that happened years ago and has nothing to do with Trump. He has said nothing about Trump pro or con and is waiting to interview him.

None of the 19 people or 3 companies you mention lead to Trump or his collusion with the Russians.
Like you, I am waiting to see what Mueller comes up with.

LOST said:

BCC said:

You might also find this interesting.


http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375560-democrats-fisa-memo-doesnt-refute-gop-charges

Where have you been? I haven't seen a post from you for many months.

It takes a lot of time to explain to people why they are wrong. I now have the time.

That article isn't really on point.  Steele reported what he had been told from sources in Russia.  They're the basis for an investigation to determine the facts.

BCC said:

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

What parts of the dossier have been dis-proven?

You need to turn the question around and ask, Which parts have been proven?

FWIW

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/20/christopher-steele-hedges-russia-dossier-claims-ag/

South_Mountaineer said:

That article isn't really on point.  Steele reported what he had been told from sources in Russia.  They're the basis for an investigation to determine the facts.

The article contains assertions like this: “In the dossier, he stated without reservation that an ‘extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and the Kremlin’ existed.” 

Where that quote appears in the dossier, it’s preceded by “further indications of” and “further evidence of.”

South_Mountaineer said:

That article isn't really on point.  Steele reported what he had been told from sources in Russia.  They're the basis for an investigation to determine the facts.

BCC said:

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

What parts of the dossier have been dis-proven?

You need to turn the question around and ask, Which parts have been proven?

FWIW

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/20/christopher-steele-hedges-russia-dossier-claims-ag/

So it's not Steele telling us this, it is some people who may or not be telling the truth or may have heard a rumor second or third hand. Steele is backtracking, we have no idea how honest the people are upon whom he depended, the FBI says it is unverified, - ---but we should accept the dossier as fact.

 I find it very difficult to buy into that.

we could all cite any number of op-eds on either side, interpreting the Democratic memo as a full refutation of the Nunes memo, or interpreting it as not refuting it at all.

So I'll cite another opinion piece, but it's not from a political site, it's from Wired.  And the author, Lily Hay Newman isn't a political pundit, but more of a technology writer generally focused on issues of cyber security.  No one writer should be taken as an authority, but at least she's not a partisan hack from either side.

https://www.wired.com/story/democratic-memo-rebuttal-carter-page-trump/

I didn't say "accept the dossier as fact". 

You're using that paulsurovell technique of misrepresenting what someone wrote, and then commenting as if you're making a valid point. 

BCC said:

South_Mountaineer said:

That article isn't really on point.  Steele reported what he had been told from sources in Russia.  They're the basis for an investigation to determine the facts.

BCC said:

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

What parts of the dossier have been dis-proven?

You need to turn the question around and ask, Which parts have been proven?

FWIW

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/20/christopher-steele-hedges-russia-dossier-claims-ag/

So it's not Steele telling us this, it is some people who may or not be telling the truth or may have heard a rumor second or third hand. Steele is backtracking, we have no idea how honest the people are upon whom he depended, the FBI says it is unverified, - ---but we should accept the dossier as fact.

 I find it very difficult to buy into that.

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

What parts of the dossier have been dis-proven?

You need to turn the question around and ask, Which parts have been proven?

I love it when you talk like nohero. What a "team."

tjohn said:

WTF cares.  Steele had a good reputation as a somewhat reliable source and he had and probably still has an incentive to provide good information.  On top of that, people are acting like Trump is some defenseless fall guy being found guilty by some kangaroo court on bad evidence.  Jeez.  It was  a warrant to do more investigating.  And there is an increasing body of evidence suggesting that a bit more investigation was, in fact, warranted.

Did you read the footnote from that application, touted in the Dem memo to "prove" DOJ/FBI was upfront with the FISA Court?. My parentheses and bold:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

BCC said:

LOST said:

BCC said:

You might also find this interesting.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375560-democrats-fisa-memo-doesnt-refute-gop-charges

Where have you been? I haven't seen a post from you for many months.

It takes a lot of time to explain to people why they are wrong. I now have the time.

As Mark Twain is purported to have said (paraphrasing):

"It is far easier to deceive folks than to convince them they have been deceived."

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

I love it when you talk like nohero. What a "team."

Anybody else who can’t tell the difference between the two commenters, raise your hand.

paulsurovell said:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

Yes, and while doing so he found a ton of information that could be a threat to our national security!  Fusion and Steele should be commended.  The Surovell of old would have applauded this.

paulsurovell said:

Did you read the footnote from that application, touted in the Dem memo to "prove" DOJ/FBI was upfront with the FISA Court?. My parentheses and bold:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

It helps to read the sentence in context.  The entire quote from the memo -

In an extensive explanation to the Court, DOJ discloses that Steele
"was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 (Steele) that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

[Edited to add] By the way, we're a long way from the "facts" as the original Nunes memo tried to make us believe.  Mr. Surovell was calling for the Mueller to be "off the case", and Rosenstein with him.  Haven't seen a mea culpa over that one yet.

paulsurovell said:


Did you read the footnote from that application, touted in the Dem memo to "prove" DOJ/FBI was upfront with the FISA Court?. My parentheses and bold:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

I think that's pretty clear.  Do you actually think that's hiding that there was an initial bias on the part of the investigators?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

I love it when you talk like nohero. What a "team."

Anybody else who can’t tell the difference between the two commenters, raise your hand.

Of course there are differences. But the similarities are striking.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

I love it when you talk like nohero. What a "team."

Anybody else who can’t tell the difference between the two commenters, raise your hand.

Of course there are differences. But the similarities are striking.

I think I'm much better looking, but admit to being shorter.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:


Did you read the footnote from that application, touted in the Dem memo to "prove" DOJ/FBI was upfront with the FISA Court?. My parentheses and bold:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

I think that's pretty clear.  Do you actually think that's hiding that there was an initial bias on the part of the investigators?

I think a truthful statement would have been that the FBI knows that US Person was hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to discredit her opponent, Donald Trump.

IMHO the FBI lied when it used the words "speculate" and "likely" in this context.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

No, Jamie has it right.  It's backwards to say, "Allegation hasn't been proven, so there's no reason to investigate."  

I know you don't like it when your "logic" like that is called "Hannity-like" or "Trump defending", but that's what it is.

I love it when you talk like nohero. What a "team."

Anybody else who can’t tell the difference between the two commenters, raise your hand.

Of course there are differences. But the similarities are striking.

I think I'm much better looking, but admit to being shorter.

You know each other?

nohero said:

Mr. Surovell was calling for the Mueller to be "off the case", and Rosenstein with him.

Can you refresh my memory on this?

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

Yes, and while doing so he found a ton of information that could be a threat to our national security!  Fusion and Steele should be commended.  The Surovell of old would have applauded this.

Do you know who gave him that unverified information?

If Steele was indeed hired by Hillary, it still doesn't undercut the fact that he has been an asset to the FBI in the past which gives him a high degree of credibility.  

A trustworthy guy in his position is not going to go rogue depending on who's paying him.  This guy unearthed scary stuff on our current president, who cares who paid for it.  Were they paying for facts or fiction?  You say fiction - the rest of us are waiting for Mueller to complete his findings.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

Yes, and while doing so he found a ton of information that could be a threat to our national security!  Fusion and Steele should be commended.  The Surovell of old would have applauded this.

Do you know who gave him that unverified information?

no - and do you know who has given everyone on earth unverified info?

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:


Did you read the footnote from that application, touted in the Dem memo to "prove" DOJ/FBI was upfront with the FISA Court?. My parentheses and bold:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

I think that's pretty clear.  Do you actually think that's hiding that there was an initial bias on the part of the investigators?

I think a truthful statement would have been that the FBI knows that US Person was hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to discredit her opponent, Donald Trump.

IMHO the FBI lied when it used the words "speculate" and "likely" in this context.

I suppose if you think that judges are incredibly naive, then maybe that would be somewhat misleading.  To the rest of us in the real world, it's clear that they were talking about some form of oppo research.

Of course, as we argue semantics, it ignores the fact that regardless of the source's bias, the evidence can still be credible.  If I ran for office and hired a private detective to investigate an opponent and the investigation turned up accusations of embezzlement, would you think that's not enough for law enforcement to get a warrant if it was sent in as a tip?

We're not talking about convicting someone on this evidence.  We're talking about whether it rises to the level of probable cause for a warrant.

As I wrote pages ago on this thread, if you want to argue against the very existence of secret FISA warrants, I'd be on your side.  But given that the FISA court exists, it's hard to see anything here that is oustside of SOP in the issuance of the warrant.

Speaking of strikingly similar commenters, did anybody else catch the huuuuge "Hannity" last night all about the Dem rebuttal of Nunes?  I assume Mr. Surovell did, or at TIVO'd it (he's a big fan, or at least posts like one).  Among the all-star line-up was Carter Page (the man himself!) sounding very "Surovellian" with his effusive endorsement of Sean.

HANNITY: I have no personal information the Russian government or anyone associated with it played a role in the 2016 election. You added your visits to Moscow you were never approached by any Russian in any shape, manner or form. What do you make of the coverage in this country that has been for the last year though? If that is true what you said, because you said it under oath and you said it to the House Intelligence Committee?

PAGE: Sean, you know, in that context, I have to thank you, because you have been the Edward R. Murrow of this whole process.

HANNITY: the media is going to love that comment. Go ahead.

PAGE: So completely out of control going back really a year and a half from now. So you and your team they used to call it the Murrow Boys.  Your team with Gregg and Sara and everyone. I mean to dig through and actually get to the bottom of things. I mean, there is a lot of people.

HANNITY: Has the country been lied to by the media and by Adam Schiff on a regular basis?

PAGE: It's been nonstop, absolutely. And that is the funny thing about this -- the memo from Saturday. It's just a continuation of the same game the DNC has been playing since the summer of 2016.

HANNITY: Do you know Christopher Steele? Not Michael. He is my friend.

PAGE: Never met him.

HANNITY: Never met him. OK. The government by the way spied on you four different warrants for a full year. You know what they have on you. You know the emails that they were able to get, is there anything that would implicate you in any way to associate yourselves with Russians to impact election in this country?

PAGE: I have no fear whatsoever.

Mr. Page pronounced it "mur-ROW", emphasis on the last syllable, but other than that ...

paulsurovell said:

I think a truthful statement would have been that the FBI knows that US Person was hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to discredit her opponent, Donald Trump.

IMHO the FBI lied when it used the words "speculate" and "likely" in this context.

You're speculating.  Again, you keep taking one sentence out of context to support your accusations/speculations.  Steele "was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 (Steele) that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:


Did you read the footnote from that application, touted in the Dem memo to "prove" DOJ/FBI was upfront with the FISA Court?. My parentheses and bold:

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glen Simpson head of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

I think that's pretty clear.  Do you actually think that's hiding that there was an initial bias on the part of the investigators?

I think a truthful statement would have been that the FBI knows that US Person was hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to discredit her opponent, Donald Trump.

IMHO the FBI lied when it used the words "speculate" and "likely" in this context.

I suppose if you think that judges are incredibly naive, then maybe that would be somewhat misleading.  To the rest of us in the real world, it's clear that they were talking about some form of oppo research.

Of course, as we argue semantics, it ignores the fact that regardless of the source's bias, the evidence can still be credible.  If I ran for office and hired a private detective to investigate an opponent and the investigation turned up accusations of embezzlement, would you think that's not enough for law enforcement to get a warrant if it was sent in as a tip?

We're not talking about convicting someone on this evidence.  We're talking about whether it rises to the level of probable cause for a warrant.

As I wrote pages ago on this thread, if you want to argue against the very existence of secret FISA warrants, I'd be on your side.  But given that the FISA court exists, it's hard to see anything here that is oustside of SOP in the issuance of the warrant.

I'm not arguing against FISA warrants. I'm arguing against a dishonest FISA warrant application. The FBI was vouching -- in obviously misleading terms -- for a document whose author was hired to get dirt on a political opponent, whose information had not been corroborated or confirmed by the FBI.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

I think a truthful statement would have been that the FBI knows that US Person was hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to discredit her opponent, Donald Trump.

IMHO the FBI lied when it used the words "speculate" and "likely" in this context.

You're speculating.  Again, you keep taking one sentence out of context to support your accusations/speculations.  Steele "was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 (Steele) that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."

That's even worse.