Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
nohero said:
Among the all-star line-up was Carter Page (the man himself!) sounding very "Surovellian" with his effusive endorsement of Sean.
Not a big deal, but I'm getting worried about you.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:That's even worse.
paulsurovell said: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."
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.
If it's accurate as to what they were told, vs. what they could "speculate" about, it's not "worse" and it's not a lie.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
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.
what is in the public record simply doesn't reflect how you're describing it.
Not sure what you're saying is not in the public record:
FBI vouching for Steele?
Document by Steele hired by Hillary campaign contractor Fusion GPS to do oppo research against Trump?
Information in document not corroborated or confirmed by FBI?
I guess I should just ask directly -- do you think the Democratic memo is a lie and the Nunes memo is truthful? Because that would be the only explanation for what you are asserting.
ml1 said:
I guess I should just ask directly -- do you think the Democratic memo is a lie and the Nunes memo is truthful? Because that would be the only explanation for what you are asserting.
The FBI quote that I cited is an excerpt from the transcript of the FISA warrant, quoted in the Dem memo to rebut the allegation in the Republican memo that the FBI misled the FISA court.
I am asserting that the FBI lied when it said it was "speculating" that Glen Simpson was "likely" looking for information to discredit Trump. The FBI knew that Simpson was paid to get information to discredit Trump.
The Dem memo itself is a rebuttal, not a lie, IMO.
paulsurovell said:
I am asserting that the FBI lied when it said it was "speculating" that Glen Simpson was "likely" looking for information to discredit Trump. The FBI knew that Simpson was paid to get information to discredit Trump.
that's a strange assertion, imho. We're talking about a political candidate. I just can't believe that a judge didn't know exactly what that passage meant. It's obvious to me, so I can't believe a judge wouldn't take away the same message I do.
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.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Not a big deal, but I'm getting worried about you.
Among the all-star line-up was Carter Page (the man himself!) sounding very "Surovellian" with his effusive endorsement of Sean.
Oh, please don't worry. I don't actually watch that junk. I sometimes look at the transcript to see what arguments you're going to come up with next.
South_Mountaineer said:
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.
This is what you said.
'Steele reported what he had been told from sources in Russia. They're the basis for an investigation to determine the facts. '
And I am pointing out they are not the basis for an investigation of the facts, They are unreliable, unverified offerings. We don't know if they are second or third hand or simply made up out of whole cloth.
Steele himself has backed away from them now that he is facing a court case.
I id not misrepresent what you said, I answered it, and I have no intention of getting into an insult contest.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
I am asserting that the FBI lied when it said it was "speculating" that Glen Simpson was "likely" looking for information to discredit Trump. The FBI knew that Simpson was paid to get information to discredit Trump.
that's a strange assertion, imho. We're talking about a political candidate. I just can't believe that a judge didn't know exactly what that passage meant. It's obvious to me, so I can't believe a judge wouldn't take away the same message I do.
Maybe, but I my understanding is that witnesses in court, including FBI agents, are obligated to speak the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
The FBI clearly violated that standard.
oh gee, don't encourage him. He still thinks Hillary's emails are a thing. And he's taking the same approach to this topic now.
LOST said:
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.
South_Mountaineer said:
You're using that paulsurovell technique of misrepresenting what someone wrote, and then commenting as if you're making a valid point.
Speaking of "misrepresenting what someone wrote" -- can you ask nohero for the source of his statement (at 1:31 pm today) that
Mr. Surovell was calling for the Mueller to be "off the case", and Rosenstein with him
as a rebuttal to a post accusing people of tin foil-i-ness, this post is hilariously ironic.
There's that pesky DNC again, thwarting Democracy.
nan said:
tjohn said:
Paul,
Can you send over some of the tin foil you use. I want to see if I can experience your world where everything is a conspiracy and people are permanently embittered because their false Messiah Sanders didn't get the Democratic nomination.
Did you even read this thread before posting that uninformed and nasty remark? What does the world look like for you where everything runs by the rules and your false Messiah Clinton did not have a secret deal with the DNC and campaigned in Wisconsin and would have won the election if not for the 13 FB posters posting one pro-Jill Stein post and another of Bernie with his shirt off? Oh, and she really won the election too.
I don't want "an insult contest", I just want to comment without being told I said something I didn't say. You interpreted what I wrote about Steele's notes being "the basis for an investigation to determine the facts" as meaning, "we should accept the dossier as fact." But I didn't say that.
Then you say, "I am pointing out they are not the basis for an investigation of the facts, They are unreliable, unverified offerings." So I'll say they're allegations, which are usually the starting point of an investigation to determine the facts, which is the same thing I wrote originally. If you're going to tell me that "the basis for an investigation" isn't the same as "the starting point", but I don't see the difference and if that helps explain what I meant, there's no reason to try to tell me that I'm wrong.
BCC said:
South_Mountaineer said:
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.
This is what you said.
'Steele reported what he had been told from sources in Russia. They're the basis for an investigation to determine the facts. '
And I am pointing out they are not the basis for an investigation of the facts, They are unreliable, unverified offerings. We don't know if they are second or third hand or simply made up out of whole cloth.
Steele himself has backed away from them now that he is facing a court case.
I id not misrepresent what you said, I answered it, and I have no intention of getting into an insult contest.
Okay. @nohero, could you deal with whatever's bothering this guy?
Okay, done.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
You're using that paulsurovell technique of misrepresenting what someone wrote, and then commenting as if you're making a valid point.
Speaking of "misrepresenting what someone wrote" -- can you ask nohero for the source of his statement (at 1:31 pm today) that
Mr. Surovell was calling for the Mueller to be "off the case", and Rosenstein with him
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
You're using that paulsurovell technique of misrepresenting what someone wrote, and then commenting as if you're making a valid point.
Speaking of "misrepresenting what someone wrote" -- can you ask nohero for the source of his statement (at 1:31 pm today) that
Mr. Surovell was calling for the Mueller to be "off the case", and Rosenstein with him
Sounds like you and nohero are in the middle of a bad break-up and now you only want to converse through his friends.
paulsurovell said:
Maybe, but I my understanding is that witnesses in court, including FBI agents, are obligated to speak the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
The FBI clearly violated that standard.
That's completely unreasonable. The statement was truthful. They aren't obligated to argue against their own evidence.
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't want "an insult contest", I just want to comment without being told I said something I didn't say. You interpreted what I wrote about Steele's notes being "the basis for an investigation to determine the facts" as meaning, "we should accept the dossier as fact." But I didn't say that.
Then you say, "I am pointing out they are not the basis for an investigation of the facts, They are unreliable, unverified offerings." So I'll say they're allegations, which are usually the starting point of an investigation to determine the facts, which is the same thing I wrote originally. If you're going to tell me that "the basis for an investigation" isn't the same as "the starting point", but I don't see the difference and if that helps explain what I meant, there's no reason to try to tell me that I'm wrong.
BCC said:
South_Mountaineer said:
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.
This is what you said.
'Steele reported what he had been told from sources in Russia. They're the basis for an investigation to determine the facts. '
And I am pointing out they are not the basis for an investigation of the facts, They are unreliable, unverified offerings. We don't know if they are second or third hand or simply made up out of whole cloth.
Steele himself has backed away from them now that he is facing a court case.
I id not misrepresent what you said, I answered it, and I have no intention of getting into an insult contest.
I disagree with you and I have a response, but I think we are now getting into a parsing debate and I don't care to go around in circles with that.
I will leave it there
I did not bring up Hillary. I was responding to a comment made about her by someone else.
Dismissing the e-mails as you have done indicates you are either being willfully obtuse or you really don't know what went on.
There is little doubt that Comey fuked up things to her disadvantage but there is equally little doubt that she committed crimes and violated regulations on a number of occasions.
drummerboy said:
oh gee, don't encourage him. He still thinks Hillary's emails are a thing. And he's taking the same approach to this topic now.
LOST said:
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.
i know very well what went on with the emails, thank you very much. That's why I know it was a ridiculous sideshow.
BCC said:
I did not bring up Hillary. I was responding to a comment made about her by someone else.
Dismissing the e-mails as you have done indicates you are either being willfully obtuse or you really don't know what went on.
There is little doubt that Comey fuked up things to her disadvantage but there is equally little doubt that she committed crimes and violated regulations on a number of occasions.
...
this whole Nunes /Schiff incident has shown us how unimportant the "classified" designation on documents is, hasn't it?
drummerboy said:
i know very well what went on with the emails, thank you very much. That's why I know it was a ridiculous sideshow.
BCC said:
I did not bring up Hillary. I was responding to a comment made about her by someone else.
Dismissing the e-mails as you have done indicates you are either being willfully obtuse or you really don't know what went on.
There is little doubt that Comey fuked up things to her disadvantage but there is equally little doubt that she committed crimes and violated regulations on a number of occasions.
...
You and dave 23 obviously know nothing about the phrase 'born classified' because if you did you would both know that Hillary's claim that her e-mails were not marked shows her to be either a liar or an ignoramus.
Take your choice.
ml1 said:
this whole Nunes /Schiff incident has shown us how unimportant the "classified" designation on documents is, hasn't it?
Yes.
yeah. okay.
you do realize, I hope, that if any high level employee of State where subject to an audit of their emails, that every single one of them would have found to have violated the letter of the law numerous times. That's just the nature of having an absurd amount of classified information floating around.
Out of about 30000 emails, they found a bit more than 100 in technical violation. Have you ever worked out what that percentage is? Because instead of showing malfeasance, it shows a remarkably good record of following the rules.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
i know very well what went on with the emails, thank you very much. That's why I know it was a ridiculous sideshow.
BCC said:
I did not bring up Hillary. I was responding to a comment made about her by someone else.
Dismissing the e-mails as you have done indicates you are either being willfully obtuse or you really don't know what went on.
There is little doubt that Comey fuked up things to her disadvantage but there is equally little doubt that she committed crimes and violated regulations on a number of occasions.
...
You and dave 23 obviously know nothing about the phrase 'born classified' because if you did you would both know that Hillary's claim that her e-mails were not marked shows her to be either a liar or an ignoramus.
Take your choice.
Let me ask you this - if Hillary had used a state.gov account instead of her personal system, would she have been in the clear?
ml1 said:
this whole Nunes /Schiff incident has shown us how unimportant the "classified" designation on documents is, hasn't it?
As a general comment I would have to agree with you. As an Active Reserve Navy Officer I received correspondence courses marked 'Classified - Keep under lock and key'. They were a joke. They could have been safely posted on the front page of the NYT.
OTOH are you suggesting that the top secret documents found on Hillary's server 2 years after they were required to be returned to the State Dep't were unimportant, and she did nothing wrong?
drummerboy said:
Let me ask you this - if Hillary had used a state.gov account instead of her personal system, would she have been in the clear?
In the first place, she didn't use the State server and she had top secrets on the server she used, 2 years after she was supposed to have turned them in. She also never turned in a required, signed, separation order because to have done so would have been a felony.
Second, when she claimed the e-mails were not marked she was showing either she was ignorant of 'born classified' or she was intentionally misleading the public, the vast majority of whom were unaware that not being marked had nothing to do with their classification status and she was in fact dealing with top secret information on hr own server.
Yeah. You didn't answer my simple question.
Nor did you respond to my earlier comments for that matter.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
Let me ask you this - if Hillary had used a state.gov account instead of her personal system, would she have been in the clear?
In the first place, she didn't use the State server and she had top secrets on the server she used, 2 years after she was supposed to have turned them in. She also never turned in a required, signed, separation order because to have done so would have been a felony.
Second, when she claimed the e-mails were not marked she was showing either she was ignorant of 'born classified' or she was intentionally misleading the public, the vast majority of whom were unaware that not being marked had nothing to do with their classification status and she was in fact dealing with top secret information on hr own server.
what is in the public record simply doesn't reflect how you're describing it.