It’s going to be a shorter than usual open post this week.  I’m taking the day off to spend some well-deserved and pleasant time with friends and family.

There’s plenty out there to discuss.  I’m looking forward to getting a post up this week about Butina the NRA Russian spy, the revelation that Nunes and Gowdy were right about FISA abuse, and some other topics and I will in due time.

The only story I want to mention is the horrible Ride the Ducks accident in Branson, MO from a few days ago.  The impact of the sinking is almost too gut-wrenching to mention.  A baby was lost and almost an entire family was wiped out in seconds, among the casualties.

I have visited Branson several times and taken that same ride across that same lake, though in fair weather.  In fact, I’ve also enjoyed an evening on the Branson Belle, which provided critical assistance in rescuing the survivors of the recent incident.  It hits me hard because I know that my family easily could have been there.

It has become a cliche, often met with snarky remarks from callous replies from mentally and morally stunted subhumans on social media, to ask that thoughts and prayers be offered to the victims whenever something bad happens.  I won’t ask for them.  That’s up to you.  You have your own ways of dealing with sorrow, depending on its proximity to you, and I respect that.

Instead, I’ll recommend that you take a moment today and recognize what’s good in your life, appreciate those you love, and treasure it all because one day it will all be gone and it can happen in a blink.  Don’t be fearful about it.  Be joyous for the gift of life and make the most of it.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go do that for a while.  Later on, I will treasure the moments we here at RVS spend bitching at each other.

50 comments

  1. When I first heard about the boat tragedy I immediately thought of you, just awful. I’ve never been to Branson; for that matter I’ve never been to Missouri.

    A few years back my best friend committed suicide. He worked in the same office I did, same job. We played tennis together for about 19 years. I noticed about the last 6 months that he was playing less and less, always had some minor excuse like a nagging back or muscle injury. Out of the blue I heard that he shot himself. Apparently he had terminal cancer, either stomach or prostate, not sure. As tight lipped as they come, he never talked about it, at least to me. The sadness was monumental.

    Don’t knock thoughts and prayers; God listens and the families need all the help they can get.

  2. I been to Branson a few times, and i have been to that lake, and even seen those amphibs…. there was no way in hell id rid in one of those.. of course i m paranoid of deep water .

    As for the ruski redhead,. It seems that she meet with Obama Admin officials too….

    SDCC/
    Shazam, looks liek it might be fun to watch….

    but i got my rocks off on seeing the new Godzilla trailer…

    Discovery,,,hmm ill give it another shot.. im really gonna miss Lorca…

    More Clone Wars? Kool., im game

  3. Your article must be mistaken, Santino. We’ve been assured that mass shootings only happen in the US.

  4. Also (edit: any idea why any image I attach gets seriously cropped?):

    Yeah, it seems that the comments have to fall within a specific pixel size. I’ve upped it to 750 px to see if that helps. I’ve just been using an image sharing service and posting image links in the comments instead of screwing with it.

    Wold be good to read response to this multi-tweet assessment of what Nunes claimed.
    https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1021011633559298048?s=19

    Byron York did the intensive read of it and compared what he found to what was in the Nunes memo. He says the Nunes Memo has proven to be “overwhelmingly accurate”.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo?platform=hootsuite

    As for Savage, I have a problem with this part of his thread:

    https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1021064710156890112

    Using the “some say” argument he does is misleading. The issue is whether or not the FISA warrant would’ve been approved without the dossier information, not whether it was the sole source of information. Gowdy, Grassley, and even McCabe have all indicated that it would not have been.

    I still want to dig into the released application to get a couple of questions of my own answered. I had written a lot on the Nunes and Schiff memos and I want to know how this matches up.

  5. Looks like another terrorist attack in Toronto.

    Ugh. On the topic of horror that hits close to home. Just as Rich thought of me when he heard about Branson, I immediately thought of you when I heard about this.

    I haven’t been following much news today. Is it terror-related?

  6. Is it terror-related?

    I’d say by definition, yes. Some man walking down the street shooting at random people in the street and stores/restaurants. To me that is a terrorist. Don’t care if he was yelling “Allahu Akbar” or “I can’t get laid”, he’s a terrorist in my eyes.

    It certainly does hits home, a 10 year old girl was killed. Probably eating dinner with her family. Fuckity fuck fuck fuck!!!!!!

  7. Byron York did the intensive read of it and compared what he found to what was in the Nunes memo. He says the Nunes Memo has proven to be “overwhelmingly accurate”.

    There do certainly seem to be some quite different takes on what this means for the Nunes memo.
    This one, from someone with some seemingly good credentials, suggests some of the central claims of the memo have now been shown to be lies….

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications

    The footnote thing is particularly weird – it was over a page long? Why did Nunes fail to disclose that? Just calling something a footnote without explaining it’s prominence (far far beyond what most people would think of as a footnote) if he was concerned about being accurate and fair?

    Andrew McCarthy is calling for investigating the judges who approved the FISA warrant.

    I can certainly understand how the right is scratching it’s head on how/why all the judges were GOP appointments, and all put on the FISA court by Roberts. Surely that is too many to be a conspiracy or for them ALL to be incompetent in favour of the partisan opponents of their appointees?

  8. Surely that is too many to be a conspiracy or for them ALL to be incompetent in favour of the partisan opponents of their appointees?

    I think it’s an indication that they may be too willing to rubber-stamp applications under certain circumstances. Something clearly broke down in Page’s case.

  9. Something clearly broke down in Page’s case.

    Did it though? Based on what exactly?
    Kris wrote back in March that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” Now he believes the Nunes memo looks even worse.

    And in a wider sense would we be anywhere different anyway?

    David French:

    …we don’t yet know the full scope of the FBI’s actions between the opening of the investigation and the Carter Page FISA application. We don’t yet know how the investigation evolved in the weeks and months that followed. We don’t know what was “the driving force” behind each stage of the investigation. But I do think it’s important to remember that while the Carter Page FISA application may have been important to the beginning stages of the investigation, it’s not indispensable to the existence of the investigation itself. As Trey Gowdy has argued, the Russia investigation would exist without the dossier. After all, any number of additional events — including Donald Jr.’s attempted collusion in June 2016 or Roger Stone’s apparent advance knowledge of that Wikileaks had obtained damaging information — would have triggered expansive inquiries.

    Second, while I tend to agree with Andy that we’d likely know if any material part of the Steele dossier had been verified (and thus I’m concerned about whether the FISA applications were legally sufficient), I’m not at all willing to argue that the FISA applications were improperly granted on the basis of the thin record in front of us. There were an immense amount of redactions, and the redactions increased with each successive application. I’m not going to speculate as to what was behind those black blocks, but Trump has the power to lift the veil.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/carter-page-fisa-applications-trump-cannot-have-vindication-and-redactions/

    So lift it then.

  10. Did it though? Based on what exactly?

    First, let’s revisit the past. We were told ahead of the Nunes Memo release that it would endanger national security. The Deep State and Democrats fought tooth and nail against it.

    The full memo was released. Then the line of attack became that there was nothing significant in it.

    Now that we’ve seen the partial application, the Nunes Memo is an assault on the very foundations of our democracy, or something.

    I look forward to when the full, unredacted application comes out and the new defense will be “What? It’s perfectly normal and acceptable for a presidential campaign to work with a foreign spy to persuade the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant against the opposing campaign based on an unverified dossier and the word of that totally biased and non-objective spy’s reputation even after it’s discovered that he broke the law by lying to the FBI–(deep breath)–about leaking to the press and the leaks to the press were used both by him and the FBI to support the FISA warrant who may or not have been telling the truth to the judge about who was paying for the effort in the first place.”

    It’ll be fully normal and acceptable until Trump is accused of doing it. Then when we say, “You said using national security tools and methods against the opposing party was fine when it was done against Trump”, we’ll be told that’s “whataboutism”.

    It’ll be fun.

    For now, it all fell apart because it has proven Nunes point: the FISA court system was abused and it’s prone to it. The FBI was able to place an American citizen under the most thorough surveillance imaginable based on gossip and innuendo from someone who proved to be untrustworthy. That’s bad enough, but that they did it to support one party’s opposition research campaign against the other makes it hideous.

    The bottom line is that if you’re opposed to the Nunes Memo’s purpose, you support the politicization of national security tools and the abuse of Americans’ civil rights. It’s the wrong side of the argument to be on and it doesn’t surprise me at all that a Deep State hack like Kris would be arguing so forcefully in favor of doing this.

    He’s wrong. There’s nothing normal or acceptable about what was done to Page and the Trump campaign by extension. We don’t want the government to ever unleash the secret police against our political opposition. If it must be done as it was done here, it had better be supported with some actual FBI confirmation besides, “Hey, we totes trust this foreign spy” or “Okay, that foreign spy we told you we trusted lied to us and leaked to the media, but we swear the information he gave us is still totes dependable even though it’s salacious and unverified.”

    It only makes sense when you realize that none of this was ever supposed to come to light or if it did, it wouldn’t matter because Clinton would have long since won and it would be a “distraction”. Instead, we now know that the Trump campaign can hire a foreign national who has worked with the FBI before to conduct opposition against his opponent in 2020. That spy and Sessions’s DOJ officials can leak or even fabricate information about Democratic campaign workers and Trump’s FBI can then use the news stories themselves to justify FISA warrants against those workers. They don’t even have to tell the judge that the Trump campaign initiated all of it.

    Once they have the warrants, they have access to that person’s full communications and even those of people they interact with on the campaign. Anything that’s found out can also be leaked to the media to damage the opposing campaign.

    Again, anyone who thinks that what happened with Page is normal or acceptable is happy with Trump having the ability to do this. Nunes isn’t a villain for pointing out that this is how it is.

    What we need now is to see the unredacted application. We already know that the FBI and DOJ will black out stuff that’s politically damaging to them as opposed to anything that might endanger national security.

    I want to know what the FBI learned from its surveillance, who it spied on in the course of spying on Page, and whether it did confirm any part of the dossier from any of it. Moreover, I want to know if all of this surveillance resulted in finding that Page committed a single crime. You’d think they would’ve found something, wouldn’t you?

    But then, that would mean that they were spying on Page because they were genuinely worried that he was a national security threat. It’s almost as if the absence of a prosecution indicates that it was always about spying on the Trump campaign and nothing more.

  11. Everything WG just said.
    But Trump is such a despicable pig, hes mean, rude, crude, he lies, hes not in the IN crowd, hes not one of us! the typical leftie and never Trump response..

  12. Grendel, that is the starting point they have. What bothers me is that the #Resistance and #NeverTrump politicians and even judges apply this attitude to mean that nothing Trump does that any other president can do is legal and absolutely anything done to stop him is justified, no matter how illegal. It’s why a Democratic congressman wanted to pin a medal on Strzok, ffs.

    It’s the sheer, unashamed lawlessness of these people that bothers me. I’m seeing folks who were opposed to domestic surveillance ten years ago who are now attacking Nunes for exposing a case that validates the concerns they had. Their position hasn’t really changed. It’s about Trump and how much they hate Trump.

    Trump, if you don’t like him, is a temporary problem. What happened with Carter Page is banana republic shit and once it becomes the accepted norm, it is a permanent problem.

  13. Lol.

    If Obama was president and a tape existed of him telling lawyer to pay off his mistress in cash the GOP would have repealed the Emancipation Proclamation by now

    https://twitter.com/MattOswaltVA/status/1021954529493803011?s=19

    Banana republic shit:

    Things that happened this week:
    -Trump says what we’re seeing & hearing isn’t really what’s happening
    -WH edits transcript of Trump-Putin presser before release
    -WH says no more readouts of Trump’s calls with world leaders
    -WH bans reporter from open press event

    …it’s Wednesday.

  14. -WH edits transcript of Trump-Putin presser before release

    CNN and WaPo are both calling that untrue.

    -WH says no more readouts of Trump’s calls with world leaders

    Why would we need any? It seems like they get leaked to the media all the time anyway.

    -WH bans reporter from open press event

    I’m unhappy with this one. I don’t see what she did that was out of line or any more aggressive than anything Acosta has done.

  15. If Obama was president and a tape existed of him telling lawyer to pay off his mistress in cash the GOP would have repealed the Emancipation Proclamation by now

    What, exactly, is with you left-wingers and your endless stream of slavery/KKK/Hitler/Nazi references? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

    And weren’t you complaining about “whataboutism” in a different thread?

    Since we’re playing the whataboutism game, there is a world of difference between paying off a mistress to remain silent (what Trump allegedly did) and encouraging a mistress to lie under oath after lying under oath yourself (what Bill Clinton allegedly did).

    Trump’s alleged affairs took place a decade before he became President. Clinton’s took place while he was President.

    During the Clinton era, the left kept telling us that it’s just sex between consenting adults and it’s none of our business.

    If it was true then, it’s still true now.

    Since we’re playing anyway.

  16. First, let’s revisit the past.

    What matters is what the revealed information shows.

    a presidential campaign to work with a foreign spy

    The Clinton campaign didn’t work with Steele. They took over an existing contract with Fusion GPS (three former Wall Street Journal journalists ), who had already hired Steele when they were initially contracted by the Free Beacon to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary. Then the a Democratic campaign lawyer retained Fusion GPS through his firm on behalf of both Clinton’s presidential campaign and the DNC. Clinton and the DNC continued to fund Fusion’s work through the end of October 2016, though the people involved say that neither the campaign nor the DNC was aware of the details of Fusion’s work.

    to persuade the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant against the opposing campaign

    There is evidence that the Clinton campaign and/or DNC worked to get the FISA warrant?
    We know the Obama administration is getting a lot of heat from various quarters for the extent it downplayed what it knew about Russia’s election-related activities during the course of the campaign, in an effort to keep partisan politics separate from a national security issue.

    based on an unverified dossier and the word of that totally biased and non-objective spy’s reputation

    Apparently taken at least somewhat seriously in light of Steele’s record as an intelligence professional. What would you propose the FBI do with such information provided by highly regarded intelligence professionals with excellent sources? Especially if they’ve got other information that is at least consistent (even if it doesn’t explicitly corroborate) and it fits with how he behaved during the campaign? Back in June 2016, even House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was joking that Trump was on Putin’s payroll. It’s not like the Steele dossier was a bolt out of the blue. It’s already been established by the House Intelligence Committee that the Russia investigation began after the FBI learned that Papadopoulos had been approached by a Russian agent. The agent told Papadopoulos the Russians had incriminating information about Clinton, including emails. Papadopoulos then mentioned to an Australian diplomat that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton, the Australians contacted the U.S. government, and the FBI began to take a look.

    even after it’s discovered that he broke the law by lying to the FBI–(deep breath)–about leaking to the press

    Yep not ideal for sure, but hardly sufficient to throw it all out and go ‘ah well, that’s the end of that I guess’. The FBI did the right thing and suspended the relationship, but clearly they still believed his reporting was reliable.

    and the leaks to the press were used both by him and the FBI to support the FISA warrant who may or not have been telling the truth to the judge about who was paying for the effort in the first place.

    We now know that the discussion about Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page.

    The released documents contain dozens of pages that are entirely blacked out. People who have read them, including Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, say they contain secret evidence establishing ties between Page and Russians — evidence that goes beyond what was included in the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele. Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI counterintelligence chief who is now an NBC News contributor, says that likely includes reporting from human sources and intercepted communications. Page, it should be said, denies that he was an agent of Russia and has not been charged with a crime.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666

    So what we’ve discovered undercuts the most important claims in Nunes’ memo. We know:
    1) the government relied on information developed over the course of several years 2) the Steele dossier was only part of the information relied on by the FBI 3) the government informed the FISA Court that the dossier information had been developed for the purpose of discrediting then-candidate Donald Trump’s political campaign and 4) each time that the application was renewed, the government submitted enough evidence that an impartial federal judge believed there was probable cause to allow the government to continue its investigation.

    What we need now is to see the unredacted application.

    Again, yes.

    it doesn’t surprise me at all that a Deep State hack like Kris would be arguing so forcefully in favor of doing this.

    It’s probably quite difficult to have any sort of discussion if you’re going to go into Deep State conspiracy nonsense. I guess I can just reply that anyone who isn’t Deep State and who voted for Trump is going to naturally argue forcefully against doing all this. But it seems rather pointless.

    What about William Banks then?

    Probable cause is much lower than the reasonable doubt the standard required to convict someone of a crime. “It’s the probability of a possibility,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law. Page had already appeared on the FBI’s radar as a target of Russian intelligence recruitment in a separate spy case. He has acknowledged that he traveled to Moscow and met with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. It would have been malpractice for the FBI, confronted with allegations that Page was helping the Russians, not to investigate, Figliuzzi says.

    (same link as above)

  17. The Clinton campaign didn’t work with Steele.

    No, they put as many layers between him and themselves as possible. It doesn’t change anything. All a presidential campaign has to do is establish some level of plausible deniability and this practice is still acceptable. Having a Clinton/Steele collusion is necessary to establish a conspiracy, but that isn’t what anyone is suggesting.

    What would you propose the FBI do with such information provided by highly regarded intelligence professionals with excellent sources?

    The simple response to all of this is that if the FBI thought Carter Page was such a dangerous risk, why didn’t they alert the Trump campaign? Why didn’t they alert the campaign instead of obtaining a FISA warrant based entirely on information they couldn’t confirm?

    And if Page really was a subversive foreign agent, why is he still walking around free after two years? Sure, it’s possible that he could get charged for something one day (especially now that the FBI desperately needs to cover its ass), but until that happens it sure looks to me like the FBI had no legitimate reason for this.

    What I think the FBI should’ve done was inform the Trump campaign to break ties with Page, not to spy on it.

  18. Page had left the Trump campaign by the time the FISA warrant was obtained.

    Also, the Trump campaign were under investigation way before the Page FISA application.

    So you’re saying that the FBI should tip off the subject of an investigation about said investigation to warn them about one of their leads?

    Why didn’t they alert the campaign instead of obtaining a FISA warrant based entirely on information they couldn’t confirm?

    It’s called probable cause, not definite cause. If it was confirmed, then you probably wouldn’t need the warrant, would you?

    It’s about Trump and how much they hate Trump.

    No it isn’t. Happy to discuss the situation, but here you’re assigning motive and using that as evidence for your side.

    What, exactly, is the conspiracy that’s being outlined here?

    The FBI was able to place an American citizen under the most thorough surveillance imaginable based on gossip and innuendo from someone who proved to be untrustworthy, as well as lots of other information, which was enough to convince four republican appointed judges to sign off on the warrant.

    The lengthy process in the FISA application, as well as the requirement to reapply are meant to do just that, to put scrutiny on the probable cause.

    So either we’re saying that the standard to convince a judge for a FISa warrant is too low (in which case, outline your alternative process, but I’d be inclined to agree) – but that means that in this case there’s no wrong doing.

    or we’re saying that multiple people have been involved in a wide reaching conspiracy that spans years, departments, political parties in order to take down a Trump presidency that A) They didn’t think was going to happen and B) They could have taken down easily by not keeping the Trump investigation secret. This conspiracy has been put forward by someone who regularly lies about conspiracies existing where they don’t, and who stands to gain massively from people not believing the cops.

    Or maybe the FBI put together a case that the Page, who has been working on the Trump campaign, and who the FBI has recordings of Russian agents saying on tape that Page would be a great double agent, might be worth investigating in relation to Russians trying to work with the Trump campaign. Sounds like a good place to start to me. I mean if you can convince four Republican Judges that there’s probable cause…

    Again, anyone who thinks that what happened with Page is normal or acceptable is happy with Trump having the ability to do this.

    Do what? I mean exactly. What is the version of events you’re alleging? Start with the meeting where they came up with the plan.

  19. Page had left the Trump campaign by the time the FISA warrant was obtained.

    They still had access to any texts, emails, or any other electronic communication that touched Page during his time on the campaign. Any contact he had with anybody on the campaign during the time he was on it and any lead they may have opened through surveilling him–no matter how tenuous–was subject to surveillance. He was the “foot in the door” and this was never about Page being an actual risk to national security.

    I mean, why keep a FISA warrant against him if he’s no longer on the campaign and therefore can’t influence policy? There’s no reason for it, is there?

    Also, the Trump campaign were under investigation way before the Page FISA application.

    You are engaging in the same circular reasoning the FBI did when they started using news reports about their own investigation to corroborate their own investigation.

    No it isn’t.

    Yes, it is. See the Strzok texts. The guy was the lead investigator on the case until Mueller found out how horribly biased he was.

    The FBI was able to place an American citizen under the most thorough surveillance imaginable based on gossip and innuendo from someone who proved to be untrustworthy, as well as lots of other information

    The mere presence of Steele Dossier information is proof that they never had that much information to begin with. I’m convinced that Gowdy is right that the keystone was Steele’s own allegations and if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t have been in every single application.

    But as to the other information, yes, I very much want to know what else there was. The subsequent warrant applications will tell us who they spied on and what they learned. I’m under the impression they do not want the public to know what they did.

    What is the version of events you’re alleging? Start with the meeting where they came up with the plan.

    FBI Guy: “Whoa! The Trump campaign has hired a guy who is way too cozy with the Russians! That’s a security risk!”

    Other FBI Guy: “Yeah, let’s open up an investigation on the entire campaign and keep it secret.”

    FBI Guy: “But…but shouldn’t we warn the campaign that they’re using an advisor who may be compromised by the Russians?”

    Other FBI Guy: “What? We can’t do that. We’re investigating the campaign!”

    FBI Guy: “We are? I thought we were just looking at this one guy who’s a risk?”

    Other FBI Guy: “We can’t do that. Our informants have already made multiple contacts within the Trump campaign to find out if they want to collude with Russia so now we know that the entire campaign is colluding.”

    FBI Guy: “What? When did we start doing that?”

    Other FBI Guy: “Uh, I can’t tell you.”

    FBI Guy: “Did any of the contacts who spoke to our informants do anything illegal we can charge them with?”

    Other FBI Guy: “No, but we’ll keep trying.”

    FBI Guy: “So wait, we started investigating the Trump campaign for secretly working with Russians because they talked to our informants but we can’t say anything about people who we think may really be security risks? What happens if Trump wins the election?

    Other FBI Guy: “He won’t. We’ll find a crime to keep that from happening.”

    FBI Guy: “So there is no crime we’re investigating?”

    Other FBI Guy: “Of course not. That’s why we have to investigate. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to call a reporter who’s sending me some baseball tickets for tips about this. I need her to publish the story so I can get it into the FISA warrant application.”

    You can think I’m exaggerating with this mock conversation, but the sum total of the Nunes Memo, Grassley Memo, and Horowitz IG Report all agree that this is very much within the realm of possibility.

    So either we’re saying that the standard to convince a judge for a FISa warrant is too low (in which case, outline your alternative process, but I’d be inclined to agree) – but that means that in this case there’s no wrong doing.

    The standard is too low, both in theory and practice.

    https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/

    President Barack Obama made it a point to assure Americans that, not to worry, there is plenty of oversight of his administration’s snooping programs. “We’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight,” he said Friday, referring in part to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created in 1979 to oversee Department of Justice requests for surveillance warrants against foreign agents suspected of espionage or terrorism in the United States. But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That’s a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.

    The judicial oversight is lacking and the congressional oversight isn’t doing so well either since the DOJ and FBI are stonewalling Congress over questions about what happened here. I mean, that’s when congressmen are asking questions and not suggesting that we should pin medals on FBI agents who abuse the lax standards of it.

    There was wrongdoing. Christopher Steele lied to the FBI and has a criminal referral against him from the Senate over it. The only question now is to what degree the FBI deceived the FISC. Did they lie about their knowledge of his leaks? Did they leak to the media and use the same media reports they had fed to corroborrate their own warrant? What was the DOJ’s and Ohr’s role in legitimizing unverified dossier information?

    Here’s the question of the day: Why did the DOJ and FBI stop surveilling Page?

  20. You are engaging in the same circular reasoning the FBI did when they started using news reports about their own investigation to corroborate their own investigation.

    Another issue in dispute was Republicans’ suggestion that a September 2016 Yahoo News article about Mr. Page’s ties to Russia was cited in the application as corroboration for Mr. Steele’s information even though it later emerged that he had been a source for that article. Democrats at the time said that was misleading because the purpose of including the article was instead to tell the court that Mr. Page had denied the allegations about his meetings in the July 2016 trip to Moscow.

    The application dovetails with the Democrats’ account. The article is described in a section that discusses how the allegations about Mr. Page became public, prompting him to deny them but still leave the Trump campaign as it distanced itself from him. That section of the application is titled: “Page’s Denial of Cooperation With the Russian Government.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/us/politics/how-a-trump-decision-revealed-a-gop-memos-shaky-foundation.html

  21. Yes, it is. See the Strzok texts. The guy was the lead investigator on the case until Mueller found out how horribly biased he was.

    By that logic, I assume you were against Trey Gowdy investigating Benghazi then? Or anyone having any personal opinions being involved in any investigation.

  22. Thanks for not answering my question by deflecting to the obvious.

    It was obvious from what you wrote that you didn’t realise it was exaggeration for the sake of humor. No, I don’t expect anyone to be taken seriously based simply on obvious hyperbole.

    But in terms of your game:
    (1) Sex between consenting adults is indeed none of our business.
    (2) It doesn’t mean we can’t joke about it and call out hypocrisy (particularly when the guardians of morality vote for and support Trump).
    (3) Everyone is guilty of levels of hypocrisy.
    (4) Trump is the current POTUS.
    (5) The actual issue with Trump is whether there was crime committed in relation to the payment(s).

    This is a better definition for every one of his responses…

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disingenuous

    Must be why I fit right in.

  23. you didn’t realise

    But that’s where you’re mistaken. I did realize that. The problem is that your attempt at humor insinuated that we are all racists who want to re-establish slavery. “Humor” or no, these kinds of accusations get f*cking tiresome.

    And you still haven’t answered the question.

  24. Which one?

    The first one. You already said you don’t expect to be taken seriously. The last question was rhetorical. Context should have made that obvious. But then, who knows?

    The actual issue with Trump is whether there was crime committed

    Didn’t seem to be much of an issue with you guys in the Clintons’ cases. Quite the opposite.

  25. You already said you don’t expect to be taken seriously.

    No, I said “No, I don’t expect anyone to be taken seriously based simply on obvious hyperbole.”

    ‘Context’. Should have been obvious etc etc.

    Didn’t seem to be much of an issue with you guys in the Clintons’ cases. Quite the opposite.

    Us guys? Is this where I start snowflaking about how you’ve “insinuated” that we’re all the same, and how it’s getting “f*cking tiresome.

    But yes, I sure there are people out there being hypocritical when you assess their position at that time, and compare it to their position on Trump. As I said, everyone is guilty of levels of hypocrisy.

    Are you Iconoclast?

  26. No, I said “No, I don’t expect anyone to be taken seriously based simply on obvious hyperbole.”

    I guess that’s two questions you didn’t really answer then.

    Are you Iconoclast?

    I don’t know. Who’s that?

    If the MAGA cap fits….

    I guess it’s okay to refer to you as Stalinists then. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are officially socialists, after all. If the cap fits.

  27. No, I said “No, I don’t expect anyone to be taken seriously based simply on obvious hyperbole.”

    I guess that’s two questions you didn’t really answer then.

    Are you Iconoclast?

    I don’t know. Who’s that?

    If the MAGA cap fits….

    I guess it’s okay to refer to you as Stalinists then. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are officially socialists, after all. If the cap fits.

  28. I guess it’s okay to refer to you as Stalinists then. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are officially socialists, after all. If the cap fits.

    Refer to me personally? If you like, but it wouldn’t even remotely be true. As for Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, they are indeed socialists. If you believe ‘Stalinists’ equates to socialists, then knock yourself out.

    I don’t know. Who’s that?

    Someone who writes much like you.

  29. Refer to me personally? If you like, but it wouldn’t even remotely be true.

    Exactly. It also isn’t remotely true that we are racist KKK members who pine for the days of slavery. In fact, those were both Democrat Party things. Even Hitler and Nazi references are more befitting to the Dems than Repubs.

    Yet people on that side like to hurl those slanders at us for whatever reason.

    Like I said, it does get tiresome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

%d bloggers like this: