Memo Fallout: Nine Questions About James Comey's Role in Fueling Russia Collusion Conspiracy

[DoD]

TEL AVIV - The four-page House Intelligence Committee memo alleging abuse of
surveillance authority raises immediate questions about the specific role of
former FBI Director James Comey in utilizing the infamous, largely
discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier to fuel an investigation into
unsubstantiated claims of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's
presidential campaign.
Below, in no particular order, are nine new questions about Comey's actions
following disclosures in the memo crafted by House Republicans and released
this past Friday:

1 - Why did Comey utilize the largely discredited anti-Trump dossier as
purported evidence to sign FISA documents to conduct surveillance on Carter
Page, who briefly served as a volunteer campaign foreign policy adviser?

The memo documents that on October 21, 2016, the FBI and Justice Department
sought and received the FISA order against Page, and that the agencies
sought the renewal of the order every 90 days in accordance with court
requirements. Renewals require separate finding of probable cause each time,
the memo relates.

According to the memo, Comey "signed three FISA applications in question on
behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one." The memo
relates that the FBI utilized the anti-Trump dossier compiled by former
British spy Christopher Steele as evidence against Page in order to obtain
the FISA warrant.

2 - Why didn't Comey tell the FISA court that Steele's dossier was
reportedly funded by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the
Democratic National Committee (DNC)?

"Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals,
disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any
party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political
origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,"
the memo states.

In October, the Washington Post reported that in April 2016, attorney Marc
E. Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie retained Fusion GPS to conduct the
firm's anti-Trump work on behalf of both Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential
campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Clinton's campaign and
the DNC both were clients of Perkins Coie.

Instead of Fusion GPS receiving lump sums from Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson testified in November that he believes his firm
expensed Steele's payments directly to Perkins Coie. Simpson stated that
bank records show Fusion GPS paid Steele about $160,000. Simpson's November
14 testimony was released last month.

While it is not clear how much the Clinton campaign or the DNC paid Fusion
GPS, the UK Independent, citing campaign finance records, reported that the
Clinton campaign doled out $5.6 million to Perkins Coie from June 2015 to
December 2016. Records show that since November 2015, the DNC paid the law
firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting."

3 - Why didn't Comey tell the FISA court the dossier he allegedly relied
upon to request a warrant to monitor Page was a product of the controversial
Fusion GPS firm?

The memo relates that the initial application notes Steele worked for a
"named U.S. person," but does not name Fusion GPS or its founder Simpson.
Breitbart News has released a series of articles documenting credibility
issues faced by Fusion GPS and its leadership.

4 - Why didn't Comey tell the FISA court that Steele reportedly met with
Yahoo News at the direction of Fusion GPS?

A Yahoo News article about an alleged trip by Page to Moscow was cited as
purported evidence against Page in the FISA warrant, according to the memo.

5 - How did Comey justify relying upon the dossier to monitor Page when he
personally called the information contained in Steele's dossier "salacious
and unverified" months later?

Comey first filed the FISA application citing the dossier on October 21,
2016, according to the memo. Yet during his June 8, 2017 prepared remarks
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Comey referred to the
anti-Trump dossier as containing "salacious and unverified" material.

6 - How did Comey justify relying upon the dossier to monitor Page when his
own FBI determined the document was "only minimally corroborated"?

The memo relates that after dossier author Christopher Steele was terminated
months earlier as an FBI source a "source validation report conducted by an
independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally
corroborated." Still, Comey saw fit, according to the memo, to utilize the
dossier in the FISA documents and he briefed Trump and Obama on the dossier
contents.

7 -Why did Comey push back against a request from President Donald Trump to
possibly investigate the origins of claims made inside the dossier?

According to the memo, senior officials at the FBI were aware that Clinton
and the DNC partially financed Steele's work when they applied for the FISA
warrant on October 21, 2016. That disclosure raises questions about Comey's
June 2017 prepared remarks for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
in which he related that he pushed back against a suggestion from Trump to
investigate the origins of the dossier claims.

The former FBI chief stated that following a January 6 Oval Office meeting
with Intelligence Community leaders, Comey "remained alone with the
President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the
information assembled during the assessment."

It is clear Comey was referring to the dossier since he writes that the
"salacious and unverified" material was about to be publically reported by
the news media. Four days after that briefing, the dossier was published by
BuzzFeed.

In his statement summarizing his conversation with Trump, Comey refers to
Russian prostitutes, a key component of the dossier:

He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers
in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia.

In a private White House dinner with Trump on January 27, Comey says the
topic of the "salacious material" again came up and he reveals that Trump
was considering asking the FBI to investigate the origins of the claims.
Comey pushed back against that idea.

Comey writes:

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had
briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed
his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was
considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it
didn't
happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might
create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we
weren't,
and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would
think about it and asked me to think about it.

However, according to the memo, senior FBI officials already knew the
political origins of the dossier months before Comey met with Trump.

8 - Why didn't Comey immediately inform Trump that the dossier was financed
by Clinton and the DNC, and was compiled by the controversial Fusion GPS?

9 - Why did Comey brief Trump and then-President Barack Obama on the
contents of the dossier if he knew the document's political origins, his own
FBI determined it to be "only minimally corroborated" and Comey himself
later referred to the dossier as "unverified"?

As Breitbart News documented, Comey's dossier briefing to Trump was
subsequently leaked to the news media, setting in motion a flurry of news
media attention on the dossier, including the release of the document to the
public. The briefing also may have provided the veneer of respectability to
a document circulated within the news media but widely considered too
unverified to publicize.

The memo relates that in early January 2017, prior to Trump's inauguration,
Comey briefed Trump and Obama on the dossier even though months later Comey
would label the dossier as containing "salacious and unverified" material.

On January 10, CNN was first to report the leaked information that the
controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified
briefings inside classified documents presented one week earlier to Obama
and Trump.

The news network cited "multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the
briefings" - in other words, officials leaking information about classified
briefings - revealing the dossier contents were included in a two-page
synopsis that served as an addendum to a larger report on Russia's alleged
attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Prior to CNN's report leaking the Comey briefing to Trump, which was picked
up by news agencies worldwide, the contents of the dossier had been
circulating among news media outlets, but the sensational claims were
largely considered too risky to publish.

The network reported the documents state that "Russian operatives claim to
have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump" and
contain "allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information
during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the
Russian government."

All that changed when the dossier contents were presented to Obama and Trump
during the classified briefings. In other words, Comey's briefings
themselves and the subsequent leak to CNN about those briefings by "multiple
US officials with direct knowledge," seem to have given the news media the
opening to report on the dossier's existence as well as allude to some of
the document's unproven claims.

source: Breitbart.com
--
Ja sam covjek obican
radim svojim rukama
i nosim obraz koji traje
prokleta nam sudbina samo udara samo trazi
trazi, trazi, a malo daje

Ja gradim autoput u glavi
da se vozim slobodno
i ne dam nikom da me gnjavi
kada vozim prebrzo

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71KWtHZ75tL._SL1000_.jpg

[Jim Dietrich]

Trump is a criminal and Trump apologists are traitors. They probably
supported Nixon's coverup during Watergate. We are taking names and will
rememeber who you are and where you stood on this.

Justice will be served cold.


Gowdy: Memo has no impact on Russia probe

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 08: Former FBI Director James Comey testifies
before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office
Building on Capitol Hill June 8, 2017 in Washington, DC. Comey said that
President Donald Trump pressured him to drop the FBI's investigation
into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and demanded Comey&#
39;s loyalty during the one-on-one meetings he had with president. (Photo
by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
James Comey on Nunes memo: That's it?
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Carl Bernstein eulogizes his former boss
and Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee at the Washington
National Cathedral October 29, 2014 in Washington, DC. Bradlee died at his
home in Georgetown October 21, 2014 at the age of 93. Bradlee was at the
helm of the newspaper from 1968 to 1991, during which time it published
the Pentagon Papers and stories documenting the Watergate scandal, leading
to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. (Photo by Chip
Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Watergate reporter: Darkest days since McCarthy
Washington (CNN)South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy said the
recently released, controversial GOP memo alleging FBI abuses of its
surveillance authority does not have "any impact on the Russia probe," and
even without the Steele dossier, there would be a Russia investigation.

"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said in an
interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," days after he
announced his decision not to seek re-election.
President Donald Trump authorized the release of the memo from the House
Intelligence Committee on Friday, and has since claimed it "totally
vindicates" him in the ongoing investigation around allegations of
possible coordination between his associates and Russia to influence the
2016 election.
Gowdy, however, said he believes the memo does not affect the Russia
investigation and has no connection to key storylines about the matter.
"To the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the
dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower," Gowdy said.
"The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica.
The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in
Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of
justice."

Lawmakers: Not 'vindication'
Gowdy was one of several lawmakers to say over the weekend that the memo
did not vindicate the President.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said on CNN's "State of the Union" that
it is the duty of Congress to focus on the Russia investigation and not
seek to absolve Trump. The Illinois Democrat also said the GOP memo
spearheaded by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes would be
"discredited" if a competing House Democratic memo becomes public.
"The information, the facts, tell a totally different story," Durbin said.
In a separate CNN interview on the same program, Republican Rep. Brad
Wenstrup of Ohio signaled agreement with Gowdy that the memo is a
"separate issue" from vindicating Trump in the Russia probe.
"It's more looking within the agencies, something we have oversight
over," said Wenstrup, who, like Gowdy, is a member of the House
Intelligence Committee and supported the release of the memo.
Republican Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, also a member of the committee, said
on ABC's "This Week" that he does not agree that the memo vindicates Trump
and downplayed the claims about the "explosive" nature of the memo from
his colleagues.
"I'm not shocked that elected officials are using hyperbole and
exaggerations," Hurd said.
The memo alleges the FBI, in seeking a warrant on former Trump campaign
adviser Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
relied on a dossier of allegations about Trump and Russia compiled by
former British intelligence official Christopher Steele, whose work for
the firm Fusion GPS was part of an opposition research project against
Trump.
In comments Friday hinting there are more memos to come, Nunes said he had
delegated the task of reviewing the underlying intelligence that became
the basis for the GOP memo to Gowdy and two investigators, and that those
were the people who briefed the rest of the members of the intelligence
panel.
Rep. Schiff: Steele dossier's political motivation disclosed in FISA
application
In the interview, Gowdy said the Steele dossier was not "the exclusive
information" the FISA court used for the Page warrant, but contended the
court would not have approved the warrant without the dossier.
"It would not have been (approved)," Gowdy said.
Gowdy also reaffirmed his support for former FBI Director Robert Mueller's
leadership of the special counsel probe, saying he supports Mueller "100
percent," and that he would not "prejudge" Mueller's investigation,
despite having seen "no evidence of collusion."
CNN's Maegan Vazquez contributed to this report.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 22:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Jim Dietrich
<jimdi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Trump is a criminal and Trump apologists are traitors.

Hillary & Obama are criminals and traitors - and that's
rapidly becoming quite well documented. Scream and
throw shit while you can ....

[M.I.Wakefield]

"DoD" wrote in message news:p57tfh$l8h$1...@dont-email.me...

> TEL AVIV - The four-page House Intelligence Committee memo alleging abuse
> of surveillance authority raises immediate questions about the specific
> role of former FBI Director James Comey in utilizing the infamous, largely
> discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier to fuel an investigation into
> unsubstantiated claims of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's
> presidential campaign.
> Below, in no particular order, are nine new questions about Comey's
> actions following disclosures in the memo crafted by House Republicans and
> released this past Friday:
>
> 1 - Why did Comey utilize the largely discredited anti-Trump dossier as
> purported evidence to sign FISA documents to conduct surveillance on
> Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer campaign foreign policy
> adviser?
>
> The memo documents that on October 21, 2016, the FBI and Justice
> Department sought and received the FISA order against Page, and that the
> agencies sought the renewal of the order every 90 days in accordance with
> court requirements. Renewals require separate finding of probable cause
> each time, the memo relates.
>
> According to the memo, Comey "signed three FISA applications in question
> on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one." The
> memo relates that the FBI utilized the anti-Trump dossier compiled by
> former British spy Christopher Steele as evidence against Page in order to
> obtain the FISA warrant.

First, Comey was not personally involved in preparing the warrant
application; he reviewed the application and signed-off on it, as did
someone from the DoJ.

Secondly, the Steele Dossier is not largely discredited; it is largely
unproven.

Thirdly, we don't know what other evidence was included in the original
warrant, but reasonable minds might conclude it would include things like
Carter Page's previous encounter with a Russian spy ring, or his frequent
travels to Russia, or the letter where he boasted about working for the
Kremlin, or his possible contacts with George Papadopoulos, who had had a
counter-intelligence operation against him for several months by the time
the Page warrant was sought.

Fourthly, in order to obtain a renewal of a FISA warrant, the government
doesn't just have to re-demonstrate probable cause, they must show that "the
surveillance has in fact yielded foreign intelligence substantiating the
original probable cause". Since a renewal was granted, we know that the
probable cause as presented in the original warrant application, was
absolutely correct.

> 2 - Why didn't Comey tell the FISA court that Steele's dossier was
> reportedly funded by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the
> Democratic National Committee (DNC)?
>
> "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals,
> disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any
> party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political
> origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI
> officials," the memo states.

Firstly, Comey did not personally write the application, and is unlikely to
have actually appeared before the FISC judge.

Secondly, the memo is incorrect - actually, the memo can kindly be described
as "riddled with errors"* - the FISC judge was made aware that some of the
evidence in the application came from "opposition research".

Thirdly, when establishing probable cause, the government is under no
obligation to introduce exculpatory evidence.

* - the lawyer who wrote the memo for Nunes was once slapped with an "Order
on Ineptitude" by a Federal judge:
https://twitter.com/Alt_Spicerlies/status/959985861969563649

> 3 - Why didn't Comey tell the FISA court the dossier he allegedly relied
> upon to request a warrant to monitor Page was a product of the
> controversial Fusion GPS firm?

Firstly, same first point as Question 2.

Secondly, there is no evidence that Fusion GPS was controversial.

Thirdly, same third point as Question 2.

> 4 - Why didn't Comey tell the FISA court that Steele reportedly met with
> Yahoo News at the direction of Fusion GPS?
>
> A Yahoo News article about an alleged trip by Page to Moscow was cited as
> purported evidence against Page in the FISA warrant, according to the
> memo.

See the first and third points at Question 2.

> 5 - How did Comey justify relying upon the dossier to monitor Page when he
> personally called the information contained in Steele's dossier "salacious
> and unverified" months later?
>
> Comey first filed the FISA application citing the dossier on October 21,
> 2016, according to the memo. Yet during his June 8, 2017 prepared remarks
> before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Comey referred to the
> anti-Trump dossier as containing "salacious and unverified" material.

Firstly, see the first point at Question 2.

Secondly, Comey saying that the Dossier "contained" salacious and unverified
material doesn't mean that the entire document was.

> 6 - How did Comey justify relying upon the dossier to monitor Page when
> his own FBI determined the document was "only minimally corroborated"?
>
> The memo relates that after dossier author Christopher Steele was
> terminated months earlier as an FBI source a "source validation report
> conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as
> only minimally corroborated." Still, Comey saw fit, according to the memo,
> to utilize the dossier in the FISA documents and he briefed Trump and
> Obama on the dossier contents.

Firstly, see the first point at Question 2.

Secondly, see the third point at Question 2.

Thirdly, Steele was not terminated by the FBI, as he was never employed by
the FBI, it was Steele broke off contact with the FBI, not vice versa.

> 7 -Why did Comey push back against a request from President Donald Trump
> to possibly investigate the origins of claims made inside the dossier?

Because the President does not order the actions of the FBI and the DoJ;
their loyalty is to the Constitution.

> 8 - Why didn't Comey immediately inform Trump that the dossier was
> financed by Clinton and the DNC, and was compiled by the controversial
> Fusion GPS?

Most of the assumptions in that question aren't true, so why would he?

> 9 - Why did Comey brief Trump and then-President Barack Obama on the
> contents of the dossier if he knew the document's political origins, his
> own FBI determined it to be "only minimally corroborated" and Comey
> himself later referred to the dossier as "unverified"?

So, much better if he doesn't brief anyone, and the first Trump hears about
it is when it gets published?

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Mr. B1ack" wrote in message
news:ta1f7dhkk4v682i5a...@4ax.com...

> Hillary & Obama are criminals and traitors - and that's rapidly
> becoming quite well documented. Scream and throw shit while you can ....

Remind us again how many Special Counsels Obama had investigating him ... a
round number would be good ... it doesn't have to be exact.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p57tfh$l8h$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> TEL AVIV

Which state is this city in? Texas?

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 18:59:10 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

Ooooh ! Just WAIT ! :-)

"Special prosecutor" is about to become a career
unto itself. We'll need half a dozen just to cope with
all the crimes of Obama et al.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 16:42:08 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <p57tfh$l8h$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> TEL AVIV
>
>Which state is this city in? Texas?

Shoulda been.

Imagine the shape of todays world if we'd, instead
of partitioning Palestine, had offered Jewish refugees
a New Israel in the form of a little safe, under-used
American soil - somewhere near Brownsville woulda
been perfect. We could have helped them move
some critical holy sites over here brick by brick - and
in the post-war confusion it'd have been easy to get
away with.

[DoD]

"M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote in message
news:p5861u$71n$1...@dont-email.me...

First, you are a moron...

Second, it is none of your business, given you are a pissant from a pissant
country.

Thirdly, given your level of dishonesty, I am for the most part going to
ignore you because you
are a waste of time and space and anti-American. And your shitty narrative
will be destroyed pretty soon..

So... finally fuck off...because you truly make me wish I had more middle
fingers...

[DoD]

"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-E09CB...@reader.eternal-september.org...

> In article <p57tfh$l8h$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> TEL AVIV
>
> Which state is this city in? Texas?

That is the city that soon to be was where our U.S. embassy was...lol

[DoD]

"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
news:5oif7d5hg9kno62fp...@4ax.com...

Why would anyone think the world would be better off or why
would Jews even remotely accept that?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p58ngk$1mb$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-E09CB...@reader.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <p57tfh$l8h$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> TEL AVIV
> >
> > Which state is this city in? Texas?
>
> That is the city that soon to be was where our U.S. embassy was...lol

So Israelis are expected to be unbiassed commentators on Drumpf?

[abelard]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 03:54:15 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <p58ngk$1mb$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-E09CB...@reader.eternal-september.org...
>> > In article <p57tfh$l8h$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> TEL AVIV
>> >
>> > Which state is this city in? Texas?
>>
>> That is the city that soon to be was where our U.S. embassy was...lol
>
>So Israelis are expected to be unbiassed commentators on Drumpf?

so, you're claiming they are just like you


--
www.abelard.org

[DoD]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:ovhg7d9ab31huhbjk...@4ax.com...

NICE!!!

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 22:47:07 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
>news:5oif7d5hg9kno62fp...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 16:42:08 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <p57tfh$l8h$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> TEL AVIV
>>>
>>>Which state is this city in? Texas?
>>
>> Shoulda been.
>>
>> Imagine the shape of todays world if we'd, instead
>> of partitioning Palestine, had offered Jewish refugees
>> a New Israel in the form of a little safe, under-used
>> American soil - somewhere near Brownsville woulda
>> been perfect. We could have helped them move
>> some critical holy sites over here brick by brick - and
>> in the post-war confusion it'd have been easy to get
>> away with.
>
>Why would anyone think the world would be better off or why
>would Jews even remotely accept that?

Just after the war ? They were hoping for old Israel but
for many ANYPLACE that seemed safe would have
served. Yaweh would be able to find them no matter
where they settled eh ?

And 1940s Texas ... HUGE areas of NOTHING but a few
stray cows. Either the area just north of Brownsville or
just west of it along the Rio Grande .... perfect. Both
land and sea access too. Truman coulda sold it.

[DoD]

"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message

news:05fh7dhd1588npe4j...@4ax.com...

But to a bunch of religious Jews, Yahweh didn't promise them
the Lone Star state, he promised them Israel...What would they have
done? Move the wailing wall, stone by stone? Move Mount Tabor wheel
barrow by wheel barrow?

> And 1940s Texas ... HUGE areas of NOTHING but a few
> stray cows. Either the area just north of Brownsville or
> just west of it along the Rio Grande .... perfect. Both
> land and sea access too. Truman coulda sold it.

I highly doubt that, and you never said how it would have made the world a
better
place... I think it would have made the world a way worse place.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p5b04e$gkb$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But to a bunch of religious Jews, Yahweh didn't promise them
> the Lone Star state, he promised them Israel...What would they have

Religious jews were already in Jerusalem, and some of them still reject the
republic of Israel. The republic was created primarily by secular ashkenazi who
were tired of getting murderred in Europe and wanted a place where they could be
top dog. UK offerred them Palestine.

The problem is the UK also promised Palestine to arabs. So to deal with an enemy
in the WW1, they invented a problem that continues to this day. To infinity! And
beyond!

[DoD]

"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:chine.bleu-A0838...@reader.eternal-september.org...

> In article <p5b04e$gkb$1...@dont-email.me>, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But to a bunch of religious Jews, Yahweh didn't promise them
>> the Lone Star state, he promised them Israel...What would they have
>
> Religious jews were already in Jerusalem, and some of them still reject
> the
> republic of Israel.

Yes, Siri-kells we just know you luvz the Ku-Klux-Karta... You have stated
this many times over...

>The republic was created primarily by secular ashkenazi who
> were tired of getting murderred in Europe and wanted a place where they
> could be
> top dog. UK offerred them Palestine.

They originally offered them a hell of a lot more... Then fucked them over
taking away more than
half of it...

> The problem is the UK also promised Palestine to arabs.

No, they didn't.. They promised TransJordan to the Arabs..

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/1922-mandate_for_palestine.jpg

> So to deal with an enemy
> in the WW1, they invented a problem that continues to this day. To
> infinity! And
> beyond!

Only because UNRWA allows perpetual temper tantrums... Speaking of which...
Didn't you idiots
claim Palestinians were going to have a month of rage as opposed to their
normal day of rage because
of Trump's embassy announcement? And
that the whole ME was going to engulfed in the flames of war? Seems like
they had an hour or two of
rage and got back to life.... You people are truly idiots..

[Mr. B1ack]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 23:07:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> So to deal with an enemy
>> in the WW1, they invented a problem that continues to this day. To
>> infinity! And
>> beyond!
>
>Only because UNRWA allows perpetual temper tantrums... Speaking of which...
>Didn't you idiots
>claim Palestinians were going to have a month of rage as opposed to their
>normal day of rage because
>of Trump's embassy announcement? And
>that the whole ME was going to engulfed in the flames of war? Seems like
>they had an hour or two of
>rage and got back to life.... You people are truly idiots..

Hey, yea .... what happened to that flaming middle-east
we were promised ???

And the "rage" ... more like throwing a few old shoes.

Erdogan was talkin' like he was gonna shoot down
US jets ... but nothin'.

Could the middle-east be getting BORING ?

After awhile, even "rage" gets kinda old - more like
a 9-5 job. Make a few insults and then go home to
a hot mocha, watch Oprah, play video games, sext
to the neighbors wives ......

[Jim Dietrich]

[Jim Dietrich]