Mueller is ready for Trump

[Carbon]

Came across this video on youtube this morning. Here's what a former asst
FBI director for counterintelligence thinks is going to happen with the
Mueller investigation:

Mueller is prepared for Trump's obstruction attempts, specifically with a
number of sealed indictments that can be fed into the court system and on
to an eager public. If Trump's new hack of an AG refuses to release the
Mueller's report, then so what? It will only add to the obstruction, and
it will not prevent the facts from getting out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcAtm3pDjJU

I think this is very plausible, and I think the indictments could land
very soon.

[-hh]

Haven't watched the video yet, but I agree with there being a very
high likelihood of a strategy where Mueller is already prepared &
pre-staged with multiple "dead man switches" that would be triggered
at a defined 'red line', such as each possible type of obstruction.

Afterall, Mueller's an experienced military officer, so he knows
how to shape the battlefield, & prepare a minefield (and ambushes,
protect flanks, anticipate counterstrikes, etc), as well as with
his legal background to keep it all by the book to make charges
stick ... as he's demonstrated when he took down "Teflon Don" Gotti.

The barbed wire & punji sticks are in place...


-hh

[Dene]

So your wet dream is on video now :)

[Carbon]

The suckers probably aren't aware of Mueller's epic takedown of the
Gambino crime family. But Trump and his organization is remarkably similar
to a traditional organized crime family.

Trump is very much like a not very smart, autocratic crime boss. For
better or worse (mostly worse), he will have insisted on making every
decision, as the new Stormy Daniels evidence illustrates. And most of his
lieutenants (CFO, fixer, campaign chairman, etc.) have already done the
Sammy the Bull thing and ratted him out.

Trump and the suckers are too dumb to realize it, but it's already over.
He's totally fucked. And so is every American who conspired with him that
hasn't taken a plea deal.

[Carbon]

I was serious about the comfort dog suggestion. Just remember, Labrador,
Standard Poodle, and of course the Labradoodle.

[Dene]

Ironically I am thinking about getting a dog.
I think I’ll name it Carbs. :-)

[Dene]

I’m looking forward to the new AG report which will show more corruption with the whole beginnings of the Mueller probe.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Dene wrote:

> Ironically I am thinking about getting a dog.
> I think I’ll name it Carbs. :-)

They have pets for people like Greg, tamagotchi, for people who say
they care but don't really.

It will save him getting in trouble with animal welfare agencies.

--
"We have helped to create a situation that has allowed us to end up
with Trump. The dumbing down of our society through the media, the lack
of education through poor schools, allows for a dumbed-down electorate,
and for him to be able to actually get 63 million votes."

[Carbon]

On 11/10/18 7:40 AM, Dene wrote:
>
>> The suckers probably aren't aware of Mueller's epic takedown of the
>> Gambino crime family. But Trump and his organization is remarkably
>> similar to a traditional organized crime family.
>>
>> Trump is very much like a not very smart, autocratic crime boss. For
>> better or worse (mostly worse), he will have insisted on making every
>> decision, as the new Stormy Daniels evidence illustrates. And most of
>> his lieutenants (CFO, fixer, campaign chairman, etc.) have already done
>> the Sammy the Bull thing and ratted him out.
>>
>> Trump and the suckers are too dumb to realize it, but it's already
>> over. He's totally fucked. And so is every American who conspired with
>> him that hasn't taken a plea deal.
>

> I’m looking forward to the new AG report which will show more corruption
> with the whole beginnings of the Mueller probe.

#releasethememo!

Trump is in deep shit just from the porn star payoffs just before the
election, and that's only one of the potential catastrophes hanging over
him. Another link for you to ignore:

http://fortune.com/2018/09/21/donald-trump-lawsuit-investigation-charges-news-update/

A lot of folks, including myself, thought Bill Clinton was a total
douchebag. But he's an angel compared to the current crook temporarily
occupying the White House.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-11-10 4:40 AM, Dene wrote:
> I’m looking forward to the new AG report which will show more
> corruption with the whole beginnings of the Mueller probe.
>

Your last predictions about a report didn't work out well for you, Greg.

[MNMikeW]

There is currently a comfort dog shortage due to the 2016 election. What
breed did you get?

[Dene]

Dog I would need is something that could hold it's own with a coyote.

[Carbon]

The German Shepherd is also highly recommended for PTSD-type issues.

[Dene]

You own one?
That would be a helluva contrast, having a GS dog sitting in your vagina Miata car. :)

[Carbon]

We used to have an American Bulldog mix, and a few times for logistical
reasons I had to drive him to the groomer in my car. I'm sure it was quite
a sight.

[MNMikeW]

Friend just bought a 2017 Miata of some sort, cant remember the model,
some sport one or something. He got some shit at deer camp. ;-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

The public is BORED STIFF with Mueller and his witch hunt - and so are the Democrats who hardly mentioned it during the campaign. The reason is simple: the only "collusion" that has been found involves Shrillary. Only smoke-blowing Trump haters give a damn about it.

[DumbedDownUSA]

So neither the investigators nor Democrats have been mentioning it? so
you are bored with your fat mouthed president banging on about it. Well
it's not as if he hasn't been advised to keep his mouth shut.

[B...@onramp.net]

Open your eyes. The collusion area isn't the prime target area any
more. And there has been nothing found that involves HRC. Enough
people are interested in Mueller's quest that we now have a Democratic
majority in the house, or did you miss that?

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 3:57:29 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:

Sure it does - she financed that phony Russian "dossier" that was used to get an illegal wire tap on the Trump campaign; Watergate redux. Collusion isn't the "prime target" because it is NON-EXISTENT (except for Shrillary)! Now, Mueller is grasping at straws to get ANYTHING to stick on Trump. Remember, they are duty-bound to investigate ANY illegal activity (or refer it to another prosecutor), so Shrillary SHOULD be worried.

[Alan Baker]

Wrong.

> that was used to get an illegal wire tap on the Trump campaign;

Also wrong.

> Watergate redux. Collusion isn't the "prime target" because it is
> NON-EXISTENT (except for Shrillary)! Now, Mueller is grasping at
> straws to get ANYTHING to stick on Trump. Remember, they are
> duty-bound to investigate ANY illegal activity (or refer it to
> another prosecutor), so Shrillary SHOULD be worried.

Want to bet?

[B...@onramp.net]

You're eaten up with the Trump lies. Whether or not he finds
something on Trump is irrelevant. The fact is that he is the worst
person ever to hold the office of POTUS. If you don't realize that
you're an idiot.

[B...@onramp.net]

This guy is so badly informed!!!

[Carbon]

There are reports that Mueller has dozens of sealed indictments waiting to
drop. I expect that we shall see indictments for Roger Stone, Don Jr,
Jared, Ivanka, and a number of other co-conspirators. I'm honestly not
sure if Trump can be indicted while president, but if he can he will be.

https://observer.com/2018/11/mueller-holding-dozens-sealed-indictments-intel-source/

[-hh]

Bobby writes:
> This guy is so badly informed!!!

Nah, just an old troll who got bored spending Thanksgiving weekend with family.


-hh

[Dene]

Hahahahahaha!

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 5:36:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:

Do you guys practice being in denial? You must, because you are so good at it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.bbe8b4dcb04c

>
> > that was used to get an illegal wire tap on the Trump campaign;
>
> Also wrong.

DITTO:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-releases-application-to-wiretap-trump-campaign-adviser/2018/07/21/4afaeeac-8d3e-11e8-8aea-86e88ae760d8_story.html?utm_term=.6539964ddd0d

>
> > Watergate redux. Collusion isn't the "prime target" because it is
> > NON-EXISTENT (except for Shrillary)! Now, Mueller is grasping at
> > straws to get ANYTHING to stick on Trump. Remember, they are
> > duty-bound to investigate ANY illegal activity (or refer it to
> > another prosecutor), so Shrillary SHOULD be worried.
>
> Want to bet?

With a deadbeat like you? Are you SERIOUS???

[Alan Baker]

The wrong part is that it is "phony".

>
>>
>>> that was used to get an illegal wire tap on the Trump campaign;
>>
>> Also wrong.
>
> DITTO:

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-releases-application-to-wiretap-trump-campaign-adviser/2018/07/21/4afaeeac-8d3e-11e8-8aea-86e88ae760d8_story.html?utm_term=.6539964ddd0dj

Which mentioned much besides the dossier AND accurately included the
dossier's provenance so that the judge could evaluate its credibility.

>
>>
>>> Watergate redux. Collusion isn't the "prime target" because it is
>>> NON-EXISTENT (except for Shrillary)! Now, Mueller is grasping at
>>> straws to get ANYTHING to stick on Trump. Remember, they are
>>> duty-bound to investigate ANY illegal activity (or refer it to
>>> another prosecutor), so Shrillary SHOULD be worried.
>>
>> Want to bet?
>
> With a deadbeat like you? Are you SERIOUS???

So you're too afraid...

[B...@onramp.net]

No he's just a troll with idiotic messages to get responses. Very
worthy of the kill file.

[Dene]

Such hypocrisy and intolerance. Pathetic to see you in the sack with the RAT.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:16:34 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

Pathetic is your definition of hypocrisy and intolerance. Neither is
in play by pointing out that this boob is all over the place with
untruths and failure to show proof of his babble. Also your
propensity to post over nothing just to throw an insult at Baker.

[Carbon]

Harvard Law professor emeritus and constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz
believes Robert Mueller’s report into Russian interference during the 2016
election will be “devastating to the president”.

The law expert took to ABC News on Sunday to share his predictions for the
imminent report from the Special Counsel, tasked with investigating
whether Donald Trump's campaign played a role in working with Russian
officials to potentially sway the election in their favour.

As a frequent and ardent defender of Mr Trump, his comments may have come
as a shock to many.

“I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and I know
that the president’s team is already working on a response to the report,”
he said on the network’s show, This Week. “When I say devastating, I mean
it’s going to paint a picture that’s going to be politically very
devastating.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-mueller-russia-probe-report-trump-ally-lawyer-alan-dershowitz-impact-response-a8653251.html

[Dene]

Speculation.

[Carbon]

Widely held speculation.

https://www.newsweek.com/disapproval-donald-trump-hits-all-time-high-rising-midterm-election-latest-1232037

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 9:10:59 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:

Now you ADMIT there is a Shrillary-funded dossier!

>
> >
> >>
> >>> Watergate redux. Collusion isn't the "prime target" because it is
> >>> NON-EXISTENT (except for Shrillary)! Now, Mueller is grasping at
> >>> straws to get ANYTHING to stick on Trump. Remember, they are
> >>> duty-bound to investigate ANY illegal activity (or refer it to
> >>> another prosecutor), so Shrillary SHOULD be worried.
> >>
> >> Want to bet?
> >
> > With a deadbeat like you? Are you SERIOUS???
>
> So you're too afraid...

Don't bet with deadbeats - or liars.

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 7:45:25 PM UTC-8, Carbon wrote:
> On 11/26/18 11:47 AM, Dene wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 7:25:36 PM UTC-8, Carbon wrote:
> >> On 11/25/18 6:57 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

It's interesting that he is predicting something about which he knows nothing. Dershowitz is generally more careful than that. At best, it is his gut feeling, not something based on facts. And he doesn't say HOW it will be "devastating."

[Alan Baker]

I never denied it.

I notice you don't deny that there was much besides the dossier in that
FISA application...

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:52:02 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:

YES, you did!

>
> I notice you don't deny that there was much besides the dossier in that
> FISA application...

The dossier was the key element - you FLAT OUT DENIED that it was used to get the warrant.

[Alan Baker]

Quote me.

I said this sentence was wrong:

"Sure it does - she financed that phony Russian "dossier"

What was wrong was that the dossier isn't phony.

>
>>
>> I notice you don't deny that there was much besides the dossier in that
>> FISA application...
>
> The dossier was the key element - you FLAT OUT DENIED that it was used to get the warrant.

Nope, and nope.

I never denied the dossier was a part of what was used to get the FISA
warrant.

But the warrant was continued by Rod Rosenstein. Why do you suppose that is?

[toms...@gmail.com]

Also called nit-picking. The dossier IS phony - there isn't a single word of truth in it.

>
> >
> >>
> >> I notice you don't deny that there was much besides the dossier in that
> >> FISA application...
> >
> > The dossier was the key element - you FLAT OUT DENIED that it was used to get the warrant.
>
> Nope, and nope.
>
> I never denied the dossier was a part of what was used to get the FISA
> warrant.
>
> But the warrant was continued by Rod Rosenstein. Why do you suppose that is?

You would have to ask Rosenstein. To be sure, this is a government wiretap abuse that is worse than Watergate - a politician finances a libelous, false document that is the key element in an illegal wiretap.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-11-27 7:21 PM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Now you ADMIT there is a Shrillary-funded dossier!
>>>>
>>>> I never denied it.
>>>
>>> YES, you did!
>>
>> Quote me.
>>
>> I said this sentence was wrong:
>>
>> "Sure it does - she financed that phony Russian "dossier"
>>
>> What was wrong was that the dossier isn't phony.
>
> Also called nit-picking. The dossier IS phony - there isn't a single
> word of truth in it.

Really? And you know this, how?

>>>> I notice you don't deny that there was much besides the dossier
>>>> in that FISA application...
>>>
>>> The dossier was the key element - you FLAT OUT DENIED that it was
>>> used to get the warrant.
>>
>> Nope, and nope.
>>
>> I never denied the dossier was a part of what was used to get the
>> FISA warrant.
>>
>> But the warrant was continued by Rod Rosenstein. Why do you suppose
>> that is?
>
> You would have to ask Rosenstein. To be sure, this is a government
> wiretap abuse that is worse than Watergate - a politician finances a
> libelous, false document that is the key element in an illegal
> wiretap.

It wasn't key, but that's your claim, so you support it.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Read it - it is nothing but a bunch of wet-dream fantasies w/o ANY corroboration.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-11-29 8:11 PM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:25:04 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> Now you ADMIT there is a Shrillary-funded dossier!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never denied it.
>>>>>
>>>>> YES, you did!
>>>>
>>>> Quote me.
>>>>
>>>> I said this sentence was wrong:
>>>>
>>>> "Sure it does - she financed that phony Russian "dossier"
>>>>
>>>> What was wrong was that the dossier isn't phony.
>>>
>>> Also called nit-picking. The dossier IS phony - there isn't a single
>>> word of truth in it.
>>
>> Really? And you know this, how?

Failure to answer noted.

>>
>>>>>> I notice you don't deny that there was much besides the dossier
>>>>>> in that FISA application...
>>>>>
>>>>> The dossier was the key element - you FLAT OUT DENIED that it was
>>>>> used to get the warrant.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, and nope.
>>>>
>>>> I never denied the dossier was a part of what was used to get the
>>>> FISA warrant.
>>>>
>>>> But the warrant was continued by Rod Rosenstein. Why do you suppose
>>>> that is?
>>>
>>> You would have to ask Rosenstein. To be sure, this is a government
>>> wiretap abuse that is worse than Watergate - a politician finances a
>>> libelous, false document that is the key element in an illegal
>>> wiretap.
>>
>> It wasn't key, but that's your claim, so you support it.
>
> Read it - it is nothing but a bunch of wet-dream fantasies w/o ANY corroboration.

Then support your claim.

Tell us something the dossier claims that has been demonstrated to be false.

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:15:09 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:25:04 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>> Now you ADMIT there is a Shrillary-funded dossier!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I never denied it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YES, you did!
> >>>>
> >>>> Quote me.
> >>>>
> >>>> I said this sentence was wrong:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Sure it does - she financed that phony Russian "dossier"
> >>>>
> >>>> What was wrong was that the dossier isn't phony.
> >>>
> >>> Also called nit-picking. The dossier IS phony - there isn't a single
> >>> word of truth in it.
> >>
> >> Really? And you know this, how?
>
> Failure to answer noted.

From Wikipedia:

"The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified assertions"

The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by Trump with the Russians. It only states that Russia favored Trump (so what?).

>
> >>
> >>>>>> I notice you don't deny that there was much besides the dossier
> >>>>>> in that FISA application...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The dossier was the key element - you FLAT OUT DENIED that it was
> >>>>> used to get the warrant.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, and nope.
> >>>>
> >>>> I never denied the dossier was a part of what was used to get the
> >>>> FISA warrant.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the warrant was continued by Rod Rosenstein. Why do you suppose
> >>>> that is?
> >>>
> >>> You would have to ask Rosenstein. To be sure, this is a government
> >>> wiretap abuse that is worse than Watergate - a politician finances a
> >>> libelous, false document that is the key element in an illegal
> >>> wiretap.
> >>
> >> It wasn't key, but that's your claim, so you support it.
> >
> > Read it - it is nothing but a bunch of wet-dream fantasies w/o ANY corroboration.
>
> Then support your claim.
>
> Tell us something the dossier claims that has been demonstrated to be false.

"British music publicist Rob Goldstone believes it was "unlikely" that Trump used prostitutes while he was in Moscow. He has stated that he accompanied Trump at the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, and claimed that Trump was in Moscow for 36 hours, and that he was with Trump for 31 out of those 36 hours. According to flight records, Trump was in Moscow for 37 hours, having landed in Moscow at around 3 p.m. on Friday[189] and leaving at 3:58 a.m. early Sunday morning."

This "claim" has NEVER been backed up by ANY corroboration. NONE. NADA.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-12-02 12:03 PM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:15:09 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker
> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:25:04 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Now you ADMIT there is a Shrillary-funded dossier!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never denied it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YES, you did!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quote me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said this sentence was wrong:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sure it does - she financed that phony Russian "dossier"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was wrong was that the dossier isn't phony.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also called nit-picking. The dossier IS phony - there isn't a
>>>>> single word of truth in it.
>>>>
>>>> Really? And you know this, how?
>>
>> Failure to answer noted.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> "The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated
> the dossier with caution due to its unverified assertions"

Which is a far cry for saying it's phony.

Does it occur to you that:

1. The intelligence community is NOT going to tell you everything they
know about that dossier.

2. While they haven't said much about the dossier's particulars, they
have vouched for the credibility of the man who compiled it?

From that same source:

'The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been
publicly verified,[19] others unverified,[20] but, according to James
Clapper and Shepard Smith, none have been disproven,[92] with Smith
stating: "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been
disproven."[93] In some cases, public verification is hindered because
information is classified.'

>
> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by Trump with the
> Russians. It only states that Russia favored Trump (so what?).

Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was used.

If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been necessary.

Believing something unlikely is not demonstrably falsifying something.

>
> This "claim" has NEVER been backed up by ANY corroboration. NONE.
> NADA.

Which is not what I asked for.

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:35:13 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:15:09 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker
> > wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:25:04 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Now you ADMIT there is a Shrillary-funded dossier!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I never denied it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> YES, you did!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Quote me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I said this sentence was wrong:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Sure it does - she financed that phony Russian "dossier"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What was wrong was that the dossier isn't phony.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also called nit-picking. The dossier IS phony - there isn't a
> >>>>> single word of truth in it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? And you know this, how?
> >>
> >> Failure to answer noted.
> >
> > From Wikipedia:
> >
> > "The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated
> > the dossier with caution due to its unverified assertions"
>
> Which is a far cry for saying it's phony.

That is the polite way of calling it phony.

>
> Does it occur to you that:
>
> 1. The intelligence community is NOT going to tell you everything they
> know about that dossier.
>
> 2. While they haven't said much about the dossier's particulars, they
> have vouched for the credibility of the man who compiled it?
>
> From that same source:
>
> 'The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been
> publicly verified,[19] others unverified,[20] but, according to James
> Clapper and Shepard Smith, none have been disproven,[92] with Smith
> stating: "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge, has been
> disproven."[93] In some cases, public verification is hindered because
> information is classified.'

PUUHHHHLLLLLEEEEEESSSSSSEEEEEEEE! Golden showers with prostitutes? REALLY??? The stuff that is verified has NOTHING to do with Trump.

>
> >
> > The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by Trump with the
> > Russians. It only states that Russia favored Trump (so what?).
>
> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was used.

Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you present evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is true. That means you can prove it.

>
> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been necessary.

So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap them? This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to show "probable cause."

Sure it is: it fails the "probable cause" requirement.

>
> >
> > This "claim" has NEVER been backed up by ANY corroboration. NONE.
> > NADA.
>
> Which is not what I asked for.

Well, it IS what I expect from DOJ. Imagine if Bush had Obama's campaign wiretapped - you guys would have shit bricks.

[Alan Baker]

No. It really isn't.

>
>>
>> Does it occur to you that:
>>
>> 1. The intelligence community is NOT going to tell you everything
>> they know about that dossier.
>>
>> 2. While they haven't said much about the dossier's particulars,
>> they have vouched for the credibility of the man who compiled it?
>>
>> From that same source:
>>
>> 'The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have
>> been publicly verified,[19] others unverified,[20] but, according
>> to James Clapper and Shepard Smith, none have been disproven,[92]
>> with Smith stating: "None of the dossier, to Fox News's knowledge,
>> has been disproven."[93] In some cases, public verification is
>> hindered because information is classified.'
>
> PUUHHHHLLLLLEEEEEESSSSSSEEEEEEEE! Golden showers with prostitutes?
> REALLY??? The stuff that is verified has NOTHING to do with Trump.

Why not? You think people don't have kinks?

As for verification:

'Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with
representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor
Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.

Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November, the
House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s
congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft
officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip
to Moscow in 2016.'

That had to do with Trump.

'Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters
during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.'

As did that.

'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the details about
business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in Russia, as well as Trump's
alleged sexual exploits there. Evidence of the bribes and sexual
activities has never surfaced, but the connections between Trump and
fellow billionaire are now well-established.'

<https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116>

There are three for you, all connected to Trump.

>
>>
>>>
>>> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by Trump with
>>> the Russians. It only states that Russia favored Trump (so
>>> what?).
>>
>> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was used.
>
> Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you present
> evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is true. That means you
> can prove it.

No. Proof is NOT necessary when obtaining a search warrant.

>
>>
>> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been
>> necessary.
>
> So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap them?

No. If you have probable cause.

> This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to show
> "probable cause."

Which is a standard below proof.

The judge disagreed.

I'll take his judgement over yours.

>
>>
>>>
>>> This "claim" has NEVER been backed up by ANY corroboration.
>>> NONE. NADA.
>>
>> Which is not what I asked for.
>
> Well, it IS what I expect from DOJ. Imagine if Bush had Obama's
> campaign wiretapped - you guys would have shit bricks.

Who says they didn't?

[toms...@gmail.com]

This, of course, was Carter Page's BUSINESS. All kinds of people meet with Russians, including both Clintons and Obama. I guess we could have wiretapped them, too.

>
> The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor
> Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.
>
> Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November, the
> House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s
> congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft
> officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip
> to Moscow in 2016.'

Guess what Mueller HASN'T done (after a year's worth of wiretaps): indicted Carter Page. If Page was involved in such nefarious conspiracies, WHY hasn't he been indicted? Most likely because there is NOTHING THERE.

>
> That had to do with Trump.
>
> 'Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters
> during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.'

You mean their Facebook ads!

>
> As did that.
>
> 'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.
>
> The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the details about
> business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in Russia, as well as Trump's
> alleged sexual exploits there. Evidence of the bribes and sexual
> activities has never surfaced, but the connections between Trump and
> fellow billionaire are now well-established.'

Alleged, alleged, alleged. Come up with some REAL evidence. NOTHING has been produced to date.

>
> <https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116>

That article uses "alleged" A LOT. WHY? Because they DON'T HAVE ANY CORROBORATION. And if they omitted "alleged" Trump could successfully sue them for libel.

>
> There are three for you, all connected to Trump.

There is NO PROOF there, just ALLEGATIONS.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by Trump with
> >>> the Russians. It only states that Russia favored Trump (so
> >>> what?).
> >>
> >> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was used.
> >
> > Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you present
> > evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is true. That means you
> > can prove it.
>
> No. Proof is NOT necessary when obtaining a search warrant.

Probable cause sure as hell is.

>
> >
> >>
> >> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been
> >> necessary.
> >
> > So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap them?
>
> No. If you have probable cause.
>
> > This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to show
> > "probable cause."
>
> Which is a standard below proof.

An allegation IS NOT probable cause.

So what? If the judge was mislead by the FBI a very serious prosecutorial misconduct has occurred. This should be FULLY INVESTIGATED.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This "claim" has NEVER been backed up by ANY corroboration.
> >>> NONE. NADA.
> >>
> >> Which is not what I asked for.
> >
> > Well, it IS what I expect from DOJ. Imagine if Bush had Obama's
> > campaign wiretapped - you guys would have shit bricks.
>
> Who says they didn't?

Well, you guys DO shit bricks regularly.

[Alan Baker]

But your claim was that it had "nothing to do with Trump".

Only how do you know that?

>
>>
>> The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor
>> Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.
>>
>> Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November,
>> the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s
>> congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other
>> Rosneft officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov,
>> during a trip to Moscow in 2016.'
>
> Guess what Mueller HASN'T done (after a year's worth of wiretaps):
> indicted Carter Page. If Page was involved in such nefarious
> conspiracies, WHY hasn't he been indicted? Most likely because there
> is NOTHING THERE.

And that proves... ...what?

>
>>
>> That had to do with Trump.
>>
>> 'Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state
>> voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.'
>
> You mean their Facebook ads!

Do I? This isn't my statement.

>
>>
>> As did that.
>>
>> 'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from
>> Azerbaijan.
>>
>> The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the details
>> about business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in Russia, as well
>> as Trump's alleged sexual exploits there. Evidence of the bribes
>> and sexual activities has never surfaced, but the connections
>> between Trump and fellow billionaire are now well-established.'
>
> Alleged, alleged, alleged. Come up with some REAL evidence. NOTHING
> has been produced to date.
>

Of course not. Mueller is too smart for that.

>>
>> <https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116>
>
>>
> That article uses "alleged" A LOT. WHY? Because they DON'T HAVE ANY
> CORROBORATION. And if they omitted "alleged" Trump could successfully
> sue them for libel.

This conversation was about whether or not the dossier was a valid
source for pursuing a FISA warrant on Carter Page...

...or had you forgotten?

>
>>
>> There are three for you, all connected to Trump.
>
> There is NO PROOF there, just ALLEGATIONS.

Supra.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by Trump
>>>>> with the Russians. It only states that Russia favored Trump
>>>>> (so what?).
>>>>
>>>> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was used.
>>>
>>> Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you present
>>> evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is true. That means
>>> you can prove it.
>>
>> No. Proof is NOT necessary when obtaining a search warrant.
>
> Probable cause sure as hell is.

And a judge agreed they had probable cause.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been
>>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap
>>> them?
>>
>> No. If you have probable cause.
>>
>>> This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to show
>>> "probable cause."
>>
>> Which is a standard below proof.
>
> An allegation IS NOT probable cause.

But a judge agreed that what was supplied met the burden...

...and it was far more than just the dossier.

He wasn't misled (note that I know how to spell "misled" BTW).

There was much more provided than the dossier, and the dossier's origin
was explained to the judge.

[toms...@gmail.com]

From several Congressional investigations.

>
> >
> >>
> >> The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor
> >> Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.
> >>
> >> Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November,
> >> the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s
> >> congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other
> >> Rosneft officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov,
> >> during a trip to Moscow in 2016.'
> >
> > Guess what Mueller HASN'T done (after a year's worth of wiretaps):
> > indicted Carter Page. If Page was involved in such nefarious
> > conspiracies, WHY hasn't he been indicted? Most likely because there
> > is NOTHING THERE.
>
> And that proves... ...what?
>
> >
> >>
> >> That had to do with Trump.
> >>
> >> 'Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state
> >> voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.'
> >
> > You mean their Facebook ads!
>
> Do I? This isn't my statement.

Do you?

>
> >
> >>
> >> As did that.
> >>
> >> 'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from
> >> Azerbaijan.
> >>
> >> The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the details
> >> about business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in Russia, as well
> >> as Trump's alleged sexual exploits there. Evidence of the bribes
> >> and sexual activities has never surfaced, but the connections
> >> between Trump and fellow billionaire are now well-established.'
> >
> > Alleged, alleged, alleged. Come up with some REAL evidence. NOTHING
> > has been produced to date.
> >
>
> Of course not. Mueller is too smart for that.

He better come up with something soon.

>
>
> >>
> >> <https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116>
> >
> >>
> > That article uses "alleged" A LOT. WHY? Because they DON'T HAVE ANY
> > CORROBORATION. And if they omitted "alleged" Trump could successfully
> > sue them for libel.
>
> This conversation was about whether or not the dossier was a valid
> source for pursuing a FISA warrant on Carter Page...
>
> ...or had you forgotten?

Not in the slightest.

>
> >
> >>
> >> There are three for you, all connected to Trump.
> >
> > There is NO PROOF there, just ALLEGATIONS.
>
> Supra.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by Trump
> >>>>> with the Russians. It only states that Russia favored Trump
> >>>>> (so what?).
> >>>>
> >>>> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was used.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you present
> >>> evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is true. That means
> >>> you can prove it.
> >>
> >> No. Proof is NOT necessary when obtaining a search warrant.
> >
> > Probable cause sure as hell is.
>
> And a judge agreed they had probable cause.

We don't know that he agreed to that.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been
> >>>> necessary.
> >>>
> >>> So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap
> >>> them?
> >>
> >> No. If you have probable cause.
> >>
> >>> This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to show
> >>> "probable cause."
> >>
> >> Which is a standard below proof.
> >
> > An allegation IS NOT probable cause.
>
> But a judge agreed that what was supplied met the burden...
>
> ...and it was far more than just the dossier.

Without hearing from the judge or seeing the FISA application, you can't say that. Congressmen who HAVE seen it say it was primarily the dossier.

Sorry for the wrong tense.

>
> There was much more provided than the dossier, and the dossier's origin
> was explained to the judge.

The bottom line is that a political campaign was wiretapped based on "research" paid for by their opponent. This is not in dispute. This is very troubling just on the surface. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any justification for that wiretap, which is highly troubling. At the VERY LEAST, a full public disclosure of ALL documents of this activity is necessary so the public will learn the truth of the matter.

[Dene]

The bottom line is that a political campaign was wiretapped based on "research" paid for by their opponent. This is not in dispute. This is very troubling just on the surface. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any justification for that wiretap, which is highly troubling. At the VERY LEAST, a full public disclosure of ALL documents of this activity is necessary so the public will learn the truth of the matter.

I have yet to see a liberal in this room be disturbed by this event. It’s as though this is the America they want. The ends justify the means, if it invalidates an election and impeached POTUS. Of course neither will happen but who gives a shit about General Flynn and other well-meaning people who simply wanted to serve their country. They have to spend a fortune on attorneys just to avoid being wrongfully charged. Collateral damage I suppose.

[Alan Baker]

Then let's see your sources...

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with
>>>> Igor Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.
>>>>
>>>> Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in
>>>> November, the House Intelligence Committee released a
>>>> transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had
>>>> in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's
>>>> subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow in 2016.'
>>>
>>> Guess what Mueller HASN'T done (after a year's worth of
>>> wiretaps): indicted Carter Page. If Page was involved in such
>>> nefarious conspiracies, WHY hasn't he been indicted? Most likely
>>> because there is NOTHING THERE.
>>
>> And that proves... ...what?

Unanswered. Shocking.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That had to do with Trump.
>>>>
>>>> 'Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state
>>>> voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.'
>>>
>>> You mean their Facebook ads!
>>
>> Do I? This isn't my statement.
>
> Do you?

You're the one claiming I do. I don't.

There was far more to it than Facebook ads.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As did that.
>>>>
>>>> 'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from
>>>> Azerbaijan.
>>>>
>>>> The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the
>>>> details about business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in
>>>> Russia, as well as Trump's alleged sexual exploits there.
>>>> Evidence of the bribes and sexual activities has never
>>>> surfaced, but the connections between Trump and fellow
>>>> billionaire are now well-established.'
>>>
>>> Alleged, alleged, alleged. Come up with some REAL evidence.
>>> NOTHING has been produced to date.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. Mueller is too smart for that.
>
> He better come up with something soon.

This is deflecting from where we were.

You don't need proof of wrongdoing to get a warrant.

>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
That article uses "alleged" A LOT. WHY? Because they DON'T HAVE ANY
>>> CORROBORATION. And if they omitted "alleged" Trump could
>>> successfully sue them for libel.
>>
>> This conversation was about whether or not the dossier was a valid
>> source for pursuing a FISA warrant on Carter Page...
>>
>> ...or had you forgotten?
>
> Not in the slightest.

Apparently you had.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are three for you, all connected to Trump.
>>>
>>> There is NO PROOF there, just ALLEGATIONS.
>>
>> Supra.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by
>>>>>>> Trump with the Russians. It only states that Russia
>>>>>>> favored Trump (so what?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was
>>>>>> used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you
>>>>> present evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is
>>>>> true. That means you can prove it.
>>>>
>>>> No. Proof is NOT necessary when obtaining a search warrant.
>>>
>>> Probable cause sure as hell is.
>>
>> And a judge agreed they had probable cause.
>
> We don't know that he agreed to that.

Yes we do.

How?

He issued the warrant.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap
>>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> No. If you have probable cause.
>>>>
>>>>> This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to
>>>>> show "probable cause."
>>>>
>>>> Which is a standard below proof.
>>>
>>> An allegation IS NOT probable cause.
>>
>> But a judge agreed that what was supplied met the burden...
>>
>> ...and it was far more than just the dossier.
>
> Without hearing from the judge or seeing the FISA application, you
> can't say that. Congressmen who HAVE seen it say it was primarily the
> dossier.

We have that information released, twit boy.

And REPUBLICAN congressman tried to shape the narrative with selective
releases of classified information to create that impression...

...but then the entire document was released.

<https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html>

Try and keep up.

No. That is the bottom line. A dossier from a source the FBI considered
reliable played a PARTIAL ROLE in getting a warrant. There were multiple
other sources.

<https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html>

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-12-05 7:06 PM, Dene wrote:
>
> The bottom line is that a political campaign was wiretapped based on
> "research" paid for by their opponent. This is not in dispute. This
> is very troubling just on the surface. Furthermore, there does not
> appear to be any justification for that wiretap, which is highly
> troubling. At the VERY LEAST, a full public disclosure of ALL
> documents of this activity is necessary so the public will learn the
> truth of the matter.
>
>
> I have yet to see a liberal in this room be disturbed by this event.

Because that's not what happened.

[toms...@gmail.com]

They are not mine, but check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo
You are more than capable of finding the others for yourself.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with
> >>>> Igor Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.
> >>>>
> >>>> Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in
> >>>> November, the House Intelligence Committee released a
> >>>> transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had
> >>>> in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's
> >>>> subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow in 2016.'
> >>>
> >>> Guess what Mueller HASN'T done (after a year's worth of
> >>> wiretaps): indicted Carter Page. If Page was involved in such
> >>> nefarious conspiracies, WHY hasn't he been indicted? Most likely
> >>> because there is NOTHING THERE.
> >>
> >> And that proves... ...what?
>
> Unanswered. Shocking.

You have NO answer? I guess there is none.

>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That had to do with Trump.
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state
> >>>> voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.'
> >>>
> >>> You mean their Facebook ads!
> >>
> >> Do I? This isn't my statement.
> >
> > Do you?
>
> You're the one claiming I do. I don't.
>
> There was far more to it than Facebook ads.

So, what is it? Cite your references.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As did that.
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from
> >>>> Azerbaijan.
> >>>>
> >>>> The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the
> >>>> details about business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in
> >>>> Russia, as well as Trump's alleged sexual exploits there.
> >>>> Evidence of the bribes and sexual activities has never
> >>>> surfaced, but the connections between Trump and fellow
> >>>> billionaire are now well-established.'
> >>>
> >>> Alleged, alleged, alleged. Come up with some REAL evidence.
> >>> NOTHING has been produced to date.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Of course not. Mueller is too smart for that.
> >
> > He better come up with something soon.
>
> This is deflecting from where we were.
>
> You don't need proof of wrongdoing to get a warrant.

Cite your source on that.

>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> That article uses "alleged" A LOT. WHY? Because they DON'T HAVE ANY
> >>> CORROBORATION. And if they omitted "alleged" Trump could
> >>> successfully sue them for libel.
> >>
> >> This conversation was about whether or not the dossier was a valid
> >> source for pursuing a FISA warrant on Carter Page...
> >>
> >> ...or had you forgotten?
> >
> > Not in the slightest.
>
> Apparently you had.

Not at all.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There are three for you, all connected to Trump.
> >>>
> >>> There is NO PROOF there, just ALLEGATIONS.
> >>
> >> Supra.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by
> >>>>>>> Trump with the Russians. It only states that Russia
> >>>>>>> favored Trump (so what?).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was
> >>>>>> used.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you
> >>>>> present evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is
> >>>>> true. That means you can prove it.
> >>>>
> >>>> No. Proof is NOT necessary when obtaining a search warrant.
> >>>
> >>> Probable cause sure as hell is.
> >>
> >> And a judge agreed they had probable cause.
> >
> > We don't know that he agreed to that.
>
> Yes we do.
>
> How?
>
> He issued the warrant.

No you don't. If you do, cite your source.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been
> >>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap
> >>>>> them?
> >>>>
> >>>> No. If you have probable cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>> This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to
> >>>>> show "probable cause."
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is a standard below proof.
> >>>
> >>> An allegation IS NOT probable cause.
> >>
> >> But a judge agreed that what was supplied met the burden...
> >>
> >> ...and it was far more than just the dossier.
> >
> > Without hearing from the judge or seeing the FISA application, you
> > can't say that. Congressmen who HAVE seen it say it was primarily the
> > dossier.
>
> We have that information released, twit boy.

"Twit boy?" I thought you were better than that - I guess I was wrong...
What information? Cite your source.

>
> And REPUBLICAN congressman tried to shape the narrative with selective
> releases of classified information to create that impression...
>
> ...but then the entire document was released.
>
> <https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html>
>
> Try and keep up.

Keep up? There is MORE there that is redacted than not.

Those MULTIPLE sources were just Steele himself confirming his OWN phony report.
There ARE NO "multiple" sources.
Furthermore, the FBI FAILED to inform the judge that Shrillary funded the report.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but let's see the quotes that support your claim that "it had

nothing to do with Trump".

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with
>>>>>> Igor Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in
>>>>>> November, the House Intelligence Committee released a
>>>>>> transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had
>>>>>> in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's
>>>>>> subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow in 2016.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Guess what Mueller HASN'T done (after a year's worth of
>>>>> wiretaps): indicted Carter Page. If Page was involved in such
>>>>> nefarious conspiracies, WHY hasn't he been indicted? Most likely
>>>>> because there is NOTHING THERE.
>>>>
>>>> And that proves... ...what?
>>
>> Unanswered. Shocking.
>
> You have NO answer? I guess there is none.

You're the one who had no answer, sunshine.

Try to keep up.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That had to do with Trump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state
>>>>>> voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.'
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean their Facebook ads!
>>>>
>>>> Do I? This isn't my statement.
>>>
>>> Do you?
>>
>> You're the one claiming I do. I don't.
>>
>> There was far more to it than Facebook ads.
>
> So, what is it? Cite your references.

'Facebook and Twitter say they have suspended or removed accounts linked
to Iran and Russia over "inauthentic" or "manipulating" behaviour.

More than 650 Facebook pages and groups were said to have been
identified as "misleading", according to founder and chief executive
Mark Zuckerberg.'

<https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45266713>

'acebook and Twitter have taken down hundreds of fake accounts and pages
linked to Iran and Russia after finding a series of campaigns aimed at
meddling in UK and US politics.

The Iranian accounts targeted internet users in Britain and America and
were followed by more than one million people. They bought thousands of
dollars worth of adverts in what researchers said was an attempt to
spread pro-Iranian messages.

Facebook revealed on Tuesday night that it had suspended 652 pages,
groups and accounts across Facebook and Instagram that were linked to
“Iranian state media”, after finding evidence of “co-ordinated
inauthentic behaviour” across the accounts.

Separately, Twitter said it had suspended 284 accounts that it believed
originate in Iran.

Facebook, which has fought a lengthy battle with state-sponsored
attempts to meddle in Western elections, also said it had removed
several accounts linked to the Russian military.'

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/08/22/facebook-twitter-delete-hundreds-fake-accounts-linked-iran-russia/>

'It was 2014, and in a building in St Petersburg, the Russian Internet
Research Agency (IRA) was already hard at work building its arsenal to
take on US politics.

According to US prosecutors, the IRA had gathered stolen identities of
real Americans, and a formidable encyclopaedia of what "works" on social
media when it comes to riling up Americans talking about politics. Two
members of the agency were said to have travelled to the US to gather
more intelligence, a fact-finding tour taking in nine states, according
to investigators.

Back on Russian soil, the IRA began posing online as US volunteers in
order to gather tips on how to effectively target voters. One real
volunteer, based in Texas, told the Russians to aim for the "purple
states" - those where the race was going to be tighter. And so they did,
prosecutors say.'

<https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43093390>

As I said: do try to keep up.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As did that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from
>>>>>> Azerbaijan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the
>>>>>> details about business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in
>>>>>> Russia, as well as Trump's alleged sexual exploits there.
>>>>>> Evidence of the bribes and sexual activities has never
>>>>>> surfaced, but the connections between Trump and fellow
>>>>>> billionaire are now well-established.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Alleged, alleged, alleged. Come up with some REAL evidence.
>>>>> NOTHING has been produced to date.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. Mueller is too smart for that.
>>>
>>> He better come up with something soon.
>>
>> This is deflecting from where we were.
>>
>> You don't need proof of wrongdoing to get a warrant.
>
> Cite your source on that.

'"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be and seized"'

US Constitution, 4th Amendment.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> That article uses "alleged" A LOT. WHY? Because they DON'T HAVE ANY
>>>>> CORROBORATION. And if they omitted "alleged" Trump could
>>>>> successfully sue them for libel.
>>>>
>>>> This conversation was about whether or not the dossier was a valid
>>>> source for pursuing a FISA warrant on Carter Page...
>>>>
>>>> ...or had you forgotten?
>>>
>>> Not in the slightest.
>>
>> Apparently you had.
>
> Not at all.

LOL!

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are three for you, all connected to Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is NO PROOF there, just ALLEGATIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Supra.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The dossier contains nothing that proves collusion by
>>>>>>>>> Trump with the Russians. It only states that Russia
>>>>>>>>> favored Trump (so what?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proof wasn't necessary for the purpose for which it was
>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, now "proof wasn't necessary" - YES it was! When you
>>>>>>> present evidence to a judge you are asserting that it is
>>>>>>> true. That means you can prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Proof is NOT necessary when obtaining a search warrant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probable cause sure as hell is.
>>>>
>>>> And a judge agreed they had probable cause.
>>>
>>> We don't know that he agreed to that.
>>
>> Yes we do.
>>
>> How?
>>
>> He issued the warrant.
>
> No you don't. If you do, cite your source.

You're saying a warrant WASN'T issued?

Get this straight:

The FBI presented its case.

To a judge.

It consisted of lots more than the dossier.

And they explained what the source of the dossier was a political campaign.

And the judge found that there was probable cause and issue a warrant.

That is what happened.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it had provided PROOF, no wiretapping would have been
>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, if you GUESS somebody committed a crime, you can wiretap
>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. If you have probable cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This IS NOT how it works: law enforcement is REQUIRED to
>>>>>>> show "probable cause."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a standard below proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> An allegation IS NOT probable cause.
>>>>
>>>> But a judge agreed that what was supplied met the burden...
>>>>
>>>> ...and it was far more than just the dossier.
>>>
>>> Without hearing from the judge or seeing the FISA application, you
>>> can't say that. Congressmen who HAVE seen it say it was primarily the
>>> dossier.
>>
>> We have that information released, twit boy.
>
> "Twit boy?" I thought you were better than that - I guess I was wrong...
> What information? Cite your source.

I did. Immediately below.

>
>>
>> And REPUBLICAN congressman tried to shape the narrative with selective
>> releases of classified information to create that impression...
>>
>> ...but then the entire document was released.
>>
>> <https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html>
>>
>> Try and keep up.
>
> Keep up? There is MORE there that is redacted than not.

But what is unredacted still tells us that there was much more to this
than the dossier.

Nope. You are simply, factually, incorrect.

> There ARE NO "multiple" sources.

Yes, there really are.

> Furthermore, the FBI FAILED to inform the judge that Shrillary funded the report.

That is also incorrect.

'Doss: The most important things we learned are that:

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 FISC 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.'

Nunes and the Republicans straight up LIED when they tried to claim the
dossier was the only source and that the court hadn't been informed.

And you dutifully ate it up.

[toms...@gmail.com]

I guess you can read thru the blackout.

Those sources are Steele, so it is circular.

>
> Nope. You are simply, factually, incorrect.
>
> > There ARE NO "multiple" sources.
>
> Yes, there really are.

Nope, just Steele. You haven't produced a single one besides Steele.

>
> > Furthermore, the FBI FAILED to inform the judge that Shrillary funded the report.
>
> That is also incorrect.
>
> 'Doss: The most important things we learned are that:
>
> 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 FISC 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.'
>
> Nunes and the Republicans straight up LIED when they tried to claim the
> dossier was the only source and that the court hadn't been informed.
>
> And you dutifully ate it up.

You are the one that is stuffing themselves. A FULL disclosure of this shameful event is a top priority for the new AG. This dwarfs Watergate.

[DumbedDownUSA]

ma bitch wrote:

> > >>
> >
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html>
> > >
> > > Those MULTIPLE sources were just Steele himself confirming his
> > > OWN phony report.
>
> Those sources are Steele, so it is circular.
>

Is this your theme for the day, answering your own dumb comments?

Stop playing with yourself in public, bitch.

--
"We have helped to create a situation that has allowed us to end up
with Trump. The dumbing down of our society through the media, the lack
of education through poor schools, allows for a dumbed-down electorate,
and for him to be able to actually get 63 million votes."

[Alan Baker]

Unaddressed.

Shocking

>>>>>>>> 'Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen
>>>>>>>> from Azerbaijan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The dossier said Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew
>>>>>>>> the details about business bribes Trump had allegedly
>>>>>>>> paid in Russia, as well as Trump's alleged sexual
>>>>>>>> exploits there. Evidence of the bribes and sexual
>>>>>>>> activities has never surfaced, but the connections
>>>>>>>> between Trump and fellow billionaire are now
>>>>>>>> well-established.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alleged, alleged, alleged. Come up with some REAL
>>>>>>> evidence. NOTHING has been produced to date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not. Mueller is too smart for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> He better come up with something soon.
>>>>
>>>> This is deflecting from where we were.
>>>>
>>>> You don't need proof of wrongdoing to get a warrant.
>>>
>>> Cite your source on that.
>>
>> '"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
>> Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
>> searched, and the persons or things to be and seized"'
>>
>> US Constitution, 4th Amendment.

Unaddressed. Shocking.

All unaddressed. Shocking.

One doesn't have to read through the blackout to know that if that
material had said anything about the dossier, the Republicans would have
included it when they released their memo.

Nope. There are lots of sources that aren't Steele, and Page was on the
FBI's radar long before Christopher Steele started his work.

>
>>
>> Nope. You are simply, factually, incorrect.
>>
>>> There ARE NO "multiple" sources.
>>
>> Yes, there really are.
>
> Nope, just Steele. You haven't produced a single one besides Steele.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

You were wrong when you claimed that the FBI didn't inform the court
about the source of the dossier.

And now you're wrong about this:

It lists a government informant (not Steele) who met with both Page and
Papadopolous.

It lists Papadopolous himself as being an informant for the government.

It lists what the FBI already knew about Page's interactions with Russia.

It lists independent sources that corroborate Steele's information.

<https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf>

We'd know even more, but strangely the Trump administration insisted on
redacting a lot of the Democrats memo on this subject after having
released the Nunes memo unredacted.

>
>>
>>> Furthermore, the FBI FAILED to inform the judge that Shrillary
>>> funded the report.
>>
>> That is also incorrect.
>>
>> 'Doss: The most important things we learned are that:
>>
>> 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 FISC 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.'
>>
>> Nunes and the Republicans straight up LIED when they tried to claim
>> the dossier was the only source and that the court hadn't been
>> informed.
>>
>> And you dutifully ate it up.
>
> You are the one that is stuffing themselves. A FULL disclosure of
> this shameful event is a top priority for the new AG. This dwarfs
> Watergate.

FOUR different judges signed off on this warrant over time, twit boy.

EVERY ONE OF THEM a Republican appointee.

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:21:36 AM UTC-8, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> ma bitch wrote:
>
> > > >>
> > >
> <https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html>
> > > >
> > > > Those MULTIPLE sources were just Steele himself confirming his
> > > > OWN phony report.
> >
> > Those sources are Steele, so it is circular.
> >
>
> Is this your theme for the day, answering your own dumb comments?
>
> Stop playing with yourself in public, bitch.

Your total lack of originality is amusing, bitch.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Ma bitch wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:21:36 AM UTC-8, DumbedDownUSA
> wrote:
> > ma bitch wrote:
> >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/politics/read-carter-page-fisa-documents/index.html>
> > > > >
> > > > > Those MULTIPLE sources were just Steele himself confirming his
> > > > > OWN phony report.
> > >
> > > Those sources are Steele, so it is circular.
> > >
> >
> > Is this your theme for the day, answering your own dumb comments?
> >
> > Stop playing with yourself in public, bitch.
>
> Your total lack of originality is amusing, bitch.
>

Lol, that from the "shrillary" guy.