Real World Event Discussions

WSJ: The FBI Hid A Mole In The Trump Campaign

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 11, 2018 05:52
VIEWED: 24854
PAGE 1 of 2

SIGNYM

Friday, May 11, 2018 1:02 PM

Quote:
On Wednesday we reported on an intense battle playing out between House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA), the Department of Justice, and the Mueller investigation concerning a cache of intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refuses to hand over - a request he equated to "extortion."

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Nunes was denied access to the information on the grounds that it "could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI."

After the White House caved to Rosenstein and Nunes was barred from seeing the documents, it also emerged that this same intelligence had already been shared with Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 US election.

On Wednesday afternoon, however, news emerged that Nunes and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) would receive a classified Thursday briefing at the DOJ on the documents. This is, to put it lightly, incredibly significant.

Why? Because it appears that the FBI may have had a mole embedded in the Trump campaign.

In a bombshell op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel shares a few key insights about recent developments. Perhaps we should start with the ending and let you take it from there. Needless to say Strassel's claims, if true, would have wide ranging implications for the CIA, FBI, DOJ and former Obama administration officials.

Strassel concludes:

"I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it."

Authored by Kimberley Strassel, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal,

About That FBI ‘Source’

Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, May 11, 2018 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
On Wednesday we reported on an intense battle playing out between House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA), the Department of Justice, and the Mueller investigation concerning a cache of intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refuses to hand over - a request he equated to "extortion."

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Nunes was denied access to the information on the grounds that it "could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI."

After the White House caved to Rosenstein and Nunes was barred from seeing the documents, it also emerged that this same intelligence had already been shared with Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 US election.

On Wednesday afternoon, however, news emerged that Nunes and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) would receive a classified Thursday briefing at the DOJ on the documents. This is, to put it lightly, incredibly significant.

Why? Because it appears that the FBI may have had a mole embedded in the Trump campaign.

In a bombshell op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel shares a few key insights about recent developments. Perhaps we should start with the ending and let you take it from there. Needless to say Strassel's claims, if true, would have wide ranging implications for the CIA, FBI, DOJ and former Obama administration officials.

Strassel concludes:

"I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it."

Authored by Kimberley Strassel, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal,

About That FBI ‘Source’

Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use the

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Friday, May 11, 2018 9:22 PM

You guys know there's an FBI mole on this board, right? I thought everyone knew...

SIGNYM

Friday, May 11, 2018 9:28 PM

Quote:
FBI is running out of justification to not be disbanded.- JSF

So is the DOJ.

Here's a question that needs to be asked:

If it is true that the FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign, and that the NSA listened in on Team Trump conversations ... Why all this dancing around by Mueller?

You would think by now that he would have ALL of the evidence that he needs, instead of persecuting Team Trump members on irrelevant (and for all I know, phony) charges to squeeze them, and bringing an unverifiable "dossier" into the "investigation" which was cooked up by the same people who said Iraq WMD was a "slam dunk".

So either he has
a) No evidence against Trump or his campaign team, or
b) The evidence was obtained ILLEGALLY, and he is trying to create a pathway to the same evidence which is admissible in court.

Either way, he stinks.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, May 12, 2018 5:09 AM

Kim Stassel will be on The Mark Levin Radio Show in 20 minutes.

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Saturday, May 12, 2018 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
FBI is running out of justification to not be disbanded.- JSF
So is the DOJ.

Here's a question that needs to be asked: ...

... who does the work those 135,000 people are doing now once they are let go?

Hey JSF - you shouldn't toy with SIGGY like that and get her hopes up. She'd love to see the US Gov "disbanded." Probably gives her goose bumps.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, May 12, 2018 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
FBI is running out of justification to not be disbanded.- JSF
So is the DOJ.

Here's a question that needs to be asked: ...
... who does the work those 135,000 people are doing now once they are let go?

Hey JSF - you shouldn't toy with SIGGY like that and get her hopes up. She'd love to see the US Gov "disbanded." Probably gives her goose bumps.

The 135,000 crimes they commit every day can cease, thereby reducing the workload of real Law Enforcement.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 12, 2018 8:28 AM

Note that this is "alleged", but if anti-trump poster can throw around allegations willy-nilly, so can I.

Quote:
Brennan, Strzok And Kerry Allegedly Set "Spy Traps" For Trump Team; Hunt For FBI Mole Intensifies

Yesterday we reported on a disturbing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Kimberly Strassel suggesting the FBI had a mole within the Trump campaign.

After a battle between House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over the release of classified information that was so top-secret that the DOJ refused to show Nunes on the grounds that it "could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI" - the agency finally relented on Wednesday, allowing Nunes and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to receive a classified briefing.

Nunes reportedly has some deep contacts in the intelligence agencies where he hears what to probe and who to ask. Gowdy, I've heard him question people, and you can tell he has a prosecutorial background, he doesn't waste time grandstanding he probes for weakness and lies.

Quote:
This U.S. citizen, according the WSJ report, is a spy that the FBI embedded in the Trump campaign - and Strassel says she knows who it is but won't say.

"I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it."

In February, The Last Refuge reported that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was working as an "under-cover employee" (UCE) for the FBI - helping the agency build a case against "Evgeny Buryakov," Then - seven months later, the FBI told a FISA court [Carter] Page was a spy.

In April 2017, writing a story about Carter Page (trying to enhance/affirm the Russian narrative), the New York Times outlined Page’s connections to the Trump campaign. However, New York Times also references Page’s prior connection to the Buryakov case. If you ignore the narrative, you discover the UCE1 description is Carter Page.

When asked over Twitter by OANN's Jack Posobiec whether it was him, Page denied the charge - replying "But if what I'm hearing alleged is correct, it's a guy I know who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes countries," adding "And if so, it'd be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first."

Another person of interest is Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor who is connected to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6. Halper set up a February, 2016 meeting between Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos and former Australian High Commissioner (and Clinton pal) Alexander Downer. Downer's tip to Australian authorities that Papadopoulos knew of hacked emails which would be harmful to Hillary Clinton was a major factor in the FBI's decision to launch its counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

Halper had several other contacts with Trump campaign officials, as the Daily Caller's Chuck Ross reported in March.

Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. -Daily Caller

Interestingly, The New York Post's Paul Sperry points out that Stefan Halper's Wikipedia page had been updated to include "He has been exposed as a CIA and M-16 spy behind the FBI Russiagate investigations of the Trump Campaign and is an informant to the Mueller Special Prosecutor investigation" - an addition which was quickly deleted.

Perhaps Page and Halper are connected through London-based Hakluyt & Co. - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inacce

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, May 12, 2018 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Note that this is "alleged", but if anti-trump poster can throw around allegations willy-nilly, so can I.
Quote:
Brennan, Strzok And Kerry Allegedly Set "Spy Traps" For Trump Team; Hunt For FBI Mole Intensifies

Yesterday we reported on a disturbing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Kimberly Strassel suggesting the FBI had a mole within the Trump campaign.

After a battle between House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over the release of classified information that was so top-secret that the DOJ refused to show Nunes on the grounds that it "could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI" - the agency finally relented on Wednesday, allowing Nunes and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to receive a classified briefing.
Nunes reportedly has some deep contacts in the intelligence agencies where he hears what to probe and who to ask. Gowdy, I've heard him question people, and you can tell he has a prosecutorial background, he doesn't waste time grandstanding he probes for weakness and lies.

Quote:
This U.S. citizen, according the WSJ report, is a spy that the FBI embedded in the Trump campaign - and Strassel says she knows who it is but won't say.

"I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it."

In February, The Last Refuge reported that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was working as an "under-cover employee" (UCE) for the FBI - helping the agency build a case against "Evgeny Buryakov," Then - seven months later, the FBI told a FISA court [Carter] Page was a spy.

In April 2017, writing a story about Carter Page (trying to enhance/affirm the Russian narrative), the New York Times outlined Page’s connections to the Trump campaign. However, New York Times also references Page’s prior connection to the Buryakov case. If you ignore the narrative, you discover the UCE1 description is Carter Page.

When asked over Twitter by OANN's Jack Posobiec whether it was him, Page denied the charge - replying "But if what I'm hearing alleged is correct, it's a guy I know who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes countries," adding "And if so, it'd be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first."

Another person of interest is Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor who is connected to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6. Halper set up a February, 2016 meeting between Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos and former Australian High Commissioner (and Clinton pal) Alexander Downer. Downer's tip to Australian authorities that Papadopoulos knew of hacked emails which would be harmful to Hillary Clinton was a major factor in the FBI's decision to launch its counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

Halper had several other contacts with Trump campaign officials, as the Daily Caller's Chuck Ross reported in March.

Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. -Daily Caller

Interestingly, The New York Post's Paul Sperry points out that Stefan Halper's Wikipedia page had been updated to include "He has been exposed as a CIA and M-16 spy behind the FBI Russiagate investigations of the Trump Campaign and is an informant to the Mueller Special Prosecutor investigation" - an addition which was quickly deleted.

Perhaps Page and Halper are connected through London-based Hakluyt & Co. - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

WHOZIT

Saturday, May 12, 2018 8:47 PM

When the I.G. report comes out the swamp is going to wish they didn't demand the investigation into Russia, ALL of this is going to blow back on them. Trump and others are going to end up looking like the victems of a witch hunt...which they are. The swamp scum won't be able to spin this, they're going to have to circle the wagons, they've picked a fight with a guy who loves to get into fights.

Sunday, May 13, 2018 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You guys know there's an FBI mole on this board, right? I thought everyone knew...

I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.

JJ

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Sunday, May 13, 2018 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.

Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningly beautiful.
23- a traitor is still a traitor, and a lair is still a liar.
24- taco night is always awesome
23- I taught my nephew to say batsh*t, and I'm not sorry.
24- my tweeps are the best tweeps
25- my neighbors are the best neighbors because
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
27- Guinness > other beer > whatever is left at the bottom of the fermentation barrel for Worcestershire sauce > IPA
28- pie is best for breakfast.
29- still waiting for the coffee robot.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
31- the Fitzgerald translation of the Odyssey will always be better than Fagles.
32- John Berman is the most underrated CNN anchor.
33- storytelling is important; people aren't as good at it as they think a lot of the time.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 13, 2018 5:33 AM

Quote:
19 cats>dogs

FAKE NEWS

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, May 13, 2018 3:52 PM

Speaking of the ultimate twit:

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.
Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:
1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.

4 - you seem clueless enough to have not heard of 9/11. After the Twin Towers were felled in 2001, it was a bit shocking for Americans to watch video of Afghanis dancing and chanting in the streets in celebration. A week or so later I got my copy of a men's mag in the mail. It had been edited weeks earlier, and had stories from June or July. One was about Afghanis dying from TVs landing on their heads. Across the land, all Imans had decreed that everybody must rid themselves of their TV, so they were thrown out the window. The Imams did not want any news to infiltrate their congregations, so that the sole source for content and Spin was the Islamic clerics. In the Land of Free Speech, Free Press, Free Market, Free Enterprise, Liberty, if you actually choose to avoid actual news in favor of your Fake News of choice, you should just be shipped straight to Afghanistan - you don't have enough brain to exist in a Free World, it overwhelms your tiny intellect.

9 - have you convinced Teddly Kennedy and John Kerry to register as Foreign Agents? If not, STFU.

26 - then why did your Preezy put an end to it?

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Sunday, May 13, 2018 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Speaking of the ultimate twit:

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.
Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:
1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
4 - you seem clueless enough to have not heard of 9/11. After the Twin Towers were felled in 2001, it was a bit shocking for Americans to watch video of Afghanis dancing and chanting in the streets in celebration. A week or so later I got my copy of a men's mag in the mail. It had been edited weeks earlier, and had stories from June or July. One was about Afghanis dying from TVs landing on their heads. Across the land, all Imans had decreed that everybody must rid themselves of their TV, so they were thrown out the window. The Imams did not want any news to infiltrate their congregations, so that the sole source for content and Spin was the Islamic clerics. In the Land of Free Speech, Free Press, Free Market, Free Enterprise, Liberty, if you actually choose to avoid actual news in favor of your Fake News of choice, you should just be shipped straight to Afghanistan - you don't have enough brain to exist in a Free World, it overwhelms your tiny intellect.

9 - have you convinced Teddly Kennedy and John Kerry to register as Foreign Agents? If not, STFU.

26 - then why did your Preezy put an end to it?

Yes, speaking of the ultimate twit ... hey JSF, that's not my list, someone else posted it on Twitter and I'm just reposting it here.

Monday, May 14, 2018 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.

Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningly beautiful.
23- a traitor is still a traitor, and a lair is still a liar.
24- taco night is always awesome
23- I taught my nephew to say batsh*t, and I'm not sorry.
24- my tweeps are the best tweeps
25- my neighbors are the best neighbors because
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
27- Guinness > other beer > whatever is left at the bottom of the fermentation barrel for Worcestershire sauce > IPA
28- pie is best for breakfast.
29- still waiting for the coffee robot.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
31- the Fitzgerald translation of the Odyssey will always be better than Fagles.
32- John Berman is the most underrated CNN anchor.
33- storytelling is important; people aren't as good at it as they think a lot of the time.

A fun read G.

JJ

1KIKI

Monday, May 14, 2018 12:28 AM

"... hey JSF, that's not my list, someone else posted it on Twitter and I'm just reposting it here.'

Yes, you're reposting it here, but not because you agree with it, or follow the bird-brain on twitter, or anything.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, May 14, 2018 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... hey JSF, that's not my list, someone else posted it on Twitter and I'm just reposting it here.'

Yes, you're reposting it here, but not because you agree with it, or follow the bird-brain on twitter, or anything.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

I may have been too subtle. I had referred to the original twit poster on twit, plus the twit reposting here.
I did not expect that you would be the only one capable of comprehension, but upon reflection I probably should have conjured it would be above and beyond some here.

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Monday, May 14, 2018 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... hey JSF, that's not my list, someone else posted it on Twitter and I'm just reposting it here.'

Yes, you're reposting it here, but not because you agree with it, or follow the bird-brain on twitter, or anything.

I don't agree with it completely - Jack points to one in particular, cat v. dog. And so what if I follow her on Twitter? Have you read all of her tweets? Do you know anything more about her than that one, somewhat amusing tweet?

Why are you such an angry snot ALL the time? Give it a rest already.

SIGNYM

Monday, May 14, 2018 8:45 PM

Quote:
I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge. - THUGR aka JJ

I see GSTRING is posting fake facts from Twitter.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Monday, May 14, 2018 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge. - THUGR aka JJ

I see GSTRING is posting fake facts from Twitter.

I didn't pass anything off as a fact, ya lame-o. I said, "an amusing list" and even said "I don't agree with it completely."

So touchy when anyone criticizes Zerohedge or Russia - you so very Trumpy.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.

Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningly beautiful.
23- a traitor is still a traitor, and a lair is still a liar.
24- taco night is always awesome
23- I taught my nephew to say batsh*t, and I'm not sorry.
24- my tweeps are the best tweeps
25- my neighbors are the best neighbors because
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
27- Guinness > other beer > whatever is left at the bottom of the fermentation barrel for Worcestershire sauce > IPA
28- pie is best for breakfast.
29- still waiting for the coffee robot.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
31- the Fitzgerald translation of the Odyssey will always be better than Fagles.
32- John Berman is the most underrated CNN anchor.
33- storytelling is important; people aren't as good at it as they think a lot of the time.

Still not seeing the part with "I don't agree with this"

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.

Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningly beautiful.
23- a traitor is still a traitor, and a lair is still a liar.
24- taco night is always awesome
23- I taught my nephew to say batsh*t, and I'm not sorry.
24- my tweeps are the best tweeps
25- my neighbors are the best neighbors because
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
27- Guinness > other beer > whatever is left at the bottom of the fermentation barrel for Worcestershire sauce > IPA
28- pie is best for breakfast.
29- still waiting for the coffee robot.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
31- the Fitzgerald translation of the Odyssey will always be better than Fagles.
32- John Berman is the most underrated CNN anchor.
33- storytelling is important; people aren't as good at it as they think a lot of the time.
Still not seeing the part with "I don't agree with this"

Maybe you should try reading people's posts?

"I don't agree with it completely - Jack points to one in particular, cat v. dog."

Scroll up - it's right there - do you see it?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:24 AM

Well, as much as GSTRING would prolly like to drag this post off-topic, the story is still evolving

Quote:
WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.

If you have a subscription to WSJ you can read it there.

Originally posted at

WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-14/its-unconstitutional-mueller
s-investigation-crosses-legal-line
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.
Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningly beautiful.
23- a traitor is still a traitor, and a lair is still a liar.
24- taco night is always awesome
23- I taught my nephew to say batsh*t, and I'm not sorry.
24- my tweeps are the best tweeps
25- my neighbors are the best neighbors because
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
27- Guinness > other beer > whatever is left at the bottom of the fermentation barrel for Worcestershire sauce > IPA
28- pie is best for breakfast.
29- still waiting for the coffee robot.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
31- the Fitzgerald translation of the Odyssey will always be better than Fagles.
32- John Berman is the most underrated CNN anchor.
33- storytelling is important; people aren't as good at it as they think a lot of the time.
Still not seeing the part with "I don't agree with this"
Maybe you should try reading people's posts?

Scroll up - it's right there - do you see it?

Maybe you could try pointing it out?
Which line of your post with your list is your "I don't agree with this"? Is it one of the numbered items 1-33? Or is it one of the 2 lines before #1? Or are you lying? Or stupid?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 8:08 AM

He's on Team Dog with me.

Me and G are in agreement that number 19 is Fake News.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:47 AM

interesting

I was wondering how it was that Mueller could conduct such an unfettered ~~inquisitio~~, ~~fishing expedit~~ investigation.

I've been trying to analogize to what I remember of Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.

It seems that the same restrictions that apply to Mueller now should have applied to Starr then, when he was ~~persecutio~~ investigating Clinton in 1994. If a good case is made now that Mueller is acting outside of his mandate, I don't know why that argument wasn't made then about Starr. (I'm not a fan of Clinton as more and more of his actions have borne fruit. I make the comparison because I'm confused by the discrepancy.)

Quote:
WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
interesting

I was wondering how it was that Mueller could conduct such an unfettered ~~inquisitio~~, ~~fishing expedit~~ investigation.

I've been trying to analogize to what I remember of Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.

It seems that the same restrictions that apply to Mueller now should have applied to Starr then, when he was ~~persecutio~~ investigating Clinton in 1994. If a good case is made now that Mueller is acting outside of his mandate, I don't know why that argument wasn't made then about Starr. (I'm not a fan of Clinton as more and more of his actions have borne fruit. I make the comparison because I'm confused by the discrepancy.)
Quote:
WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.
If you have a subscription to WSJ you can read it there.

Originally posted at

WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
https://www.zerohedge.com/new

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 2:06 PM

OK. THANKS.

That helps make sense of it. Not that your explanation was bad, but the situation seems convoluted.

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.
Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningly beautiful.
23- a traitor is still a traitor, and a lair is still a liar.
24- taco night is always awesome
23- I taught my nephew to say batsh*t, and I'm not sorry.
24- my tweeps are the best tweeps
25- my neighbors are the best neighbors because
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
27- Guinness > other beer > whatever is left at the bottom of the fermentation barrel for Worcestershire sauce > IPA
28- pie is best for breakfast.
29- still waiting for the coffee robot.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
31- the Fitzgerald translation of the Odyssey will always be better than Fagles.
32- John Berman is the most underrated CNN anchor.
33- storytelling is important; people aren't as good at it as they think a lot of the time.
Still not seeing the part with "I don't agree with this"
Maybe you should try reading people's posts?

Scroll up - it's right there - do you see it?
Maybe you could try pointing it out?
Which line of your post with your list is your "I don't agree with this"? Is it one of the numbered items 1-33? Or is it one of the 2 lines before #1? Or are you lying? Or stupid?

Are you really so needy that you don't know how to search a web page for matching text? Trouble is, you have the quote wrong (naturally) - your attention to detail is a problem.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.
Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningly beautiful.
23- a traitor is still a traitor, and a lair is still a liar.
24- taco night is always awesome
23- I taught my nephew to say batsh*t, and I'm not sorry.
24- my tweeps are the best tweeps
25- my neighbors are the best neighbors because
26- Jupiter is amazing. We should be in space.
27- Guinness > other beer > whatever is left at the bottom of the fermentation barrel for Worcestershire sauce > IPA
28- pie is best for breakfast.
29- still waiting for the coffee robot.
30- I don't think any elected official has ever understood, or properly explained, the real issue w/ what happened in Benghazi.
31- the Fitzgerald translation of the Odyssey will always be better than Fagles.
32- John Berman is the most underrated CNN anchor.
33- storytelling is important; people aren't as good at it as they think a lot of the time.
Still not seeing the part with "I don't agree with this"
Maybe you should try reading people's posts?

Scroll up - it's right there - do you see it?
Maybe you could try pointing it out?
Which line of your post with your list is your "I don't agree with this"? Is it one of the numbered items 1-33? Or is it one of the 2 lines before #1? Or are you lying? Or stupid?
Are you really so needy that you don't know how to search a web page for matching text? Trouble is, you have the quote wrong (naturally) - your attention

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used the comparison text "I don't agree with" and confirmed it was not in your post with the twit repost.
Some of us can read quite easily, that list was not an opus. I already pulled your full post, all 33 items in the list, and ran a text comparison - was not there.
Searching the world interwebs for somebody who said those words on some site on some day or hour is an example of your ADHD and your failed attention to detail.
They have meds for that - or did you just forget to take them?

Your post of 1725 ET on 12 May does not include any disclaimer, let alone those words.

Did you read my post where I said: "Trouble is, you have the quote wrong." You can search for that too. If you are searching for the wrong text (not my fault) you obviously won't find the right one.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used the comparison text "I don't agree with" and confirmed it was not in your post with the twit repost.
Some of us can read quite easily, that list was not an opus. I already pulled your full post, all 33 items in the list, and ran a text comparison - was not there.
Searching the world interwebs for somebody who said those words on some site on some day or hour is an example of your ADHD and your failed attention to detail.
They have meds for that - or did you just forget to take them?

Your post of 1725 ET on 12 May does not include any disclaimer, let alone those words.
Did you read my post where I said: "Trouble is, you have the quote wrong." You can search for that too.

Those words are also not present in your post where you reposted the twit. To help you emerge from your fog, I even pointed out the day and time of your post.

At this point, it sounds like you are admitting that you lied.

And that kiki was accurate to point out your hypocrisy.
And that Siggy was accurate to point out that you were posting more Fake News and lies from Twitter.

Glad that is all settled, now that you have admitted that you lied.

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used the comparison text "I don't agree with" and confirmed it was not in your post with the twit repost.
Some of us can read quite easily, that list was not an opus. I already pulled your full post, all 33 items in the list, and ran a text comparison - was not there.
Searching the world interwebs for somebody who said those words on some site on some day or hour is an example of your ADHD and your failed attention to detail.
They have meds for that - or did you just forget to take them?

Your post of 1725 ET on 12 May does not include any disclaimer, let alone those words.
Did you read my post where I said: "Trouble is, you have the quote wrong." You can search for that too.
Those words are also not present in your post where you reposted the twit. To help you emerge from your fog, I even pointed out the day and time of your post.

At this point, it sounds like you are admitting that you lied.

And that kiki was accurate to point out your hypocrisy.
And that Siggy was accurate to point out that you were posting more Fake News and lies from Twitter.

Glad that is all settled, now that you have admitted that you lied.

Did you search for those exact words?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used the comparison text "I don't agree with" and confirmed it was not in your post with the twit repost.
Some of us can read quite easily, that list was not an opus. I already pulled your full post, all 33 items in the list, and ran a text comparison - was not there.
Searching the world interwebs for somebody who said those words on some site on some day or hour is an example of your ADHD and your failed attention to detail.
They have meds for that - or did you just forget to take them?

Your post of 1725 ET on 12 May does not include any disclaimer, let alone those words.
Did you read my post where I said: "Trouble is, you have the quote wrong." You can search for that too.
Those words are also not present in your post where you reposted the twit. To help you emerge from your fog, I even pointed out the day and time of your post.

At this point, it sounds like you are admitting that you lied.

And that kiki was accurate to point out your hypocrisy.
And that Siggy was accurate to point out that you were posting more Fake News and lies from Twitter.

Glad that is all settled, now that you have admitted that you lied.

Did you search for those exact words?

Yep. So you are still admitting that you lied? Good that we wrapped this up.

OR, you could point out in thoe following collection of words of your post where you said that, you could highlight them with color or bold:

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.
Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunningl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used the comparison text "I don't agree with" and confirmed it was not in your post with the twit repost.
Some of us can read quite easily, that list was not an opus. I already pulled your full post, all 33 items in the list, and ran a text comparison - was not there.
Searching the world interwebs for somebody who said those words on some site on some day or hour is an example of your ADHD and your failed attention to detail.
They have meds for that - or did you just forget to take them?

Your post of 1725 ET on 12 May does not include any disclaimer, let alone those words.
Did you read my post where I said: "Trouble is, you have the quote wrong." You can search for that too.
Those words are also not present in your post where you reposted the twit. To help you emerge from your fog, I even pointed out the day and time of your post.

At this point, it sounds like you are admitting that you lied.

And that kiki was accurate to point out your hypocrisy.
And that Siggy was accurate to point out that you were posting more Fake News and lies from Twitter.

Glad that is all settled, now that you have admitted that you lied.

Did you search for those exact words?
Yep.

In this thread? With which quote - the wrong one of the right one? Try again - they're there.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used the comparison text "I don't agree with" and confirmed it was not in your post with the twit repost.
Some of us can read quite easily, that list was not an opus. I already pulled your full post, all 33 items in the list, and ran a text comparison - was not there.
Searching the world interwebs for somebody who said those words on some site on some day or hour is an example of your ADHD and your failed attention to detail.
They have meds for that - or did you just forget to take them?

Your post of 1725 ET on 12 May does not include any disclaimer, let alone those words.
Did you read my post where I said: "Trouble is, you have the quote wrong." You can search for that too.
Those words are also not present in your post where you reposted the twit. To help you emerge from your fog, I even pointed out the day and time of your post.

At this point, it sounds like you are admitting that you lied.

And that kiki was accurate to point out your hypocrisy.
And that Siggy was accurate to point out that you were posting more Fake News and lies from Twitter.

Glad that is all settled, now that you have admitted that you lied.

Did you search for those exact words?

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:I see sig is still posting fake news from zerohedge.
Hey T, an amusing tweet post from a user I like to follow.

Let's be clear about some stuff, because, 2018:

1- Assange is not a hero.
2- Snowden is not a whistleblower.
3- Wikileaks does not care about the freedom of information unless Russian intelligence wants it to be free.
4- stop reading zerohedge, people. For the love of God. /1
5- understand what the narrative purpose of certain journalistic outlets is. Who is the enemy they define. What is the system of rules they respect. Or not. What does it want you to believe.
6- money from the Kremlin or Putin's cronies always -- ALWAYS -- comes with strings.
7- Vekselberg was not "trying to get back into Putin's good graces." Vekselberg has spent significant treasure to enhance Russian soft power, and he is critical to tech investments that have given the Kremlin new capabilities.
8- MULL-er. Not MEWL-er.
9- it is, in fact, a really big deal not to register as a foreign agent when you are a foreign agent. Think about what that means.
10- the "reset" was a cascading disaster that continues to ripple outward, and anyone denying that it gave Putin an open battlefield that helped his acquire capabilities and positioning to attack the United States is delusional. Reminder: before Crimea was Georgia.
11- Irish whiskey > rye > Swedish/Icelandic/Japanese > bourbon > Jack > Scotch. Yeah I said it.
12- Chacha isn't Georgian cognac; it's Georgian tequila. Watch out.
13- any hour of the day, bubbly is appropriate.
14- front porch drinking > back porch drinking
15- cholula isn't hot sauce.
16- you should know what parov stelar means.
17- people who can't laugh at themselves = useless.
18- there still isn't any clean money from the Kremlin. No self-PR can fix that.
19- cats > dogs
20- gin smells like sin the next day; whiskey, magic
21- a small almost-empty whiskey bottle is sad; a large almost-empty whiskey bottle is impressive and concerning at the same time.
22- tough on Putin does not mean congratulating him on being president for the 4th time -- twice.
22- whatever that little square cap/flap sleeve is that everyone is wearing on TV this season looks bad on all women, even the stunnin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:38 AM

I wouldn't say G posted lies from twitter. He just posted a very long opinion list from somebody that has some humor mixed in with a lot of stuff I don't happen to agree with. It's just somebody expressing their misguided opinions online (IMAGINE THAT!!!).

I'm thinking that this person has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol as well, because a large part of the non-political items have to do with drinking.

I dunno man. Just saying that this is not something to lose your head over is all, JSF.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't say G posted lies from twitter.

Correct, you did not say the obvious. But kiki and Siggy did already point out his lies.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't say G posted lies from twitter.
Correct, you did not say the obvious. But kiki and Siggy did already point out his lies.

I'm making no observation about his overall character or posting history.

I'm saying that calling him a liar for sharing this post here, or for calling this person who tweeted this post a liar is inaccurate and it makes you come off as petty.

This was likely a tweet from a self-important, possibly alcoholic cat-lady that mixed her own political views with her own non-political opinions and some random humor. I'm sure the non-humorous parts of this post were things she actually believes, so she isn't lying either. In the case of the Snowden comment for example, the worst that could be said is that she's spreading disinformation that she actually believes, but she's talking to her own echo chamber anyhow so who cares?

This person is a threat to no-one. Chill man.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:46 AM

Also, I happen to agree with her that people should stop reading zerohedge. But I bet she reads Vox and Motherjones and watches Buzzfeed videos too, so she should stop doing that as well since nobody should pay that fake news any mind either.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Also, I happen to agree with her that people should stop reading zerohedge. But I bet she reads Vox and Motherjones and watches Buzzfeed videos too, so she should stop doing that as well since nobody should pay that fake news any mind either.

Oh, I get "fake news" from all sides! I read Zerohedge every day. I listen to NPR every day, because I have a radio in the kitchen and listen while I work. I listen to "Dave" of X22 almost every day. As the need arises, I might pop in to RT to see what the Russian government thinks we "need to know". Also check out Reuters, The Hill, and just way too many sources as topics arise. Even better, I know people who are waaay smarter than I am. Hubby, who know about weapons, computers, physics, economics, construction, woodworking, and motorcycle mechanics (and more). A Canadian friend who lived in Egypt AND Israel, Japan AND Nicaragua, who used to be a reporter, knows political economic history and who has contacts all over the world. A Canadian human rights lawyer and philosopher. A chemist who knows biology, chemistry, and medicine inside and out.

I myself... not so smart. But I have the benefit of knowing really smart people.

But here's the thing: GSTRING is simply trying the "derail" the topic with "humor". Yanno, like people posting cat videos in the middle of a discussion. Because the topic - that the FBI MIGHT HAVE engaged in entrapment or worse, like their old "COINTELPRO" programs, but with better technology - makes him uncomfortable.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't say G posted lies from twitter.
Correct, you did not say the obvious. But kiki and Siggy did already point out his lies.

What lies were those?

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

But here's the thing: GSTRING is simply trying the "derail" the topic with "humor". Yanno, like people posting cat videos in the middle of a discussion. Because the topic - that the FBI MIGHT HAVE engaged in entrapment or worse, like their old "COINTELPRO" programs, but with better technology - makes him uncomfortable.

You're right (if with incredibly transparent false modesty) you're not very smart. I posted that because the thread was slowing down and I was bored and most importantly: it had some humor which this dull as dirt forum sorely lacks.

Please, do continue with the *riveting*, obviously slanted what-if story of the suspicion of a mole in The Trump Campaign. I will expect 10 more posts from you since you say this is such an important, and vital thread that I dared to hijack with one post that you could have easily ignored.

If you must blame someone for "hijacking" your precious thread, make it JSF for his continued inability to find even the haystack.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:31 PM

Well I would say that if G's intention was to distract from and/or derail the thread than he succeeded 120%.

Best thing you guys and gals could do with that is to make a stupid joke about it like I did or just ignore it entirely. Instead, there's probably more posts regarding that tweet in this thread than the original topic now.

You may have noticed in the General discussion part of the site. I'm done taking Wishy's bait too. She's just going to argue about the same BS as always, with the same incorrect info she always has laced with her absolute hatred for anything white that has a penis. So I'm just going to point and laugh at her in the future when she does it.

I wouldn't have even posted in the thread, but she happened to bring my name up in a thread in a part of this site that I never even venture into, so I thought, why not make a few jokes at her expense since she obviously missed me.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well I would say that if G's intention was to distract from and/or derail the thread than he succeeded 120%.

I literally told you what the reason was - you don't even have think, just read it. I guess I was asking too much from this crowd.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well I would say that if G's intention was to distract from and/or derail the thread than he succeeded 120%.

I literally told you what the reason was - you don't even have think, just read it. I guess I was asking too much from this crowd.

I was being sarcastic about that one, bub.

I'm the only idiot over here defending you. Get over your team-think mentality.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I was being sarcastic about that one, bub.

I'm the only idiot over here defending you. Get over your team-think mentality.

Really? You might want to add a sarcasm tag then 'cuz that sh*t is invisible.

Team- think? That's a new one - sounds very SJW-ish.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I was being sarcastic about that one, bub.

I'm the only idiot over here defending you. Get over your team-think mentality.

Really? You might want to add a sarcasm tag then 'cuz that sh*t is invisible.

Team- think? That's a new one - sounds very SJW-ish.

It's called context.

Read my previous posts about the issue.

HERE.

I'll make it easy for you.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't say G posted lies from twitter.
Correct, you did not say the obvious. But kiki and Siggy did already point out his lies.

I'm making no observation about his overall character or posting history.

I'm saying that calling him a liar for sharing this post here, or for calling this person who tweeted this post a liar is inaccurate and it makes you come off as petty.

This was likely a tweet from a self-important, possibly alcoholic cat-lady that mixed her own political views with her own non-political opinions and some random humor. I'm sure the non-humorous parts of this post were things she actually believes, so she isn't lying either. In the case of the Snowden comment for example, the worst that could be said is that she's spreading disinformation that she actually believes, but she's talking to her own echo chamber anyhow so who cares?

This person is a threat to no-one. Chill man.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 17, 2018 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

It's called context.

Read my previous posts about the issue.

I did - so was this also a joke?
"This was likely a tweet from a self-important, possibly alcoholic cat-lady..." seems like you meant both of them equally.

Who cares.

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 17, 2018 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wouldn't say G posted lies from twitter.
Correct, you did not say the obvious. But kiki and Siggy did already point out his lies.

What lies were those?

JSF? Still trying to find one?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, May 17, 2018 7:48 AM

Allright. Whatever dude.

Go ahead and pile on him guys and gals if you feel like it. He's not lying here, but he's a moron not worth my time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Allright. Whatever dude.

Go ahead and pile on him guys and gals if you feel like it. He's not lying here, but he's a moron not worth my time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Just because we're not feeding the troll does not mean you need to proclaim he's not lying. You pretending a liar is not a liar only makes you a liar.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Allright. Whatever dude.

Go ahead and pile on him guys and gals if you feel like it. He's not lying here, but he's a moron not worth my time.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Just because we're not feeding the troll does not mean you need to proclaim he's not lying. You pretending a liar is not a liar only makes you a liar.

Seriously man. Why do you need to keep digging at this?

I already said that I'm not defending G's character overall. I'm talking about the stupid tweet that seemed to have taken over this thread.

I'm just telling you that you're being petty here, and that by G posting what somebody put on Twitter is not lying, even though you keep saying that it is.

Say it all you want, but that won't make it true.

Opinions are a lot more subjective than the Truth is. Somebody speaking their opinions does not equate to lying just because you don't agree with them. Stop calling people you don't agree with liars. That's no better than Wishy calling you and I Nazis when she doesn't have an argument.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, May 18, 2018 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
interesting

I was wondering how it was that Mueller could conduct such an unfettered ~~inquisitio~~, ~~fishing expedit~~ investigation.

I've been trying to analogize to what I remember of Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.

It seems that the same restrictions that apply to Mueller now should have applied to Starr then, when he was ~~persecutio~~ investigating Clinton in 1994. If a good case is made now that Mueller is acting outside of his mandate, I don't know why that argument wasn't made then about Starr. (I'm not a fan of Clinton as more and more of his actions have borne fruit. I make the comparison because I'm confused by the discrepancy.)
Quote:
WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.
If you have a subscription to WSJ you can read it there.

Originally posted at

WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, May 18, 2018 11:25 PM

Apparently one of the 2 moles was Joseph Mifsud.
The other is a Dual Citizen from Oxford.

And either Brennan or Clapper went on TV last night and bragged about what a good job he did putting his mole in the Trump camp.

Friday, May 18, 2018 11:36 PM

T And yeah, there never was an FBI mule placed into Trumps campaign. Only Russian spys', lots of them.

JEWELSTAITEFAN
Saturday, May 19, 2018 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
interesting

I was wondering how it was that Mueller could conduct such an unfettered ~~inquisitio~~, ~~fishing expedit~~ investigation.

I've been trying to analogize to what I remember of Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.

It seems that the same restrictions that apply to Mueller now should have applied to Starr then, when he was ~~persecutio~~ investigating Clinton in 1994. If a good case is made now that Mueller is acting outside of his mandate, I don't know why that argument wasn't made then about Starr. (I'm not a fan of Clinton as more and more of his actions have borne fruit. I make the comparison because I'm confused by the discrepancy.)
Quote:
WSJ: "Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line"
Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is . . . anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including—as in Mr. Manafort’s case—ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss—as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

The Framers struggled long and hard over the Appointments Clause. For better or worse, they arrived at the process of presidential nomination with senatorial consent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel should confirm the analysis set forth above in a legal opinion to guide Mr. Rosenstein in the exercise of his duties. Judge Ellis should dismiss the indictment against Mr. Manafort on Appointments Clause grounds. All other defendants Mr. Mueller charges, and witnesses he subpoenas, should challenge the constitutionality of his actions on Appointments Clause grounds.
If you have a subscription to WSJ you can read it there.

Originally posted at

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM
Saturday, May 19, 2018 5:09 AM

Quote:
When historians of the future finish their meal of rat à la moutarde at the campfire, and pass around the battered plastic jug of wild raisin wine, they will kick back and hear the griot sing of John Brennan, the fabled chief of an ancient order called the CIA, and how he started the monkey business aimed at bringing down the wicked Golden Golem of Greatness, chief of chiefs in the land once known as America. Alas, the hero’s journey of Brennan, ends in a jail cell at the storied Allenwood Federal Penitentiary, where he slowly pined away between games of ping-pong and knock-hockey, dreaming of a cable network retirement package that never was….

One gets the feeling more and more that Mr. Brennan is at the center of this ever-mushrooming matrix of scandals around the 2016 election. “Bigger Than Watergate?” the headline in today’s New York Times asks? The mendacity of this once-proud newspaper is really something to behold. Take the following paragraph, for instance:

“Depending on what is eventually proven, the core scandal could rival Watergate, in which a “third-rate burglary” of Democratic National Committee headquarters ultimately revealed a wide-ranging campaign of political sabotage and spying to influence the 1972 presidential election and undercut perceived rivals. In the current case, a hostile foreign power sought to sway the 2016 election and there is evidence that at least some people in Mr. Trump’s circle were willing to collaborate with it to do so.”

You have to really wonder how the Times editors overlooked the other relevant details in the current case pertaining to goings-on initiated by Mr. Brennan and involving obviously criminal misbehavior among the US Intelligence services, and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in their effort to un-do the election that put the Trump creature in the White House instead of the enchantress known as Hillary. I did like the trope “a hostile foreign power.” Apparently they were too embarrassed to just say “Russia,” since by now it has become the most threadbare hobgoblin in all of US political history.

Rumors are flying that the long-awaited (so long it is nearly forgotten) Department of Justice Inspector General’s report contains a rather severe interpretation of what actually has been going on for the last couple of years in this farrago of charge and countercharge that the legacy news media has been doing its best to garble and deflect — namely, that the highest officers of the government conspired to tamper with the 2016 election. The latest twist is news — actually reported by the Times Thursday — that the FBI placed a “mole” inside the Trump campaign. If the mole discovered anything, then it is the only morsel of information that hasn’t been leaked in two years, which leads the casual observer to infer that the mole found really nothing.

On the other hand, a great deal is already known about the misdeeds surrounding Hillary and her supporters, including Mr. Obama and his inner circle, and some of those incriminating particulars have been officially certified — for example, the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on recommendations of the Agency’s own ethics committee, with overtones of criminal culpability. There is also little ambiguity left about the origin of the infamous Steele Dossier. It’s an established fact that it was bought-and-paid-for by the Democratic National Committee, which is to say the Hillary campaign, and that many of the dramatis personae involved lied about it under oath. Many other suspicious loose ends remain to be tied. Those not driven insane by Trumpophobia are probably unsatisfied with the story of what Attorney General Loretta Lynch was doing, exactly, with former President Bill Clinton during that Phoenix airport tête-à-tête a few days before FBI Director Jim Comey exonerated Mr. Clinton’s wife in the email server “matter.”

One can see where this tangled tale is tending: to the sacred chamber known as the grand jury. Probably several grand juries. That will lead

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN
Saturday, May 19, 2018 5:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
When historians of the future finish their meal of rat à la moutarde at the campfire, and pass around the battered plastic jug of wild raisin wine, they will kick back and hear the griot sing of John Brennan, the fabled chief of an ancient order called the CIA, and how he started the monkey business aimed at bringing down the wicked Golden Golem of Greatness, chief of chiefs in the land once known as America. Alas, the hero’s journey of Brennan, ends in a jail cell at the storied Allenwood Federal Penitentiary, where he slowly pined away between games of ping-pong and knock-hockey, dreaming of a cable network retirement package that never was….

One gets the feeling more and more that Mr. Brennan is at the center of this ever-mushrooming matrix of scandals around the 2016 election. “Bigger Than Watergate?” the headline in today’s New York Times asks? The mendacity of this once-proud newspaper is really something to behold. Take the following paragraph, for instance:

“Depending on what is eventually proven, the core scandal could rival Watergate, in which a “third-rate burglary” of Democratic National Committee headquarters ultimately revealed a wide-ranging campaign of political sabotage and spying to influence the 1972 presidential election and undercut perceived rivals. In the current case, a hostile foreign power sought to sway the 2016 election and there is evidence that at least some people in Mr. Trump’s circle were willing to collaborate with it to do so.”

You have to really wonder how the Times editors overlooked the other relevant details in the current case pertaining to goings-on initiated by Mr. Brennan and involving obviously criminal misbehavior among the US Intelligence services, and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in their effort to un-do the election that put the Trump creature in the White House instead of the enchantress known as Hillary. I did like the trope “a hostile foreign power.” Apparently they were too embarrassed to just say “Russia,” since by now it has become the most threadbare hobgoblin in all of US political history.

Rumors are flying that the long-awaited (so long it is nearly forgotten) Department of Justice Inspector General’s report contains a rather severe interpretation of what actually has been going on for the last couple of years in this farrago of charge and countercharge that the legacy news media has been doing its best to garble and deflect — namely, that the highest officers of the government conspired to tamper with the 2016 election. The latest twist is news — actually reported by the Times Thursday — that the FBI placed a “mole” inside the Trump campaign. If the mole discovered anything, then it is the only morsel of information that hasn’t been leaked in two years, which leads the casual observer to infer that the mole found really nothing.

On the other hand, a great deal is already known about the misdeeds surrounding Hillary and her supporters, including Mr. Obama and his inner circle, and some of those incriminating particulars have been officially certified — for example, the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on recommendations of the Agency’s own ethics committee, with overtones of criminal culpability. There is also little ambiguity left about the origin of the infamous Steele Dossier. It’s an established fact that it was bought-and-paid-for by the Democratic National Committee, which is to say the Hillary campaign, and that many of the dramatis personae involved lied about it under oath. Many other suspicious loose ends remain to be tied. Those not driven insane by Trumpophobia are probably unsatisfied with the story of what Attorney General Loretta Lynch was doing, exactly, with former President Bill Clinton during that Phoenix airport tête-à-tête a few days before FBI Director Jim Comey exonerated Mr. Clinton’s wife in the email server “matter.”

One can see where this tangled tale is tending: to the sacred chamber known as the grand jury. Probab

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN
Saturday, May 19, 2018 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And either Brennan or Clapper went on TV last night and bragged about what a good job he did putting his mole in the Trump camp.
It was Clapper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JJ
Saturday, May 19, 2018 10:46 PM

The so called mole is a professor from England and he had nothing to do with the campaign. He was someone who had contact with some on Trumps campaign. He became concerned with what he was witnessing so he contacted the FBI. He was technically an informant not an FBI mole.

Now, explain how that is wrong or nefarious, and why you guys never get anything right. What is it that's in your DNA that drives you to believe and spread lies? Or is it that you are just that stupid.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, once again, sig and zerohedge are behind yet another fake news propaganda thead.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN
Sunday, May 20, 2018 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
The so called mole is a professor from England and he had nothing to do with the campaign. He was someone who had contact with some on Trumps campaign. He became concerned with what he was witnessing so he contacted the FBI. He was technically an informant not an FBI mole.

Now, explain how that is wrong or nefarious, and why you guys never get anything right. What is it that's in your DNA that drives you to believe and spread lies? Or is it that you are just that stupid.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, once again, sig and zerohedge are behind yet another fake news propaganda thead.

T
Fake News? So now you are saying that your hero Clap Clap Clap Clapper is lying? And lying to CNN?
You need to straighten out your lies - even you can't keep track of which lie you are telling from one moment to the next.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JJ
Sunday, May 20, 2018 7:00 PM

'FBI plant' in Trump campaign was Cambridge professor, reports say

University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper has been identified as an FBI informant in Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, multiple news outlets reported Saturday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/20/fbi-plant-in-trump-campaign
-was-us-born-cambridge-professor-reports-say.html

T

Sunday, May 20, 2018 8:23 PM

F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims

WASHINGTON — President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-used-informant-to-investig
ate-russia-ties-to-campaign-not-to-spy-as-trump-claims/ar-AAxuh6r?ocid=spartanntp

T

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Sunday, May 20, 2018 8:25 PM

Wouldn't Trump's people celebrate this if they are innocent? "Great, you guys had "a mole" - so now you know we weren't up to anything bad, right?"

Nope. As always, they continue to act like the guiltiest people on the planet. Why are they so desperate to stop Mueller if they have nothing to hide?

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 20, 2018 8:33 PM

(a) First of all, what's the difference between a spy INSIDE the organization (a "mole") versus a spy OUTSIDE of the organization (someone able to entrap Trump staffers)? In the end, the "intelligence community" was spying on a political campaign for the flimsiest of reasons (see below) in what appears to be a politically motived operation.

(c) More importantly, with the "intelligence community" dogging the campaign at its earliest stages, and the combined power of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and MI6 snooping into every electronic and human aspect of the Trump campaign, why has Mueller NOT YET found the smoking gun? Seriously, you would think that with all of that, the "investigation" would have been completed a long time ago. Instead, they've been spinning their wheels and wasting taxpayer money for over a year.

Here is a good summation of the state of "evidence" so far ...

Quote:
As months turn into nearly two years and no solid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russiagate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks.

The best evidence that Russia-gate is sinking beneath the waves is the way those pushing the pseudo-scandal are now busily covering their tracks. ...

It’s Nobody’s Fault
The result is a late-breaking media chorus to the effect that it’s not the fault of the FBI that the investigation has dragged on with so little to show for it; it’s not the fault of Mueller either, and, most of all, it’s not the fault of the corporate press, even though it’s done little over the last two years than scream about Russia. It’s not anyone’s fault, evidently, but simply how the system works.

This is nonsense, and the gaping holes in the Times article show why.
The piece, written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos and entitled “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is pretty much like everything else the Times has written on the subject, i.e. biased, misleading, and incomplete. Its main argument is that the FBI had no option but to step in because four Trump campaign aides had “obvious or suspected Russian ties.”

Flynn: With Stein at ‘The Dinner’ ‘At Putin’s Arm’
One was Michael Flynn, who would briefly serve as Donald Trump’s national security adviser and who, according to the Times, “was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.”

Another was Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign chairman and was a source of concern because he had “lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.”

A third was Carter Page, a Trump foreign-policy adviser who “was well known to the FBI” because “[h]e had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.”

The fourth was George Papadopoulos, a “young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton.”

Seems incriminating, eh? But in each case the connection was more tenuous than the Times lets on. Flynn, for example, didn’t dine “at the arm of the Russian president” at a now-famous December 2015 Moscow banquet honoring the Russian media outlet RT. He was merely at a table at which Putin happened to sit down for “maybe five minutes, maybe twenty, tops,” according to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein who was just a few chairs away. No words were exchanged, Stein says, and “[n]obody introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English spoke English.”

The Manafort associate with the supposed Russian intelligence links turns out to be a Russian-Ukrainian translator named Konstantin Kil

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
(a) First of all, what's the difference between a spy INSIDE the organization (a "mole") versus a spy OUTSIDE of the organization (someone able to entrap Trump staffers)? In the end, the "intelligence community" was spying on a political campaign for the flimsiest of reasons (see below) in what appears to be a politically motived operation.

(c) More importantly, with the "intelligence community" dogging the campaign at its earliest stages, and the combined power of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and MI6 snooping into every electronic and human aspect of the Trump campaign, why has Mueller NOT YET found the smoking gun? Seriously, you would think that with all of that, the "investigation" would have been completed a long time ago. Instead, they've been spinning their wheels and wasting taxpayer money for over a year.

Here is a good summation of the state of "evidence" so far ...

Quote:
As months turn into nearly two years and no solid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russiagate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks.

The best evidence that Russia-gate is sinking beneath the waves is the way those pushing the pseudo-scandal are now busily covering their tracks. ...

It’s Nobody’s Fault
The result is a late-breaking media chorus to the effect that it’s not the fault of the FBI that the investigation has dragged on with so little to show for it; it’s not the fault of Mueller either, and, most of all, it’s not the fault of the corporate press, even though it’s done little over the last two years than scream about Russia. It’s not anyone’s fault, evidently, but simply how the system works.

This is nonsense, and the gaping holes in the Times article show why.
The piece, written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos and entitled “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is pretty much like everything else the Times has written on the subject, i.e. biased, misleading, and incomplete. Its main argument is that the FBI had no option but to step in because four Trump campaign aides had “obvious or suspected Russian ties.”

Flynn: With Stein at ‘The Dinner’ ‘At Putin’s Arm’
One was Michael Flynn, who would briefly serve as Donald Trump’s national security adviser and who, according to the Times, “was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.”

Another was Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign chairman and was a source of concern because he had “lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.”

A third was Carter Page, a Trump foreign-policy adviser who “was well known to the FBI” because “[h]e had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.”

The fourth was George Papadopoulos, a “young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton.”

Seems incriminating, eh? But in each case the connection was more tenuous than the Times lets on. Flynn, for example, didn’t dine “at the arm of the Russian president” at a now-famous December 2015 Moscow banquet honoring the Russian media outlet RT. He was merely at a table at which Putin happened to sit down for “maybe five minutes, maybe twenty, tops,” according to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein who was just a few chairs away. No words were exchanged, Stein says, and “[n]obody introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English spoke English.”

The Manafort associate with the supposed Russian intelligence links turns out to be a Russian-U

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Wouldn't Trump's people celebrate this if they are innocent? "Great, you guys had "a mole" - so now you know we weren't up to anything bad, right?"

Nope. As always, they continue to act like the guiltiest people on the planet. Why are they so desperate to stop Mueller if they have nothing to hide?

Right on G. A mole would be someone who could testify on Trumps behalf if his campaign was free of guilt.

And sigs logic is that anybody who believes there is something nefarious going on should do nothing. That the FBI by the very nature of looking into it is somehow wrong and corrupt.

That's the way it works in Russia sig not here. And what's with these people posting 10 thousand word posts? Posts JSF loves to repost so he can give a one sentence confused response.

T

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:32 PM

Anyone who is unfairly accused ... tend to get PISSED OFF. I know because YOU have unfairly accused me of being a "Russian bot" ... libeled me, trolled me ceaselessly ... and yanno what? It pisses me off.

The way YOU would have it, anyone who is unfairly and relentlessly accused should do nothing. Just meekly submit to your incessant bullying, because any reaction at all just shows that the target is "guilty". Guilty until proven innocent. That's how it works in YOUR fascistic world, innit?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

1KIKI

Monday, May 21, 2018 12:09 AM

I asked that libel lawyer to hold off because you idiots seemed to come to your senses.

Do I need to reactivate the process with her?

Contact your lawyers for legal advice before you wade into the shit further.

Monday, May 21, 2018 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I asked that libel lawyer to hold off because you idiots seemed to come to your senses.

Do I need to reactivate the process with her?

By all means kiki. Please, please, please do. Either that or shut the fuck up about it.

T

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, May 21, 2018 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I asked that libel lawyer to hold off because you idiots seemed to come to your senses.

Do I need to reactivate the process with her?

Contact your lawyers for legal advice before you wade into the shit further.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

They never gained sense. They became perplexed about how to login, and changed names - yet again.
The forum was almost peaceful, for weeks. But they have already driven away, repelled so many eloquent users.

1KIKI

Monday, May 21, 2018 2:50 AM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ... gasp ...

... oh, TOO funny!

SIGNYM

Monday, May 21, 2018 9:00 AM

BREAKING: DoJ's Sarah Isgur Flores: The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the FISA application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence...
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/statuses/998315694755328001

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, May 21, 2018 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
BREAKING: DoJ's Sarah Isgur Flores: The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the FISA application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence...
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/statuses/998315694755328001

Oh Noes.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, May 21, 2018 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
The so called mole is a professor from England and he had nothing to do with the campaign. He was someone who had contact with some on Trumps campaign. He became concerned with what he was witnessing so he contacted the FBI. He was technically an informant not an FBI mole.

Now, explain how that is wrong or nefarious, and why you guys never get anything right. What is it that's in your DNA that drives you to believe and spread lies? Or is it that you are just that stupid.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, once again, sig and zerohedge are behind yet another fake news propaganda thead.

T
Fake News? So now you are saying that your hero Clap Clap Clap Clapper is lying? And lying to CNN?
You need to straighten out your lies - even you can't keep track of which lie you are telling from one moment to the next.

That should be the slogan of today's Democratic Party.

"Hypocrisy to the Gills! We've lost track of so many lies to all the asses we're blowing smoke up that we don't even care anymore that our lies blatantly contradict each other countless times every day. Our voting base is so fucking stupid that they won't notice it anyway."

One thing you have to hand to the GOP. At least they're a lot more focused with their own lies, so even though they lie just as much it's a lot harder to catch them in the act.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, May 21, 2018 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
The so called mole is a professor from England and he had nothing to do with the campaign. He was someone who had contact with some on Trumps campaign. He became concerned with what he was witnessing so he contacted the FBI. He was technically an informant not an FBI mole.

Now, explain how that is wrong or nefarious, and why you guys never get anything right. What is it that's in your DNA that drives you to believe and spread lies? Or is it that you are just that stupid.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, once again, sig and zerohedge are behind yet another fake news propaganda thead.

T
Fake News? So now you are saying that your hero Clap Clap Clap Clapper is lying? And lying to CNN?
You need to straighten out your lies - even you can't keep track of which lie you are telling from one moment to the next.
That should be the slogan of today's Democratic Party.

"Hypocrisy to the Gills! We've lost track of so many lies to all the asses we're blowing smoke up that we don't even care anymore that our lies blatantly contradict each other countless times every day. Our voting base is so fucking stupid that they won't notice it anyway."

Do Right, Be Right. :)

That has been the Democrat way for the past quarter century.

Friday, May 25, 2018 4:21 AM

Justice Department briefs lawmakers on Russia probe sources

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats say that a classified briefing held Thursday for top leaders about the FBI's investigation into President Trump's 2016 campaign did not offer evidence that supports the allegation that an intelligence agency placed a spy in the campaign.

"Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intel agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign," said a statement Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., read to reporters on behalf of himself, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-department-briefs-lawm
akers-on-russia-probe-sources/ar-AAxKVYl

Opps

T

Friday, May 25, 2018 4:27 AM

Top House Democrat Requests Probe Into How FBI Source's Name Was Leaked

A top congressional Democrat is urging the Justice Department and the FBI to launch a criminal investigation into how a confidential informant's name made its way into media coverage.

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/24/614200958/top-house-democrat-requests-p
robe-into-how-fbi-sources-name-was-leaked

T

Saturday, May 26, 2018 8:04 PM

Opps, another nothing burger. Opps, just another Trump lie.
T

Saturday, May 26, 2018 8:18 PM

Sunday, May 27, 2018 7:24 AM

Clapper: 'More and more' of Steele dossier proving to be true

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said more of the so-called Steele dossier's claims are proving to be true.

In an interview with Salon, Clapper said the dossier, part of which lays out alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, has been corroborated by subsequent U.S. investigations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clapper-more-and-more-of-steel
e-dossier-proving-to-be-true/ar-AAxQvGz?ocid=spartanntp

T

1KIKI

Sunday, May 27, 2018 9:29 AM

They didn't *wiretap* Trump, exactly. They merely surveilled everyone. And they didn't *plant a spy*, they merely *developed an informant* ... or three.

It's that kind of word-parsing that is making Clapper et al look bad.

I think a lot of Americans are thinking - you say po-TAH-to, I say bullshit.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, May 27, 2018 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
They didn't *wiretap* Trump, exactly. They merely surveilled everyone. And they didn't *plant a spy*, they merely *developed an informant* ... or three.

It's that kind of word-parsing that is making Clapper et al look bad.

I think a lot of Americans are thinking - you say po-TAH-to, I say bullshit.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

Are you suggesting your are not as gullible as the Trolls? Doesn't that make you a Russian, or Trumpeteer?

Sunday, May 27, 2018 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
They didn't *wiretap* Trump, exactly. They merely surveilled everyone. And they didn't *plant a spy*, they merely *developed an informant* ... or three.

It's that kind of word-parsing that is making Clapper et al look bad.

I think a lot of Americans are thinking - you say po-TAH-to, I say bullshit.

No comrade. What the FBI did was surveil the Russian operatives trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign. They also warned the campaign they we aware the Russians were trying to do so.

The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

I'll leave you with a link that shows all those whom Mueller has filed charges against and all those who plead guilty.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

T

1KIKI

Monday, May 28, 2018 4:02 AM

Quote:
The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.

Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)

Quote:
So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, May 28, 2018 5:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.
Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)
Quote:
So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

You are being unfair. You cannot expect trolls to engage in coordination of links with which lie or delusion they are expousing at the moment. It is perplexing for them to even contemplate such a concept. You will confuse their tiny little minds.

Monday, May 28, 2018 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.
Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)
Quote:
So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

They lied about their contacts with the Russians. And, my link was very relevant to the sentence before it. Try reading it next time instead of removing it from your response dummy.

Here it is again. "I'll leave you with a link that shows all those whom Mueller has filed charges against and all those who plead guilty."

T

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Monday, May 28, 2018 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.
Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)
Quote:
So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

Most salient point from your post:

"So far..."

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 29, 2018 6:16 AM

And yet, THUGGER'S link didn't even address his claim that: "The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians."

Instead his source said this: "So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign."

Not even close.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 29, 2018 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians.
Funny, your link had nothing to do with what you posted.

Here is the salient point from your link (let me reiterate - from your link)
Quote:
So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/whos-been-charged-by-muelle
r-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
You are being unfair. You cannot expect trolls to engage in coordination of links with which lie or delusion they are expousing at the moment. It is perplexing for them to even contemplate such a concept. You will confuse their tiny little minds.

Like I said.

Tuesday, May 29, 2018 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, THUGGER'S link didn't even address his claim that: "The campaign was asked to report any attempt by the Russians to influence our elections. Instead the trump capaign lied about dozens of foreign contacts all attempting to influence the campaign for personal gain, including many contacts with the Russians."

Instead his source said this: "So far, four former Trump campaign associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign."

Not even close.

And again you lie and misrepresent others posts to suggest they are confused. I made two different points stupid. I only posted a link for one of them.

Here is a link to the other point I made since you are to stupid to find one for yourself.

The FBI warned Trump that Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign team
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-warned-trump-russia-infiltrate-camp
aign-team-2017-12

T

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, June 3, 2018 4:30 AM

One of the best parts of all this Fallout is the revelation of the Obama Legacy.

The Legacy of the prior greatest Idiot President was It Depends On What The Definition Of The Word "Is" Is.
And now we know the Legacy of the Idiot Preezy is The Most Lawless Regime in American History. No doubt about that.

Sunday, June 3, 2018 8:09 AM

Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 3, 2018 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, June 3, 2018 9:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

According to obamagolfcount.com Bobo had 306 Golf Trips in 95 months. Which would average 38.5 per year. Or about 53 in the 16 months since Trump took Office. Such a big difference.

And Obama only racked up $114 Million in Taxpayer Costs for his nonstop vacations. Averaging $14.25 Million per year, or $18 Million per 15 months.

So Trump has 17 trips costing between $17 Million and $51 Million in 15 months. And Trump is saving America money by using his place to host Foreign Dignitaries and Conferences.

Since Obamanomics devalued the Dollar by about half, Obama's 15 months would equate to about $36 Million. So it looks like Trump is saving America a pile of money.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 3, 2018 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
According to obamagolfcount.com Bobo had 306 Golf Trips in 95 months. Which would average 38.5 per year. Or about 53 in the 16 months since Trump took Office. Such a big difference.

Well... I honestly don't really give a shit who's playing golf. At the end of the day, Presidents are people too and until we have a robot president we can't expect that they're not going to blow off some steam. I'd rather Trump and Obama were doing this on the golf course than with hookers and blow.

What bothers me is the waste of taxpayer dollars. What do these trips actually cost. Where is the accounting for them.

I'll stand firm that I don't feel that Trump is legally or morally obligated to provide his tax returns to the public when the IRS knows fully what is in them already, but the people have a right to know what any politician's taxpayer funded expenses are, and not just the President's.

Does anybody know of a resource where one could find this information? Even better, a resource that shows not only current expenditures but those in the past as well?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Sunday, June 3, 2018 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

First, if it's fake then the White House will prove the reporting wrong because it, as you say is something for the taxpayer to be angry about.

Secondly, "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip." As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

They are not going to report some of the details because it would be redundant and boring. Besides, look at the numbers. Think about the security, plane, guests and so on. These numbers are real.

Hey, you really what a laugh. Look up what it is costing the taxpayer to protect Trump Towers. That'll make you laugh.

T

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 3, 2018 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
Trump has spent more visiting Mar-a-Lago than Mueller has on Russia probe

The president has repeatedly attacked the Mueller probe for racking up millions of dollars in expenditures, doing so most recently this week after the Justice Department reported that the special counsel's office had spent roughly $16.7 million on expenses in just over a year of investigation.

"A.P. has just reported that the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast. No Collusion, except by the Democrats!" Trump tweeted Friday.

But that number is dwarfed by the amount required to pay for the president's numerous trips to the "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip.

As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

Trump, who has been criticized for his frequent outings to Trump properties, particularly golf courses, has invoked his own criticism of Obama's golfing trips on numerous occasions. Trump surpassed the pace of Obama's golf outings, making 56 total trips so far compared to Obama's 37 at the same point in his presidency, according to Politifact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-spent-more-visiting-
mar-a-lago-than-mueller-has-on-russia-probe/ar-AAy9vrT?ocid=spartanntp

T

Where are the citations for this research?

I want to see whatever documents and proof there is that these expenditures are on the taxpayer dime.

This is something to be angry about if it is, but I see no evidence of it in this article.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

First, if it's fake then the White House will prove the reporting wrong because it, as you say is something for the taxpayer to be angry about.

Secondly, "Winter White House," which Washington Post and Politico analyses have estimated to cost taxpayers on average between $1 million and $3 million dollars per trip." As of Dec. 26, Trump had spent 39 days at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Trump took his 17th trip to the property in April, according to Town and Country magazine.

They are not going to report some of the details because it would be redundant and boring. Besides, look at the numbers. Think about the security, plane, guests and so on. These numbers are real.

Hey, you really what a laugh. Look up what it is costing the taxpayer to protect Trump Towers. That'll make you laugh.

T

This obviously costs money. I'm not denying that.

I'm asking where the accounting is for where the money is coming from. It is possible that taxpayers aren't paying for it, though not likely.

I'm not going to just believe that the expenses are ours unless there is proof of it though.

Do Right, Be Right. :)