• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
They requested the FISA warrant so they could spy on members of the Trump campaign. The FBI signed off on the application affirming that the information in the warrant had been verified. It wasn't. The FISA warrant was based off the allegations from the Steele dossier. The FBI signatory asserted:

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct.”

The FBI committed fraud in obtaining this warrant and should be held accountable. But police-state liberals don't care about any of this.



This statement is completely false. What in the dossier has been demonstrated to be true or is highly probable?

The Hill reports on 07/16/19:

"But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. In other words, it was mostly useless
."

But fill me in on your findings?



You obviously haven't read the dossier. The Steele dossier states specifically that there was a two-way flow of intelligence between Trump and Putin,

"Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries..."

Also the dossier never gives the impression that Trump is Putin's puppet, but that they share mutual interests. "Putin's puppet" is just Leftoid propaganda.



Note: The majority of Brits voted for Brexit. The EU is a totalitarian monstrosity. NATO should be abolished as the Cold War has been over for decades.

All of these are policy differences. Ever since Trump began his campaign, the Deep State and the Leftist establishment have attempted to criminalize policy differences. Trump might have a different perspective on world affairs than the CFR and the Atlantic Council. This is good. But the Deep State manufactured a false narrative that Trump was somehow Putin's puppet.

It is interesting to note that Obama's and Hillary Clinton's overtures to Russia were never called into question in the same way. Secretary Clinton wrote a column for the WSJ in 2012 entitled: Trade With Russia Is a Win-Win .

"..Russia will join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the culmination of a process that began nearly two decades ago. This is good news for American companies and workers...But there is one obstacle standing in the way. American businesses won't be able to take advantage of this new market opening unless Congress terminates the application of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and extends "permanent normal trading relations" (PNTR) to Russia....Now it's time to set it aside...But it is in our long-term strategic interest to collaborate with Russia in areas where our interests overlap..."

Uh oh, collaborate, that almost sounds like collude. It is a good thing Trump didn't write this. It may have been used to impeach him. But there was also Uranium One, and Bill Clinton receiving $500,000 from a Russian bank for giving a "speech". Remember Obama chastising Romney for saying that Russia is a threat in the 2012 debate?

Obama: "Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s."

This is why in Obama's 2nd term the FBI and Justice Department investigated the Obama administration for being under the thumb of Putin and conspiring with a hostile foreign power.

Oh wait, that didn't happen. Hostility to Russia was just manufactured during Trump's 2016 campaign as a pre-text spy on and then launch a coup to overthrow his Presidency under the guise of a "Russian counter-intelligence probe."


1. Really? You're going with "no puppet, you're the puppet" ?. Why am I not surprised that you would parrot your Dear Leader? Are you capable of any independent thought, or are you just going to parrot the garbage you get bombarded with in that right-wing echo-chamber in which you live?

2. You have not addessesed a single item on my list. Oh, you have come up with a few whataboutsisms, but whataboutery is not a valid response to a question.
 
The most ludicrous aspect of the conspiracy theory being foisted here is that the Dems and/or Deep State, take your pick, went to truly extraordinary, illegal efforts to damage Trump, yet they didn't bother to release an October surprise. Instead, they held it close to the vest in order to launch a witch hunt against Trump after he became POTUS.

This is a scheme that makes the underpants gnomes look like geniuses.

Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.
 
Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

Seriously?

No matter how confident, one would release an October surprise--if such skullduggery was entertained--in order to pad the odds.
 
Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.
Confident enough not to publish. Yet not so confident that they still engage in a massive, illegal conspiracy. A conspiracy so well executed that Intel was snookered and/or in on it.

Not credible.
 
Re John Solomon, The Hill's resident right-wing troll. This isn't for you tanabear, it's for everyone else.
tanabear said:
The Hill reports on 07/16/19:

"But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. In other words, it was mostly useless."

But fill me in on your findings?

I used to think The Hill was a reliable source. Now I wonder:
Daily Beast: Leaked Memo: Colleagues Unload on John Solomon, the Journo Who Kicked Off Trump’s Ukraine Conspiracy
The Trump-friendly scribe and his Biden-Ukraine conspiracies were cited multiple times in the whistleblower memo. Many of his co-workers are ashamed to be associated with him.

Beltway-centric newspaper The Hill employs a team of dozens of journalists from a variety of backgrounds. But only one has managed to alienate many of his colleagues, fuel the paranoia of Fox News viewers, and inadvertently play a key role in the whistleblower complaint and President Donald Trump’s potential impeachment.

Over the past several years, John Solomon, a long-time journalist with bylines at the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and Newsweek/The Daily Beast, has pivoted to becoming the Trumpian right’s favorite “investigative reporter.”

And now, thanks to several mentions in the whistleblower’s complaint, his work has come under intense scrutiny following the revelation that a series of his stories about Ukraine, along with his Fox News appearances promoting them, may have led to the president asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to team up with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate the Biden family.

Over the past several months, and with the benefit of substantial airtime from Fox News primetime host Sean Hannity, Solomon has peddled a series of Ukraine-based conspiracy theories and allegations that have primarily taken aim at two of Trumpworld’s biggest targets: Biden and Hillary Clinton.

So, Solomon is a CTer. The Hill used to be trustworthy. That means we need a different source to verify the Steele dossier. Fortunately, there are many.

Let's start where we agree. There's no evidence of the pee tape and the evidence is mixed about Cohen being in Prague. His phone pinged from there, his passport doesn't show it.

From The Daily Kos: Just how much is confirmed from the Christopher Steele dossier?
After doing well over 100 diaries as part of a Trump Russia Corruption Timeline I have drawn together those resources to analyze and compare Steele’s dossier with Mueller’s report and press reports which indicate that about 73 percent of his allegations have been either fully or partially confirmed — all of which is summarized at the end.

So, my sources which cite the original material, or that CT nut Solomon making assertions out of his ass?
 
Last edited:
Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

That's what that piece of **** Comey said. He had rationalizations for all his actions no doubt to ease his conscience.
 
Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

No? They were fairly confident of a win, yes, but the Russian e-mails ploy nonsense was sucking up virtually all the attention of the media, regardless.

At this point if you want to undo the consensus on this, the burden's on you. We don't need to re-prove everything to every new wide-eyed ignorant who comes along.

FTFY. Tanabear's hardly new to this. Given that it doesn't look like he cares about even acknowledging the facts which happen to show that many of his claims are total BS - repeatedly - I would be quite hesitant to call him wide-eyed or ignorant, either.
 
Last edited:
Confident enough not to publish. Yet not so confident that they still engage in a massive, illegal conspiracy. A conspiracy so well executed that Intel was snookered and/or in on it.

Not credible.
In addition, the aggregate polling data Nov 2015 through Oct 2016 shows that the lines crossed four times. Plenty of motivation to ready/aim/fire. But nope, we're asked to believe the Deep State executed a wide ranging conspiracy, involving the FBI, CIA, State Dept, Judiciary and others -- and sat on the damning information while these lines crossed, opting instead to launch a post election witch hunt.

What a joke.
 
Last edited:
FTFY. Tanabear's hardly new to this. Given that it doesn't look like he cares about even acknowledging the facts which happen to show that many of his claims are total BS - repeatedly - I would be quite hesitant to call him wide-eyed or ignorant, either.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know how much of this he's aware of.
 
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know how much of this he's aware of.
There's normal "not aware of it" and then there's "maintaining non-awareness in the face of repeatedly being given opportunity to become aware."
 
There's normal "not aware of it" and then there's "maintaining non-awareness in the face of repeatedly being given opportunity to become aware."

Today, Trump accused the whistle-blower of "making up a story". The fact that a dozen or so witnesses, some of whom were "ear" witnesses - fact witnesses on the actual call, 100% corroborates what the whistle-blower said doesn't seem to register with him at all.

The degree to which Trump and Trump's Little Helpers try to pretend that clear, obvious, cold, hard, irrefutable evidence is not evidence at all, is truly astounding.
 
Last edited:
Today, Trump accused the whistle-blower of "making up a story". The fact that a dozen or so witnesses, some of whom were "ear" witnesses - fact witnesses on the actual call, 100% corroborates what the whistle-blower said doesn't seem to register with him at all.
The degree to which Trump and Trump's Little Helpers try to pretend that clear, obvious, cold, hard, irrefutable evidence is not evidence at all, is truly astounding.
Yeah, I'm debating this one:

Is it Trump's "I'm innocent" fantasy, because that could easily result in complete denial on his part.

Or is it more of a 'tell a lie often enough' planned shiny object?
 
Trump has well established the "fact" to his followers that he's the victim of some witchhunt from the Left.

Trump's got "Tell a lie often enough" distilled down to "Tell the life once, that's enough.
 
Trump has well established the "fact" to his followers that he's the victim of some witchhunt from the Left.

Trump's got "Tell a lie often enough" distilled down to "Tell the life once, that's enough.


That hasn't seemed to stop him from repeating the same lies incessantly, even after they have been proven incontrovertibly false.

I guess he wants to hedge his bets.
 

Back
Top Bottom