Bravo...further proof it was too long for "Hey you are a 'fag' for pointing out I'm dumb" to comprehend...
Further proof you're a faggot.
If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.
but, but.... Patriot Act, FISA courts. dflea trying to deflect from his long standing Obama/Clinton regime support now that those criminals are being exposed daily.
but, but.... Patriot Act, FISA courts. dflea trying to deflect from his long standing Obama/Clinton regime support now that those criminals are being exposed daily.
As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge. Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . . and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that. ...
Let that sink in, then think about this contrast: No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator. Jim Comey, despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele’s, including Senate confirmations to some of federal law-enforcement’s loftiest positions, would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI, the Justice Department, the president, and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability. The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable. ...
In fact, they kept telling the FISA court he was reliable even after Steele himself admitted to a British court that his dossier wasn’t at all reliable.
What’s that? Am I kidding? No. ...
Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele’s sources after months of investigation, even though Steele had lied to them, the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again, in April and June 2017, that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele’s reliability. By early 2017, however, Steele was being sued for libel in Britain, among other places, by people accused of misconduct in the dossier.
Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense. ...
I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.
I was wrong.
Way to cherry pick McCarthy from NRO. Why don’t you quote Shapiro, Williamson, French or Goldberg, all NRO columnists, on the same memos and topic? You don’t like their analysis on NRO but like McCarthy’s so you repost it?
As @YellowSnow and @dflea have posted, there’s a lot of information still to come. One obvious conclusion to be drawn as of today, however, is that you are full of shit.
Its simple...in Watergate you had Republicans that looked at what happened and said they didn't approve.
Now no matter what laws were broken and whatever happened you won't see a single Democrat look at the same thing and say it was wrong. They will defend their own until the bitter end...hell look at HondoFS, boobs and Cirrhosis of the brain as examples...
Seriously dood. If there were only one single thing with which I'd take issue with the current republican party, it would be that.
Other than McCain, and once in a while, depending on just how far off the reservation (sorry Swaye) the administration has gone, another one or two lone Rs standing in the way, this is party politics today. Please regale me with tales of Ryan and the other Hitler youth standing against the tide. Jeebus you could have picked almost any other issue.
I won't say the Ds are any better, but come on. The former party of Reagan, now the party of dim-witted tea baggers, will support anyfuckingthing that comes out the banana play book.
There is literally zero room for maneuver on this one.
PS: if anything, the left has eaten, and will eat, their own. Axe Weinstein or one of the other numerous Hollywood and other placed men who are now being called to the carpet for being too handsy in the past. Those fuckers will ruin anybody, regardless of party affiliation.
Its simple...in Watergate you had Republicans that looked at what happened and said they didn't approve.
Now no matter what laws were broken and whatever happened you won't see a single Democrat look at the same thing and say it was wrong. They will defend their own until the bitter end...hell look at HondoFS, boobs and Cirrhosis of the brain as examples...
Seriously dood. If there were only one single thing with which I'd take issue with the current republican party, it would be that.
Other than McCain, and once in a while, depending on just how far off the reservation (sorry Swaye) the administration has gone, another one or two lone Rs standing in the way, this is party politics today. Please regale me with tales of Ryan and the other Hitler youth standing against the tide. Jeebus you could have picked almost any other issue.
I won't say the Ds are any better, but come on. The former party of Reagan, now the party of dim-witted tea baggers, will support anyfuckingthing that comes out the banana play book.
There is literally zero room for maneuver on this one.
PS: if anything, the left has eaten, and will eat, their own. Axe Weinstein or one of the other numerous Hollywood and other placed men who are now being called to the carpet for being too handsy in the past. Those fuckers will ruin anybody, regardless of party affiliation.
Your confusing politics with law...politically you can bitch about both sides CYA and that's fine (not sure how that's applicable to the many Repubs that have and do disagree with Trump but whatever). But to rope the IRS into political attacks, interfering/killing investigations into painfully obvious breaches of law, and starting fake investigations because you don't like somebody is something completely different.
Its simple...in Watergate you had Republicans that looked at what happened and said they didn't approve.
Now no matter what laws were broken and whatever happened you won't see a single Democrat look at the same thing and say it was wrong. They will defend their own until the bitter end...hell look at HondoFS, boobs and Cirrhosis of the brain as examples...
Seriously dood. If there were only one single thing with which I'd take issue with the current republican party, it would be that.
Other than McCain, and once in a while, depending on just how far off the reservation (sorry Swaye) the administration has gone, another one or two lone Rs standing in the way, this is party politics today. Please regale me with tales of Ryan and the other Hitler youth standing against the tide. Jeebus you could have picked almost any other issue.
I won't say the Ds are any better, but come on. The former party of Reagan, now the party of dim-witted tea baggers, will support anyfuckingthing that comes out the banana play book.
There is literally zero room for maneuver on this one.
PS: if anything, the left has eaten, and will eat, their own. Axe Weinstein or one of the other numerous Hollywood and other placed men who are now being called to the carpet for being too handsy in the past. Those fuckers will ruin anybody, regardless of party affiliation.
Your confusing politics with law...politically you can bitch about both sides CYA and that's fine (not sure how that's applicable to the many Repubs that have and do disagree with Trump but whatever). But to rope the IRS into political attacks, interfering/killing investigations into painfully obvious breaches of law, and starting fake investigations because you don't like somebody is something completely different.
But why sweat the details...
“Your confusing politics with law... politically you can bith about both sides CYA and that’s fine..”
(Holy fuck this is so stupid even turd buffer is ashamed. Shall we continue?)
Never trumpers IRS Obvious breaches of law Fake investigations
It’s all there. Do you understand why no one takes you seriously?
Its simple...in Watergate you had Republicans that looked at what happened and said they didn't approve.
Now no matter what laws were broken and whatever happened you won't see a single Democrat look at the same thing and say it was wrong. They will defend their own until the bitter end...hell look at HondoFS, boobs and Cirrhosis of the brain as examples...
Seriously dood. If there were only one single thing with which I'd take issue with the current republican party, it would be that.
Other than McCain, and once in a while, depending on just how far off the reservation (sorry Swaye) the administration has gone, another one or two lone Rs standing in the way, this is party politics today. Please regale me with tales of Ryan and the other Hitler youth standing against the tide. Jeebus you could have picked almost any other issue.
I won't say the Ds are any better, but come on. The former party of Reagan, now the party of dim-witted tea baggers, will support anyfuckingthing that comes out the banana play book.
There is literally zero room for maneuver on this one.
PS: if anything, the left has eaten, and will eat, their own. Axe Weinstein or one of the other numerous Hollywood and other placed men who are now being called to the carpet for being too handsy in the past. Those fuckers will ruin anybody, regardless of party affiliation.
I think it's fair to say Ran Paul isn't a 'yes man' either...
As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge. Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . . and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that. ...
Let that sink in, then think about this contrast: No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator. Jim Comey, despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele’s, including Senate confirmations to some of federal law-enforcement’s loftiest positions, would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI, the Justice Department, the president, and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability. The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable. ...
In fact, they kept telling the FISA court he was reliable even after Steele himself admitted to a British court that his dossier wasn’t at all reliable.
What’s that? Am I kidding? No. ...
Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele’s sources after months of investigation, even though Steele had lied to them, the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again, in April and June 2017, that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele’s reliability. By early 2017, however, Steele was being sued for libel in Britain, among other places, by people accused of misconduct in the dossier.
Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense. ...
I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.
I was wrong.
Way to cherry pick McCarthy from NRO. Why don’t you quote Shapiro, Williamson, French or Goldberg, all NRO columnists, on the same memos and topic? You don’t like their analysis on NRO but like McCarthy’s so you repost it?
As @YellowSnow and @dflea have posted, there’s a lot of information still to come. One obvious conclusion to be drawn as of today, however, is that you are full of shit.
Or like this from Goldberg right before the memo came out? But let’s assume, again for argument’s sake, that the Obama administration knew the dossier was garbage and used it anyway to get a warrant. Let’s also assume they had no other evidence to bring to the court. That would be very bad indeed. But here’s the thing: That scenario is very unlikely. (turned out to be true) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455905/fisa-memo-fbi-releasethememo-few-thoughts
They all said the same thing McCarthy said for a year + (until the Grassley memo came out)...there is no way the FBI depended on just the fake Dossier for the FISA warrent, etc.
Or, a McCarthy said: When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.
As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge. Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . . and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that. ...
Let that sink in, then think about this contrast: No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator. Jim Comey, despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele’s, including Senate confirmations to some of federal law-enforcement’s loftiest positions, would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI, the Justice Department, the president, and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability. The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable. ...
In fact, they kept telling the FISA court he was reliable even after Steele himself admitted to a British court that his dossier wasn’t at all reliable.
What’s that? Am I kidding? No. ...
Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele’s sources after months of investigation, even though Steele had lied to them, the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again, in April and June 2017, that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele’s reliability. By early 2017, however, Steele was being sued for libel in Britain, among other places, by people accused of misconduct in the dossier.
Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense. ...
I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.
I was wrong.
Way to cherry pick McCarthy from NRO. Why don’t you quote Shapiro, Williamson, French or Goldberg, all NRO columnists, on the same memos and topic? You don’t like their analysis on NRO but like McCarthy’s so you repost it?
As @YellowSnow and @dflea have posted, there’s a lot of information still to come. One obvious conclusion to be drawn as of today, however, is that you are full of shit.
Or like this from Goldberg right before the memo came out? But let’s assume, again for argument’s sake, that the Obama administration knew the dossier was garbage and used it anyway to get a warrant. Let’s also assume they had no other evidence to bring to the court. That would be very bad indeed. But here’s the thing: That scenario is very unlikely. (turned out to be true) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455905/fisa-memo-fbi-releasethememo-few-thoughts
They all said the same thing McCarthy said for a year + (until the Grassley memo came out)...there is no way the FBI depended on just the fake Dossier for the FISA warrent, etc.
Or, a McCarthy said: When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.
I was wrong.
Keep it up lapdog...
Yes, I mean all of that, and everything else NRO published that you left out. If you were an honest or smart person you would read and post it all. You’re not.
Is this bigger than watergate? Did the evil genius HRC spy on trump? This is treason? Won’t somebody do something?
I know you feel wounded and victimized by trump’s weakness and futility (inflation, deficits, capitulation to Mexico, China Russia) but even you should do better than sledog and turdbuffer. What’s wrong?
Bravo...further proof it was too long for "Hey you are a 'fag' for pointing out I'm dumb" to comprehend...
Further proof you're a faggot.
If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.
Bravo...further proof it was too long for "Hey you are a 'fag' for pointing out I'm dumb" to comprehend...
Further proof you're a faggot.
If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.
Do you feel bad “your” looking like a fool, once again. “You’re” next post will be something someone smart might say. In Houston. Go for it!
With all the criminal activity I've read on HH that Obama and Hillary have done. I'm surprised they haven't been indicted and thrown in jail. Maybe someone should launch an investigation to get to the bottom of it.
Bravo...further proof it was too long for "Hey you are a 'fag' for pointing out I'm dumb" to comprehend...
Further proof you're a faggot.
If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.
Do you feel bad “your” looking like a fool, once again. “You’re” next post will be something someone smart might say. In Houston. Go for it!
It is always amusing when the morons "bith" back with 'I know you are but what am I'...
Bravo...further proof it was too long for "Hey you are a 'fag' for pointing out I'm dumb" to comprehend...
Further proof you're a faggot.
If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.
Do you feel bad “your” looking like a fool, once again. “You’re” next post will be something someone smart might say. In Houston. Go for it!
It is always amusing when the morons "bith" back with 'I know you are but what am I'...
You know you lost your argument when you have to resort to memes.
With all the criminal activity I've read on HH that Obama and Hillary have done. I'm surprised they haven't been indicted and thrown in jail. Maybe someone should launch an investigation to get to the bottom of it.
Someone absolutely should have gone to jail for the IRS shit. The IRS can ruin a person the best of day with the barest of oversight or due process. To have the IRS in any manner directed or energized in pursuit of political aims is unconscionable.
Bravo...further proof it was too long for "Hey you are a 'fag' for pointing out I'm dumb" to comprehend...
Further proof you're a faggot.
If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.
Comments
You must have missed the part about fucking off.
Try again, dumbfuck Republican apologist faggot.
You were a FISA court and Patriot Act fan back in the day and now you pretend only one side of the aisle is crooked enough to abuse both of them.
If you want to be a bigger faggot, Sledog might be able to help. You're already at maximum fag, though.
If you just walked around with a cock in your mouth you wouldn't have to spend so much time posting stuff that fits your narrative and ignoring anything that doesn't.
It was a cool story other than that though.
Keep sucking the cock in front of you, boy.
As @YellowSnow and @dflea have posted, there’s a lot of information still to come. One obvious conclusion to be drawn as of today, however, is that you are full of shit.
Other than McCain, and once in a while, depending on just how far off the reservation (sorry Swaye) the administration has gone, another one or two lone Rs standing in the way, this is party politics today. Please regale me with tales of Ryan and the other Hitler youth standing against the tide. Jeebus you could have picked almost any other issue.
I won't say the Ds are any better, but come on. The former party of Reagan, now the party of dim-witted tea baggers, will support anyfuckingthing that comes out the banana play book.
There is literally zero room for maneuver on this one.
PS: if anything, the left has eaten, and will eat, their own. Axe Weinstein or one of the other numerous Hollywood and other placed men who are now being called to the carpet for being too handsy in the past. Those fuckers will ruin anybody, regardless of party affiliation.
But why sweat the details...
(Holy fuck this is so stupid even turd buffer is ashamed. Shall we continue?)
Never trumpers
IRS
Obvious breaches of law
Fake investigations
It’s all there. Do you understand why no one takes you seriously?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455847/fbi-bias-trump-criticism-justified-sometimes
Or like this from Goldberg right before the memo came out?
But let’s assume, again for argument’s sake, that the Obama administration knew the dossier was garbage and used it anyway to get a warrant. Let’s also assume they had no other evidence to bring to the court. That would be very bad indeed. But here’s the thing: That scenario is very unlikely.
(turned out to be true)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455905/fisa-memo-fbi-releasethememo-few-thoughts
They all said the same thing McCarthy said for a year + (until the Grassley memo came out)...there is no way the FBI depended on just the fake Dossier for the FISA warrent, etc.
Or, a McCarthy said:
When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.
I was wrong.
Keep it up lapdog...
Is this bigger than watergate? Did the evil genius HRC spy on trump? This is treason? Won’t somebody do something?
I know you feel wounded and victimized by trump’s weakness and futility (inflation, deficits, capitulation to Mexico, China Russia) but even you should do better than sledog and turdbuffer. What’s wrong?