McCabe Draws Blank On Democrats’ Funding Of Trump Dossier, New Subpoenas Planned

Why should DJT begin appointing Liberal judges that legislate from the bench as we've seen them do time after time?

 

The Administrative State serves itself. Nothing should be more clear today. D,R it's all the same. The people are no longer The People.

 

The steele dossier is exactly what it is. A report from intell sources gathered by a highly skilled and successful intell agent. It does not accuse, it does clearly identifies which source told him what. (without actual names of course). It isn't evidence of wrong doing, its an intell report which contains enough info that professional intell operatives could ignore only by being derelict in their duty to national security. Have you even read the thing?

And yes, it does not contain any "evidence of collusion". In fact it does contain two instances of reports that trump was "offered" enticements that "he did not appear to respond to"

Ticker tape parade? That usually happens AFTER an accomplishment. It seems your disbelief is predicated on your belief that trump will be "nailed to the wall".

No, your point was to express suspicion on the fact that her interview was not taped and you used a link that clearly states that taping is required ONLY in certain types of crime.

I am not surprised you would then attempt to turn this thing around. AFter whining about note taking and my pointing it out that its SOP, you then tell me to complain to the FBI about their procedures.

Can you be any more obvious?

I was clearly referring to your screed about meuller, not about the IRS. What exactly does the IRS scandal have to do with the meuller investigation? Oh right nothing except its anecdotal "evidence" of bureaucratic partisanship which somehow proves mueller's investigation and the fbi are corrupt.

Weak deflection? YOu state that smart people don't say stupid things in response and I point out that if that's the case then we both agree that Trump isn't intelligent and you think that a weak deflection? HOw does that foot taste?

And by the way, in your indignant snit, you might consider that I also give your comments the "respect of a reply" no matter how absurd I find them. You called me nutz. That high horse of yours appears to be a legless.

What? Seems my assumption of you being white is slander? gee who knew.
As for your projection of my standards, I am not at all surprised, as it is SOP. Amazingly you do exactly what you are whinging about me doing, seemingly without a shred of awareness you are doing it

Whataboutery? An amazing false equivalency attempt.

Claiming your are not downplaying and then downplaying isn't intellectual disingenuous, is it?
Russia's active measures campaign, which extended far beyond some facebook ads and leaked emails. Yet another classic mischaracterization - I know you got a million of em.

I have always associated american nationalism with white nationalism as these clowns are the most visible and vocal. My assumption of you being one, was wrong. However, once again you leap to a conclusion based on a single example of a mistaken assumption. Seems practice has enabled you to do that with facility.

No, I have not claimed that I am willing to believe the worst or that I am choosing to invent things about you. But feel free to use fallacies to fuel your indignity.

And no, I have repeatedly and openly stated my bigotries to this community. I am bigoted against nazis, white supremacists, commies, religious fanatics of all denominations, racists of all colors. My only non ideological bigotry is against pedophiles. I can assure you my bigotries are not based on ignorance, indeed it took years for them to emerge as my knowledge base and experiences accumulated.

Care to openly declare your bigotries?

 

yeah much better to appoint conservative judges to do that.

 

Would you care to put up judges names that blocked Mr Obama's EOs?

 

What is your point? You don't think conservative judges "legislate" from the bench? Judges actively interpreting the law as per their job description with lots of people in disagreement, which is usually the reason it is in court to begin with.

Great way to characterize rulings that you don't agree with. Cry "Activist Judge".

 

So the Steele dossier, which you admit contains a bunch of unidentified sources and unverified material, serves what purpose, other than to smear and indict?
Without clear and identifiable sources it serves no good at all other than as a propaganda tool and perhaps as a way to get what left operatives wanted out of a FISA court by way of surveillance and spying.

Do you have a problem discerning the clear meaning of words? I said I was sure you and your friends are all disappointed there hasn't been a ticker tape parade for Mueller yet (since the case was considered so open and shut)
and I get this from you like I'm the one who cannot sort out elementary concepts. Geezus! Get a clue.

Right! But the point is that the FBI themselves are starting to end their reliance on field agents taking notes (you say it's common practice not to record interviews, I give you a link showing that's not the case anymore).
Once more, there is that discernment problem.

If you have a problem remembering your blustering posts about republican "fishing expeditions" that don't accomplish a "damn thing" should my thinking become fuzzy and forgetful too?
The IRS example was clearly identified more than once as an example of a republican led investigation that accomplished plenty.
I understand Ginko Beloba supplements can help with your condition.

Ahem...I didn't call you nutz. I said you had a lot of nutz complaining about something. Big difference though I guess perhaps not to a guy that seems to selectively recall
words, phrases, etc. and then grumble about them well after the fact.
Are you of a certain age where recall skills are diminishing?

Discernment problems again?
You didn't just assume I was white. You assumed I was a white nationalist! Another big difference! Like the difference between a black man and a Black Panther member.

How ironic considering all the mistakes, misunderstandings and malevolent assumptions of yours I have identified in just a few paragraphs of your text.
I'd say perhaps I'm wasting my time trying to get through to a rational person but I don't think there is any doubt about it. I am.

When I ask outraged leftists what Russia did to give Trump his victory Facebook ads in key states and leaked emails are invariably the answer.

That's a very fake and self serving excuse that's not served well by your claims that I don't want blacks (gays, transsexuals, leftists, poor people, minorities, etc. etc.etc.) to have the rights and privileges that other citizens have. And you've made that claim more than once.
I don't have to do a thing to show how transparently repugnant and loathsome your opinions are...just pull up examples of you doing it for me.

Are you SURE you aren't? Please stop and think about that some more.
I can pull up exact quotes if your memory is as dim as it appears to be.

Why don't you just do it for me, again.

 

~~~~
In that case, please name conservative activist justices that flaunt and go against the Constitution. What types of decisions have they made that would nullify the precepts of Constitutional law?

 

This is know as a goal post move.

 

Looks like a Clintonista, smells like a Clintonista..............................................

 

I asked a question, care to answer it? Just a little bit?

 

I thought it was a rhetorical one. To save time why don't you just tell us all the answer?

 

Are you familiar with intelligence gathering at all? Apparently not. Your insistence that it was the sole reason for FISA warrant is not substantiated by facts. Manafort had been under surveillance for at least couple years before trump hired him (all the best people).

But by all means continue with the false narrative because that is what trumpettes do.

Got all the clues I need from you. Perhaps you should use this as a learning experience. Smart people can actually say stupid things.

How disingenous but keep squirming. You were the one that was attempting to paint SOP from the FBI as a part of your conspiracy theory. Seems you have trouble following a train of thought.

I have no problem with admitting when I get my facts wrong as in the IRS example. OTOH, the fishing expeditions I was referring to were the countless results free investigations begun by republicans in congress. I had no issue with the first investigation into both benghazi and the emails, but by the fifth or sixth with zero result, if its not a fishing expedition by metaphorical definition I don't know what is.

Nah and by the way I've been told I have rather large nuts but their just the right size for me.

Hello!!!! I didn't assume you were a nationalist. Its pretty damn clear in post I was responding that you are a proud one. I assumed you were white, which judging from your response, you aren't.

It would appear that discernment is merely a word in the dictionary to you. you do love to project don't you.

Who knew that in your world" "identifying" is a process of misinterpretation and misrepresentation in order to make your points.

I would have to agree you are wasting your time trying to get thru to this rational person. Of course it couldn't possibly be the quality of your arguments unable to offer up any substantive facts to support your own wild arsed accusations and assumptions of guilt. Nahhhhhh, its all the fault of the other guy.

so you are unaware of the scope and scale of the russian active measures program? If so then how can you come to any rational assessment of its impact?

Wow. I did not make such claims. I can't imagine you'd lie so it seem uour inability to discern the difference between a claim and a question must be the source of such a gross misrepresenation. I questioned the credibility of your claim by asking if in fact your kind of "nationalism" included the rights of all citizens as you claimed.

If you would be so kind as to provide me with these quotes of mine I would be extremely grateful.

Oh look classic avoidance by deflection. I rarely encounter people who are honest enough or have the balls to openly admit their bigotries, and it looks like you fall into that category.

 

Judge Roy Moore.

 

HAHAHAHA.......................BLAMMMMMM!

 

You are a wonderful dancer.

 

More false characterization. How "surprising". Show me where I claimed the Steele dossier was the sole reason for an FISA warrant? Go ahead. Show me!
And while you are at it see if you can find out what the qualifying word "perhaps" means when discussing a warrant and the infamous unverified dossier.
By all means do that. Learn something.

A learning experience? A learning experience? What am I supposed to be learning from your inability to discern
simple English language sentences?
When I say you and your ilk are stunned, judging from the rhetoric about Trump and Putin's alleged collusion, that there hasn't yet been a ticker tape parade (because of the open and shut nature of the presumed crime) and YOU fail to understand, how is that MY learning problem?

A simple review: YOU claimed all interviews by the FBI
were recorded by notes. I said they weren't and included a link from the LA Times backing my absolutely correct statement.
The fact that the FBI was making the change in drug cases primarily was clearly stated in the first few paragraphs and no where did I state otherwise. So you take your error (all FBI investigations are recorded by agent's notes) and when I correct you, try to put your erroneous spin on me. How disingenuous.
There is no "conspiracy theory" when it comes to Madame Clinton's comments to FBI agents. She blatantly lied to them, as my link demonstrated, though her defender, James Comey, says he thought she was "truthful". http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-no-sworn-oath

I would agree under normal circumstances but with the politicized Obama DOJ simply turning a blind eye towards blatant errors in Benghazi, for instance, multiple hearings becomes more understandable.

I am white. I am for American sovereignty, which makes me a nationalist, I suppose to some. I am NOT a white nationalist, which takes on a whole new meaning when the two terms are put together and I don't appreciate your casual bigoted assumptions which you confirmed by your two posts in which you listed all the people you assumed I would not confer real citizenship on or care about.

A rational person does not accuse someone of pervasive bigotry without good cause.
The fact that I'm not convinced that Trump colluded with Putin is NOT good cause.

Russia and it's active measures program goes back decades and has been used in the US
over and over. It's nothing more that a disinformation and propaganda program spread by various means and it's not alleged by any
credible source I can find to have a meaningful impact on the last presidential campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

If you disagree go ahead and specifically demonstrate where Russian meddling caused people to vote for Trump.

You are literally the first person in this forum to mention active measures apart from the tampering (Facebook ads, etc.) that we all already know about as a factor in Clinton's incredible collapse and loss. Many responsible party leaders have urged the democrat party to
stop scapegoating the Russians for their loss and to acknowledge Clinton's historically inept presidential campaign.
But I urge you not to listen and to continue looking for dirty Rooskies under every rock and behind every tree.

Frankly incredible that you can deny something, at the start of a brief response, and then confirm that's exactly what you did, by the end.
You stated very clearly at least twice that you just didn't believe that I considered a litany of minorities (sexual, racial, political, etc.)
to be complete and worthy citizens due all the rights and privileges given to white conservatives.
To go back now and backtrack and deconstruct your own comments seems especially gutless and cowardly to me.

"Believe in constitutions rights for everyone except of course the rule of law applied to trump et. al. Somehow I don't believe you think constitutional freedom and rights should extend to all americans. Does your america include muslims, gays, blacks, trannies, socialists, commies, drug users, and neo nazi scum?"

Here is your rhetorical question. The preceding sentence confirms what
you state in your last sentence....that you don't believe that I want constitutional rights and protections for ALL citizens (even the ones I disagree with).

That's great sentiment of yours and it seems you can't believe I would want that because you yourself clearly don't think that people who disagree with you are worth protecting.

Your first sentence would seem to confirm that. This is what you asked for.
Enjoy it! Let it all sink in.

Everyone has prejudices. I just am not about to give someone so dishonest and underhanded help in attacking me
for mine. You twist comments like pretzels. You've already clearly stated
what you imagine mine are.

 

Interesting back and forth and certainly a massive rift in perceptions of what each of us is saying and implying.

We are both entrenched in our opinions and each believes ourselves to be "right"/

OUr own confirmation biases will not allow either of us to concede that our perspective might not be entirely correct.

You will continue to blindly defend Trump while insisting that Hillary is a criminal who should be locked up. I will continue to insist Trump is a dangerous low information impulsive fool and that hillary has paid for her sins by being rejected by voters twice and being relegated to the cheap seats. NO amount of argument or insult will change either of our minds.

Your indignant butt hurt over my assumption that you were a white nationalist is informative. Your deliberate miscomprehensions of my comments with such regularity hints at more than simply normal "processing" errors and more like tactics.

I also note that you don't deny you have bigotries, just that you wont' express them openly because they may be used against you. And you think me to be gutless coward.

Any way, you continue whining to "Lock her up" and I'll continue whining about Trump's corrupt incompetence. Ironically, in the end we may both be proven correct to some extent.

 

you aint seen my gangnam style yet.

 

It does seem like a time consuming stalemate, by and large. Of course, I believe
on points of nuance and subtle shades of right and wrong I hold the upper hand but I'm sure you think likewise.

Do I think Hillary Clinton to be an ethical and legal abomination who should pay some sort of price for her crimes? Absolutely yes.
Do I think Donald Trump is seriously flawed and under normal circumstances should never have ascended to the presidency (his take down of opponents in the republican primaries was disgraceful, I thought)? Yes.
OTOH (as an homage to you) he has done somethings, like standing up to the UN, I couldn't imagine any other person having the guts to try. So he is a real mixed bag, if ever there was one. We'll see by the end of his term how better to judge him.

Is my "deliberate miscomprehension" of the term white nationalist a tactic? Since I don't think I am deliberately misunderstanding
your term I would say no. By taking the terms white and nationalist and lumping them together you place me in the company of neo Nazis and KKK skinheads (especially in the context of defending Trump) and, of course, I object to that.

I don't think it gutless to not give my opposition any ammunition to use against me by confessing to bigotries I may harbor.
I think it's smart not to turn things in a direction where I might be constantly on the defensive and since I've already confessed
to some normal human prejudices (which even someone like Gandhi had) and you have already listed what you believe my flaws to be
the point is moot and better left for dead.

Your ending point is hopeful, which I liked, and we may both well be vindicated to some degree when everything is tolled up.
It's not inconceivable to me.

 

The question isnt if it was the sole evidence the question is would they have gotten the warrant without it.

Also your appeal to authority is logically bullshit. Saying it cant be the sole source because the FBI wouldnt do that is illogical. Thats like saying the defendant is guilty because the police wouldnt arrest and the prosecutors wouldnt charge an innocent man.

 

Well lets see.

Two russian operative discussing an AMERICAN CITIZEN as an asset. Nope not nearly enough to obtain a FISA warrant. In what world would that not constitute grounds for a warrant, especially since this is one of the situations that the FISA court was originally constituted to handle?

Your claim of appeal to authority is logical fantasy, but of course you didn't notice.

 

If you are talking about Carter Page no it wasnt. The FISA court rejected a warrant on page before the dossier. The law is clear. No warrants on American Citizens without evidence of a crime.

 

Gee, who knew you were that insecure.

Of course some people suffering from delusions of grandeur might make the same wholly unsubstantiated claim.

Keep telling yourself you are superior and getting better every day in every way. Ihear it helps.

 

No!! of course not Just how many Conservative Judges in the 9th Circuit Court have made rulings against Constitutional Laws?

Like all Libs, evasion is your coin.