not impressed...Originally Posted by thethe
to be honest I don't detect epistemological contortions or any oozing of consciousness of guilt in the way the FISA report characterized the backers of the Steele report
i am more impressed by the fact that our collaborator-in-chief claimed that Rosenstein's press conference completely vindicated him...of course he also claimed that the Nunes memo completely vindicated him...i guess the matter has been settled
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
That's the only comment?
Well thank you for at least responding to that piece.
The characterization by McCarthy of what happened with respect to Papadopoulos is also laughable.
But why are we bothering with all this. Our collaborator-in-chief has told us he asked Putin several times about Russian interference and it didn't happen. Shouldn't that settle the matter?
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Can you elaborate on Papa?
I am referring to this paragraph.
What we actually learned in Papadopoulos’s plea was that his dubious Russian sources had heard that the Kremlin had the emails. There is no indication that the Kremlin in fact had the emails; the Kremlin apparently provided no emails to Papadopoulos (or anyone else in Trump’s orbit); and there is no evidence that the “Russia-linked” people to whom Papadopoulos spoke knew what they were talking about — it is at least as plausible that they were playing Papadopoulos.
But you didn't answer my question. Shouldn't the fact that our collaborator-in-chief asked Putin about the matter and is satisfied with Putin's denials be enough to settle the matter?
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Considering your question was tongue in cheek I assumed it was rhetorical.
So what is laughable about that? That is a reasonable theory along with the others that are out there. It's essentially an exercise in how you can make an unknown into anything but the unknown that the fbi used 'corroborated' another unknown claim.
I was hoping you'd take this seriously because this piece destroys Schiffs memo. I respect your analysis and was curious how much I missed. Hopefuply, you'll give this a reasonable review in the future.
My question was sincere. Shouldn't the fact that the collaborator-in-chief has obtained several denials from Putin be enough to settle the matter?
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Sure...why not....
nsacpi (02-26-2018)
In August, the Washington Post reports, Obama confronted Putin directly, accompanied only be interpreters, at a meeting of world leaders in China. A senior aide tells the Post that Obama told Putin “we knew what he was doing and [he] better stop or else”.
Putin demanded proof.
Sounds vaguely familiar.
You know the memo was a dud when it's not even on huffpo website. How embarassing
dated 2/24
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ee6416a3d47d
FFF - BB, BB, 2B, HR, 2B, HR, 1B, BB, BB, 1B, BB, BB, HR
It's not on their front page today. If it wasnt a complete dud it would still be on there
Natural Immunity Croc
In all honesty, pretty much all of the main points of the Nunes memo were addressed or discredited (whichever way you choose to view it) on the day and in the days that immediately followed its release. We learned a couple things from the Schiff memo, but a lot of what I think is probably important context is redacted (you and I have agreed this ought to all be released). There are much bigger stories out right now, such as the Trump campaign manager being indicted on several dozen charges and the Special Counsel forgoing a couple dozen more charges against the deputy campaign manager in exchange for a flip (most likely offered not solely as a way to nail down the campaign manager for good, considering he looks to have more than enough on him).
Then there's this:
"The fact that Mr. Gates was allowed to plead guilty to just two relatively lower-level charges indicated to legal experts that he must have something of value for Mr. Mueller. The presumption in Mr. Trump’s circle is that Mr. Gates may not have any incriminating information about the president but could be a dangerous witness against Mr. Manafort, who in turn could threaten Mr. Trump. Mr. Manafort participated in a meeting in June 2016 along with Donald Trump Jr., the candidate’s son, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, with a Russian lawyer on the promise of receiving incriminating information about Hillary Clinton on behalf of Russia’s government."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/u...s-mueller.html
Neither of these memos address this little nugget that's still hanging out there, and thus there's nothing about the Nunes memo, or anything else, that vindicates Trump, as much as you and others want this to go away.
Also John Kelly's supposed deadline on security clearances has passed. So what is Jared Kushner's status? Will he get preferential treatment? What's the hang-up on him being cleared?
Last edited by bravesnumberone; 02-26-2018 at 01:04 PM.
it is worth noting that Kelly announced the change in policy regarding interim security clearances a week after the Rosenstein phone call about Kushner
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Mind going over which points of the GOP memo were discredited one more time?
Please, no, I can't take another 10 part Abramson tweet.
There are some strong arguments for concluding the investigation with some haste, and that's one of them.
Hawk (02-26-2018)
I think they've been debated over numerous times on here and publicly. Even Nunes has had to backtrack on at least one assertion (that the political nature of the dossier wasn't disclosed to the court).
I don't think Hawk wants to provide any enlightening analysis and Sturg is upset over the page count on this thread.
The comments on this guy's own Twitter post destroy his argument and point out a lot of facts he conveniently left out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote