As predicted, It's happening: Biden extorting Ukraine President issue blowing up

[bripat9643]

It will be ignored like many of Trump problems before getting elected.

i still don't understand why it's a problem. it's a hit piece fly by guilt by association that the right hates when done to trump but hey - bombs away when YOU can.

So basically the article is like the Steele Dossier? Got it!

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

None of it was verified. Even Comey admitted that, and he signed the application for the FISA warrant.

 

[bripat9643]

But you would agree it is bad for Biden to use his status as VP to extort the Ukraine government and get his son a job in Ukraine he isn’t qualified for?

The trouble is that no one agrees with you.

"There is no question that Biden did, during a visit to Kiev in late 2015, threaten to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was dismissed. But the vice president, who was leading the Obama administration’s effort to fight corruption in Ukraine, did the country a favor by hastening Shokin’s departure, Kaleniuk said, since he had failed to properly investigate corrupt officials.

“Shokin was fired because he attacked the reformers within the prosecutor general’s office,” Kaleniuk said, “reformers who tried to investigate corrupt prosecutors.”

A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.

“No one”

Why not just stick with facts?

I can provide plenty of examples of people that can look at the facts and agree Biden got his son a job with political leverage.

Why would you say, “No one”and completely fucking discredit yourself by lying right off the bat?

You are the liar. Those examples are as crazy as you are. Interesting you ignore the story and focus on minor things. The fact is that Ukrainians who were there disagree with you looney tunes.

Several .links were posted yesterday to reports about how Biden OPENLY BRAGGED how he threatened the Ukrainian President.

Joe is not the sharpest tool in the shed

That is not the charge. The charge is that Biden threatened to cut off said to protect his son. That is not true. Biden was the point man in a attempt to oust the prosecutor who was not going after corruption in Ukraine. Cutting off aid was a attempt to force the prosecutor out. The international community and reformers in Ukraine wanted him out. There is no evidence of any scandal and this is a ginned up controversy.

You are utterly shameless when it comes to defending Dim corruption and illegality.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

let me make sure i understand...

we are to get mad at bidens son for working with putin and others in real estate and business deals.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden? not going to chase every squirrels nut that you fling out these days so please just let me know why trumps business with putin/russia is cool but bidens is not.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts of what Biden did using his POLITICAL POSITION to ensure his sons success with regard to Ukraine.

My advice would be to inform yourself before spouting off so you look less stupid....

Up to you though

 

[iceberg]

let me make sure i understand...

we are to get mad at bidens son for working with putin and others in real estate and business deals.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden? not going to chase every squirrels nut that you fling out these days so please just let me know why trumps business with putin/russia is cool but bidens is not.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts of what Biden did using his POLITICAL POSITION to ensure his sons success with regard to Ukraine.

My advice would be to inform yourself before spouting off so you look less stupid....

Up to you though

Um, I was asking for help understanding the difference because the news story didn't go into it.

Drinking tonight?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

let me make sure i understand...

we are to get mad at bidens son for working with putin and others in real estate and business deals.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden? not going to chase every squirrels nut that you fling out these days so please just let me know why trumps business with putin/russia is cool but bidens is not.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts of what Biden did using his POLITICAL POSITION to ensure his sons success with regard to Ukraine.

My advice would be to inform yourself before spouting off so you look less stupid....

Up to you though

Um, I was asking you to help me understand the difference because the news story didn't go into it.

Drinking tonight?

Not a drop but I even knew the details of this story A MONTH AGO. You being uninformed =/= me drinking.

Dumbass

 

[iceberg]

let me make sure i understand...

we are to get mad at bidens son for working with putin and others in real estate and business deals.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden? not going to chase every squirrels nut that you fling out these days so please just let me know why trumps business with putin/russia is cool but bidens is not.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts of what Biden did using his POLITICAL POSITION to ensure his sons success with regard to Ukraine.

My advice would be to inform yourself before spouting off so you look less stupid....

Up to you though

Um, I was asking you to help me understand the difference because the news story didn't go into it.

Drinking tonight?

Not a drop but I even knew the details of this story A MONTH AGO. You being uninformed =/= me drinking.

Dumbass

No it was you being a dick.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

let me make sure i understand...

we are to get mad at bidens son for working with putin and others in real estate and business deals.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden? not going to chase every squirrels nut that you fling out these days so please just let me know why trumps business with putin/russia is cool but bidens is not.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts of what Biden did using his POLITICAL POSITION to ensure his sons success with regard to Ukraine.

My advice would be to inform yourself before spouting off so you look less stupid....

Up to you though

Um, I was asking you to help me understand the difference because the news story didn't go into it.

Drinking tonight?

Not a drop but I even knew the details of this story A MONTH AGO. You being uninformed =/= me drinking.

Dumbass

No it was you being a dick.

Hahahaha

YOU came into the topic spewing ignorant uninformed SHIT and I'm the one being a dick because I called you on it???


Hahaha get rekt son

 

[iceberg]

let me make sure i understand...

we are to get mad at bidens son for working with putin and others in real estate and business deals.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden? not going to chase every squirrels nut that you fling out these days so please just let me know why trumps business with putin/russia is cool but bidens is not.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts of what Biden did using his POLITICAL POSITION to ensure his sons success with regard to Ukraine.

My advice would be to inform yourself before spouting off so you look less stupid....

Up to you though

Um, I was asking you to help me understand the difference because the news story didn't go into it.

Drinking tonight?

Not a drop but I even knew the details of this story A MONTH AGO. You being uninformed =/= me drinking.

Dumbass

No it was you being a dick.

Hahahaha

YOU came into the topic spewing ignorant uninformed SHIT and I'm the one being a dick because I called you on it???


Hahaha get rekt son

Night gramps.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You're clearly ignorant of the facts of what Biden did using his POLITICAL POSITION to ensure his sons success with regard to Ukraine.

My advice would be to inform yourself before spouting off so you look less stupid....

Up to you though

Um, I was asking you to help me understand the difference because the news story didn't go into it.

Drinking tonight?

Not a drop but I even knew the details of this story A MONTH AGO. You being uninformed =/= me drinking.

Dumbass

No it was you being a dick.

Hahahaha

YOU came into the topic spewing ignorant uninformed SHIT and I'm the one being a dick because I called you on it???


Hahaha get rekt son

Night gramps.

Lightweight

 

[skye]

These people are crooks....they deserve jail too.

 

[skye]

and.......

don't forget their "dealings" with China......nothing was enough for them...SHAME!

 

[iceberg]

It will be ignored like many of Trump problems before getting elected.

i still don't understand why it's a problem. it's a hit piece fly by guilt by association that the right hates when done to trump but hey - bombs away when YOU can.

So basically the article is like the Steele Dossier? Got it!

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

 

[dannyboys]

That's it?

The article you posted seems truncated and anti-climatic, like the investigative journalists didn't want us to know that whole story?

"The prosecutor, who was fired after the threat, was reportedly facing criticism back then by both Ukrainians and international officials for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions. Biden’s push to oust the prosecutor may have not been influenced by the probe of the company his son was involved in."


AND?

May have? What leads us to believe it may or may not have? Has he made statements denying it was not connected to his son? What makes us believe he may have or may not have?

It seems this is not a full story? Why not Fox news? What is the corporate media hiding? What is with the spin?

the editor for that article should be fired.

no basis for a conclusion. no smoking gun to indicate anything wrong.

demonize people and then associate the subject to "demon"

say "something is wrong here".

YOU'RE A FRIGGIN JOURNALIST go find it or shut up. this is just another bullet search that easy can get into where anything that can look bad for the other side is dramatic news that needs to be spread.

like manure.

this is what "journalism" does now. tells you how to feel about things. that is so NOT a journalists role. or at least it didn't used to be but we love to redefine things these days so hell, lets all go tabloid and get impregnated by alien anal probes.

What's your problem? CNN/MSNBC/WP/NYT has been peddling their anti Trump hatred for years.
I haven't noticed YOU posting anything suggesting the radical LIB Trump hating media is habitually making assumptions based on third person anonymous 'sources'.

 

[iceberg]

That's it?

The article you posted seems truncated and anti-climatic, like the investigative journalists didn't want us to know that whole story?

"The prosecutor, who was fired after the threat, was reportedly facing criticism back then by both Ukrainians and international officials for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions. Biden’s push to oust the prosecutor may have not been influenced by the probe of the company his son was involved in."


AND?

May have? What leads us to believe it may or may not have? Has he made statements denying it was not connected to his son? What makes us believe he may have or may not have?

It seems this is not a full story? Why not Fox news? What is the corporate media hiding? What is with the spin?

the editor for that article should be fired.

no basis for a conclusion. no smoking gun to indicate anything wrong.

demonize people and then associate the subject to "demon"

say "something is wrong here".

YOU'RE A FRIGGIN JOURNALIST go find it or shut up. this is just another bullet search that easy can get into where anything that can look bad for the other side is dramatic news that needs to be spread.

like manure.

this is what "journalism" does now. tells you how to feel about things. that is so NOT a journalists role. or at least it didn't used to be but we love to redefine things these days so hell, lets all go tabloid and get impregnated by alien anal probes.

What's your problem? CNN/MSNBC/WP/NYT has been peddling their anti Trump hatred for years.
I haven't noticed YOU posting anything suggesting the radical LIB Trump hating media is habitually making assumptions based on third person anonymous 'sources'.

if you're trying in some 3rd world manner to say i don't pick on the other media outlets all i can say is

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you don't pay attention.

​

 

[Crixus]

let me make sure i understand...

we are to get mad at bidens son for working with putin and others in real estate and business deals.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden? not going to chase every squirrels nut that you fling out these days so please just let me know why trumps business with putin/russia is cool but bidens is not.

what is the difference then in trump doing business with russia vs biden?

Bwaaaaaaawwwaaaaaaa...you idiots are just too fucking funny....Lets see, President Trump...NO COLLUSION...Gropin Joe....COLLUSION....See the difference.....

Nope, since Biden wasn't running for office.

The idea is he was the Vice President, and used his position as Vice President to get the prosecutor off his sons back.

 

[Coyote]

i still don't understand why it's a problem. it's a hit piece fly by guilt by association that the right hates when done to trump but hey - bombs away when YOU can.

So basically the article is like the Steele Dossier? Got it!

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

i still don't understand why it's a problem. it's a hit piece fly by guilt by association that the right hates when done to trump but hey - bombs away when YOU can.

So basically the article is like the Steele Dossier? Got it!

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Let's look at that, if we are going to call it what it is, then let's at least be accurate (something that Mr. Gowdy isn't).

Who called it a "dossier"? Certainly not Christopher Steele who was very clear from the beginning that it was raw intelligence - not analyzed or unverified. This I might add, is the sort of stuff opposition research does. Who blew it up into something more?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.


In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate. ​

Second, for accuracy - the "dossier" was not what started the investigation nor the only evidence used to justify it - those claims seem to be an example of "he who yells loudest must be speaking the truth because he drowns out all other voices" with Fox News normalizing the lie. By magnifying the role of the dossier, they are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

When you take into account those facts - one, that Steele never claimed the "dossier" was anything but exactly what it was, and that two - it was not what initiated investigations or the sole evidence supporting surveillence - then why so much emphasis on it? My only criticism is it should never have been leaked in the first place.

 

[iceberg]

So basically the article is like the Steele Dossier? Got it!

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

So basically the article is like the Steele Dossier? Got it!

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Let's look at that, if we are going to call it what it is, then let's at least be accurate (something that Mr. Gowdy isn't).

Who called it a "dossier"? Certainly not Christopher Steele who was very clear from the beginning that it was raw intelligence - not analyzed or unverified. This I might add, is the sort of stuff opposition research does. Who blew it up into something more?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.


In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate. ​

Second, for accuracy - the "dossier" was not what started the investigation nor the only evidence used to justify it - those claims seem to be an example of "he who yells loudest must be speaking the truth because he drowns out all other voices" with Fox News normalizing the lie. By magnifying the role of the dossier, they are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

When you take into account those facts - one, that Steele never claimed the "dossier" was anything but exactly what it was, and that two - it was not what initiated investigations or the sole evidence supporting surveillence - then why so much emphasis on it? My only criticism is it should never have been leaked in the first place.

your facts.
his facts.
my facts.

everyone has facts these days. that's a fact.

facts simply are no longer facts because we continue to twist situations to fit our preference, not learn to deal with the realities around us. fact is - whatever you want to call it - was bought by the clinton campaign from an ex british spy who used foreign help to find out if trump was in fact getting - foreign help.

how they are not guilty of what they're saying trump did - well i cannot follow that logic train.

whatever you want to call it - it was not verified. i asked before and i'll ask again - simply provide me links from credible sources who say the parts used to obtain FISA warrants were in fact honest and verified and by who. the rest is just two of us in a forum guessing as best we can while being fed our info from a broken media system designed to push agendas all around, not the truth.

fyi - you can cite "fox news" to me all day long but it doesn't apply as i never watch them nor go to their page. these "fox news" assumptions really can screw up a conversation. as can any assumption i believe. it's why i prefer to find out YOUR viewpoints and how you collected them, not throw articles at each other. but i do like to "show my math" so to speak not to prove me right to as a point of reference.

 

[dannyboys]

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Let's look at that, if we are going to call it what it is, then let's at least be accurate (something that Mr. Gowdy isn't).

Who called it a "dossier"? Certainly not Christopher Steele who was very clear from the beginning that it was raw intelligence - not analyzed or unverified. This I might add, is the sort of stuff opposition research does. Who blew it up into something more?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.


In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate. ​

Second, for accuracy - the "dossier" was not what started the investigation nor the only evidence used to justify it - those claims seem to be an example of "he who yells loudest must be speaking the truth because he drowns out all other voices" with Fox News normalizing the lie. By magnifying the role of the dossier, they are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

When you take into account those facts - one, that Steele never claimed the "dossier" was anything but exactly what it was, and that two - it was not what initiated investigations or the sole evidence supporting surveillence - then why so much emphasis on it? My only criticism is it should never have been leaked in the first place.

your facts.
his facts.
my facts.

everyone has facts these days. that's a fact.

facts simply are no longer facts because we continue to twist situations to fit our preference, not learn to deal with the realities around us. fact is - whatever you want to call it - was bought by the clinton campaign from an ex british spy who used foreign help to find out if trump was in fact getting - foreign help.

how they are not guilty of what they're saying trump did - well i cannot follow that logic train.

whatever you want to call it - it was not verified. i asked before and i'll ask again - simply provide me links from credible sources who say the parts used to obtain FISA warrants were in fact honest and verified and by who. the rest is just two of us in a forum guessing as best we can while being fed our info from a broken media system designed to push agendas all around, not the truth.

The IG's report is due out in a few days.
Then we all see what treason Comey/McCabe/Lynch/McCain/Brennan/Clapper etc etc committed.
The FISA warrants WILL be released for all to see.
Lots of one way tickets to Cuba.

 

[iceberg]

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Let's look at that, if we are going to call it what it is, then let's at least be accurate (something that Mr. Gowdy isn't).

Who called it a "dossier"? Certainly not Christopher Steele who was very clear from the beginning that it was raw intelligence - not analyzed or unverified. This I might add, is the sort of stuff opposition research does. Who blew it up into something more?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.


In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate. ​

Second, for accuracy - the "dossier" was not what started the investigation nor the only evidence used to justify it - those claims seem to be an example of "he who yells loudest must be speaking the truth because he drowns out all other voices" with Fox News normalizing the lie. By magnifying the role of the dossier, they are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

When you take into account those facts - one, that Steele never claimed the "dossier" was anything but exactly what it was, and that two - it was not what initiated investigations or the sole evidence supporting surveillence - then why so much emphasis on it? My only criticism is it should never have been leaked in the first place.

your facts.
his facts.
my facts.

everyone has facts these days. that's a fact.

facts simply are no longer facts because we continue to twist situations to fit our preference, not learn to deal with the realities around us. fact is - whatever you want to call it - was bought by the clinton campaign from an ex british spy who used foreign help to find out if trump was in fact getting - foreign help.

how they are not guilty of what they're saying trump did - well i cannot follow that logic train.

whatever you want to call it - it was not verified. i asked before and i'll ask again - simply provide me links from credible sources who say the parts used to obtain FISA warrants were in fact honest and verified and by who. the rest is just two of us in a forum guessing as best we can while being fed our info from a broken media system designed to push agendas all around, not the truth.

The IG's report is due out in a few days.
Then we all see what treason Comey/McCabe/Lynch/McCain/Brennan/Clapper etc etc committed.
The FISA warrants WILL be released for all to see.

yep. and i would hope we put that to the law, not our emotions, on right or wrong.

it's a given regardless of what is said the fighting is just begun and that wears people out. fighting over what? who hates more and can prove it? nothing to win and everything to lose in that game.

 

[basquebromance]

Biden is more of a glib talker than a man of high intellect!