RussiaGate

[Tom Sawyer]

Do I have my GOP talking points confused? Was the Steele dossier (with the "pee-pee" tape) used to get any FISA warrant?

It was included in the third application for a renewal of the warrant for surveillance of Carter Page. So the reason it was not mentioned at the first application was because it had nothing to do with their initial reasons for conducting surveillance.

The White House narrative was that the dossier, and the money behind it, tainted the warrant, and all intelligence gained through it. But that was the fourth application.
So now, the LACK of the dossier tainted the first three applications...
Except for, you know, facts...

Well, you can't expect them to be consistent from one sentence to the next.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I find it touching that suddenly, Fox news and Hannity are very concerned about proper law enforcement oversight, he FISA process, and our civil liberties.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I find it touching that suddenly, Fox news and Hannity are very concerned about proper law enforcement oversight, he FISA process, and our civil liberties.

“Our” civil liberties?

Reminds me of engineering and design reports that mean nothing to the contractor until they fuck up and use a magnifying glass to find some technicality to save their incompetent asses.

 

[barbos]

Do I have my GOP talking points confused? Was the Steele dossier (with the "pee-pee" tape) used to get any FISA warrant?

It was included in the third application for a renewal of the warrant for surveillance of Carter Page. So the reason it was not mentioned at the first application was because it had nothing to do with their initial reasons for conducting surveillance.

The White House narrative was that the dossier, and the money behind it, tainted the warrant, and all intelligence gained through it. But that was the fourth application.
So now, the LACK of the dossier tainted the first three applications...
Except for, you know, facts...

Well, you can't expect them to be consistent from one sentence to the next.

Democrats are not the pillars of consistency either. They were running around with pee-pee tape report, now they say "well, it's notgood but then it was not a basis for investigation"
In reality Hillary did not use it, probably because she did not believe it was reliable.

 

[Elixir]

Well, you can't expect them to be consistent from one sentence to the next.

Democrats are not the pillars of consistency either. They were running around with pee-pee tape report, now they say "well, it's notgood but then it was not a basis for investigation"
In reality Hillary did not use it, probably because she did not believe it was reliable.

Or maybe she's a half-decent human, unlike Putin's puppet. I don't like her one bit, but she is a fucking Saint compared to Cheato.

 

[barbos]

Well, you can't expect them to be consistent from one sentence to the next.

Democrats are not the pillars of consistency either. They were running around with pee-pee tape report, now they say "well, it's notgood but then it was not a basis for investigation"
In reality Hillary did not use it, probably because she did not believe it was reliable.

Or maybe she's a half-decent human, unlike Putin's puppet. I don't like her one bit, but she is a fucking Saint compared to Cheato.

For the millionth's time I agree. I am not here to defend that orange piece of shit. Still, Hillary is half-decent only when compared to Trump.
There is this weird notion that you peek worse candidate and then trash him and ignore everything bad about the one who is less bad.

 

[ksen]

Just so there's no confusion, the piss tape is real.

 

[JohnG]

There is this weird notion that you peek worse candidate and then trash him and ignore everything bad about the one who is less bad.

I doubt those who are debating you are Trump voters.

Not that it matters, (I'm not a US citizen) but Hillary doesn't seem to campaign well, but I wouldn't be surprised if she would have made an excellent POTUS. I've read a few anecdotes where she's handled some sticky situations, and apparently she's serious tough.

I've been looking for actual dirt on her and it seems it's pretty much all conspiracy nonsense. The Whitewater stuff is all of the factual shady stuff I can find.

Uranium One, Pizzagate, Benghazi, Murders, it's all anti-Hillary propaganda.

I have a general distrust of rich people's "foundations" and "think-tanks" so I've been looking there as well, but I can't see anything by using reputable sources and cross referencing information.

It seems they could have handled Haiti better, but many aid organizations have made the same mistake of paying outside contractors to do the work rather than mobilizing the local population. Aid organizations are all moving in that direction.

Those are messy situations and it's easy to poke holes in any effort to manage a crisis.

I've never been a fan of the Clintons either, but there is no credible evidence they are the monsters people make them out to be.

I'm all ears if you have some.

Trump, on the other hand...

 

[Elixir]

Just so there's no confusion, the piss tape is real.

How do you rate the lead actor's performance?

 

[barbos]

There is this weird notion that you peek worse candidate and then trash him and ignore everything bad about the one who is less bad.

I doubt those who are debating you are Trump voters.

Why would you say this? You did not get my point. I meant people going on and on about Trump, totally ignoring that other side are not as clean as it looks.

Not that it matters, (I'm not a US citizen) but Hillary doesn't seem to campaign well, but I wouldn't be surprised if she would have made an excellent POTUS. I've read a few anecdotes where she's handled some sticky situations, and apparently she's serious tough.

I've been looking for actual dirt on her and it seems it's pretty much all conspiracy nonsense. The Whitewater stuff is all of the factual shady stuff I can find.

Uranium One, Pizzagate, Benghazi, Murders, it's all anti-Hillary propaganda.

I have a general distrust of rich people's "foundations" and "think-tanks" so I've been looking there as well, but I can't see anything by using reputable sources and cross referencing information.

It seems they could have handled Haiti better, but many aid organizations have made the same mistake of paying outside contractors to do the work rather than mobilizing the local population. Aid organizations are all moving in that direction.

Those are messy situations and it's easy to poke holes in any effort to manage a crisis.

I've never been a fan of the Clintons either, but there is no credible evidence they are the monsters people make them out to be.

I'm all ears if you have some.

Trump, on the other hand...

I don't know how is that relevant I mostly agree, I even don't exclude the possibility that Hillary would have been great POTUS, but I doubt that based on my observation.

Uranium One, Pizzagate, Benghazi

You need to add "AlfaBankgate" to this list if you want to be fair

 

[ksen]

Just so there's no confusion, the piss tape is real.

How do you rate the lead actor's performance?

Left me a little limp.

 

[repoman]

I like these child actors

 

[ElectEngr]

Just so there's no confusion, the piss tape is real.

How do you rate the lead actor's performance?

I'm waiting for it to show up on [insert free porn site here].com

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[ksen]

Just so there's no confusion, the piss tape is real.

How do you rate the lead actor's performance?

I'm waiting for it to show up on [insert free porn site here].com

Later,
ElectEngr

LiveLeak

 

[barbos]

I like these child actors

I smell Oscar at least for directing. Not sure how is that relevant to the thread. By the way Free Syrian Army is supported by US.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As far as I can tell, it's a video of something without context or even without a translation of whatever is being said. The doctors also applied some kind of cream to face of other doctor and were also acting even after all the kids were down. So, how did you verify that is the purpose of the video as opposed to, say, just a dramatization of what a chemical attack looks like?

 

[barbos]

As far as I can tell, it's a video of something without context or even without a translation of whatever is being said. The doctors also applied some kind of cream to face of other doctor and were also acting even after all the kids were down. So, how did you verify that is the purpose of the video as opposed to, say, just a dramatization of what a chemical attack looks like?

Good one, I would like to see that movie.
But don't they have more urgent needs than produce movies?
I think considering a history of fake videos from that region I think it's a good bet that this is just that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As far as I can tell, it's a video of something without context or even without a translation of whatever is being said. The doctors also applied some kind of cream to face of other doctor and were also acting even after all the kids were down. So, how did you verify that is the purpose of the video as opposed to, say, just a dramatization of what a chemical attack looks like?

Good one, I would like to see that movie.
But don't they have more urgent needs than produce movies?
I think considering a history of fake videos from that region I think it's a good bet that this is just that.

Societies do weird things with training children under extreme circumstances, such as how US used to teach kids to hide under desks in the event of an atomic bomb. Since we have no primary source explaining the purpose of this, I can only speculate what it is all about in a devil's advocate way--so, maybe it is educational to the kids all seated and watching such as this is what happens in a chemical attack so stay away...or it could be a dramatization of a chemical attack for public consumption, showing an attack that allegedly happened, also educational. But, if a society is under extreme conditions like an internal civil way, would you always say they should not produce videos of dramatizations of attacks as either "propaganda" or educational purposes?

 

[Malintent]

It's obviously a video someone shot of a classroom of children being made familiar with what happens if a chemical attack occurs. Incredibly obviously. So obvious I am compelled to suspect the actual intent of the poster was malicious.

 

[barbos]

As far as I can tell, it's a video of something without context or even without a translation of whatever is being said. The doctors also applied some kind of cream to face of other doctor and were also acting even after all the kids were down. So, how did you verify that is the purpose of the video as opposed to, say, just a dramatization of what a chemical attack looks like?

Good one, I would like to see that movie.
But don't they have more urgent needs than produce movies?
I think considering a history of fake videos from that region I think it's a good bet that this is just that.

Societies do weird things with training children under extreme circumstances, such as how US used to teach kids to hide under desks in the event of an atomic bomb. Since we have no primary source explaining the purpose of this, I can only speculate what it is all about in a devil's advocate way--so, maybe it is educational to the kids all seated and watching such as this is what happens in a chemical attack so stay away...or it could be a dramatization of a chemical attack for public consumption, showing an attack that allegedly happened, also educational. But, if a society is under extreme conditions like an internal civil way, would you always say they should not produce videos of dramatizations of attacks as either "propaganda" or educational purposes?

Well, it's obviously not a training against chemical attack.It could be dramatization/education/indoctrination which would indeed be weird and unusual.
What we know is not unusual are staged videos and I have a feeling that they are practicing for a one.