Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 26, 2017, 03:39:00 PM
-
How the worm turns.
Here Are The 10 Most Important Reported Claims About The Steele Dossier On Russia
There's a lot of misinformation swirling about that shoddy dossier on Trump and Russia compiled by Christopher Steele. Here's what's actually been reported on the matter.
By Mollie Hemingway
OCTOBER 25, 2017
Last night the Washington Post reported that the infamous “Russia dossier” was partly funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier’s inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about Donald Trump provided the framework for mainstream media treatment of the president for much of the last year and fueled multiple investigations. Here are 10 things to keep in mind about the dossier.
1) Russian officials were sources of key claims in dossier
We’re in the midst of media frenzy over Russian disinformation campaigns, particularly as they apply to the 2016 election. It is worth noting that the sources of the “Russia-Trump dossier” were senior Russian officials:
Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was ‘a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.’ Source B was ‘a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.’
2) No, the Russian dossier was not initially funded by Republicans
When the news broke that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were admitting partial responsibility for the Russia dossier, journalists acted like they’d presented it as a Clinton campaign operation all along. They also claimed it was initially funded by a Republican.
Incorrect. And Tapper took the tweet down when the error was pointed out. There is no evidence that a Republican donor or Republican campaign was ever involved with the Russian dossier. Fusion GPS claimed to reporters (though they did not provide evidence) that a Republican funded separate opposition research on Trump, dealing with his business interests. But as the Washington Post itself reports, the dossier did not exist until after the Democrats hired Fusion GPS:
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
3) The dossier is chock full of discredited information
Journalists who are friendly with Fusion GPS and opponents of the Trump administration claim, without any evidence of any kind beyond anonymous sources’ vague say-so, that the dossier has parts that were “verified.” That could mean something as simple as the parts about Russia trying to find information about Trump, or about Trump affiliates having friendly business relations with Russians. We have no evidence to suggest that anything significant from the dossier has been verified. And we don’t know how much, if any, was actually deliberate disinformation from the Russian government sources.
We have reports that the freelance spy who put together some of the information in the dossier was paying Russians for their information and used intermediaries. Former acting CIA director and Hillary Clinton campaign surrogate Michael Morrell said this was discrediting:
‘Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little bit because if you’re paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service] officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they’re going to call you up and say, ‘Hey, let’s have another meeting, I have more information for you,’ because they want to get paid some more,’ Morrell said.
Far from being “verified,” the dossier is better described as demonstrably false. That includes getting basic facts about Russia wrong, making claims — such as the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague — that are verifiably wrong, making cartoonishly outlandish claims about finances, and various other problems.
4) The dossier was used as a basis for wiretaps on American citizens
In March, Washington Post used anonymous sources to report the FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to spy on U.S. citizen Carter Page, an unpaid and informal adviser to the Donald Trump campaign, as part of an investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign. CNN used anonymous sources to report that the infamous “golden showers” dossier was used as part of the justification to win approval to monitor the Trump associate.
A Clinton campaign opposition research operation using information or disinformation from top Russian intelligence officials was used by the FBI, these sources say, to enable spying on an opposing political party’s campaign.
5) The FBI also paid for the dossier
Last week, Donald Trump tweeted:
Fusion GPS was working on behalf of Russians while working on the dossier, but they claim, without providing evidence, that they kept their other Russia work separate from their Trump-Russia dossier work. Democrats released their involvement to friendly journalists at the Washington Post last night. When Trump asked about the FBI, many political journalists feigned shock and outrage that he would make such a claim.
They should not have. Their outlets had already reported that the FBI had tried to pay for the dossier and had, in fact, reimbursed expenses for the dossier. We do not know if those expenses include the payments to the Russian officials for salacious stories on Republican nominee for president Trump.
The FBI has resisted all oversight by congressional committees looking into the FBI’s role in funding and use of the dossier. Perhaps the agency is worried it will be revealed that a FISA court judge was misled about the provenance of the dossier. Perhaps the agency is worried about light shining on its use of the Clinton campaign operation to spy on Trump affiliates.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is backing House Intelligence Committee efforts to learn more about FBI’s handling of the dossier.
6) Dossier publisher Fusion GPS works with shady outfits
At a July hearing, Senate Judiciary members were told Fusion GPS helped advocate the interests of corrupt Russian and Venezuelan officials while hiding its foreign work from federal authorities.
Fusion GPS has been accused of illegally working as an undisclosed foreign agent and is currently refusing to comply with federal subpoenas for information on its foreign clients.
7) Fusion GPS’ ties to media are problematic
The principals at Fusion GPS are well-connected to mainstream media reporters. They are former journalists themselves, and know how to package stories and provide information to push narratives. They are, in fact, close friends with some of the top reporters who have covered the Russia-Trump collusion story.
Fusion GPS has placed stories with friendly reporters while fighting congressional investigators’ attempts to find out the group’s sources of funding. Fusion GPS leaders have taken the Fifth and fought subpoenas for information about the group’s involvement with Russia. Their close friendships with key reporters on these stories have paid huge dividends for the firm, although these friendships and cooperative relationships have not served the public well.
Fusion GPS was responsible for the dossier. But the group’s larger narrative push to reporters is even more influential, and a difficult story to unpack due to defensiveness, embarrassment, and outright media complicity.
8 ) Jim Comey personally briefed Trump on the dossier, shortly before CNN reported it
As confirmed by the Washington Post, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative was a Clinton campaign political operation. The dossier itself was shopped around by Fusion GPS a year ago to The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, and CNN, according to lawyers for the ex-spy who worked on the dossier. The dossier was so unverifiable that the only reporter to bite was from Mother Jones.
What really got the ball rolling on last year’s Russia-Trump conspiracy theory, then, was not the dossier itself but the briefing of it by Obama intelligence chiefs to President-elect Trump in January. Former FBI head Jim Comey admitted under oath that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asked him to personally brief President Trump about this dossier. The fact of that meeting was quickly leaked to CNN.
Given the dossier’s many problems, was the entire purpose of the meeting to produce the leak that the meeting happened? No one was biting on the dossier and it needed legitimization by opponents of Trump. If the dossier was so shoddy that it was debunked in hours after BuzzFeed posted it in all its salacious glory, why brief the president and president-elect on it, much less leak it? What was the real purpose of that meeting, and that leak to CNN?
9) Mueller investigation spurred by dossier and illegal leaks from intelligence operatives about Trump
We know from previous reporting that the dossier of Russia-supplied information or disinformation was used by the FBI to secure a warrant to spy on an American citizen advising an opposing political party’s presidential campaign. We know that this dossier was funded at least in part by the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the FBI. The firm that produced the report was itself funded by Russians.
We know that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier, and that this meeting was leaked almost immediately to CNN. We know that there were criminal leaks from intelligence officials regarding Trump associates having conversations with Russian counterparts.
We know that Trump was thrice told by Comey that he was not under investigation regarding Russia. And a year into the opposition-research-provoked Russia scare, we have no evidence of the Trump campaign committing treason by colluding with Russia.
Yet because of this dossier, and its selective use by intelligence agencies, we have a special prosecutor running a no-holds-barred investigation into Trump that, according to CNN, has gone into areas that have nothing to do with Russia or the 2016 election. We have two congressional investigations into alleged collusion of Trump and Russia. And we have had thousands of stories focused on supporting the Clinton campaign’s opposition research.
10) The Steele dossier was a Clinton/DNC-funded operation supported by the FBI and influenced heavily by Russian operatives in the Kremlin
The country has spent the last year with Obama intelligence officials, the media, and Democratic leaders pushing a narrative of Trump collusion with Russia to steal an election that was supposed to be won by Hillary Clinton. A meeting between Trump officials and a Russian who falsely promised dirt on Hillary Clinton is the best evidence — by far — to support this narrative.
Yet here we have the realization that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the FBI all worked wittingly or unwittingly with Russians to affect the results of the 2016 election. Far from just meeting with a Russian and not getting dirt on a political opponent, these groups wittingly or unwittingly paid Russian operatives for disinformation to harm Trump during the 2016 election and beyond.
Worse, these efforts perverted our justice system by forcing the attorney general to recuse himself for the crime of having served as a surrogate on the Trump campaign, spawning a massive, sprawling, limitless probe over Russia. These things are so much more damaging to the republic than a couple thousand dollars in ads on Facebook paid for by Russian trolls about a pipeline protest.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/25/top-10-things-to-know-about-dossier/
-
wonder if Maddow will do a 20 minute monologue on this? :o
-
Democrat fags rigged the election and still lost . Bunch of twink welfare bums
-
How pathetic to have the MSM advocating for them, pay money to Russia for dirt on Trump, face one of the most polarizing unconventional candidates in history, have the power of the incumbency, and still lose.
-
1. Russia were actively attempting to help Trump win so if they were going to make up shit about Trump it would be stuff that would be helpful to him. I have yet to see anyone show proof of who the source were. In fact no one in the public that I'm aware of even has the dossier
2. The GPS Fusion has already said the first person to fund this thing was from the GOP
3. The Clinton campaign and the DNC Did NOT admit partial responsibility for the Russia dossier.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/john-podesta-debbie-wasserman-schultz-trump-dossier/index.html
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it since it "things to know" started out with a bunch of lies
I say let's get the entire dossier out the public and let's go over every single allegation and the sources and see what is true and what (if anything is false)
I'd be fine with that
I wonder how Trump would feel about that
-
How pathetic to have the MSM advocating for them, pay money to Russia for dirt on Trump, face one of the most polarizing unconventional candidates in history, have the power of the incumbency, and still lose.
That's because democrats represent only the welfare bums , gays , blacks and liberal idiots on both coasts
-
Everything the Clinton and DNC were doing seems as though it was taken right from the dossier to make it look like Trump.....only it was them all along. This could be a movie.
-
this thing should be standing trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.. she is a criminal.. a legit! criminal.. and she should be facing prison time
if she is not facing prison time then no one else should EVER! face prison time over emails.. ever again,,
while Hussein Obama immuned as disgraced president.. she was never president and should! stand trial in the highest court,,
gh15 approved
lion of Judah
-
1. Russia were actively attempting to help Trump win so if they were going to make up shit about Trump it would be stuff that would be helpful to him. I have yet to see anyone show proof of who the source were. In fact no one in the public that I'm aware of even has the dossier
2. The GPS Fusion has already said the first person to fund this thing was from the GOP
3. The Clinton campaign and the DNC Did NOT admit partial responsibility for the Russia dossier.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/john-podesta-debbie-wasserman-schultz-trump-dossier/index.html
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it since it "things to know" started out with a bunch of lies
I say let's get the entire dossier out the public and let's go over every single allegation and the sources and see what is true and what (if anything is false)
I'd be fine with that
I wonder how Trump would feel about that
NEWSFLASH: NOBODY BELIEVES YOU!!!
Face it little man, the jig ( no offense vince) is up. The Russia narrative blew up in your face. Here's some free advice: stop talking about it and lay low for a while. The more you mention it, the harder it is to take you seriously. Accept reality and move on. I'm sure there will be a "hip" new transengendered bathroom protest you can attend in the near future.
Again, my condolences.
-
NEWSFLASH: NOBODY BELIEVES YOU!!!
Face it little man, the jig ( no offense vince) is up. The Russia narrative blew up in your face. Here's some free advice: stop talking about it and lay low for a while. The more you mention it, the harder it is to take you seriously. Accept reality and move on. I'm sure there will be a "hip" new transengendered bathroom protest you can attend in the near future.
Again, my condolences.
LOL
nice use of CAPS
it's cute that you think there is a Russian "narrative"
well, actually I get that premise because that's what Faux News has been selling to Trumptards or in a parlance that you'll understand they've been "shoving it down your throats"
Mueller doesn't give a shit who paid the law firm who hired the spook (no offense Vince)
All that matters is what is true and what (if anything) is not true
and if there were any crimes that he can prove
remember where Whitewater started and where it ended?
-
LOL
nice use of CAPS
it's cute that you think there is a Russian "narrative"
well, actually I get that premise because that's what Faux News has been selling to Trumptards or in a parlance that you'll understand they've been "shoving it down your throats"
Mueller doesn't give a shit who paid the law firm who hired the spook (no offense Vince)
All that matters is what is true and what (if anything) is not true
and if there were any crimes that he can prove
remember where Whitewater started and where it ended?
Sooo, It’s your opinion this is all “fake” news. Clinton has been set up and she’s completely innocent....right?
-
Sooo, I your opinion this is all “fake” news. Clinton has been set up and she’s completely innocent....right?
yes that is what mr commie antifa thinks
-
Sooo, It’s your opinion this is all “fake” news. Clinton has been set up and she’s completely innocent....right?
What did I say was fake?
-
(http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BensoL/2017/BensoL20171026_low.jpg)
-
NEWSFLASH: NOBODY BELIEVES YOU!!!
Face it little man, the jig ( no offense vince) is up. The Russia narrative blew up in your face. Here's some free advice: stop talking about it and lay low for a while. The more you mention it, the harder it is to take you seriously. Accept reality and move on. I'm sure there will be a "hip" new transengendered bathroom protest you can attend in the near future.
Again, my condolences.
Exactly. The guy has no objectivity so his posts are a joke at this point.
-
Still haven't heard a one Trumptard explain how paying the law firm who paid the consulting firm who paid the researcher(former spy) somehow makes the data false
what good would false data be, especially given that she had no knowledge of it, never received it etc..
bottom line - doesn't matter who paid for the research
all that matters is whether the information is factual or not
let's get the entire dossier out in the public domain and find out
I'm totally fine with that
I'm sure Trumps on board with that too
-
LEON!!! PANETTA: Investigate Clinton, DNC Dossier Payment...
NTK Network.com ^ | 27 OCT 17
Posted on 10/27/2017, 12:26:04 PM by DCBryan1
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta said that the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to have to look into the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for funding the controversial Trump dossier during an interview on Thursday.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Panetta how it was possible that neither “the chair of the DNC and the Clinton campaign” knew about payments for the dossier.
“Well, it’s obviously something that the Intelligence Committee is going to have to look at,” Panetta said. “You know, knowing presidential campaigns, they’re big operations and somehow the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. And that could be the case here.”
Panetta continued, “I really do think that the committee is going to have to get into this, determine just exactly what happened. Who knew what and when?”
Blitzer followed up by asking Panetta why Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias didn’t tell Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta, they had paid for the dossier.
Elias was the lawyer was represented the Clinton campaign and DNC, during the election and is alleged to have paid Fusion GPS for the Trump dossier.
“Well, it certainly makes the situation very awkward,” Panetta said. “If you’re testifying and saying you have no knowledge, and the attorney sitting next to you is one of those that knew what was involved here, I think it does raise an issue that the committee is going to have to look at and determine just exactly who knew what.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ntknetwork.com ...
-
LEON!!! PANETTA: Investigate Clinton, DNC Dossier Payment...
NTK Network.com ^ | 27 OCT 17
Posted on 10/27/2017, 12:26:04 PM by DCBryan1
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta said that the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to have to look into the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for funding the controversial Trump dossier during an interview on Thursday.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Panetta how it was possible that neither “the chair of the DNC and the Clinton campaign” knew about payments for the dossier.
“Well, it’s obviously something that the Intelligence Committee is going to have to look at,” Panetta said. “You know, knowing presidential campaigns, they’re big operations and somehow the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. And that could be the case here.”
Panetta continued, “I really do think that the committee is going to have to get into this, determine just exactly what happened. Who knew what and when?”
Blitzer followed up by asking Panetta why Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias didn’t tell Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta, they had paid for the dossier.
Elias was the lawyer was represented the Clinton campaign and DNC, during the election and is alleged to have paid Fusion GPS for the Trump dossier.
“Well, it certainly makes the situation very awkward,” Panetta said. “If you’re testifying and saying you have no knowledge, and the attorney sitting next to you is one of those that knew what was involved here, I think it does raise an issue that the committee is going to have to look at and determine just exactly who knew what.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ntknetwork.com ...
an even better questions is why they didn't get a copy of the dossier that they paid for?
I'm sure they would have loved to have that info and release it to the public DURING the campaign
Still, time for the entire dossier story including the contents of the dossier to be made public
The dossier basically alleges (among other things) that people in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia
Let's see that info
We learned this week that Trump campaign contacted Wikileaks looking for dirt on Hillary
Not sure how Fox News failed to promote that story. If it were Clinton contacting Assange it would the only story they covered all day long for weeks at at time
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/politics/cambridge-analytica-julian-assange-wikileaks-clinton-emails/index.html
Trump campaign analytics company contacted WikiLeaks about Clinton emails
The head of a data analytics company linked to the Trump campaign contacted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016 regarding thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails kept on a private server while she was secretary of state, according to four sources familiar with the outreach.
Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, sent an email to several people including top Donald Trump donor Rebekah Mercer, relaying that he had emailed Assange seeking access to emails from Clinton's private server to turn them into a searchable database for the campaign or a pro-Trump political action committee, two of the sources said.
Cambridge Analytica was hired in the summer of 2016 as part of the Trump campaign's three-pronged data operation, which was led by Brad Parscale and overseen by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. No one from the Trump campaign was copied on the email, the sources said. Nix sent the email in summer 2016, two sources said, but it is not clear whether he sent it before or after Cambridge Analytica was brought onto the campaign.[/size]
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22730259_1472012396169694_6077421053762104821_n.jpg?oh=a84af48476eeace3fb86059c8af9be7b&oe=5A6C98AA)
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22730259_1472012396169694_6077421053762104821_n.jpg?oh=a84af48476eeace3fb86059c8af9be7b&oe=5A6C98AA)
maybe you want to take a stab at explaining the significance of Clinton campaign paying the law firm who paid the GPS Fusion who paid the researcher/former spy to gather the intel on Donald
still can't figure out why it matters who paid for it, especially given that she never received the dossier (kind of sucks for her since she paid for it)
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22730259_1472012396169694_6077421053762104821_n.jpg?oh=a84af48476eeace3fb86059c8af9be7b&oe=5A6C98AA)
Lmao
-
"Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought."
Its kind of odd that people forget that Fox News is also part of the mainstream media.
Fuck Fox News. Maybe not as extreme as MSNC or CNN but still part of the problem.
-
Fuck Fox News. Maybe not as extreme as MSNC or CNN but still part of the problem.
and he deleted the post... what a fucking fagg0t
-
manafort indicted and charged by the deep state puppet from bush the son neocon regime.. muller
i suggest to fire him because this is not the end,, they are looking for president trump close connection manafort is not it,,
i highly support firing muller the deep state pig,,
gh15 approved
-
Paul Singer-Funded Washington Free Beacon Behind Initial Fusion GPS Trump Effort
by ADAM SHAW
27 Oct 2017
The Washington Free Beacon, funded by GOP mega-donor Paul Singer, was the original funder of Fusion GPS’ research project that attempted to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump — a project that would later be funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The Washington Examiner first reported Friday that lawyers for the Free Beacon — a conservative outlet based in the nation’s capital — funded the project from fall 2015 to spring 2016, when it pulled its funding as Trump looked set to clinch the nomination.
Lawyers for the Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee of its role in the funding on Friday. The outlet issued a statement standing by its decision to fund the project:
Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton.
After the Democrats took over funding of the operation in mid-2016, Fusion GPS would hire former British spy Christopher Steele and would lead to the production of the so-called “Trump dossier,” filled with salacious but unconfirmed claims about how Trump was compromised by the Russians.
Fusion has come under scrutiny for its alleged ties to Russia, including the fact that many of the claims originate from Kremlin sources — meaning that the information came from inside the Russian government.
The Free Beacon noted in its statement that it had “no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.”
“The Washington Free Beacon has issued a statement asserting that it had no involvement with Christopher Steele or the dossier he compiled from Russian sources,” Jack Langer, spokesman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Breitbart News. “The Beacon has agreed to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee to help the Committee verify this assertion.”
Yet, the revelation is likely to fuel questions about the role the so-called “Never Trump” movement played in an effort that would eventually inflict damage on President Trump, and that was possibly part of a Russian misinformation scheme.
The Free Beacon is funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire and major GOP donor Paul Singer. The New York Times reports that Singer initially supported Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the Republican nomination, but later spearheaded a campaign to deny Trump the nomination even after Rubio dropped out of the race.
While supporting Republican establishment favorites such as Rubio and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Singer was a major backer of Common Core and was the founder of a super-PAC that has the express purpose of turning the GOP pro-gay marriage.
The Examiner reports that the Free Beacon was originally part of the 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization — the Center for American Freedom — but in 2014 became a for-profit organization. The Center’s original board of directors includes William Kristol, a prominent “Never Trump” activist.
Kristol is also the founder of the Weekly Standard, which like the Free Beacon has a neoconservative foreign policy outlook. The Free Beacon was co-founded by two former Weekly Standard writers, chairman Michael Goldfarb and editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti.
***Update***
“The Washington Free Beacon has issued a statement asserting that it had no involvement with Christopher Steele or the dossier he compiled from Russian sources,” Jack Langer, spokesman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Breitbart News. “The Beacon has agreed to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee to help the Committee verify this assertion.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/10/27/report-paul-singer-funded-washington-free-beacon-behind-initial-fusion-gps-trump-effort/
-
;)
-
;)
-
Obama was the worst pos ever to hold that office.
-
Obama was the worst pos ever to hold that office.
-
Where's the link to the article
How was this a "secret" if it's from FEC filings?
-
ROFLMAO ;D ;D ;D
-
Laughing my ass off watching Snowflake in Chief crying about the "unverified" allegations in the dossier
Trump spent the last 8 years making unverified claims about Obama and he makes verifiably false statements virtually every day
Crybabies gonna cry
-
That's because democrats represent only the welfare bums , gays , blacks and liberal idiots on both coasts
Having a bit of a meltdown over Republican treason?
Try to cheer up, buddy.
-
Hill Republicans want more answers from Wasserman Schultz, Podesta about Trump dossier money
Fox News
Podesta, Wasserman Schultz deny knowledge of dossier funding
Clinton campaign chairman and the former DNC chairwoman told Congress they were unaware of payments to Fusion GPS for anti-Trump dossier.
Congressional Republicans on Sunday called for Democrats John Podesta and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to provide further answers about their party paying for a dossier on President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, after telling Senate investigators last month that they had no knowledge of such payments.
Wasserman Schultz is the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Podesta was the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Both groups purportedly paid millions for research that led to the dossier, The Washington Post reported last week.
South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, suggested on “Fox News Sunday” that the DNC paying a law firm for so-called opposition research connected to the dossier was tantamount to money laundering.
Chairman of the House Oversight Committee joins 'Fox News Sunday' to discuss new revelations surrounding Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.Video
Rep. Gowdy on Russian dossier and accusations of collusion
“I'm not an election law expert, but the good news is you don't have to be, to understand the absurdity of believing that you can launder all of your campaign money by just hiring a law firm,” said Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor. “So I’m interested in that.”
He also seemed to question Podesta and Wasserman Schultz telling the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that they didn’t know who paid for the dossier.
“I am also interested in sharing some memory tricks with folks at the DNC because no one can remember who paid $10 million to a law firm to do oppo research,” Gowdy said. “I find that stunning. $10 million and no one can remember who authorized it, who approved it, who said, ‘This is a really good idea.’”
When questioned about the issue by Fox News last week on Capitol Hill, Wasserman Schultz said only: “I wasn’t aware of the arrangement at all.”
Also on Sunday, Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Podesta and Wasserman Schultz “absolutely need to be recalled” before the panel.
Judge Jeanine: After Russian Dossier Funding, Time to 'Lock Her Up'
“It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance,” Collins said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Podesta's attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that brokered the dossier funding, sat next to Podesta during his Senate appearance last mont, according to CNN. Collins also said Sunday that Elias should be questioned, too.
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, on Sunday declined to answer on ABC’s “This Week” whether the DNC and Clinton campaign should have disclosed earlier their stake in the dossier.
“I can't answer that,” he said. “I certainly would have liked to know who paid for it earlier, but nonetheless, that's just one factor to be considered.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/29/hill-republicans-want-more-answers-from-wasserman-schultz-podesta-about-trump-dossier-money.html
-
Outrageous. Now this conspiracy actually has legs.
http://static.foxnews.com/pdf/370598711-House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses.pdf
-
(https://i.redd.it/fe12vrpr4lwx.jpg)
-
The Russians Colluded Massively — with Democrats
By DEROY MURDOCK
February 24, 2018
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-russians-colluded-massively-with-democrats/
-
Australian diplomat whose tip prompted FBI’s Russia-probe has tie to Clintons
BY JOHN SOLOMON AND ALISON SPANN - 03/05/18
http://thehill.com/376858-australian-diplomat-whose-tip-prompted-fbis-russia-probe-has-tie-to-clintons
-
Anti-Trump dossier author was hired to help Hillary challenge 2016 election results
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 12, 2018
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/12/christopher-steele-hillary-clinton-was-preparing-t/
-
Barr: 'Spying did occur' on Trump campaign
by Naomi Lim
April 10, 2019
Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday he believes "spying did occur" on President Trump's 2016 campaign.
During testimony before a Senate panel, Barr said it was his obligation to ensure the government did not abuse its surveillance powers and he had set up a team to investigate whether this happened with the Trump campaign.
"I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated — adequately predicated," Barr testified. "I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated, but I need to explore that. I think it's my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane."
Barr was grilled by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department, on reports he was assembling a team to review why the FBI opened a counterintelligence inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
"I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It's a big deal," Barr said, an apparent reference to GOP allegations that the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor former Trump 2016 campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
Later in the hearing, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, asked Barr if he wanted to rephrase the "spying" comment, but Barr declined to back away from his assertion. "Unauthorized surveillance ... is that more appropriate in your eyes?" Barr said.
Barr also alluded to a promise he made during his confirmation hearing to examine "the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign." But he said the panel was yet to be formally created, that it wasn't a probe into the FBI, and that he didn't consider there to be an endemic problem with the agency.
"And a lot has already been investigated and is being investigated by the Office of Inspector General at the department," he said. "But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the various investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and in the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed."
Barr's testimony comes as House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is poised to send to the DOJ criminal referrals targeting eight people tied to the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
The FBI's original Russia investigation, which began in July 2016, was later wrapped into special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry looking into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin.
Republicans, including Nunes and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., have long been engaged in their own investigations into alleged misconduct and bias within the upper echelons of the Department of Justice and FBI, including the anti-Trump text messages of former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which they are concerned will reveal a scheme to undermine Trump.
Nunes has not disclosed any names of people ensnared in his referrals, but he did break down three categories in which they fall on Sunday, including conspiracy to lie to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Nunes also suggested his effort could drastically expand to encompass dozens of people.
In his first hearing of the week on Tuesday, Barr said he has not yet seen these referrals, but when he does, he added, "Obviously, if there is a predicate for investigation, it will be conducted.”
Barr's examination of the initial Russia investigation could intersect with an investigation by U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was appointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March 2018 to look into GOP claims of FBI misconduct. On the Senate side, Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says there will be continued investigations into the origins of Mueller’s inquiry and potential bias in the Justice Department and FBI, including a look at FISA warrants.
Mueller concluded his monthslong Russia investigation last month, after which Barr submitted a four-page letter that stressed the special counsel did not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Barr also said Mueller left the obstruction question unresolved. A line taken from Mueller's final report says, "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found there was a lack of “sufficient” evidence to determine whether Trump obstructed justice.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Barr on Wednesday if he had any conversation with Mueller about why he did not reach a conclusion one way or the other on whether Trump obstructed justice. "Yes, I did. And he also has a fuller explanation of that in the report that I'll be making available hopefully next week," Barr replied.
Barr also clarified when pressed by Shaheen whether he would redact parts of Mueller's report on his findings from the federal Russia inquiry to protect Trump's privacy and reputational interests.
"No, I'm talking about people in private life, not public office holders," Barr said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-spying-did-occur-on-trump-campaign
-
Ukrainian embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/02/19
The boomerang from the Democratic Party’s failed attempt to connect Donald Trump to Russia’s 2016 election meddling is picking up speed, and its flight path crosses right through Moscow’s pesky neighbor, Ukraine. That is where there is growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in some cases tried, to help Hillary Clinton.
In its most detailed account yet, Ukraine’s embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.
In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country, in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.
Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort’s Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.
Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian-American activist, and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S. election.
“The Embassy got to know Ms. Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other diasporas in Washington D.C., and not in her DNC capacity. We’ve learned about her DNC involvement later,” Chaly said in a statement issued by his embassy. “We were surprised to see Alexandra’s interest in Mr. Paul Manafort’s case. It was her own cause. The Embassy representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter.
“All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C.,” the ambassador explained.
Reached by phone last week, Chalupa said she was too busy to talk. She did not respond to email and phone messages seeking subsequent comment.
Chaly’s written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine’s government that an American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country’s help in the 2016 election, and they confirm the main points of a January 2017 story by Politico on Chalupa’s efforts.
In that story, the embassy was broadly quoted as denying interference in the election and suggested Chalupa’s main reason for contacting the ambassador’s office was to organize an event celebrating women leaders.
The fresh statement comes several months after a Ukrainian court ruled that the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), closely aligned with the U.S. embassy in Kiev, and a parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko wrongly interfered in the 2016 American election by releasing documents related to Manafort.
The acknowledgement by Kiev’s embassy, plus newly released testimony, suggests the Ukrainian efforts to influence the U.S. election had some intersections in Washington as well.
Nellie Ohr, wife of senior U.S. Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, acknowledged in congressional testimony that, while working for the Clinton-hired research firm Fusion GPS, she researched Trump and Manafort’s ties to Russia and learned Leshchenko, the Ukrainian lawmaker, was providing dirt to Fusion.
Fusion also paid British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, whose anti-Trump dossier the FBI used as primary evidence to support its request to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
In addition, I wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency. The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in May 2016.
The DNC’s embassy contacts add a new dimension, though. Chalupa discussed in the 2017 Politico article about her efforts to dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort, including at the Ukrainian embassy.
FEC records show Chalupa’s firm, Chalupa & Associates, was paid $71,918 by the DNC during the 2016 election cycle.
Exactly how the Ukrainian embassy responded to Chalupa’s inquiries remains in dispute.
Chaly’s statement says the embassy rebuffed her requests for information: “No documents related to Trump campaign or any individuals involved in the campaign have been passed to Ms. Chalupa or the DNC neither from the Embassy nor via the Embassy. No documents exchange was even discussed.”
But Andrii Telizhenko, a former political officer who worked under Chaly from December 2015 through June 2016, told me he was instructed by the ambassador and his top deputy to meet with Chalupa in March 2016 and to gather whatever dirt Ukraine had in its government files about Trump and Manafort.
Telizhenko said that, when he was told by the embassy to arrange the meeting, both Chaly and the ambassador’s top deputy identified Chalupa “as someone working for the DNC and trying to get Clinton elected.”
Over lunch at a Washington restaurant, Chalupa told Telizhenko in stark terms what she hoped the Ukrainians could provide the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to his account.
“She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election,” he recalled.
After the meeting, Telizhenko said he became concerned about the legality of using his country’s assets to help an American political party win an U.S. election. But he proceeded with his assignment.
Telizhenko said that, as he began his research, he discovered that Fusion GPS was nosing around Ukraine, seeking similar information, and he believed they, too, worked for the Democrats.
As a former aide inside the general prosecutor’s office in Kiev, Telizhenko used contacts with intelligence, police and prosecutors across the country to secure information connecting Russian figures to assistance on some of the Trump organization’s real estate deals overseas, including a tower in Toronto.
Telizhenko said he did not want to provide the intelligence he collected directly to Chalupa, and instead handed the materials to Chaly: “I told him what we were doing was illegal, that it was unethical doing this as diplomats.” He said the ambassador told him he would handle the matter and had opened a second channel back in Ukraine to continue finding dirt on Trump.
Telizhenko said he also was instructed by his bosses to meet with an American journalist researching Manafort’s ties to Ukraine.
About a month later, he said his relationship with the ambassador soured and, by June 2016, he was ordered to return to Ukraine. There, he reported his concerns about the embassy’s contacts with the Democrats to the former prosecutor general’s office and officials in the Poroshenko administration: “Everybody already knew what was going on and told me it had been approved at the highest levels.”
Telizhenko said he never was able to confirm whether the information he collected for Chalupa was delivered to her, the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
Chalupa, meanwhile, continued to build a case that Manafort and Trump were tied to Russia.
In April 2016, she attended an international symposium where she reported back to the DNC that she had met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists to talk about Manafort. She also wrote that she invited American reporter Michael Isikoff to speak with her. Isikoff wrote some of the seminal stories tying Manafort to Ukraine and Trump to Russia; he later wrote a book making a case for Russian collusion.
“A lot more coming down the pipe,” Chalupa wrote a top DNC official on May 3, 2016, recounting her effort to educate Ukrainian journalists and Isikoff about Manafort.
Then she added: “More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.”
Less than a month later, the “black ledger” identifying payments to Manafort was announced in Ukraine, forcing Manafort to resign as Trump’s campaign chairman and eventually face criminal prosecution for improper foreign lobbying.
DNC officials have suggested in the past that Chalupa’s efforts were personal, not officially on behalf of the DNC. But Chalupa’s May 2016 email clearly informed a senior DNC official that she was “digging into Manafort” and she suspected someone was trying to hack into her email account.
Chaly over the years has tried to portray his role as Ukraine’s ambassador in Washington as one of neutrality during the 2016 election. But in August 2016 he raised eyebrows in some diplomatic circles when he wrote an OpEd in The Hill skewering Trump for some of his comments on Russia. “Trump’s comments send wrong message to world,” Chaly’s article blared in the headline.
In his statement to me, Chaly said he wrote the article because he had been solicited for his views by The Hill’s opinion team.
Chaly’s office also acknowledged that a month after the OpEd, President Poroshenko met with then-candidate Clinton during a stop in New York. The office said the ambassador requested a similar meeting with Trump but it didn’t get organized.
Though Chaly and Telizhenko disagree on what Ukraine did after it got Chalupa’s request, they confirm that a paid contractor of the DNC solicited their government’s help to find dirt on Trump that could sway the 2016 election.
For a Democratic Party that spent more than two years building the now-disproven theory that Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, the tale of the Ukrainian embassy in Washington feels just like a speeding political boomerang.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016
-
-
A video with a bunch of talking heads. Where is the link to CNN's admission? ::)
-
A video with a bunch of talking heads. Where is the link to CNN's admission? ::)
He said it was proven trump was innocent the the fbi conspired. What the f wrong with you moron ?
Only the most delusional nutcases like yourself still hold on to this fantasy that had been proven a scam.
But
Not surprising you bought into every other liberal scam over the years. You are an idiot and incompetent beyond words.
-
He said it was proven trump was innocent the the fbi conspired. What the f wrong with you moron ?
Only the most delusional nutcases like yourself still hold on to this fantasy that had been proven a scam.
But
Not surprising you bought into every other liberal scam over the years. You are an idiot and incompetent beyond words.
Your words have an entirely different meaning than Jake Tapper's. He did not say Trump was 'proved innocent' or that the FBI 'conspired'.
Okay you are partly correct, Jake Tapper did say the (Durham)report was devasting to to FBI and to some extent it clears Trump. Big deal! Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe. He and the special counsel can conclude (arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning) whatever they want. An opinion is not a statement of fact, it is merely an opinion.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html
This is word for word what Jake Tapper said, “Regardless, the report is here, it has dropped,” Tapper said Monday during his nightly newscast on CNN. “And it might have not produced everything of what some Republicans hope for, it is regardless devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.”
The right sees Jake Tapper's comments as cause for celebration. The left does not. Fine.
-
Your words have an entirely different meaning than Jake Tapper's. He did not say Trump was 'proved innocent' or that the FBI 'conspired'.
Okay you are partly correct, Jake Tapper did say the (Durham)report was devasting to to FBI and to some extent it clears Trump. Big deal! Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe. He and the special counsel can conclude (arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning) whatever they want. An opinion is not a statement of fact, it is merely an opinion.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html
This is word for word what Jake Tapper said, “Regardless, the report is here, it has dropped,” Tapper said Monday during his nightly newscast on CNN. “And it might have not produced everything of what some Republicans hope for, it is regardless devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.”
The right sees Jake Tapper's comments as cause for celebration. The left does not. Fine.
This isn't about left vs. right. It's about right (so to speak) vs. wrong. Anyone taking a fair-minded look at this can see how egregious it was for a political party to fabricate a story against their opponent and use the power of the federal government to spy on and investigate that opponent. Anyone who loves America should be appalled by this.
-
This isn't about left vs. right. It's about right (so to speak) vs. wrong. Anyone taking a fair-minded look at this can see how egregious it was for a political party to fabricate a story against their opponent and use the power of the federal government to spy on and investigate that opponent. Anyone who loves America should be appalled by this.
Woah! I think we are talking about two different things. I am posting about what Jake Tapper said about the Durham report during his newscast.
BTW, the Durham report failed to prove there was Democratic plot to frame Trump. You speak of it as if the report did not fail to prove this. https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5/16/23725373/durham-report-clinton-plan-trump-russia
-
Woah! I think we are talking about two different things. I am posting about what Jake Tapper said about the Durham report during his newscast.
BTW, the Durham report failed to prove there was Democratic plot to frame Trump. You speak of it as if the report did not fail to prove this. https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5/16/23725373/durham-report-clinton-plan-trump-russia
There was a Democrat plot to frame Trump. We knew that before the Durham report.
-
There was a Democrat plot to frame Trump. We knew that before the Durham report.
So what. You are still talking about a different matter.
As to your comment about who knew what and when. Speak for yourself. Don't speak for everyone, (we).
-
So what. You are still talking about a different matter.
As to your comment about who knew what and when. Speak for yourself. Don't speak for everyone, (we).
Yes "so what." That's the mainstream media's response to all of this. Typical.
You are correct. "We" only includes those who pay attention to current events, read past the headlines, don't live in a bubble, and expose themselves to multiple news sources.
-
There was a Democrat plot to frame Trump. We knew that before the Durham report.
So what.
This is what is wrong with America. People live too long. Just like you have to be a certain age to drive, vote, etc, there should be a maximum age to vote, drive, etc.
-
The Russians Colluded Massively — with Democrats
By DEROY MURDOCK
February 24, 2018
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-russians-colluded-massively-with-democrats/
The democrats always accuse republicans of what dems are actually doing.
-
-
Would be nice for the leftists on this board to unite in agreement that this is really f'n bad.
And the lack of media coverage is disturbing - it's much bigger than Watergate, and it's ignored.
-
Would be nice for the leftists on this board to unite in agreement that this is really f'n bad.
And the lack of media coverage is disturbing - it's much bigger than Watergate, and it's ignored.
They are proud of it!
-
Yes "so what." That's the mainstream media's response to all of this. Typical.
You are correct. "We" only includes those who pay attention to current events, read past the headlines, don't live in a bubble, and expose themselves to multiple news sources.
Thanks for explaining your application of the word, 'we'.
FYI, it has been shown over and over that Coach does not read past the headlines or if he does he misses the parts that read the opposite of what the headlines imply.
-
Thanks for explaining your application of the word, 'we'.
FYI, it has been shown over and over that Coach does not read past the headlines or if he does he misses the parts that read the opposite of what the headlines imply.
Does that bother you?
Also, there really isn't any difference between not reading past headlines, and refusing to read articles while focusing on who wrote the article, while ignoring the substance.
-
Does that bother you?
Also, there really isn't any difference between not reading past headlines, and refusing to read articles while focusing on who wrote the article, while ignoring the substance.
Nothing you post bothers me. I do not always agree with some of what you say or how you word it.
The is a big difference between choosing not to read articles written by crackpots and not reading past the headlines you support. In the first example you usually get from it exactly what you expected. In the second one you sometimes find the opposite of what you thought you would. Sensationalized misleading headlines are common practice in the tabloids.
-
Nothing you post bothers me. I do not always agree with some of what you say or how you word it.
The is a big difference between choosing not to read articles written by crackpots and not reading past the headlines you support. In the first example you usually get from it exactly what you expected. In the second one you sometimes find the opposite of what you thought you would. Sensationalized misleading headlines are common practice in the tabloids.
I wasn't asking whether anything I post bothers you. I was asking whether your claim that Coach doesn't read past headlines bother you.
What is your definition of "crackpot"?
-
I wasn't asking whether anything I post bothers you. I was asking whether your claim that Coach doesn't read past headlines bother you.
What is your definition of "crackpot"?
Like I posted earlier today, I like Coach. I believe he is a good person. It bothers me when he sets himself up by not reading the accompanying article or if he is reading it, he either misses or ignores that the article says something entirely different than the headline did and subsequently posts that which makes him look foolish.
My definition of crackpot is about the same as the definition in Websters: 'one given to eccentric or wildly foolish notions.' However, I find some eccentric people and their eccentricities interesting, amusing, and even enjoyable.
-
Like I posted earlier today, I like Coach. I believe he is a good person. It bothers me when he sets himself up by not reading the accompanying article or if he is reading it, he either misses or ignores that the article says something entirely different than the headline did and subsequently posts that which makes him look foolish.
My definition of crackpot is about the same as the definition in Websters: 'one given to eccentric or wildly foolish notions.' However, I find some eccentric people and their eccentricities interesting, amusing, and even enjoyable.
I think your definition is broader than Websters, because you routinely refuse to read any conservative sources.
-
Durham Report Reveals FBI Shut Down Four Criminal Investigations into the Clintons
JORDAN DIXON-HAMILTON
18 May 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/05/18/durham-report-reveals-fbi-shut-down-four-criminal-investigations-into-the-clintons/
-
How Obama officials and the FBI squashed any investigation into Hillary Clinton
By Andrew C. McCarthy
May 19, 2023
https://nypost.com/2023/05/19/how-obama-officials-fbi-squashed-any-investigation-into-hillary-clinton/?dicbo=v2-isWvVr9
-
Hillary Clinton's plan to 'vilify' Trump by linking him to Putin was briefed to Obama and Biden before the election in 2016 - while the FBI and DOJ restricted investigations into her campaign, Durham report says
Special Counsel John Durham released his final report on Monday
It accused FBI agents of failing to look into allegations against Hillary Clinton
It contrasted that with the way it relied on the Steele Dossier against Trump
By ROB CRILLY, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 15 May 2023
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12086891/Hillarys-plan-link-Trump-Putin-briefed-Obama-Biden-Durham-report.html