Manafort Pleas, Thank you (Investigation+ thread v. 23)

[FIMN]

Look into who created and how that piece of trash was created.

I mean I'm aware of its origins. I'm just asking you to articulate what you mean (if you are able?)

 

[cleetus]

I mean I'm aware of its origins. I'm just asking you to articulate what you mean (if you are able?)

This lays it all out better than I can articulate it: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...exposing-what-fusion-gps-told-doj-about-trump

TL;DR - TOTAL sham set up by HRC, the Obama admin, with corroboration and COLLUSION from the UK and Aussies. UK "spy" lied about origins of info and the fairy tale continues from there.

 

[cleetus]

Actually if you read the Dossier. It doesn't say he pissed on hookers.

It says perverted sexual acts including in one instance where tRUmp had Russian hookers pee on a bed Obama slept on while Obama was in Moscow.

So way to show you haven't read the Dossier. Then again, I'm guessing reading is hard and you need Hannity to spoonfeed you information

I didn't read it. For fiction I prefer to read leftist posts instead.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

I didn't read it. For fiction I prefer to read leftist posts instead.

So in other words you have no idea about the methods used nor the information contained in it but can make a definitive determination as to the veracity of the claims

 

[FIMN]

This lays it all out better than I can articulate it: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...exposing-what-fusion-gps-told-doj-about-trump

TL;DR - TOTAL sham set up by HRC, the Obama admin, with corroboration and COLLUSION from the UK and Aussies. UK "spy" lied about origins of info and the fairy tale continues from there.

Do you have a better source that John Soloman? As per others in this thread he has a credibility issue. I'd just like to read someone with credibility and journalistic ethics if possible

 

[FIMN]

I didn't read it.

For something you haven't read, you sure seem to have strong opinions on it which your posts suggests is unwarranted (basic factual claims you have made are incorrect).

 

[cleetus]

Do you have a better source that John Soloman? As per others in this thread he has a credibility issue. I'd just like to read someone with credibility and journalistic ethics if possible

I gave you the benefit of the doubt you weren't going to be a source-. Try Sara Carter or Dan Bongino if you don't like Solomon.

 

[cleetus]

So in other words you have no idea about the methods used nor the information contained in it but can make a definitive determination as to the veracity of the claims

For something you haven't read, you sure seem to have strong opinions on it which your posts suggests is unwarranted (basic factual claims you have made are incorrect).

I didn't care to read the fiction put forth by the DNC who mbought and paid for "research" used to wrongfully smear the President. If the source is corrupt, the findings are junk as well.

 

[SBJJ]

Do you have a better source that John Soloman? As per others in this thread he has a credibility issue. I'd just like to read someone with credibility and journalistic ethics if possible

What are his credibility issues? He seems to be one of the few actually digging into this stuff

 

[FIMN]

What are his credibility issues? He seems to be one of the few actually digging into this stuff

His wikipedia page spells it out pretty well - unsupported conclusions, bending the truth etc.

The issue isn't really bias, but rather I would have to double check claims in the article for factual accuracy, thus what should be a 10 min article turns into an hours worth of verification.

 

[bobgeese]

flush your theory out for me Bob, and use legitimate sources if you want me to take your seriously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.a3cb24df1765

It’s all clearly written in sourced in the thread on trump being spied on (which btw is now undeniable). Educating you isn’t my responsibility.


That being said, it’s as straightforward as it can be. Baker knew the details, and talked.

 

[bobgeese]

To accuse Papadopulous? You mean the same Papadopulous that signed a cooperation agreement and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts he had with individuals he believed had access to high ranking members of the Russian government?

Yeah that sounds like just an accusation. Fuck outta here with that shitstain logic.

You've been going to those waiguoren legal classes I see. Where guilty pleas aren't any indicative of any sort of guilt.

 

[bobgeese]

This lays it all out better than I can articulate it: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...exposing-what-fusion-gps-told-doj-about-trump

TL;DR - TOTAL sham set up by HRC, the Obama admin, with corroboration and COLLUSION from the UK and Aussies. UK "spy" lied about origins of info and the fairy tale continues from there.

Don’t forget, the fbi lied about what started the investigation and when.


They claimed it was the downer report, the problem is Halper was already dispatched to spy by then.


Can you imagine if Hillary won, none of this corruption would be known by the public.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

It’s all clearly written in sourced in the thread on trump being spied on (which btw is now undeniable). Educating you isn’t my responsibility.


That being said, it’s as straightforward as it can be. Baker knew the details, and talked.

No, what is "as straightforward as it can be" is what I stated earlier in my first response about your Fox News article: "So they are interviewing Rosenstein next week? Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan say something is wrong with the Russia investigation? Stop the press!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.9e143b183402

As for your "you look it up in my spy thread" argument, find a legitimate source supporting what you are suggesting and I will read it, until then, I will just assume that you don't know the difference between news and opinion, and we can stop wasting our time.

As for real news, the whole premise that the Steele Dossier is at the heart of the Page FISA warrant just isn't true. The fact is that Page had been on the FBI's radar for 3 years before Fusion GPS's investigation, as Page had been interacting with Russian spies in 2013, when they got "tapes" of Russian spies saying that he is an "idiot who wants to earn lots of money" whose "enthusiasm works for me". And he became very interesting again in Spring of 2016 when it was announced that he was a Trump advisor, and that the FBI didn't receive Steele's intelligence until that July 5th.

From Michael Isikoff's book: "Page was an odd choice for Trump" the FBI had "warned Page that the Kremlin was trying to recruit him, but he continued to pursue oil-and-gas deals in Russia. Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, a risk-consulting firm where Page had previously worked, said that Page had become a pro-Kremlin “wackadoodle.” and that "the F.B.I. had interviewed Page about his contacts with Russian officials in March, 2016—the same month that Trump named him an adviser." Also, J.D. Gordon from the Trump campaign said he got an e-mail from Page in May suggesting Trump visit Russia (an idea the campaign didn't like), and Gordon also tried to stop Page from going to Moscow to give a speech on July 7th, and Page went over his head to Lewandowski, and Lewandowski said okay but only in his private capacity. Gordon stated that he believed that Page's ultimate desire was to be US Ambassador to Russia."

As for the Steel Dossier itself being a political hit job from Killary and the DNC:

The Fusion GPS investigation was originally funded by a "never Trumper" and the funding stopped after it was clear that Trump was the GOP candidate in May of 2016, and then the Dems took over. The man at Fusion GPS though who wanted to keep it going was Glenn Simpson, because of his concerns about Trump's "sinister" Russian ties, not as a partisan hack for Clinton: "I had no interest in working for Hillary fucking Clinton, I covered those people, Hillary and Bill Clinton for years. They were an old fashioned political machine." Simpson already had intelligence suggesting that the Russians might be seeking to influence the election on behalf of Trump before Simpson recruited Steele, hoping that Steele's history investigating Russian influence operations in western Europe would allow him to pick up intelligence on what the Russians were doing in the US, but he did not tell him the intelligence he already had that the Russians might be seeking to influence the election on behalf of Trump. He told Steele "Tell me what Trump's been doing over there" and they agreed to a 30 day contract with an option to renew for $30K. Steele was already working on projects in Russia for other clients involved in commercial litigation, and he though he could "easily hand this new assignment to his contacts in Russia whom he paid to search out information and prepare reports."

And from the New Yorker:


"Within a few weeks, two or three of Steele’s long-standing collectors came back with reports drawn from Orbis’s larger network of sources. Steele looked at the material and, according to people familiar with the matter, asked himself, “Oh, my God—what is this?” He called in Burrows, who was normally unflappable. Burrows realized that they had a problem. As Simpson later put it, “We threw out a line in the water, and Moby-Dick came back.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

What are his credibility issues? He seems to be one of the few actually digging into this stuff

He isn't a news reporter anymore, he is an "opinion contributor", with a long history of shady reporting.

"Until May 2018, he worked on news and investigative pieces for The Hill.[17] In May 2018, the editor-in-chief of The Hill, announced that Solomon would become an "opinion contributor" at The Hill (he would remain executive vice president of digital video).[17] This came in the wake of reports that Solomon's colleagues at The Hill criticized Solomon's news reporting as lacking rigor and context."

Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review has been critical of John Solomon's reporting.[3] In 2007, he wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[3] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline," and that he "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."[4] In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon failed to add context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[18] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon's reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[19][20][21] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[4]

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Oh yes because a guy caught lying to the FBI ruining his political aspirations wouldn't have an axe to grind

 

[Joe]

 

[hillelslovak87]

TL;DR - TOTAL sham set up by HRC, the Obama admin, with corroboration and COLLUSION from the UK and Aussies. UK "spy" lied about origins of info and the fairy tale continues from there.

Collusion isn't a crime

 

[bobgeese]

Oh yes because a guy caught lying to the FBI ruining his political aspirations wouldn't have an axe to grind

Or, a guy who was actually lured in by a spy, naming the people doing the spying.

 

[waiguoren]

So true. Trump has been much harder on Russia than Obama, but most of the people in this thread have chosen to overlook that fact.