Re Insurance Policies: Christopher Steele Testimony in London Court

Posted by Tina

Boyoboyoboy…that Hillary girl had more than a few insurance policies going for her in the last election. One involves Christopher Steel. Unless he’s perguring himself, Christopher Steel just spilled his guts in a London Courtroom and it makes Clinton and her Campaign look really bad.

You remember Steel, he’s the guy that wrote the salacious dossier alleging nefarious activities by Donald Trump. None of the information in the dossier was ever verified. It’s the stuff of fiction, the kind of stuff that people believe when they desperately want to believe it. The MSM certainly do and you can bet their viewers know nothing about the criminality going on in the DNC, the former WH, and the FBI, and Justice Department operatives. It was the Steele Dossier that was used to get FISA Warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

The Washington Times reports on some of Steele’s testimony in a London court:

…the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results (of the election) based on evidence he (Steele) unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference.

His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London. The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer.

In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. … Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.

Who is Perkins Coie?

The Washington Post wrote that “Fusion GPS was first retained by the law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in April of 2016.”

News With Views wrote in February 2018:

Perkins Coie Lawfirm is the counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, and other political clients including nearly all Democratic members of the United States Congress, as well as several presidential campaigns, including those of John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Robert Bauer became Barack Obama’s private attorney after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 in the corrupt State of Illinois. In 2009, President Obama appointed Robert Bauer, the chair of the firm’s Political Law practice, to become his White House Counsel, and in 2011 Bauer returned to private practice with Perkins Coie.

This is how the Democrat Party and Deep State operators plays…dirty, dirty, dirty. But it seems the law is finally catching up to them. Some may manage to escape justice. They won;t escape eternal justice. One things for sure, it’s long past time for a big comeuppance.

This entry was posted in Morals and Ethics. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Re Insurance Policies: Christopher Steele Testimony in London Court

  1. J. Soden says:

    The FISA court should be angry as hell that they were lied to repeatedly by the 7th floor hacks.
    They all haven’t been removed yet.

    • Chris says:

      The FBI did not lie to the FISA court. They told the FISA court that they “suspected” the dossier was paid for by an opponent of Trump’s. It stands to reason they didn’t know which specific opponent at the time they said this, because if they did, why on earth wouldn’t they say so?

      The right-wing argument here rests on the presumption that the FBI agents knew Hillary paid for the dossier, but that telling the court that it was paid for by some unnamed political opponent would be enough to fool them into believing it was more credible than if they had just said it was Hillary. That makes literally zero sense.

      Again, the judge was told that the dossier was paid for by a political opponent of Trump. This made no difference. The dossier wasn’t even the only piece of evidence used to get the warrant, and probably wasn’t the strongest. Four Republican-appointed judges looked at the evidence and approved the FISA warrant. There remains zero evidence that this situation was improper or even unusual. The claims that it was are a distraction from the Trump campaign’s shadiness and incompetent criminality.

      • Tina says:

        They told the FISA court that they “suspected” the dossier was paid for by an opponent of Trump’s.

        Don’t know where you got that information but it conflicts with everything that has been discovered in documents.

        The American spectator,”Did the FBI Lie to the FISA Court?”

        Is the pope still a Catholic?

        Consider the source.

        The FBI did not allow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to do just that.

        Instead, the heavily-redacted application for a warrant to surveil U.S. citizen Carter Page obscures the source. It never says, at least in the unredacted portions, that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid operatives to dig dirt on Donald Trump.

        This allows the warrant to talk of “research” and not “opposition research.” The warrant application shields the partisan origins of the “dossier” and talks of a “law firm” hiring the investigators. In reality, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC paid the law firm, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Christopher Steele (and, given the reference to a “U.S. person” in the warrant, perhaps others — unless that “U.S. person” was, in fact, a U.K. person, which complicates the narrative of foreign interference) to conduct opposition research.

        By using intermediaries to effectively launder dirty money clean, the Clinton campaign kept its name off of a story it generated — and dodged the whole intent of campaign finance laws in the process. The FBI, not wanting to undermine its case to the FISA court, similarly omitted that the material it presented to the court came from a political operative paid by the opponent of “Candidate #1.” It now omits the name of the agent bringing the application forth to the court. Judging by what we know about the various FBI employees involved in the investigation, the agent’s identity may prove similarly damning. Why redact the investigating agent’s name and not the subject of his or her investigation?

        The date of the application also remains redacted, at least partially so. Although we see a stamp that indicates “2016” and “OCT,” we do not know the exact date. Christopher Steele reported findings to the FBI beginning in early July 2016. At some point before Election Day, the bureau and Steele reached an agreement, later voided, in which the FBI pledged to pay the former MI6 officer to continue his investigation. Surely the FBI knew by that point just who had been paying Steele, right? It is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.

        If the bureau did not, it reveals itself in the warrant as comically incompetent. If the bureau did, it reveals itself in the warrant as terribly dishonest. Lying to judges, like lying to the FBI, comes with consequences — at least it should.

        Here’s what the application states in a footnote:

        Source #1, who now owns a foreign business/financial intelligence firm, was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S. based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia (the identified U.S. person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship). The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.

        Did the FBI merely speculate at this point or did it know? A few lines later the FBI hints at a “reason” — without explaining the nature of the “reason” — for Source #1’s research.

        “Notwithstanding Source #1’s reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia,” a footnote explains, “based on Source #1’s previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1’s reporting herein to be credible.”

        In excising information directly pertaining to that source’s credibility, the FBI impugned its own. Congressman Devin Nunes said earlier this year that the FBI “basically lied to the court” to get the warrant. The application partially released seems to confirm this.

        I’ll grant you the deviousness is very darkly clever and manipulative. That’s how these characters manage to slither past the justice they deserve!

        • J. Soden says:

          Chris is back on the soapbox bloviating about things he is ignorant of.
          Guess the break is over . . . . . . . .

        • Chris says:

          Tina,

          You just confirmed my point while denying it.

          “They told the FISA court that they “suspected” the dossier was paid for by an opponent of Trump’s.”

          Don’t know where you got that information but it conflicts with everything that has been discovered in documents.

          It conflicts with nothing. It doesn’t even conflict with the American Spectator article you link to, which admits:

          The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.

          The “identified U.S. person” is Glenn Simpson, who worked with Fusion GPS. I was wrong to say that the FBI said they “suspected” the person to be attempting to discredit Trump; the word they used was “speculates.” But the point stands: the judge was told by the FBI that the motive behind those funding the dossier was to discredit Trump. It thus would make no sense to conclude that the FBI was simultaneously hiding the fact that the dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign; any rational judge would suspect such a thing themselves once they were told it was funded by someone trying to discredit Trump.

          Even the Spectator admits they have no evidence that the FBI knew the Clinton campaign funded the dossier at the time they applied for the FISA warrant.

          • Tina says:

            “…the judge was told by the FBI that the motive behind those funding the dossier was to discredit Trump.”

            Oh that’s hilarious.

            Carter Page was the target in the first FISA application. The supposed possible “crime” under investigation, the reason for the warrant, was “collusion” with Russia by Trump/Trump campaign. (By the way, lawyers have pointed out that collusion is not a crime)

            Chris you know so little about what has gone on, this is not worth my time. You’re going to believe whatever you want anyway.

            Why would the FBI tell a judge the motive was to discredit Trump when they were attempting to prove Russia collusion? Don’t bother…they wouldn’t.

            The Federalist right after the redacted warrants were released. Read it.

          • Chris says:

            Why would the FBI tell a judge the motive was to discredit Trump when they were attempting to prove Russia collusion? Don’t bother…they wouldn’t.

            What are you talking about?

            You literally just linked to proof that the FBI told the judge exactly that:

            The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.

            How much more clear can I make this?

            Carter Page was the target in the first FISA application. The supposed possible “crime” under investigation, the reason for the warrant, was “collusion” with Russia by Trump/Trump campaign.

            No, that was not the reason for the FISA warrant on Carter Page.

            (By the way, lawyers have pointed out that collusion is not a crime)

            Jesus, Tina…collusion with crimes is a crime. The underlying crimes that the FBI has already uncovered involve election interference by Russians. Many Russians have already been indicted for those crimes. If there is evidence that Trump or members of his campaign colluded with those Russians or any others in their election interference crimes, that would absolutely be a criminal offense.

            I grant you that such collusion has not yet been uncovered, and perhaps never will. But in the course of the investigation, Mueller has uncovered numerous other crimes that members of the Trump campaign were involved in, and you object to prosecuting those crimes while hypocritically hiding behind “law and order.” In the case of Michael Cohen, they’ve uncovered a crime that the president is directly implicated in. This crime involves the president and his lawyer/fixer violating campaign finance law in an attempt to hide information from the public on the eve of an election. The president first lied that there was no such payment, then changed his story that he didn’t know anything about it when it was made, then changed his story to “It wasn’t illegal.” The other crimes involve telling lies to the FBI–the very same lies that the president and members of his administration were simultaneously selling to the public–about contacts with Russians. Now we find out that Trump was also planning a lucrative deal with Russia and denying it during the campaign. You show no curiosity about why these lies were told or anger that they were told at all.

            When are you going to get sick of Trump lying to you all the time?

      • Tina says:

        “…the judge was told that the dossier was paid for by a political opponent of Trump”

        An even greater deception since the opposition research started with a GOP opponent during the primaries. The deceit is significant. The Democrats were the party in power and they were using the power of the government against the opposition party. This is the act of a dictator!! Obama HAD TO KNOW this was going on, if for no other reason than it was in the news!!! he did nothing. The hapless sycophant Dem loving media didn’t raise questions…WHY NOT?

        Is this beginning to penetrate yet, Chris? Do you recognize that this is party acting as if it had absolute control? Do you realize where the talking point, “Trump doesn’t have a chance” originated? You told me that! What made everyone so sure unless they thought she was a shoe in made possible by their rotten schemes.

        Forget the parties…we’re talking about our country. Our country will not survive if the rule of law is lost.

        • Chris says:

          Tina,

          Your claims are hysterical and baseless.

          The Democratic party did not run the FBI investigation. It was run by Republicans.

          The FBI couldn’t “deceive” the FISA court by not telling them Hillary funded the dossier if they didn’t know Hillary funded the dossier, and there is no evidence that they knew, or you would have provided it by now. Steele himself did not know.

          If they had known, there would have been no purpose in telling the court that it was paid for by someone looking to hurt Trump. That was obvious. Who would be deceived by such a thing? You’re telling me that if you were a judge, you would be fine with accepting that evidence knowing it was paid for by some unknown opponent, but knowing it was Hillary specifically would totally change your decision? You wouldn’t suspect it might be Hillary immediately?

          Such “deception” would be utterly pointless.

          I’ve tried to explain this to you as slowly and patiently as possible…and you just won’t hear it.

          Our country will not survive if the rule of law is lost.

          You are angry that the rule of law is capturing so many people in Trump’s orbit because you like Trump. You will not admit that so many on his campaign defied the law, and got caught for it, because you are afraid Trump might be next. The rule of law is working here, Tina. You’d just prefer there were a class of people it didn’t apply to.

        • Chris says:

          An even greater deception since the opposition research started with a GOP opponent during the primaries. The deceit is significant. The Democrats were the party in power and they were using the power of the government against the opposition party. This is the act of a dictator!! Obama HAD TO KNOW this was going on, if for no other reason than it was in the news!!!

          You’ve completely lost the plot. Neither the FISA warrant on Page nor the existence of the Trump investigation were “in the news” until well after the election.

          You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

          Is this beginning to penetrate yet, Chris? Do you recognize that this is party acting as if it had absolute control? Do you realize where the talking point, “Trump doesn’t have a chance” originated? You told me that! What made everyone so sure unless they thought she was a shoe in made possible by their rotten schemes.

          This is just…nuts. You’re inventing a deep state conspiracy to explain why nearly everyone, including many Republicans, were certain Trump would lose the election? You think such a conspiracy theory is necessary to explain this, and not the fact that Trump is a stupid asshole who nobody likes? Even his new chief of staff is on tape calling him a terrible human being during the election–is Mulvaney in on it too?

          The theory was that Trump, who insulted basically everybody during the election, from POWs, to American generals, to the disabled, to other Republicans, to women as a group, Muslims as a group, and Mexicans as a group, would never be able to drum up the support of the majority of the American public. That theory was and is true. Trump did not win the support of the majority of Americans in the election, and has not won it since, as he shows zero interest in reaching out to people other than his pre-existing core group of supporters. Trump won because of a quirk of our system which gives more of a voice to those who happen to be more likely to belong to that core group of supporters, because they are spread out in certain areas of the country. These voters were, to be fair, much more motivated than his opponents’ voters, an advantage that was further exploited by the Russian government and its allies, and was inadvertently heightened by Comey’s regrettable choice a week before the election to reveal he had re-opened the Clinton investigation (over a relatively minor matter that did not directly implicate Clinton).

          But sure, it’s the deep state. Go with that. Feelings don’t care about facts.

  2. Libby says:

    Yeah. Dirty, dirty, dirty … is what Steele unearthed about Trump.

    I know it pains you, but there it is. Poor Mr. Flynn and Mr. Cohen have plead to some of it.

    Tell me? If there is dirt to be found, is it really wrong for your opposing candidate to dig it up?

    And what are you grousing about, anyway? All that slime, and he still got elected. Shouldn’t you be pleased? But if you’re thinking we are going to forget about the slime, you’re nuts.

    • Tina says:

      This isn’t about dirt…this is about using the power of government positions against a political opponent and members of administration.

      If the dirt is not truthful, as Mr. Steele himself has admitted in a London court and as the FBI indicated themselves to the president, and has been used criminally and politically to take out the opposing party’s candidate and then winner in the election? What should happen to all those involved, Libby? And will you have the courage to admit your party leaders are scum if they are guilty of such?

      As a woman so turned off by “dirt” you sure have been willing to hang with a filthy party!

      • Libby says:

        ” … this is about using the power of government positions against a political opponent and members of administration.”

        Tina, the only way this statement would make sense is if Hils were in the government and Donald out. Hils is not in the government, which makes your Hils obsession … very … obsessive.

        Likewise, the DNC is perfectly entitled to conduct all the opposition research it wants to … by legal methods. And there is nothing illegal about commissioning some expert opinion.

        Now that you mention it, I’m going all nostalgic over that party which has been known to employ burglary in THEIR research. 1972: physical burglary. 2016: cyber burglary. Things don’t change, do they?

      • Chris says:

        If the dirt is not truthful, as Mr. Steele himself has admitted in a London court

        Well now you are just lying about what Steele said.

  3. Chris says:

    “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. … Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.“

    …Ok?

    What do you think that means? That it invalidates Steele’s research? That Perkins Coie broke the law? It doesn’t mean any of that.

    I might think their legal theory here is a bit nuts–even if it was found that Trump did arrange some kind of quid pro quo with Russia, that doesn’t mean the results of the election would be legally invalid–but that doesn’t discredit Steele’s research, nor does it make it all that “dirty.” That the law firm Democrats have been relying on has some dumb legal theories is embarrassing, though.

    It was the Steele Dossier that was used to get FISA Warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

    This statement is false. The Steele dossier was used as ONE piece of evidence used to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page. No other “members” of the campaign were ever spied on using FISA, so I don’t even know where you’re getting that from. Page was on the FBI’s radar long before he ever worked on the Trump campaign. You have not made a compelling case that the FBI shouldn’t have been investigating a possible unregistered foreign agent more thoroughly when he was working on a presidential campaign–especially since we now know that there was at least one other unregistered foreign agent working on the same campaign.

    None of the information in the dossier was ever verified

    This is also false.

    –The Steele dossier was correct in its allegations that the Russian government was targeting the U.S. election process, and it was correct about the methods used to do so. –It was the first source to report that someone close to the campaign had been in contact with the hacker Guccifer 2.0; that person has been confirmed to be Roger Stone.
    –The dossier alleged Trump pursuing a major business deal in Russia during the campaign–a fact Trump spent the entire campaign and most of his administration denying, but was recently confirmed to exist by Michael Cohen, and later the president himself.

    A full examination of the parts of the dossier that have been confirmed, as well as many that have not been, can be found here:

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

    The MSM certainly do

    I see little evidence of this. The MSM had access to the Steele dossier for months before they reported on it, and even then, it was only to report that Buzzfeed had broken the story; the tone of much of the coverage was one of mild embarrassment given the extremity of the allegations. No one in the MSM has reported any of the allegations in the Steele dossier as fact.

    • Tina says:

      “What do you think that means? That it invalidates Steele’s research? That Perkins Coie broke the law? It doesn’t mean any of that.”

      See the Spectator article posted in my comment above.

      “that doesn’t discredit Steele’s research”

      See the Spectator article. Also, the FBI itself discredited Steele as unreliable and refused to work with him.

      More at Western Journal on the less than forthcoming FBI.

      None of the information in the Steele dossier about Trump was varified. Trump did not “collude” with the Russians, the premise for this witch hunt and Russian election meddling amounted to a few thousand spent on advertising that did not influence the election!

      Roger Stone dismissed allegations against him as reported by CBS, ‘Stone said in a statement that when he had his ‘brief exchange’ with Guccifer 2.0. on August 16, he was unaware of any allegations that Guccifer 2.0 was or is a Russian agent.”

      Trump was a businessman who had looked into building a Trump hotel in Russia. How difficult would it be to “allege” a business deal? And certainly whatever business his company started before he ran for president would take some time to wrap up.

      Meanwhile the criminals pursuing him are not under such deep scrutiny by most media and are not being relentlessly pursued by the FBI and the courts, nor are they being surveilled under questionable circumstances and trickery..

      • Libby says:

        Tina … you flail … pointlessly.

        Nearly all of the Steele dossier has been verified. There is only that elusive “pee tape” yet to find.

        • Tina says:

          “Nearly all of the Steele dossier has been verified”

          Not sure that’s accurate. Steele has been discredited by the FBI. And NO CRIME was found in whatever was verified. Still, they continued with this sham of a story about Trump collusion with Russians and the pee pee lie. The constant drumbeat is called propaganda. It has a purpose…get rid of Trump.

          Sorry but that’s not the way I want my country to operate…you shouldn’t either.

          • Chris says:

            Steele has been discredited by the FBI.

            No, he hasn’t been. He was let go for leaking, but the FBI has made no comment as to the reliability of his intel.

            Still, they continued with this sham of a story about Trump collusion with Russians and the pee pee lie.

            Who is “they?” No mainstream media source has spent a significant amount of time on the pee tape story, and there’s no evidence that the Mueller investigation is pursuing this avenue. It’s the stuff of late-night comic jokes and Twitter humor. The Russian collusion claims themselves do get more airtime, but are always reported as claims, not facts. The investigation is into a wide variety of crimes committed by the Trump campaign, many of which have now led to guilty pleas. The Trump campaign, which promised a return to law and order, was a criminal enterprise, just as Trump’s charitable foundation was. When are you going to start looking for an exit strategy here?

          • John says:

            “The Russian collusion claims themselves do get more airtime”
            Yes they do, they are in everything. Now that congress has concluded that there was no collusion, albeit without a report yet. That’s all you hear, still from much of the MSM and most certainly on social media. So the propaganda worked, at least on the Trump haters, but they were going to hate him either way. The FBI is corrupt, most of congress is corrupt. You said yourself, that other possible crimes were found by Mueller while investigating collusion. If that’s true, I do believe that goes beyond the scope of the investigation. That’s how it works. Special counsel investigates things directly related to whatever the subject of the investigation is. That’s not to say there might be some stuff they dig up that’s wrong, IDK. But what is clear to see, is that there was/is a conspiracy to overthrown a rightly elected president. You overlook the crimes and deception of the democratic party and so do the MSM. Social media is also involved in this madness. Deplatforming conservatives and protecting the true fascist communist/socialists. They will stop at nothing short of stealing our 1st and 2nd amendments. And don’t forget, or try to spin the supporting of killing children. A 9 month old. 8th, or 7th for that matter, is a well developed child. Protecting the mothers life is no excuse, because in the last trimester, the baby could be saved as well. I have no love of the either party, but the democrats are so sick and twisted its ridiculous. 2020 Trump 82%. independent polls.

          • Chris says:

            “The Russian collusion claims themselves do get more airtime”
            Yes they do, they are in everything. Now that congress has concluded that there was no collusion, albeit without a report yet.

            “Congress” has concluded no such thing. Some Republican members of Congress have stated that there is no “direct evidence” of collusion, not that there was no collusion. I would agree that such direct evidence has not been revealed yet, if I’m just going off of what has been released to the public. The circumstantial evidence, however, was extremely troubling at the start of the investigation and has gotten more and more damning as the months have gone by.

            That’s all you hear, still from much of the MSM and most certainly on social media. So the propaganda worked, at least on the Trump haters, but they were going to hate him either way. The FBI is corrupt, most of congress is corrupt. You said yourself, that other possible crimes were found by Mueller while investigating collusion. If that’s true, I do believe that goes beyond the scope of the investigation. That’s how it works.

            What specific crimes are you referring to that you consider outside the scope? My understanding is that Mueller has referred several crimes unrelated to Russian links, such as Cohen’s, to the SDNY instead of handling them directly. That is how it works. The other crimes Mueller has prosecuted have involved lies told about the campaign’s Russian links. Correct me if I’m wrong.

            Special counsel investigates things directly related to whatever the subject of the investigation is. That’s not to say there might be some stuff they dig up that’s wrong, IDK. But what is clear to see, is that there was/is a conspiracy to overthrown a rightly elected president.

            An appropriate investigation is not a conspiracy, and you cannot argue that the investigation was not appropriate given the facts that were known at the time it began. There has also been no evidence that the Mueller investigation has been handled inappropriately.

            Whether he was rightfully elected without cheating is part of the question. We know for a fact that members of the Trump campaign went to a meeting for the purpose of securing an illegal campaign contribution (in the form of dirt on their opponent) from people who said they worked for the Russian government. That’s cheating. We also know that Trump himself showed a disturbing willingness to accept Russian help when he “joked” about wanting Russia to release more of Hillary’s emails. After this, he covered for Russia’s crimes and refused to fully accept the findings of our intelligence agencies. He’s also made an effort to hide interactions with Russia, lying to the public that he had no business dealings there at a time he was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow. After a private meeting with Putin, he took his interpretor’s notes and told them not to discuss the meeting with others in his administration. This of course doesn’t cover the many other attempts to interactions with Russia among Trump’s campaign staff. Manafort was an unregistered foreign agent for Russian interests in the Ukraine, and passed private polling data to WikiLeaks, a Russian propaganda firm. Flynn lied about discussing sanctions (the same sanctions Trump was vocally against). Roger Stone was also in contact with WikiLeaks around the time they were hacking the DNC. Jared Kushner, who was given a security clearance by Trump over the objections of senior staff (a fact Trump and his family lied about for several years), tried to set up a back channel from the White House to the Kremlin.

            And those are just the known facts. Now, none of them directly prove collusion, but I cannot understand why more Republicans do not find those facts disturbing, unless they are poisoned by partisan bias. Don’t you want to know why some of those things were lied about? After being so strongly against Hillary Clinton for her very real national security problem of having a private server, why not show more interest in Trump’s endangerment of national security with Kushner?

            You overlook the crimes and deception of the democratic party and so do the MSM. Social media is also involved in this madness. Deplatforming conservatives and protecting the true fascist communist/socialists. They will stop at nothing short of stealing our 1st and 2nd amendments.

            Social media websites themselves have a first amendment right to decide who does and does not get to post on those websites. And of course, there are still plenty of conservative and Trump-friendly voices on Twitter and Facebook that are large and influential.

            Who do you think has been removed that was removed unfairly?

            And don’t forget, or try to spin the supporting of killing children. A 9 month old. 8th, or 7th for that matter, is a well developed child. Protecting the mothers life is no excuse, because in the last trimester, the baby could be saved as well. I have no love of the either party, but the democrats are so sick and twisted its ridiculous. 2020 Trump 82%. independent polls.

            This is very off-topic, but the fact is that the laws you’re referring to are about medical emergencies. Elective abortions as late as you’re talking about simply do not occur, and I would challenge you or anyone else to prove otherwise.

      • Lonestar says:

        About yer liberal water carriers Libby or Chris, either one of them could start a argument in a empty house.

        They need to start accepting that their party started fixn’ this here pot o’poop . And the paddle they used to stir it has the Clinton’s fingerprints all over it.

        https://start.att.net/player/category/news/article/fox_news-clinton_foundation_whistleblowers_set_to_make_alle-foxnewshv

        • Tina says:

          The truth will come out, Lonestar.

          The number of people who have been willing participants with the Clintons, or have been willing to stand by and let the Clinton’s get away with this stuff, over decades is staggering.

      • Chris says:

        “What do you think that means? That it invalidates Steele’s research? That Perkins Coie broke the law? It doesn’t mean any of that.”

        See the Spectator article posted in my comment above.

        I did. It was garbage. It admits several facts that contradict its narrative that the FBI deceived a FISA judge, then continues to push that narrative despite those facts.

        I have no idea how you think it supports the idea that Steele’s research has been discredited or that Perkins Coie broke the law, because it doesn’t even allege such things.

        Also, the FBI itself discredited Steele as unreliable and refused to work with him.

        No, they fired him for leaking, not for being an unreliable source.

        More at Western Journal on the less than forthcoming FBI.

        My god, your sources…

        Roger Stone dismissed allegations against him as reported by CBS, ‘Stone said in a statement that when he had his ‘brief exchange’ with Guccifer 2.0. on August 16, he was unaware of any allegations that Guccifer 2.0 was or is a Russian agent.”

        Oh, well then, that settles that then. Because Roger Stone has never lied!

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/roger-stone-admits-spreading-lies-on-infowars-11545093097

        Trump was a businessman who had looked into building a Trump hotel in Russia. How difficult would it be to “allege” a business deal? And certainly whatever business his company started before he ran for president would take some time to wrap up.

        Why did he lie to you about this business deal, Tina?

        Do you care?

        https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/trump-signed-letter-of-intent-rudy-giuliani-moscow/index.html

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    The Ludicrous Water Carrier proudly proclaims — “No, he [Steele] hasn’t been [discredited by the FBI]. He was let go for leaking, but the FBI has made no comment as to the reliability of his intel.

    1) James Comey admitted the Steele dossier was unverified months after the FISA warrant granted using it was unverified. (In other words, they knew it was bogus.)

    2) Comey said it was “not necessary” for the FBI to validate the sources that dossier author Christopher Steele used to compile his report. (WHAT????!!!!)

    3) Comey signed off on three out of four spy warrants granted against Carter Page (based upon the unverified and highly questionable dossier).

    Chris is may be correct, the FBI has never explicitly nor categorically stated that the Steele dossier has been discredited. BUT SO WHAT? BFD there, Chris.

    The FBI and Comey HAVE thoroughly discredited themselves for abusing the FISA warrant process by using unverified (and unverifiable) garbage to launch a purely politically motivated bull**** investigation. Comey and his deep state crew (including Mr. Strzok) have single handedly done what may be irreparable damage to the prestige, confidence and respect American citizens have for this once venerable institution of law enforcement. How this intensely narcissistic, sociopathic wreck ever rose to such a position of power and trust absolutely flabbergasts me. Perhaps the Peter principle is at work here and is embodied by James Comey and Chris the Whiz Kid.

    • Chris says:

      1) James Comey admitted the Steele dossier was unverified months after the FISA warrant granted using it was unverified. (In other words, they knew it was bogus.)

      Stop lying. Comey said that “parts” of the dossier were unverified, not that the whole dossier was unverified. I know you know this.

      2) Comey said it was “not necessary” for the FBI to validate the sources that dossier author Christopher Steele used to compile his report. (WHAT????!!!!)

      Comey is correct.

      But national security experts and former FBI officials say that verification of each and every fact mentioned in FISA applications is not necessarily required.

      “Evidence presented to the court does not have to be rigorously proved or corroborated. But it does have to be plausible and credible — not just rumor or hearsay,” Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

      The FBI can cite information that the bureau has not fully verified or corroborated as long as the source for the information is made clear and an assessment of the reliability of the information is included in the application. (RELATED: Internal FBI Documents Raise Questions About Use Of Unverified Steele Dossier)

      It is up to one of the judges sitting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to decide if the evidence meets the standard of probable cause that a surveillance target is acting as an agent of a foreign power…

      …One former FBI special agent says that the relevant fact that had to be verified was that Steele was a source of the information, not that his allegations were fully accurate.

      “If you are including source reporting, you must accurately state that it is source reporting and characterize what the source said,” Asha Rangappa, the former agent, said in a recent Twitter exchange with TheDCNF.
      “You would typically have a separate source file against which it would be checked. The ‘fact’ is that it is information reported by a source,” she said.

      https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/04/fbi-dossier-verified/

      3) Comey signed off on three out of four spy warrants granted against Carter Page (based upon the unverified and highly questionable dossier).

      Stop lying. The warrants were not fully based on the dossier. I know you know this.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        The liar in chief here is you, Chris. First of all, I never said all of it was unverified. Nevertheless your “parts” argument is fallacious, nitpicking drivel that nonsensically (but conveniently) ignores the fruit of the poisoned tree. (Not in the sense that the intelligence was illegal, but that it was political crap.) Up yours, pissant, for calling me a liar. There is a baseball bat with your name on it and someday you are going to step on the wrong person, ***hole.

        Fact: Director James Comey told a Senate committee “The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified.”

        What part of that do you NOT understand?

        Fact: The dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

        Do you care? **** no! OF COURSE NOT!

        If the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified before Congress then the Bureau could not have possibly verified it when the FISA warrants were sought nine months earlier. I am getting through to you yet?

        So, tell me Chris, how much of the FISA warrants were based on the salacious and unverified material and how much not? C’mon Mr. Know-it-all, pompous ass, tell me. Some, not all? Most? A couple bits? How would you know? Were you in the room and in the judge’s mind? Nice try, but you do not know jack and you are lying to yourself, as usual.

        So, drop dead tiny fool. Go ahead, weave a tapestry of lies out of nitpicking and half truths, but YOU calling ME a liar is a laugh.

        • Chris says:

          The liar in chief here is you, Chris. First of all, I never said all of it was unverified.

          Yes, you did. You said this:

          1) James Comey admitted the Steele dossier was unverified

          You know as well as I do that the absence of a qualifier implies “all.” I know you know this.

          Again, Comey did not say the Steele dossier was unverified. He said parts of it were. Omitting that was a deliberate attempt on your part to mislead, and now you are trying to deny that. You know it won’t work on me, but you also know it will work on the others here.

          Nevertheless your “parts” argument is fallacious, nitpicking drivel that nonsensically (but conveniently) ignores the fruit of the poisoned tree. (Not in the sense that the intelligence was illegal, but that it was political crap.)

          This is funny. You show awareness here that this would legally not count as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” which is a legal term…but you’re using this legal term anyway to describe how you feel. Popehat might have something to say about that.

          https://twitter.com/popehat/status/989155952946397184?lang=en

          Up yours, pissant, for calling me a liar. There is a baseball bat with your name on it and someday you are going to step on the wrong person, ***hole.

          There’s no reason to resort to threats of violence just because you’re losing an argument, Pie. (This also belies your insistence that *I* am the uncivil one in our conversations.)

          Fact: Director James Comey told a Senate committee “The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified.”

          What part of that do you NOT understand?

          I understand it better than you do. Again, “this material” did not refer to the entire dossier if you read his remarks in context:

          https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/05/devin-nunes/nunes-memo-twists-james-comeys-words-steele-dossie/

          Fact: The dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

          Do you care? **** no! OF COURSE NOT!

          Why would I care about that? No, seriously: Explain why that matters. Take into account the fact that Steele himself did not even know who was funding his investigation. So how does the funding influence Steele’s findings? How does the funding influence whether or not the FISA warrant should have been issued? The FBI told the judge it was paid for by someone looking to hurt Trump–which was obvious–and the judge approved the warrant anyway. How on earth would telling the judge that the dossier was paid for specifically by Clinton–a fact which there is no evidence that the FBI knew–possibly change the judge’s decision?

          If the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified before Congress then the Bureau could not have possibly verified it when the FISA warrants were sought nine months earlier. I am getting through to you yet?

          No, because as I showed you in the previous comment, you don’t know what “verified” means in this context.


          But national security experts and former FBI officials say that verification of each and every fact mentioned in FISA applications is not necessarily required.

          “Evidence presented to the court does not have to be rigorously proved or corroborated. But it does have to be plausible and credible — not just rumor or hearsay,” Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

          The FBI can cite information that the bureau has not fully verified or corroborated as long as the source for the information is made clear and an assessment of the reliability of the information is included in the application. (RELATED: Internal FBI Documents Raise Questions About Use Of Unverified Steele Dossier)

          It is up to one of the judges sitting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to decide if the evidence meets the standard of probable cause that a surveillance target is acting as an agent of a foreign power…

          …One former FBI special agent says that the relevant fact that had to be verified was that Steele was a source of the information, not that his allegations were fully accurate.

          “If you are including source reporting, you must accurately state that it is source reporting and characterize what the source said,” Asha Rangappa, the former agent, said in a recent Twitter exchange with TheDCNF.
          “You would typically have a separate source file against which it would be checked. The ‘fact’ is that it is information reported by a source,” she said.

          https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/04/fbi-dossier-verified/

          So, tell me Chris, how much of the FISA warrants were based on the salacious and unverified material and how much not? C’mon Mr. Know-it-all, pompous ass, tell me. Some, not all? Most? A couple bits? How would you know? Were you in the room and in the judge’s mind? Nice try, but you do not know jack and you are lying to yourself, as usual.

          I don’t know. I never pretended to know. But we do know because of the portions released in the Schiff memo that the answer is “not all.” Therefore, your claim that the warrant was based on the dossier remains misleading and untrue, because you omitted (deliberately) the fact that it was based on other material as well.

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Chris: “Tina,

    Your claims are hysterical and baseless.

    The Democratic party did not run the FBI investigation. It was run by Republicans. ”

    Translation: U r dumb, I r smart.

    • Chris says:

      Well, yes, it is very dumb to believe that an investigation run by Republicans who were at the same time publicly investigating a Democrat while keeping their investigation into a Republican under wraps was somehow an attempt to sabotage Republicans.

      Your comment reveals that you know this, and have no rebuttal to it.

  6. Tina says:

    Chris we are not communicating. I will shoulder the responsibility for that. I see no reason to continue talking past one another. We obviously come to this from very different perspectives. You are on board with Trump being scummy, guilty and wrong. I’m coming from the perspective that persons within the various departments and the Hillary campaign acted improperly and in some cases criminally and they need to be exposed. It’s regrettable to me that you have no interest in that part of this, but then that’s one reason this nation is so deeply divided.

    Let me simply wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.