i wonder what Robert Mueller is thinking

[Deleted User 75]

But if Clinton had been elected, there would be no end to your calls for more investigations. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

Yes the hypocrisy is nauseating.

All the times you or someone else says "stop bringing up Clinton".....and then here you are bringing up Clinton.

I see how this works.

Good lord. Its amazing the pure volume of dumb takes you generate in any one day.

You're the 1 who brought up Clinton while calling someone else hypocritical.

Don't be mad at me because I called you on it.

[DCHawk1]

Nah, he's just muddying the waters. I do agree with him that it is important that the FBI behave with an acceptable level of standards. There's just a lot of people with half buckets of information on each side making assumptions about whether they did or not. Not to mention people on different sides defining "acceptable" differently.

The problem is that many of them work for the media sources that can't understand why no one trusts them. (Hi, Fenton!)

[Deleted User 89]

honest question, has any of the dossier been proven false?

[DCHawk1]

But if Clinton had been elected, there would be no end to your calls for more investigations. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

To the best of my knowledge, no one is arguing that there should be no investigation.

Rather, my point is twofold: first, the media is colluding with "government sources" to spread misleading information. There is no news in the Times' "blockbuster." Yet it's breathlessly reported, as if we're all supposed to shudder. No sources are named. No explanations given. Just somebody using reporters eager to be the next Carl Bernstein to advance his/her agenda

I get why the reporters do this, of course. It's easy. Who wouldn't want a story handed to them? But it's unfortunate, to say the least.

Second, even if Trump did something indictable/impeachable, there's no excuse for discovering that under false or flimsy pretenses. The FBI should be held to account, whether Trump goes to Leavenworth, back home to New York, or on to a second term.

[DCHawk1]

honest question, has any of the dossier been proven false?

That's not the appropriate question.

The appropriate question is has any of it been proven true.

And on that, I'll defer to the guy who broke the Lewinsky story and who played a huge role in breaking the dossier story as well, Michael Isikoff:

Michael Isikoff, the chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News, said Saturday during an interview on conservative commentator John Ziegler's "Free Speech Broadcasting" podcast that "Steele was clearly onto something" in his probe into the campaign's Russian connection but evidence has not surfaced to support some of his specific assertions.

Steele was correct to suspect "that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections, that they were trying to help Trump's campaign, and that there were multiple contacts between various Russian figures close to the government and various people in the Trump campaign," Isikoff said.

But he said when "you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."

"It's a mixed record at best," he said. "Things could change. Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes this calculation but based on the public record at this point, I'd have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been borne out."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 347833002/

[ousdahl]

But if Clinton had been elected, there would be no end to your calls for more investigations. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

To the best of my knowledge, no one is arguing that there should be no investigation.

Rather, my point is twofold: first, the media is colluding with "government sources" to spread misleading information. There is no news in the Times' "blockbuster." Yet it's breathlessly reported, as if we're all supposed to shudder. No sources are named. No explanations given. Just somebody using reporters eager to be the next Carl Bernstein to advance his/her agenda

I get why the reporters do this, of course. It's easy. Who wouldn't want a story handed to them? But it's unfortunate, to say the least.

Second, even if Trump did something indictable/impeachable, there's no excuse for discovering that under false or flimsy pretenses. The FBI should be held to account, whether Trump goes to Leavenworth, back home to New York, or on to a second term.

I can't tell whether you actually make a good point, or whether this is the most elaborate attempt yet by a Trumpalo to scream FaKeNeWs!!!!!

[DCHawk1]

I don't think it's "fake" at all. I chose my words carefully. "Misleading" is the word I used specifically. I don't doubt that there's a great deal of truth in what the Times reported. But I also know that the Times
(and the Post) has a tendency to be spun by its sources.

[ousdahl]

oh, so you changed your vocabulary from "fake" to "misleading."

like I said, quite elaborate!

especially for a guy who don't doubt there's a great deal of truth in the report!

[Geezer]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-doss ... rospective

[DCHawk1]

oh, so you changed your vocabulary from "fake" to "misleading."

like I said, quite elaborate!

especially for a guy who don't doubt there's a great deal of truth in the report!

I hate to have to do this to you, but: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/misleading

It's not even close to fake.

[twocoach]

Yes the hypocrisy is nauseating.

All the times you or someone else says "stop bringing up Clinton".....and then here you are bringing up Clinton.

I see how this works.

Good lord. Its amazing the pure volume of dumb takes you generate in any one day.

You're the 1 who brought up Clinton while calling someone else hypocritical.

Don't be mad at me because I called you on it.

"You or someone else" basically allows you to call out an individual for the actions of pretty much anyone. I dont recall ever telling anyone to "stop bringing up Clinton".

One of your weakest zinger attempts. If you're gonna try to be DC then at least have his memory and zing people for the dumb shit they said, not the dumb shit they "or someone else" said.

[twocoach]

By all means, let's spend more time on worthless partisan investigations. We don't need to spend time on legislation. It's more important to "get" Trump.

@DCHawk, this is the post I was responding to. If my sarcasm meter is tuned in properly, dolomite seems to be saying that these investigations should be ended and efforts put exclusively to legislation. But I am exhausted and brain fried right now so maybe I am reading it wrong.

[twocoach]

I don't think it's "fake" at all. I chose my words carefully. "Misleading" is the word I used specifically. I don't doubt that there's a great deal of truth in what the Times reported. But I also know that the Times
(and the Post) has a tendency to be spun by its sources.

I dont think the Times piece is being touted as some massive breaking news full of info. Compared to other stories, this was a blip. It doesnt really read like its intended to be more than that.

It's a lot of words which academics and writers always end up doing for no reason. But I agree, it didn't really say much of anything new.

[DCHawk1]

By all means, let's spend more time on worthless partisan investigations. We don't need to spend time on legislation. It's more important to "get" Trump.

@DCHawk, this is the post I was responding to. If my sarcasm meter is tuned in properly, dolomite seems to be saying that these investigations should be ended and efforts put exclusively to legislation. But I am exhausted and brain fried right now so maybe I am reading it wrong.

Personally, I think dolomite has it backward. Trump wanted to be President, and now he is. And that means he has to deal with whatever embarrassment the Democrats' investigations turn up. They won control of the House and they can run it however they wish.

What we DON'T need is more legislation. Two years with no bills passing suits me fine.

[twocoach]

By all means, let's spend more time on worthless partisan investigations. We don't need to spend time on legislation. It's more important to "get" Trump.

@DCHawk, this is the post I was responding to. If my sarcasm meter is tuned in properly, dolomite seems to be saying that these investigations should be ended and efforts put exclusively to legislation. But I am exhausted and brain fried right now so maybe I am reading it wrong.

Personally, I think dolomite has it backward. Trump wanted to be President, and now he is. And that means he has to deal with whatever embarrassment the Democrats' investigations turn up. They won control of the House and they can run it however they wish.

What we DON'T need is more legislation. Two years with no bills passing suits me fine.

I agree on both accounts. But Trump has never been big on dealing with the consequences of the morally questionable methods he has used to achieve his goals. He has always had his money, his lawyers or bankruptcy court to avoid them.

But he doesn't have a way out of facing the upcoming consequences.

[Geezer]

He's got 800,000 hostages, what's Nancy got?

[Shirley]

DC making excuses for Trump again.

DC with have this list neutralized and normalized without even breaking a sweat:

Max Boot

Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

[DCHawk1]

Given that it's Max Boot, I don't even need to.

[dolomite]

DC making excuses for Trump again.

DC with have this list neutralized and normalized without even breaking a sweat:

Max Boot

Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

What a joke!

[seahawk]

IIRC, the Steele Dossier was raw intelligence, not offered as conclusive proof. Interesting that Republicans bring it up to say, "See, that might not have happened, there are no photos, therefore Donald Trump is still our favorite president."

But, I'm kind of curious as to what DC considers the "sensational allegations that...are likely false" are.