Causes of High Electricity Bills in Thai Apartments

[riclag]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Try repeating 100 times:  "Republicans funded and initiated the Steele dossier, Republicans funded and initiated the Steele dossier, Republicans funded and initiated the Steele dossier....."  Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to see past your blinders and understand that Republicans funded and initiated the Steele dossier.

 

As already noted, telling the FISA judge that both Republicans and Democrats funded the research, instead of telling the judge it was funded from political sources, would have enhanced the credibility of the research.

 

Nothing in the memo exonerates Trump or discredits the Russia investigation.  People who don't want to investigate Russian meddling in elections and look for ways to prevent it must really hate the US and democracy.

 

Maybe there have been past examples of FISA abuse, but this isn't one.

Try repeating 100x The dems not the GOP applied for a fisa using a oppostion research doc funded by the Clinton Campaign.Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to see past your blinders and understand that the dems funded the opp research doc to abuse fisa

Edited February 5, 2018 by riclag

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

Try repeating 100x The dems not the GOP applied for a fisa using a oppostion research doc funded by the Clinton Campaign.Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to see past your blinders and understand that the dems funded the opp research doc

The Democrats, not the FBI in coordination with the DOJ?  I'd like to see your source for that information.

 

Once again, you forgot that the opposition research was funded by both Democrats and Republicans.  Also, it's worth noting the people don't pay good money for fake research, they want credible, factual information.  Some of the information in the dossier has been independently confirmed, not has been discredited.

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Democrats, not the FBI in coordination with the DOJ?  I'd like to see your source for that information.

 

Once again, you forgot that the opposition research was funded by both Democrats and Republicans.  Also, it's worth noting the people don't pay good money for fake research, they want credible, factual information.  Some of the information in the dossier has been independently confirmed, not has been discredited.

I didn't forget the dems and the gop funded it.But your forgetting the dems and FBI used it to abuse the fisa by not telling the judges that the author was a admitted Trump hater and that the Clinton Campaign was funding it.

Edited February 5, 2018 by riclag

[riclag]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

dossier has been independently confirmed

I googled this,its disputed

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

I didn't forget the dems and the gop funded it.But your forgetting the dems and FBI used it to abuse the fisa by not telling the judges that the author was a admitted Trump hater and that the Clinton Campaign was funding it.

Once again, the judge was told the evidence came from political sources.  Disclosing further details would have required the judge be told that both Republicans and Democrats funded the research.  You clearly are obsessed with the fact that the judge wasn't told about the Democrat funding, but seem to have no concern about the lack of specific information about the Republican funding.  Your blinders are fully in place.

 

Try this for a change:  Argue that the judge should have been told that Republicans and Democrats funded the research, and explain why it would have made a difference. 

 

The judge was presented with verified intelligence that convinced him/her that Page was a serious enough threat to justify monitoring his activities.  None of the evidence came exclusively from a "Trump hater", all evidence used was verified using more than one source.  Facts are facts, regardless of their source.

 

Regarding Steele being a Trump hater, it is difficult to find an intelligent person with an informed world view that isn't a Trump hater.  Intelligent people with an informed world view are the kind of people you want doing this kind of research.  Steele was a respected spy/researcher, some of his claims have been independently verified, and none have been discredited.  It's very possible that the Trump hating was a result of what his research told him about the man.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that anti-Clinton bias in the FBI, resulting in an investigation that was supposed to be conducted in private being made very public, and then very publicly re-opened days before the election, is what put Trump in the White House.

 

You also refuse to acknowledge that the dossier was funded by both Republicans and Democrats, that the parts used to justify the FISA court warrant were verified, and that many of these "FBI senior officials" were Republican and approved by Republicans, as is Mueller.

 

What brilliant deal making did Trump do that got his approval rating close to 50% in one poll?

The Steele Dossier was funded by the DNC and not any Republican group. A Republican tied group DID hire Fusion GPS to do Op Research on Trump in the primaries but had quit them prior to The DNC hiring them. The Steele Dossier was commissioned subsequent to the DNC hiring of Fusion GPS. If everything connected to the Steele Dossier was above board you shouldn't have any trouble admitting that fact.

[lannarebirth]

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Democrats, not the FBI in coordination with the DOJ?  I'd like to see your source for that information.

 

Once again, you forgot that the opposition research was funded by both Democrats and Republicans.  Also, it's worth noting the people don't pay good money for fake research, they want credible, factual information.  Some of the information in the dossier has been independently confirmed, not has been discredited.

 

Quote

The dossier may be worse than just uncorroborated. In an op-ed this week, former CIA officer Daniel Hoffman wrote that the near misses in the dossier bore the mark of Russian disinformation, “accurate basic facts provided as bait to convince Americans that the fake info is real.”

 

Quote

Presumably, Democrats hid details of their funding of the dossier to hide how Steele shared his research, as well as a companion dossier done by longtime Clinton oppo researcher Cody Shearer, with the FBI.

Quote

Ultimately, the Democrats’ reluctance to own this oppo research has created an opportunity for Republicans to attack the dossier as a stand-in for the entire special counsel investigation.

 

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/01/russia-steele-dossier-democrats-republicans-216921

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The Steele Dossier was funded by the DNC and not any Republican group. A Republican tied group DID hire Fusion GPS to do Op Research on Trump in the primaries but had quit them prior to The DNC hiring them. The Steele Dossier was commissioned subsequent to the DNC hiring of Fusion GPS. If everything connected to the Steele Dossier was above board you shouldn't have any trouble admitting that fact.

Most of the time I pointed out that "research" was funded by Republicans and Democrats.  On this occasion I used the word "dossier".  So if you want to be precise, research by Steele when he worked for Fusion GPS was initially funded by Republicans, then this research was put in a dossier with Democrat funding. 

 

Does this make any difference?  Can you dispute any of the evidence presented to the FISA court?

 

What was there about the Steele dossier that was not above board?  It was opposition research, of course it dug up dirt about Trump.  Just as Russia used Wikileaks to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.  The HRC haters argued that the source of the information didn't matter when it came from Wikileaks, they now argue that the source is all that matters when the information is part of the Russia investigation.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/01/russia-steele-dossier-democrats-republicans-216921

Still looking for evidence, not opinions, that discredit the independently verified information presented to the FISA court.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 So if you want to be precise, research by Steele when he worked for Fusion GPS was initially funded by Republicans, then this research was put in a dossier with Democrat funding. 

 

 

That is incorrect, if you want to be precise.

[riclag]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Most of the time I pointed out that "research" was funded by Republicans and Democrats.  On this occasion I used the word "dossier".  So if you want to be precise, research by Steele when he worked for Fusion GPS was initially funded by Republicans, then this research was put in a dossier with Democrat funding. 

 

Does this make any difference?  Can you dispute any of the evidence presented to the FISA court?

 

What was there about the Steele dossier that was not above board?  It was opposition research, of course it dug up dirt about Trump.  Just as Russia used Wikileaks to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.  The HRC haters argued that the source of the information didn't matter when it came from Wikileaks, they now argue that the source is all that matters when the information is part of the Russia investigation.

"Does this make any difference?  Can you dispute any of the evidence presented to the FISA court?"

Then tell me why did steele get fired by the FBI ?

[heybruce]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

That is incorrect, if you want to be precise.

Ok, I found one source that said Steele worked for Fusion GPS when the research was funded by Republicans, and another that said he didn't start with Fusion until June 2016.    So opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS was funded by both Republicans and Democrats, Steele may have only been involved in the Democrat part.  So what?

 

Have you managed to discredit any of the information presented to the FISA court yet?

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

"Does this make any difference?  Can you dispute any of the evidence presented to the FISA court?"

Then tell me why did steele get fired by the FBI ?

You can't answer the questions, you can't discredit the evidence, so you're throwing out diversions. 

 

If you want to know why the FBI stopped funding Steele's research (he couldn't have been fired from an organization he didn't work for) you can research it yourself.

 

Hint:  The FBI didn't fire Steele, Steele "quit", stopped offering his services.

Edited February 5, 2018 by heybruce

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Ok, I found one source that said Steele worked for Fusion GPS when the research was funded by Republicans, and another that said he didn't start with Fusion until June 2016.    So opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS was funded by both Republicans and Democrats, Steele may have only been involved in the Democrat part.  So what?

 

Have you managed to discredit any of the information presented to the FISA court yet?

Yeah the opp research that has been disputed that you claim genuine evidence

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/01/russia-steele-dossier-democrats-republicans-216921

You left this out from the same article:

Yet, in part because of the way Democrats have handled the aftermath of the leak of the dossier, that very typical act of hiring an oppo research firm has turned into one of the biggest manufactured scandals of the Trump administration, one Republicans are trying to use to undermine an investigation into the growing evidence of Trump ties to Russia. But Steele’s dossier forms only a small portion of the putative case against Trump—which is why it has been such a mistake for Democrats to rally behind it. Reporters, two congressional committees and special counsel Robert Mueller have sifted through reams of other material suggesting that something fishy was indeed going on, and very little of it came from Steele.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

You left this out from the same article:

Yet, in part because of the way Democrats have handled the aftermath of the leak of the dossier, that very typical act of hiring an oppo research firm has turned into one of the biggest manufactured scandals of the Trump administration, one Republicans are trying to use to undermine an investigation into the growing evidence of Trump ties to Russia. But Steele’s dossier forms only a small portion of the putative case against Trump—which is why it has been such a mistake for Democrats to rally behind it. Reporters, two congressional committees and special counsel Robert Mueller have sifted through reams of other material suggesting that something fishy was indeed going on, and very little of it came from Steele.

 

I didn't leave it out , I posted the link. I had already hit my "fair use" limit on quotes.

[Jingthing]

The incredibly well respected reporter Carl Bernstein (of WATERGATE fame) pipes in on this sorry mess --

 

 

"Bernstein called the memo a “disingenuous partisan document.”

“We may well have not seen such dark days for American democracy and its institutions since the days of Joe McCarthy,” Bernstein said, referring to the notorious anti-communist purges orchestrated by the Wisconsin Republican senator in the 1950s. “In the case of McCarthy, it was a senator, not the president of the United States, who was a demagogic authoritarian.”"

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watergate-reporter-carl-bernstein-says-123827035.html

Edited February 5, 2018 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, riclag said:

Yeah the opp research that has been disputed that you claim genuine evidence

If you don't provide specifics and a source, you are just trolling.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

I didn't leave it out , I posted the link. I had already hit my "fair use" limit on quotes.

You could have paraphrased. What's more that's her opinion of the Steele Dossier. Here's another:

The Steele Report, Revisited

How much of the infamous document ended up being corroborated elsewhere? A whole lot.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

[riclag]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You can't answer the questions, you can't discredit the evidence, so you're throwing out diversions. 

 

If you want to know why the FBI stopped funding Steele's research (he couldn't have been fired from an organization he didn't work for) you can research it yourself.

 

Hint:  The FBI didn't fire Steele, Steele "quit", stopped offering his services.

Steele’s last report for Fusion was submitted on Oct. 20. The Post reported that the FBI had reached an agreement with Steele to pay him to continue his work after the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-christopher-steele-the-fbi-and-the-dossier/?utm_term=.c49746330759

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You could have paraphrased. What's more that's her opinion of the Steele Dossier. Here's another:

The Steele Report, Revisited

How much of the infamous document ended up being corroborated elsewhere? A whole lot.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

 

Slate? C'mon man!

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Slate? C'mon man!

Really? Slate is very rigorous about its fact checking. And we know that because they actually publish a weekly report of facts they got wrong. And clearly, when you've got nothing, go after the source rather than dealing with its facts and arguments. A sad and revealing Breitbartian move on your part. Next you'll be telling us you were a Bernie supporter.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

Steele’s last report for Fusion was submitted on Oct. 20. The Post reported that the FBI had reached an agreement with Steele to pay him to continue his work after the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-christopher-steele-the-fbi-and-the-dossier/?utm_term=.c49746330759

So you still don't know why Steele stopped reporting to the FBI? 

 

"The FBI reimbursed some expenses of the former British intelligence operative who produced a dossier containing allegations of President Donald Trump's ties to Russia, people familiar with the matter said.

The short-lived arrangement before the US election ended abruptly in part because of the frustration of Christopher Steele, the former MI6 spy, that the FBI wasn't doing enough to investigate the Trump-Russia ties." https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/christopher-steele-fbi-expenses/index.html   

 

From you own source:

 

" In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, released on Jan. 9 by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Simpson said Steele’s memo was received favorably by the FBI because it tracked with their own intelligence. “My understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization,” Simpson said, apparently also a reference to Papadopoulos.] "

 

This looks like evidence of the FBI being so pro-Trump it wouldn't do its job.  Of course that doesn't fit into conspiracy theories about the FBI being anti-Trump, so you'll have no trouble ignoring it.

[lannarebirth]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Slate is very rigorous about its fact checking. And we know that because they actually publish a weekly report of facts they got wrong. And clearly, when you've got nothing, go after the source rather than dealing with its facts and arguments. A sad and revealing Breitbartian move on your part. Next you'll be telling us you were a Bernie supporter.

 

If I see an article from Slate, Salon, MSNBC, Fox, The Washington Examiner ,The Free Beacon, etc I know I'm about to read a version of events spun to bolster one constituency or another.

 

I have never visited Breitbart or read one of their articles. You know, some people are normal and not rabid partisans, quick to dismoss every transgression by "their team" and to raise holy hell over the flimsiest of pretences when it is the other team.

[riclag]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If you don't provide specifics and a source, you are just trolling.

 Hoffman CIA agent "One possible explanation for the content was that Russian intelligence was aware that the dossier was being written," says Hoffman. "And that they fed not only true information — but untrue information as well. Which is their regular modus operandi for covert influence operations."

In other words, Hoffman believes Russia may have seeded the Steele dossier.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/08/542106975/cover-lifted-a-cia-spy-offers-his-take-on-trump-and-russia

[riclag]

Heybruce I'm not trolling, I provided a source in my previous post #55 to dispute the unverified  opp research doc. Apparently you are becoming unhinged  by accusing me of trolling . Your not going to bait me .Nice try!

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Hoffman CIA agent "One possible explanation for the content was that Russian intelligence was aware that the dossier was being written," says Hoffman. "And that they fed not only true information — but untrue information as well. Which is their regular modus operandi for covert influence operations."

In other words, Hoffman believes Russia may have seeded the Steele dossier.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/08/542106975/cover-lifted-a-cia-spy-offers-his-take-on-trump-and-russia

Hoffman was speculating, and his words could be applied to any intelligence.  It could easily be applied to the DNC info leaked by Russia/Wikileaks.  Anyone who has read a John Le Carre novel knows that intelligence agencies routinely plant key pieces of false information with verifiable facts in order to mislead.  However Hoffman's speculation does not in anyway discredit the independently verified information in the Steele dossier.

 

Once again, from your own source:

 

"In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, released on Jan. 9 by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Simpson said Steele’s memo was received favorably by the FBI because it tracked with their own intelligence. “My understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization,” Simpson said, apparently also a reference to Papadopoulos.] "    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-christopher-steele-the-fbi-and-the-dossier/?utm_term=.a819407d63f2 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Yeah the opp research that has been disputed that you claim genuine evidence

 

24 minutes ago, riclag said:

Heybruce I'm not trolling, I provided a source in my previous post #55 to dispute the unverified  opp research doc. Apparently you are becoming unhinged  by accusing me of trolling . Your not going to bait me .Nice try!

Your completely unsubstantiated post #44 still looks like trolling.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

If you don't provide specifics and a source, you are just trolling.

Last month Sen Grassley and Graham asked for a criminal investigation from the justice dept.to investigate Steele lying to the FBI.The credibility of this dossier reeks.

 

"Clinton associates accused of “feeding” info to Trump dossier author Steele, according to top Senate"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/5/clinton-associates-accused-feeding-info-trump-doss/

The credibility of this dossier reeks .

 

"The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been confirmed, while others have yet to be proved or disproved.[5][6]Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[7] The media, intelligence community, as well as most experts have treated the dossier with caution, while Trump himself denounced the report as "fake news". In February 2017, some details related to conversations between foreign nationals were independently verified.[8] As of December 2017, the dossier is "uncorroborated but not disproved".[9][10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump–Russia_dossier_allegations

Edited February 5, 2018 by riclag

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Last month Sen Grassley and Graham asked for a criminal investigation from the justice dept.to investigate Steele lying to the FBI.The credibility of this dossier reeks.

 

"Clinton associates accused of “feeding” info to Trump dossier author Steele, according to top Senate"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/5/clinton-associates-accused-feeding-info-trump-doss/

The credibility of this dossier reeks .

 

"The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been confirmed, while others have yet to be proved or disproved.[5][6]Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[7] The media, intelligence community, as well as most experts have treated the dossier with caution, while Trump himself denounced the report as "fake news". In February 2017, some details related to conversations between foreign nationals were independently verified.[8] As of December 2017, the dossier is "uncorroborated but not disproved".[9][10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump–Russia_dossier_allegations

Washington Times providing its typical poor journalism, printing accusations from "Senior Republicans" with no substantiation.

 

Your second source re-iterates what I've repeatedly posted, some of the dossier has been verified, none of it has been disproven.