3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, garybusey said: Thanks that was so funny how you did that This is how I see you based on the depth of your posts: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, garybusey said: Schiff destroyed any credibility Nunes had left Considering that there's now a term - full of Schiff - named after the good dipSchiff from California, it is unlikely that Schiff-for-brains destroyed anyone's credibility. Well, except for the partisan morons who buy anything a Democrat sells, no questions asked. Edited February 25, 2018 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Considering that there's now a term - full of Schiff - named after the good dipSchiff from California, it is unlikely that Schiff-for-brains destroyed anyone's credibility. Well, except for the partisan morons who buy anything a Democrat sells, no questions asked. I have learned over the last year and a half that the Democrats and the left come off as the biggest morons you will ever meet. And I say this while I am no conservative or right winger whatsoever. I have my issues with them too, but in today's world they come off as a little less demented than the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Considering that there's now a term - full of Schiff - named after the good dipSchiff from California, it is unlikely that Schiff-for-brains destroyed anyone's credibility. Well, except for the partisan morons who buy anything a Democrat sells, no questions asked. lol a term coined by Roger Stone Any dweeb who parrots a Roger Stone term is a partisan moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 1 minute ago, garybusey said: lol a term coined by Roger Stone Any dweeb who parrots a Roger Stone term is a partisan moron. Oh no! Are we going to see the 'I'm rubber, you're glue' retort next?!? I don't think I could handle that! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, garybusey said: lol a term coined by Roger Stone Any dweeb who parrots a Roger Stone term is a partisan moron. Edited February 25, 2018 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 It is Sunday and the wake-and-bake addicts are here, Koko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: I believe I read somewhere that one of the 4 FISA-Page judges was appointed by Reagan, one by Bush 1 and 2 by GW Bush. In a quick search the only link I saw pop up however seemed to be a WSJ subscription article, so perhaps it was on a tv/youtube news story. So, let me withdraw the 'republican appointed' modifier as it is unnecessary to ask the question. Isn't it a reasonable assumption that any judge at this level, knowing that this was politically motivated and intended to discredit the candidate, is wise enough to realize that he/she has to be suspect of the information in that dossier? Any of the other possibilities you mentioned aside from Hillary, don't seem to alter that point. Judge Contreras, an Obama appointee who was the Harvard Law editor Obama (they're buds), was most certainly the judge who presided over the first FISA. He was also presiding over the Flynn case, the Awan case, DWS's case... before he was removed 5 days after accepting Flynn's guilty plea. That's not a coincidence. He didn't recuse himself, he was TAKEN OFF. Why? 59 minutes ago, Nanker said: I think it's more like 10 of the eleven FISA judges were put there by B. O. W. left office in 2009. Trump took office in January, 2017. Yup. Not surprisingly he got his facts about the membership and numbers of the court wrong... wonder which "professional" he got it from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Date stamps mean nothing to Dems and their goons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 58 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Why don't you go ahead and describe how he did that? He can't. Grassley and Graham's memo and criminal referrals bolster the Nunes memo. Schiff's memo did nothing to dispute the key facts presented in Nunes memo. Nothing at all. But, as predicted last night, the deepest gone on the left are going to be here for the next few days parroting talking points about the memo which most will not have even read - or if they did try to read, they didn't read the other memos or have a basic grip on the timeline and will inevitably flub the facts. Like Bob did above with the FISC court. He thought he read something in the WSJ (ha) and then presumed it to be fact and formed his whole opinion of the Nunes memo on a faulty assumption. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 What The Democrats Left Out Of Their Memo by Peter Hasson Original Article Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence omitted several key facts from their memo on the FBI and Justice Department’s use of the Trump-Russia dossier in applying for a spy warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016. The Democrats’ memo, released on Saturday, claimed to refute a similar memo released on Feb. 2 by committee Republicans who alleged that the FBI and DOJ had abused the FISA system in obtaining the warrant. The Democratic memo omitted several key points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 And why, pray tell, if the farging Holy and sacrosanct FBI secured a God Damned FISA Level 1 warrant against the “foreign agent - AKA “Russian SPY” Carter Page, why in the hell is he still walking about and a free man? Answer me that, Batman. If he’s a “spy” like their sham FISA warrant says he is, why haven’t they arrested him, indicted him, and brought him to trial? He’s a danger to the country FBI, by your own sworn testimony. What’s holding you up?? Malfeasance? Incompetence? Collusion? Trump’s “obstruction”? Or is it just that the foundation that you’ve built to collide against a duly elected POTUS is nothing more than a steaming pile of goat custards? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 Worth watching... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 "...the court was provided with sufficient information from which to understand the political context of Steele's dossier." Should we be worried that the secret intelligence and national security court system seems to consider domestic political contexts as a basis for warrants? Should we be worried that both parties seem to think that's no big deal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 (edited) https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/ Quote So . . . here’s the question: When Steele brought the FBI his unverified allegations that Page had met with Sechin and Divyekin, why didn’t the FBI call Page in for an interview rather than subject him to FISA surveillance? Lest you wonder, this is not an instance of me second-guessing the Bureau with an investigative plan I think would have been better. It is a requirement of FISA law. Edited February 26, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallie Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 It's simply a case of my memo can piss farther than your memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/ is Hillary under arrest yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 55 minutes ago, Tiberius said: is Hillary under arrest yet? Is Trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 40 minutes ago, Gary M said: Is Trump? Not yet. He's closer though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts