|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 19, 2018 17:58:10 GMT -5
And Nunes is credible? He who's been working hand-in-glove with "Donnie the Liar" to divert attention from Mueller's investigation? If it's a "he said, he said," I'll go with the career FBI agent over the partisan hack who, I believe, said he was no longer going to be involved in the entire matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 19, 2018 18:50:30 GMT -5
And Nunes is credible? He who's been working hand-in-glove with "Donnie the Liar" to divert attention from Mueller's investigation? If it's a "he said, he said," I'll go with the career FBI agent over the partisan hack who, I believe, said he was no longer going to be involved in the entire matter. Mueller’s investigation is a diversion. That career FBI agent signed off on a FISA warrant based on a fraudulent dossier because his wife got a crapload of campaign money from Hillary Clinton funneled through Terry McAuliffe. But you don’t know this because you only get your information from Clinton controlled news organizations. All of us get a heavy dose of their propaganda every day. Only those of us who don’t just accept their tripe actually know what’s going on in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 19, 2018 20:22:38 GMT -5
Actually, RJ, I get my information from a number of sources . . including the information that there were many sources of information for the FISA warrant, since Page had been under investigation for 2 years when the first warrant was requested.
Why do you have so much trouble with accurate information? Are you averse to the truth? Guess that's a large part of your unthinking partisanship. And what you post clearly disputes that you know anything about what's really going on in the world.
Are you under the impression that the Steele dossier was the only basis for the FISA warrant?
|
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 19, 2018 21:37:15 GMT -5
No. McCabe CLAIMS Nunes mischaracterized things about McCabe and the Dossier. Of course McCabe just got canned for lying, and for being a hopeless partisan so he isn't the most credible source. Are you surprised that he lied, that he's a hopeless partisan, RJ? He's a registered Republican. Pretty much all Republicans do these days is lie. Just like their leader. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 7:38:56 GMT -5
Actually, RJ, I get my information from a number of sources . . including the information that there were many sources of information for the FISA warrant, since Page had been under investmigation for 2 years when the first warrant was requested. Why do you have so much trouble with accurate information? Are you averse to the truth? Guess that's a large part of your unthinking partisanship. And what you post clearly disputes that you know anything about what's really going on in the world. Are you under the impression that the Steele dossier was the only basis for the FISA warrant? Then your other sources are full of crap too. Page had been working with the FBI for a number of years. He had a long history of working with them, not being investigated by them. The Russians had reached out to him previously, which he reported to the FBI. But again, you'd know that if you read beyond the legacy media. MSNBC and the DNC arekeeping you ignorant. They like you that way. You're easier to manipulate. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 8:41:50 GMT -5
And if you listen to Fox or Breitbart, you have no idea what's happening in the real world -- it's been established over and over again that both of them are inaccurate, to say the least, the majority of the time.
Are you saying that Page was not being investigated by the FBI starting in 2014?
Do you have evidence that Page was working with the FBI, or is this just another case of your baseless unthinking partisanship? Because when I did a search for Page working with the FBI, nothing came up. And, according to your ground rules, you need to provide the evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 11:50:09 GMT -5
And if you listen to Fox or Breitbart, you have no idea what's happening in the real world -- it's been established over and over again that both of them are inaccurate, to say the least, the majority of the time. Are you saying that Page was not being investigated by the FBI starting in 2014? Do you have evidence that Page was working with the FBI, or is this just another case of your baseless unthinking partisanship? Because when I did a search for Page working with the FBI, nothing came up. And, according to your ground rules, you need to provide the evidence. PAM, the legacy media is ubiquitous. There's no way to get away from what they're programming us with. National Review, Fox, etc., are a suppliment to it if you want to be fully informed. And you didn't search hard: m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/5/sliming-carter-page/ |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 12:23:42 GMT -5
You're right, RJ. I looked at 10 or 12 sources and the Times never showed. And I would never have looked for the Times. Especially since the article uses "mights" and "maybes." It's nothing definitive, just pure speculation.
And I did find a timeline re: Page that clearly shows he was the subject of an FBI investigation in 2014 based on a FISA warrant.
I don't consider Fox a supplement to anything. Fox has a well-documented history of distortions and outright lies. I find very little there reliable. I've read some articles in the Review, but most of them tend to be from an extremently conservative viewpoint. Some food for thought there, but nothing I'd like a steady diet of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 12:28:22 GMT -5
You're right, RJ. I looked at 10 or 12 sources and the Times never showed. And I would never have looked for the Times. Especially since the article uses "mights" and "maybes." It's nothing definitive, just pure speculation. And I did find a timeline re: Page that clearly shows he was the subject of an FBI investigation in 2014 based on a FISA warrant. I don't consider Fox a supplement to anything. Fox has a well-documented history of distortions and outright lies. I find very little there reliable. I've read some articles in the Review, but most of them tend to be from an extremently conservative viewpoint. Some food for thought there, but nothing I'd like a steady diet of. That's your problem. The legacy media also has a horrific record. Especially when covering Trump. Fox and the Times are no worse. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 12:31:12 GMT -5
And it's your problem that you take an article with nothing but supposition to claim that Page was helping the FBI in 2014 or so. There's nothing in the article but empty speculation. If that's your source, you're more of an unthinking partisan that I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 12:36:30 GMT -5
And it's your problem that you take an article with nothing but supposition to claim that Page was helping the FBI in 2014 or so. There's nothing in the article but empty speculation. If that's your source, you're more of an unthinking partisan that I thought. Sorry, no. It's accurate. Claiming Page was under investigation 5 years ago is ALSO speculation. But the legacy media states it as fact. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 14:15:23 GMT -5
Your story is completely speculation. There's not basis, no facts cited, just speculation. I mentioned a timeline earlier. I thought I had shared the link, and just realized I did not. The link clearly shows that Page was being investigated in 2013 or 2014 and that there was a FISA warrant issued in 2014. But don't let facts get in the way of your delusions. www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/ |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 14:23:45 GMT -5
Your story is completely speculation. There's not basis, no facts cited, just speculation. I mentioned a timeline earlier. I thought I had shared the link, and just realized I did not. The link clearly shows that Page was being investigated in 2013 or 2014 and that there was a FISA warrant issued in 2014. But don't let facts get in the way of your delusions. www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/Again, because the legacy media says something is factual does not mean that it is. A 2014 FISA warrant that never led to anything is actually a strike against the notion that Page is some sort of Kremlin plant. It's also not inconsistent with the idea that Page was working with the FBI, rather than being investigated by it. For all the time the FBI has supposedly been looking at this guy, doesn't it seem at all curious to you that no criminal charges have been filed? No... what am I saying? Of course it doesn't. That would mean you had thought a bit about what you've been told, rather than just swallowing whatever garbage/nonsense you're being fed. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 15:49:14 GMT -5
So let's backtrack a bit, RJ. Do you have any credible articles -- not Washington Times idle speculation -- that say Page was not under investigation and, in fact, may have been helping the FBI in 13-14?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 17:58:19 GMT -5
So let's backtrack a bit, RJ. Do you have any credible articles -- not Washington Times idle speculation -- that say Page was not under investigation and, in fact, may have been helping the FBI in 13-14? How would I know whether or not Page was working with the FBI in 2013? The problem is, no one but Page and the FBI know the nature of their relationship 5 years ago. Which means everyone is speculating. The difference is the Washington Times, etc. Admit to sepeculating, and the legacy media do not. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:09:44 GMT -5
And Nunes is credible? He who's been working hand-in-glove with "Donnie the Liar" to divert attention from Mueller's investigation? If it's a "he said, he said," I'll go with the career FBI agent over the partisan hack who, I believe, said he was no longer going to be involved in the entire matter. So, you will go with an ex FBI agent, who was just canned for lying to the FBI, and is proven to be a conspirator against the US, over the President of the US? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:12:13 GMT -5
Actually, RJ, I get my information from a number of sources . . including the information that there were many sources of information for the FISA warrant, since Page had been under investigation for 2 years when the first warrant was requested. Why do you have so much trouble with accurate information? Are you averse to the truth? Guess that's a large part of your unthinking partisanship. And what you post clearly disputes that you know anything about what's really going on in the world. Are you under the impression that the Steele dossier was the only basis for the FISA warrant? So, he'd been under "investigation" for 2 years, but no one thought to get a warrant until he worked for Trump? For about 2 months? Really? What you have given is as far from "accurate information" as anyone can get. What you have regurgitated is Party of the KKK talking points sent to their propaganda outlets in the LR media, to cover for the fact that The Felon is not only a felon, but a traitor, and her entire organization should be remanded to custody for sedition. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:14:27 GMT -5
No. McCabe CLAIMS Nunes mischaracterized things about McCabe and the Dossier. Of course McCabe just got canned for lying, and for being a hopeless partisan so he isn't the most credible source. Are you surprised that he lied, that he's a hopeless partisan, RJ? He's a registered Republican. Pretty much all Republicans do these days is lie. Just like their leader. Really? Like Schiff for brains, who even admits that McCabe should have been fired? And has yet to produce a single fact, or even a modicum of evidence to back up his treasonous libel of the President? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:16:35 GMT -5
And if you listen to Fox or Breitbart, you have no idea what's happening in the real world -- it's been established over and over again that both of them are inaccurate, to say the least, the majority of the time. Are you saying that Page was not being investigated by the FBI starting in 2014? Do you have evidence that Page was working with the FBI, or is this just another case of your baseless unthinking partisanship? Because when I did a search for Page working with the FBI, nothing came up. And, according to your ground rules, you need to provide the evidence. "Established" by whom, exactly? Huffingtonpuffington post, who now refuses any entries by whites, because they are racists, sexists and mysogynists? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:19:59 GMT -5
You're right, RJ. I looked at 10 or 12 sources and the Times never showed. And I would never have looked for the Times. Especially since the article uses "mights" and "maybes." It's nothing definitive, just pure speculation. And I did find a timeline re: Page that clearly shows he was the subject of an FBI investigation in 2014 based on a FISA warrant. I don't consider Fox a supplement to anything. Fox has a well-documented history of distortions and outright lies. I find very little there reliable. I've read some articles in the Review, but most of them tend to be from an extremently conservative viewpoint. Some food for thought there, but nothing I'd like a steady diet of. No, the Party of the KKK does it's best to convince the weak minded and the mentally deficient that Fox "has a history of distortions and outright lies". What they are really saying is "Fox is telling you what's really going on, but you are too weak minded to handle that, so we are telling you what you really should think". |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 20:08:02 GMT -5
You're right, RJ. I looked at 10 or 12 sources and the Times never showed. And I would never have looked for the Times. Especially since the article uses "mights" and "maybes." It's nothing definitive, just pure speculation. And I did find a timeline re: Page that clearly shows he was the subject of an FBI investigation in 2014 based on a FISA warrant. I don't consider Fox a supplement to anything. Fox has a well-documented history of distortions and outright lies. I find very little there reliable. I've read some articles in the Review, but most of them tend to be from an extremently conservative viewpoint. Some food for thought there, but nothing I'd like a steady diet of. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 21, 2018 12:53:41 GMT -5
So let's backtrack a bit, RJ. Do you have any credible articles -- not Washington Times idle speculation -- that say Page was not under investigation and, in fact, may have been helping the FBI in 13-14? How would I know whether or not Page was working with the FBI in 2013? The problem is, no one but Page and the FBI know the nature of their relationship 5 years ago. Which means everyone is speculating. The difference is the Washington Times, etc. Admit to sepeculating, and the legacy media do not. Had you checked the time line link and some of the links in that article, you'd see that Page is referred to in a warrant request against 2 Russians in 2014. He was also questioned by the FBI at that time. In fact, he was being investigated. In fact, there was a FISA warrant application. The fact that it did not lead to charges (at least at that time) says something about Page or about the evidence against him. But he was under investigation. Sorry you continue to refuse to accept fact, but what can we expect from an unthinking partisan who thinks fake news is better than real news. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2018 13:12:04 GMT -5
How would I know whether or not Page was working with the FBI in 2013? The problem is, no one but Page and the FBI know the nature of their relationship 5 years ago. Which means everyone is speculating. The difference is the Washington Times, etc. Admit to sepeculating, and the legacy media do not. Had you checked the time line link and some of the links in that article, you'd see that Page is referred to in a warrant request against 2 Russians in 2014. He was also questioned by the FBI at that time. In fact, he was being investigated. In fact, there was a FISA warrant application. The fact that it did not lead to charges (at least at that time) says something about Page or about the evidence against him. But he was under investigation. Sorry you continue to refuse to accept fact, but what can we expect from an unthinking partisan who thinks fake news is better than real news. I'm familiar with the warrant. The FBI interviewed him at least once, and tapped his phone (which they likely would have done if he were a confidential informant, or a suspect). It is unclear whether Page was working with the FBI or not. Anyone who says definitively one way or the other is a liar. What is clear though, is that Page has never been accused of wrongdoing. Again, this investigation is closing in on the 2-year mark. Mueller has yet to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians. Fitzmas isn't coming, PAM. Your belief in it is childish. Indeed, at this time, all of the credible claims of criminality are against the FBI and Mueller's team. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 21, 2018 20:04:33 GMT -5
Had you checked the time line link and some of the links in that article, you'd see that Page is referred to in a warrant request against 2 Russians in 2014. He was also questioned by the FBI at that time. In fact, he was being investigated. In fact, there was a FISA warrant application. The fact that it did not lead to charges (at least at that time) says something about Page or about the evidence against him. But he was under investigation. Sorry you continue to refuse to accept fact, but what can we expect from an unthinking partisan who thinks fake news is better than real news. I'm familiar with the warrant. The FBI interviewed him at least once, and tapped his phone (which they likely would have done if he were a confidential informant, or a suspect). It is unclear whether Page was working with the FBI or not. Anyone who says definitively one way or the other is a liar. What is clear though, is that Page has never been accused of wrongdoing. Again, this investigation is closing in on the 2-year mark. Mueller has yet to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians. Fitzmas isn't coming, PAM. Your belief in it is childish. Indeed, at this time, all of the credible claims of criminality are against the FBI and Mueller's team. d It's all they have. They have been beaten by Trump at every turn, so all they have are the fake dossier, and the hope that Mueller can make up something to use against him if they do regain the House. Of course, if they do get it back, they won't bother with evidence, or any sort of high crime or misdemeanor, they will simply impeach him for not be The Felon. And some of the mental defectives in the Party of the KKK actually think they can simply install The Felon as President if they do impeach him. |
|
