McCain was the rat
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
He is not invited to my funeral no more!
I think I'm going to start a business based on the McCain model. It'll be an online registry where you can uninvite people to your funeral before you die and when you die, your uninvites will be delivered rapidly to the recipients.
I'm gonna wait until McCain croaks though so he isn't trying to sue me for intellectual property theft.
I'm gonna wait until McCain croaks though so he isn't trying to sue me for intellectual property theft.
Not surprised? I think most who have followed the case ASSUMED it WAS McCain for a very long time.
Funny how loyal Americans are offended at a President being a depraved, compromised criminal. Like a conscientious American is going to sit on it instead of passing it along to LE?
Trump is a smelly turd.
But the dossier McCain passed along to Mueller was a fake. We all know that now (unless we've been hiding our heads in the sand).
Now, the real question is if McCain was in on the set-up in the sense of whether or not he knew the dossier was fake or thought it was the real thing.
If he didn't know it was fake, then it shows how easily manipulable he is, and I'm not sure (given his power and role in government) that that is any better a notion.
I don't know. Since they were originally sourced for Republicans, probably not.
You can Google whether the Steele dossier was true and several articles come up. I just did, and the Washington Post reels off three or four things that were plainly true.
So Hillary was the rat or her Muslim hand-maiden that she pawned on the Weiner pervert dude?
Not really, if the quote is genuine he says he didn't know what was true and what wasn't so gave it to someone with the expertise to figure it out. I get you don't like how it has turned out, but no way to state unequivocally that he was intentionally passing along bad info or gullible for having done so.
And on another note... this is the same dossier initially funded by GOP types isn't it? I didn't dream that did I? I ask because it never seems to come up in these threads that the whole thing started with some butt hurt conservatives...
Which part was both plainly true and grounds for a criminal investigations and counter-intelligence operation?
Steele’s allegations match up with subsequent reporting ([URL='https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-page/former-trump-adviser-page-met-russian-officials-in-2016-moscow-trips-idUSKBN1D70CR']Page’s trip to Moscow and meetings with Russian officials; Michael Cohen’s role in pursuing opportunities for Trump in Russia, such as the Moscow Trump Tower deal, revealed in press accounts in 2017) or the allegations in the Mueller indictments (“Manafort’s ‘off-the-books’ payments from ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party”).[/URL]
I'd have to read the dossier, then the warrants in the specific investigations, then identify and read the warrants in the counter-intelligence operation...
It's safe to say it wasn't a "slam dunk" based upon the crawdadding relative to the Steele dossier once the bulk of it was leaked, no?
“Plainly true” isn’t the standard for sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a criminal investigation/counter-intelligence operation.
The actual standard is lower than that.
On a scale of certainty, it's 500% more a "slam dunk" than Dick Cheney's "slam dunk" he predicted.
It's plainly wrong about some things. It's plainly right about some things. I don't understand why it's such a huge deal -- there was plenty of other facts that established probably cause too -- both before and after the dossier was disseminated. Have you seen the entire warrant applications? And warrants?
And when did it I imply that it was? I believe standard logic when "and" is used requires both conditions to be true.
Like what? It's pretty clear there was strong reliance upon the dossier in obtaining the warrant.
Link 1 goes to the Washington Post's front page. No dossier.
Link 2 is the same old Carter Page stuff. Was that really super juicy stuff in the dossier?
Link 3 is about some efforts to build a Trump building in Russia that fell through. Is this some sort of dossier homerun?
Link 4 is about Manafort well before he was on Trump's campaign, which we already know all about via Mueller. Is this one of those dossier GOT EEM moments?
What a dud of a post. So for real, got any links that demonstrate the juicy dossier stuff is legit?
You asked for a cite to stuff that is true. Now you're demanding a "homerun" in response to true things being pointed out. Wtf would that be, anyhow? Officially certified as true by Biff?
Mueller wasn't the special counsel when Manafort was the campaign manager -- he was appointed after the campaign. Good lord, that doesn't count either, because you read reporting about it after the fact.This isn't a race to see who can shit fan the highest volume of lies. You don't get points.
Believe it or don't believe it, there's plainly enough true things in it that the guy did some homework. It was created at the behest of a republican campaign. @Marshal Jim Duncan there's a cite above and plenty of articles on the internet about what was true and not true in the dossier.
Oh. I thought you had something having to do with actual Trump collusion and what not. If you had made it clear you were going to serve last week's soup I wouldn't have asked.
