Mr. DYou clearly aren't getting it. Its not a question of whether or not it means something.The FBI director and DOJ deputy director overseeing the investigation say its "something" and that it should not be released.Why you think your opinion on the memo trumps Wray/Rosenstein is an indicator that your think very highly of yourself.
I think you're trying to be diplomatic about the OofJ or collusion case and in a way I can respect that. But the signs are all there for both cases. I wonder what it'll take for people on the fence to believe Trump and his peeps are just money grubbing real estate agents who rode a tide of racism and anti-establishment sentiment. They didn't think they'd actually win. This is evidenced by the fact that Wikileaks and DTjr exchanged emails the night of the election. Wikileaks emailing simply...."wow" at the news of Trumps victory.
Fushion GPS co-founder on why he investigated Trump and his ties to Russian mafias and the like.."I investigate business stuff and financial crime and corruption and those kind of things,” he reflected at the end of the seven-hour testimony. “That’s my gig… You know, we threw a line in the water and Moby Dick came back…”
You ever ask yourself why no banks would lend Trump money? Ya know...a real estate mogul not being able to get money from US banks has never struck you as weird? Where was he getting all his money? Oh yeah thats right Eric Trump bragged about having access to tens of millions through Russian ties.
Trump was right..he could walk out into 5th avenue and shoot someone and his followers would still like and defend him.
Quote from: parkerynp on February 01, 2018, 09:57:29 pmMr. DYou clearly aren't getting it. Its not a question of whether or not it means something.The FBI director and DOJ deputy director overseeing the investigation say its "something" and that it should not be released.Why you think your opinion on the memo trumps Wray/Rosenstein is an indicator that your think very highly of yourself. First can they not just redact parts of the memo if it is for security reasons? Secondly has it not been the left the whole time saying they need to know everything about everything?
The FBI takes seriously its obligations to the FISA Court and its compliance with procedures overseen by career professionals in the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are committed to working with the appropriate oversight entities to ensure the continuing integrity of the FISA process.With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.
"The Trump administration’s proposal to dramatically ramp up offshore drilling could lead to 5,571 oil spills dumping 34.4 million gallons of oil into ocean waters off Alaska, the West Coast, East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, according to a new Center for Biological Diversity analysis.According to the Center’s analysis:-About 53 percent of the spills would likely occur in the Gulf of Mexico (mostly in the Central and Western Gulf);-About 28 percent would happen in northern Alaska (mostly in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas);-About 12 percent of spills would be along the West Coast (mostly in Southern California);-About 7 percent would be off the East Coast, mostly in the north and mid- Atlantic;-Catastrophic events like the Deepwater Horizon spill could dramatically increase the total oil spilled, given the Trump administration’s proposed rollback of safety rules.On the West Coast alone, carrying out Trump’s plan is expected to cause 657 spills, dumping more than 4 million gallons of oil into coastal waters of the Pacific.
Is this another "fact" of yours? "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?
Contrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05% , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.
Quote from: freddyinkorea on February 01, 2018, 11:05:56 pmIs this another "fact" of yours? "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades. For example, in the nut graf:QuoteContrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05% , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans. The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.
Mr. DYou clearly aren't getting it. Its not a question of whether or not it means something.The FBI director and DOJ deputy director overseeing the investigation say its "something" and that it should not be released.Why you think your opinion on the memo trumps Wray/Rosenstein is an indicator that your think very highly of yourself
I think you're trying to be diplomatic about the OofJ or collusion case and in a way I can respect that. But the signs are all there for both cases.
I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence? Example: Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan. Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump. This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have.
Quote from: Mr C on February 02, 2018, 08:12:53 amQuote from: freddyinkorea on February 01, 2018, 11:05:56 pmIs this another "fact" of yours? "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades. For example, in the nut graf:QuoteContrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05% , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans. The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence? Example: Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan. Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump. This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have.
They were paid by the Clibton campaign
QuoteThey were paid by the Clibton campaignWho started the initial funding of Fushion GPS?The Washington Free Beacon. They funded it from 2015 up until May 2016. Who is the WFB? A conservative website with a hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Paul Singer is a republican. So when you suggest that Fushion GPS was a tool used by the Democrats you're leaving out a major part of the story. Why would you do that? For obvious reasons. "Fushion GPS was funded by the KILLARY!" Well, who started the funding for the opposition research??? Hmmmmmmmm
That doesn't change the fact that Clinton campaign funding was used to cojure up this report
Quote from: parkerynp on February 02, 2018, 09:57:58 amQuoteThey were paid by the Clibton campaignWho started the initial funding of Fushion GPS?The Washington Free Beacon. They funded it from 2015 up until May 2016. Who is the WFB? A conservative website with a hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Paul Singer is a republican. So when you suggest that Fushion GPS was a tool used by the Democrats you're leaving out a major part of the story. Why would you do that? For obvious reasons. "Fushion GPS was funded by the KILLARY!" Well, who started the funding for the opposition research??? HmmmmmmmmYes Fusion GPS has worked with Republicans. Many Republicans were dead-set against Trump and openly preferred Clinton to Trump. That doesn't chang the fact that Clinton campaign funding was used to cojure up this report and might well have involved links with Russians as well as the use of unverified and potentially unreliable intel to justify any surveillance of Trump as well as servibg as the basis for the collusion narrative.
Quote from: freddyinkorea on February 02, 2018, 09:24:48 amQuote from: Mr C on February 02, 2018, 08:12:53 amQuote from: freddyinkorea on February 01, 2018, 11:05:56 pmIs this another "fact" of yours? "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades. For example, in the nut graf:QuoteContrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05% , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans. The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence? Example: Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan. Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump. This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have. Well, first of all, I don't think denying loans is something banks should really talk about publicly. But his only public financial disclosure we have clearly shows he only has loans from that dirty German bank and a couple of Russian mob-linked ones--it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"? Bye.
5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.
Quote from: Mr C on February 02, 2018, 09:51:02 amQuote from: freddyinkorea on February 02, 2018, 09:24:48 amQuote from: Mr C on February 02, 2018, 08:12:53 amQuote from: freddyinkorea on February 01, 2018, 11:05:56 pmIs this another "fact" of yours? "No banks would lend Trump money", can you provide a source for this?Literally hundreds of newspaper stories are about this, and they basically say, "American banks won't lend him money, so he goes to a famously iffy German bank and the Russian mob."So I tried to find someone reporting the reverse, and found this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22Oddly, or maybe not, when you read the article, it provides absolutely no evidence US banks have lent Trump big money in decades. For example, in the nut graf:QuoteContrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms these days. Big banks like Barclays BCS, -0.09% also welcome Trump’s money in brokerage accounts and one of the biggest, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM, +0.05% , oversees his family trusts, according to a recent presidential disclosure.To "welcome Trump's money" and "oversee family trusts" are nothing at all like giving him big loans. The loans discussed in the article are all from foreign banks, so I'm going to conclude he indeed has trouble getting big loans from US banks.I think my problem with that was the "no bank" and if as you say numerous newspaper stories have reported on this, shouldn't they provide evidence? Example: Trump tried to apply for a loan at Citibank on January 10th and was denied the loan. Instead they say some banker we talked to said no bank would ever give a loan to Trump. This is not to say I think he wouldn't have trouble getting loans, due to his bankruptcies, but the news rarely uses facts, misleads and tries to push whatever agenda they have. Well, first of all, I don't think denying loans is something banks should really talk about publicly. But his only public financial disclosure we have clearly shows he only has loans from that dirty German bank and a couple of Russian mob-linked ones--it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"? Bye.Do you Know Sherlock Holmes? Wow! I like him, can you introduce me? Secondly, "the news rarely uses facts"?. Yes the news has been on top of the facts since Trump was elected? Do you get your news feed from North Korea or something?
"In 2016, the Russian government engaged in an elaborate plot to interfere in an American election and undermine our democracy. Russia employed the same tactics it has used to influence elections around the world, from France and Germany to Ukraine, Montenegro, and beyond. Putin’s regime launched cyberattacks and spread disinformation with the goal of sowing chaos and weakening faith in our institutions. And while we have no evidence that these efforts affected the outcome of our election, I fear they succeeded in fueling political discord and dividing us from one another.“The latest attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests – no party’s, no president’s, only Putin’s. The American people deserve to know all of the facts surrounding Russia’s ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation must proceed unimpeded. Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the warped lens of politics and manufacturing partisan sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.”John McCain