leftcoastaggie said:TexAgs91 said:
This may or may not be a legit synopsis of the Bruce Ohr testimony. It has several interesting nuggets if true.
i.e.Quote:
Um he just now eluded that one of the [FISA] judges was in on it or had full knowledge.
Dems were quick to object
Kind of hard for the Democrats to object when there were no Democrats in the hearing. Just seven Republicans.
MeadowsTexAgs91 said:According to the wall of text (19:38:55) there's 6 dems that come and go. Not all present at the same time. No staff in room. Closed setting.leftcoastaggie said:TexAgs91 said:
This may or may not be a legit synopsis of the Bruce Ohr testimony. It has several interesting nuggets if true.
i.e.Quote:
Um he just now eluded that one of the [FISA] judges was in on it or had full knowledge.
Dems were quick to object
Kind of hard for the Democrats to object when there were no Democrats in the hearing. Just seven Republicans.
So you're saying the Dems already knew what his testimony would be?leftcoastaggie said:TexAgs91 said:
This may or may not be a legit synopsis of the Bruce Ohr testimony. It has several interesting nuggets if true.
i.e.Quote:
Um he just now eluded that one of the [FISA] judges was in on it or had full knowledge.
Dems were quick to object
Kind of hard for the Democrats to object when there were no Democrats in the hearing. Just seven Republicans.
You sure that's right? Seems like something regarding such an important issue would be worth their time.leftcoastaggie said:MeadowsTexAgs91 said:According to the wall of text (19:38:55) there's 6 dems that come and go. Not all present at the same time. No staff in room. Closed setting.leftcoastaggie said:TexAgs91 said:
This may or may not be a legit synopsis of the Bruce Ohr testimony. It has several interesting nuggets if true.
i.e.Quote:
Um he just now eluded that one of the [FISA] judges was in on it or had full knowledge.
Dems were quick to object
Kind of hard for the Democrats to object when there were no Democrats in the hearing. Just seven Republicans.
Ratcliffe
Gowdy
Jordan
Issa
Biggs
Gaetz
No Democrats
If they are there to hear something damning, they'd have to comment and/or react.TexAgs91 said:You sure that's right? Seems like something regarding such an important issue would be worth their time.leftcoastaggie said:MeadowsTexAgs91 said:According to the wall of text (19:38:55) there's 6 dems that come and go. Not all present at the same time. No staff in room. Closed setting.leftcoastaggie said:TexAgs91 said:
This may or may not be a legit synopsis of the Bruce Ohr testimony. It has several interesting nuggets if true.
i.e.Quote:
Um he just now eluded that one of the [FISA] judges was in on it or had full knowledge.
Dems were quick to object
Kind of hard for the Democrats to object when there were no Democrats in the hearing. Just seven Republicans.
Ratcliffe
Gowdy
Jordan
Issa
Biggs
Gaetz
No Democrats
Because GOP members were already there. Keeping with the naive facade, I'm surprised this isn't important for demsleftcoastaggie said:
It was a joint hearing conducted by the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee. Only seven republicans filtered in and out during the eight hour session. Mainly some freedom caucus members and a couple others who think their job in congresses to carry the president's water. 32 other Republican committee members didn't think it was an important enough issue to waste their time. Must all be deep state members or part of the swamp obviously.
Quote:
Eight GOP members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees attended: Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy, John Ratcliffe, Darrell Issa, Matt Gaetz and Andy Biggs. No Democratic members were on hand, but staffers of both parties attended.
Quote:
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told reporters that Ohr had multiple "handlers" that he passed on the dossier to at the FBI, but Issa declined to name them.
"There's quite a shocking list of names," he said.
Who was the 8th?RoscoePColtrane said:Quote:
Eight GOP members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees attended: Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy, John Ratcliffe, Darrell Issa, Matt Gaetz and Andy Biggs. No Democratic members were on hand, but staffers of both parties attended.
LOL. Get back to me when Steele was actually gathering "intel" as opposed to circular sourcing from FBI/CIA assets used to entrap anyone within spitting distance of Trump on more than a photo-op.etcetera said:If a guy like Chris Steele is passing intel information to the CIA and to the FBI's CI unit, then continuing to use him as an intel source is the correct thing to do.RoscoePColtrane said:
Even after they terminated him for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the press? Mike Flynn lying to the FBI is the crime of the century. Steele lying to the FBI is no big deal.etcetera said:If a guy like Chris Steele is passing intel information to the CIA and to the FBI's CI unit, then continuing to use him as an intel source is the correct thing to do.RoscoePColtrane said:
I would prefer that this thread be kept separate from the Q thread, though. Any reddit, 4 chan, or 8 chann stuff needs to be posted there, not here.RoscoePColtrane said:
It's just a couple of drive by trolls, got bored and decided to stop by
etcetera said:If a guy like Chris Steele is passing intel information to the CIA and to the FBI's CI unit, then continuing to use him as an intel source is the correct thing to do.RoscoePColtrane said:
Absolutelyaggiehawg said:I would prefer that this thread be kept separate from the Q thread, though. Any reddit, 4 chan, or 8 chann stuff needs to be posted there, not here.RoscoePColtrane said:
It's just a couple of drive by trolls, got bored and decided to stop by
Do you agree?
etcetera said:See my answer to aggiehawg above.VegasAg86 said:Even after they terminated him for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the press? Mike Flynn lying to the FBI is the crime of the century. Steele lying to the FBI is no big deal.etcetera said:If a guy like Chris Steele is passing intel information to the CIA and to the FBI's CI unit, then continuing to use him as an intel source is the correct thing to do.RoscoePColtrane said:
etcetera said:See my answer to aggiehawg above.VegasAg86 said:Even after they terminated him for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the press? Mike Flynn lying to the FBI is the crime of the century. Steele lying to the FBI is no big deal.etcetera said:If a guy like Chris Steele is passing intel information to the CIA and to the FBI's CI unit, then continuing to use him as an intel source is the correct thing to do.RoscoePColtrane said:
But he's a political source who sided with Russian agents to deliberately affect a US election. He chose his fate.etcetera said:So if tomorrow Chris Steele calls one of his FBI counterintelligence unit contacts and says he has four different sources who have given him pieces of info about a joint effort between Russia and Syria to smuggle chemical weapons to a terrorist group that is planning an attack on a US military base in the ME, should the FBI tell him to get lost??? Or should the FBI meet with him and look at the info???VegasAg86 said:So lying to the FBI is acceptable if you're trying to destroy Trump, but unacceptable if you're part of Trump's team. Good to know.etcetera said:See my answer to aggiehawg above.VegasAg86 said:Even after they terminated him for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the press? Mike Flynn lying to the FBI is the crime of the century. Steele lying to the FBI is no big deal.etcetera said:If a guy like Chris Steele is passing intel information to the CIA and to the FBI's CI unit, then continuing to use him as an intel source is the correct thing to do.RoscoePColtrane said:
So you have admitted that the FBI/DOJ repeatedly lied to the FISA court on the renewals on the Carter Page FISA warrant. Hint: need probable cause for each renewal. Yet he's never been charged.etcetera said:I haven't seen any credible evidence of that. Even if it were true, it would be stupid for a U.S. intelligence unit to stop using a foreign source who has provided valuable information in the past. It doesn't matter if the source is a retired MI6 agent like Steele or a sketchy con man / illegal arms dealer with a checkered criminal past like Felix Sater or a truly murderous bad guy like a Mexican drug cartel overlord who runs a drug-smuggling operation. If the drug cartel guy has given info that led to the arrest / outing of terrorists or spies, keep using him.aggiehawg said:LOL. Get back to me when Steele was actually gathering "intel" as opposed to circular sourcing from FBI/CIA assets used to entrap anyone within spitting distance of Trump on more than a photo-op.etcetera said:If a guy like Chris Steele is passing intel information to the CIA and to the FBI's CI unit, then continuing to use him as an intel source is the correct thing to do.RoscoePColtrane said:
solid rebuttalQuote:
Good grief.
Quote:
Good grief.
I'll attempt to clear up my comment by saying that Huber hasn't interviewed either of the Ohr's, or Victoria Toening's client, who was directly involved in Uranium 1.fasthorses05 said:
Guys, have we discussed Huber not talking to the people with direct knowledge of Uranium 1, HRC e-mails, and Russia, Russia, Russia (except the Clinton version)?
I only bring this up because I have serious, nearly 100%, doubts about Huber doing a decent investigation, not to mention "evaluation" that he said he would do. If he hasn't spoken to the folks involved, then he's bascially writing a list of do's and don't s in law.
