Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

We're debating a wall. It's useless.

 

For me when I researched Crimea it was hard to find reports of Crimeans who felt they were either truly apart of Ukraine or Ukrainian and who felt that they were worse off under Russian control.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/crimeans-still-tigerish-over-split-with-ukraine
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...on-collapse-25th-anniversary-russia/95419178/

From what I gathered it seemed people felt that Russian law was much tougher than Ukrainian law, but they felt the civil services were better and that Russia was actually spending money on them. From what I could tell the Crimeans felt left behind by Kiev. For whatever it’s worth Russia just finished a massive ****ing bridge to Crimea that cost $7.5 billion if I’m correct. Sure the referendum was a joke with the percentages, but if I’m a betting man with my ridiculously limited knowledge then I would guess even a legitimate referendum would have passed. They were the most heavily pro-Russian part of Ukraine from 2012 polling data I saw. It really is a difficult topic to try to get information on due to Russian and Western propaganda. Normally, if you want to get decent opinions from people in random places in the world you can go to YouTube and get pretty good firsthand opinions and reports. Obviously, nothing substitutes being there or knowing someone from there, but that’s not an easy thing to accomplish.

If you’re curious to see Ukrainian opinions on this issue from 2014 and 2017
http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2014 April 5 IRI Public Opinion Survey of Ukraine, March 14-26, 2014.pdf
https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2017-11-28_ukraine_poll_presentation.pdf

It’s interesting to see how the Crimea issue has faded by 2017 and also the vast geographic differences on the issue in 2014.

Also, I can’t find the link, but Russian polling of the Crimean annexation was wildly in favor of it and they viewed it as a major source of national pride. I have no idea why they feel this way so it makes me want to learn more.

I’m still trying to find more relatively non-biased information about Russia and Russia under Putin. I stumbled on this paper/book from the European Council on Foreign Relations from 2009. https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR16_What_Does_Russia_Think.pdf It’s a quick read and I’m about halfway thru and it seems to give some pretty decent insights on Russia.

Below is the introductory paragraph that resonated pretty strongly with me and I feel it holds just as true today as it did 9 years ago.

“If we want to influence and deal with Russia, we need to understand it. But if we want to understand Russia, we should be interested in it. Unfortunately, we are not. The German political philosopher Carl Schmitt – who has become surprisingly popular in intellectual circles around the Kremlin – once noted that “victors feel no curiosity”. This is exactly what has happened to the European Union since the end of the Cold War. Gleb Pavlovsky, a political thinker with a novel-like biography, who is one of the Kremlin’s leading strategists, is right when he argues that the dominant discourse on Russia among Western liberals focuses on what Russia lacks – be it Western-style democracy, the rule of law or property rights.

The tragedy of European foreign policy thinking is that we fell in love with our own paradigm. We are so convinced that what others want is to be like us that we are only really interested in whether, when and how they can be like us. For the moment, the Russian political elite does not dream of being like us nor does it want Russia to join the EU. But this does not mean that ideas mean nothing in Russian politics. On the contrary, after the de-ideologized 1990s, Russia is much more like it was in the 1980s, with a lot of intellectual energy unleashed by its quest for its own model.”

 

point to what line is false. i just quoted the damn thing. every word is true.

I guess now you will as you said 'move the goalposts' and claim the message he was trying to convey was false even though everything he said was true.

 

I leaning toward Russia-US collusion at this point.

I think everyone but the far left will admit that some shady stuff went on to obtain this warrant.

 

As the truth comes out about yet another bullshit narrative the right tried to use, Tallanavor is resorting to the only thing he knows.

Narrow the scope, ignore context and inference, and focus on technicalities to try and win tiny irrelevant logical battles, while ignoring common sense.

Its only a matter of time, before more of the application becomes further un-redacted, it crushes his bullshit argument, and he is forced to retreat back into reconditioning, till he can return with the next conservative **** pile narrative, all dressed up like a liberal conspiracy.

Rinse and repeat.

 

More like poop and more poop

 

Some of the words he posted were indeed lies.

But if it makes you feel better instead of using the word "lie" we can use dishonest. We should both be able to agree that he was dishonest.

 

I haven't seen anything shady that was used to obtain that warrant. I am far left and as such I'm pretty strict on obtaining warrants.

What did you think was shady?

 

In the FISA warrant Hillary is referred to as 'Candidate #2' and the GOP as 'political party #1' . Tell me FB, where in the FISA warrant does it say 'Candidate #2 and Political Party #2 paid for the dossier (Source #1)' ? It doesn't. The FBI knew it a the time. Why not say it? Here is what the warrant did say
'The FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign'. This could be anyone. It could be any donor or any person who didn't like trump.

Nunes was right. they did hide the fact that the DNC and Clinton paid for the dossier.

You have literally presented no argument otherwise. You don't dare quote the Nunes memo or the warrant cause neither back your claims.

Instead you give me this ****

The political opponent you are referring to is called 'identified US person' in the warrant. They mean Glenn Simpson but don't say it . It never refers to Candidate #2 (Hillary) or Political Party #2 (DNC) as having paid for the dossier even though they knew it.

Here ill even post the 'whole page' you are referring to in your post so everyone can see how insane you are (there is redacted info on this page)


U.S.-based law firm had hired the identi?ed US. person to conduct research
regarding Candidate #1?s ties to Russia (the identi?ed U.S. person and Source #1
have a long-standing business relationship). The identified?US. person hired Source
#1 to conduct this research. The identified US. person never advised Source #1 as to
the motivation. behind the research into Candidate #l?s ties to Russia. The FBI
speculates that the identi?ed US. person was likely looking for information that
could be used to discredit Candidate #l's campaign.

(U) Source #1 tasked his sub?source(s) to collect the requisite
information. After Source #1 received information from the described
herein, Source #1 provided the information to the identi?ed US. person who had
hired Source #1 and to the FBI.

Notwithstanding Source #l's reason for conducting the research
into Candidate #l?s ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history
with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI
believes Source #l's reporting herein to be credible.


One person mentioned (indentified US person) and that he was hired by US law firm. That law firm is Perkins Coie and GLenn Simpson is the US person. Thats all they said about the person paying for source #1 (dossier). They knew at the time of issuing these warrants that HIllary and the DNC were paying for Source #1 through Perkins Coie and never mentioned it. You are wrong. Nunes is right.

 

The FBI tries not to use names when presenting this type of thing. It has already been shown in this thread that is the standard operating procedure. The judges were given information about the potential bias. It specifically says that the purpose was to discredit candidate #1's campaign.

Like I said if the word "lie" is giving you a problem, then we won't use the word lie. We can both agree that Nunes memo was dishonest.

 

So where does it say Candidate #2 and Political Party #2 paid for the dossier? those aren't names and the standard has already been used in the warrant

I think you are dishonest. with yourself and everyone else. I think the Nunes memo was honest.

SO far I have been through every relevant word of the Nunes memo and warrant and showed you that you are indeed wrong and Nunes is right and you can;t even come up with a mature response.

 

A political opponent would be the same bias against Candidate #1 whether it was Hillary or a different political opponent. The potential for bias was made clear.

 

remember when you claimed i was 'moving the goalposts'...................

So your position is that its ok that the warrant left out that Hillary and the DNC paid for the dossier (Even though they knew it) because they mention 'identified US person' instead and that he may have been looking for dirt on trump? what type of horseshit is this.

 

It is okay when you tell the judges that the person who is paying for the dossier is looking to discredit Trump's campaign.

Identifying the motive is what is important. Putting the name isn't what is important. If the judges say they were misled then I would buy that they were misled. That hasn't happened. The reason that hasn't happened is that there was nothing misleading in the application for the warrant.

 

ITs always good when you are writing a warrant for a wiretap of a US citizen working on a presidential campaign to not be thorough. 'yea we could put the person we know is paying for the primary source of this warrant, but no need to be that detailed. Identified US person is specific enough.'

I'm sure that's what it was FB, i'm sure it wasn't intentional at all.

All kidding aside FB, no law enforcement agent would leave out this information unintentionally. Clearly the FBI/DOJ thought it meaningful enough to hide it from the judge. You should ask why that is. As to what the judges feel now? I have no idea and neither do you. Maybe they are talking to Horowitz.

 

They weren't hiding crap. They didn't unmask an American citizen in keeping with their standard operating procedure. That isn't seeking to hide something.

They certainly didn't hide the possible bias in the motive. It doesn't matter if it is Hillary Clinton who has the motive to discredit the campaign or a different political opponent with the motive to discredit the campaign. What matters is the motive.

So yes, it is forthcoming and upfront to include the motive of the people who paid for the dossier.

But if you would like to talk about somebody hiding something that does change the meaning of what they presented, that would be Nunes. He hid the fact that the FBI/DOJ specifically included the possible bias behind those that paid for the dossier.

 

I laughed.

 

Hillary is already refrenced in the warrant as 'candidate #2'. You mean they are hiding the fact she's the one paying. Thats the whole point Nunes was making. How do you know that operating procedure is to hide the genesis of the evidence in the warrant? Link? I call bullshit on that. Also the DNC is not a person why hide political party #2?

Do you think her motive was to become president?That sure as hell was left out.

 

Its almost like Tallv and co didn’t actually read the warrant but got their talking points from Hannity... no way!

This is seriously how stupid their argument is. The FBI was hiding that Hillary and co paid Fusion gps by using candidate 1 and 2 when there are literally only two serious people running for President. The judges aren’t idiots. They knew who was funding the dossier.... even though both party affiliates paid Fusion gps for the intelligence which the right just says “lalala” when you remind them of that. No way my party wasn’t always 110% loyal to king Trump.

(Also keep in mind how the law works in this country ... even if I hate my Neigbor because he blows his leaves in my yard, if I call the cops because I see him dealing meth to small children, the cops dont let my Neigbor off the hook because they know I’m bias towards my Neigbor because of the leaf situation)

However .... if you guys actually read the warrant you’d see that the dossier was only partially the substance of intelligence presented to the judge.

And even if the dossier was the initial source read the follow ups with the judge that continue to grow in size. Indicating that the “fake” dossier (if that was the only source of intelligence which it wasn’t) produced some pretty great results. They were obviously getting a ton on intelligence those Republican judges thought were potentially incriminating and important to national security.

 

Which reminds me of this famous quote

Words to live by.