Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

a reply to: xxspockyxx

Trump campaign adviser Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

Actually, just have at this article: www.slate.com...

I think it packs together what is proven by now, and what may yet to be.

In fairness - and I do tend to try to be fair, it's just Trump supporters can sometimes be so off the deep end that it's hard - but to be fair, me saying "And none of it has been proven false" carries significant logical fallacy. Because anything in it that hasn't been proven we might say "pending" (such as the sex tape) even though perhaps there is no sex tape. I don't care one way or another, I care about how compromised Trump is with respect to Russia, and that is 100% in my opinion, but ....

But, I'm not the one charged with the investigation, with 45 years of experience, with all the witnesses, and the staff to make that judgment, that's why Mueller is the man to make the judgment, not me.

I intend to respect his work, whatever result may come.

a reply to: Scrubdog

That slate report is based on pure non sense. Thank you for admitting everything that you claim is strictly opinion, I disagree with your opinion and that is ok!

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: Scrubdog

That slate report is based on pure non sense. Thank you for admitting everything that you claim is strictly opinion, I disagree with your opinion and that is ok!

"Pure nonsense."

Of course it is. It implicates Trump. And that won't be tolerated.

You guys will listen to nothing at all.

Doesn't matter, though.

If I can simply get you to agree to allow Mueller - former Marine, purple heart, bronze star, 45 years of public service in the Justice department, lead the FBI after 9-11, hired by "W" and asked to stay for a 2 year extension by Obama, life-long Republican, if you will simply support his findings and then whatever a judge/jury decides, that's fine by me.

Just don't fire him, don't judge his evidence ahead of time, and if the evidence points toward Trump and collusion/obstruction, agree that we can't have that from our president, and I agree that if nothing is found, there's nothing there, and move on.

That's the only real facts we need to agree upon. Let the neutral investigator do his job.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Potential plausibility of the report is how the slate article describes the dossier. Unverified sources and the "reporter" reports on what some of his friends think about it. Come on man. You claim "YOU guys will listen to nothing at all"??? I don't believe that you even believe in your case anymore.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
I don't believe that you even believe in your case anymore.

That is a given the way democrats are trying to do all they can to change the media narrative once again. The dossier was a fraud on the court and when you have Adam Schiff stating he has issues with the dossier it says a lot.

It is why they are latching onto the fake #hole comment. Ironically only 1 person preset, Dick Durban (D), is reporting the President said those words while everyone else says they heard something different and that that word was not used. Durban has a history of lying about what occurs in private meetings at the White House and this is apparently no different. Given the fact the racist rep out of Texas, Al Green (D), is demanding an impeachment vote over the fake #hole comments.

Democrats have reached critical mass with the "Throw # against the wall and see what sticks" play.

With the recent exposure of Google and Twitter censoring anyone with conservative leanings, an 11 count indictment being unsealed that is the first indictment for the Uranium One scandal and the continued exposure of crimes by Clinton, Obama and Democrats...

The Democrats asshattery is expected.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

What is Slate's track record? Is it a regurgitator? A fake news creator? Or both, like CNN?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
I don't believe that you even believe in your case anymore.

With the recent exposure of Google and Twitter censoring anyone with conservative leanings, an 11 count indictment being unsealed that is the first indictment for the Uranium One scandal and the continued exposure of crimes by Clinton, Obama and Democrats...

The Democrats asshattery is expected.

That explains why GOOGLE NEWS on my Android likes to pop-up stories that are anti-Trump and Anti-America. Not once has it mentioned any of the many positive things occuring in the economy.

My wife's I-Phone feeds her nothing but CNN headlines. Of course we know what those mostly are..

That's why its important for Trump to keep forging ahead with making America greater for everyone. Eventually, people will see those pop-up headlines and think... "Oh well.. that's Trump for ya. My life is getting better, so I hope he keeps doing what he's doing!"

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xxspockyxx

What is Slate's track record? Is it a regurgitator? A fake news creator? Or both, like CNN?

All of the above -
Slate

Slate is an online magazine that covers current affairs, politics, and culture in the United States from a liberal perspective.[2][3] It was created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On December 21, 2004, it was purchased by The Washington Post Company, later renamed the Graham Holdings Company. Since June 4, 2008, Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Graham Holdings Company to develop and manage web-only magazines. Slate is based in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C.[4]

A French version (slate.fr) was launched in February 2009 by a group of four journalists, including Jean-Marie Colombani, Eric Leser, and economist Jacques Attali. Among them, the founders hold 50% in the publishing company, while The Slate Group holds 15%.[5][6] In 2011, slate.fr started a separate site covering African news, Slate Afrique, with a Paris-based editorial staff.[7]

In July 2014, Julia Turner replaced David Plotz, who had been editor of Slate since 2008.[8] Plotz had been the deputy editor to Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor from 2002 until his designation as the chairman and editor-in-chief of The Slate Group. The Washington Post Company's John Alderman is Slate's publisher.

Slate (ISSN 1091-2339), which is updated throughout the day, covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news. According to Turner, the magazine is "not fundamentally a breaking news source", but rather aimed at helping readers to "analyze and understand and interpret the world" with witty and entertaining writing.[9] As of mid-2015, it publishes about 1500 stories per month.[10]

Slate is also known (and sometimes criticized) for adopting self-described "left of center"[11] and contrarian views, giving rise to the term "Slate Pitches."[12][13][14] It is ad-supported and has been available to read free of charge since 1999, but restricted access for non-US readers via a metered paywall in 2015.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What he said. If you had any question about the obvious propaganda that they use all you had to do was read the ridiculous article that was linked from 6 months ago that didn't have one bit of fact instead of opinion. That is the problem that we are dealing with when someone is so blatantly anti Trump, they turn on Rachel Maddow or some other talking head idiot on msnbc and then use their words as their own and pretend like they have original ideas. When backed into a corner they proceed to abandon thread and go to a different one, talk off op about how Trump once dated a porn star or something else ridiculous and try again. It's a pattern that has become pretty obvious.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: Scrubdog

Potential plausibility of the report is how the slate article describes the dossier. Unverified sources and the "reporter" reports on what some of his friends think about it. Come on man. You claim "YOU guys will listen to nothing at all"??? I don't believe that you even believe in your case anymore.

Ha!

Please.

I believe what is right in front of my eyes. The only person acting like he's a Russian plant is the Russian plant in the oval office, which leads me to be more confident in the case every day.

Do not ascribe your opinion to any I or anyone else who isn't a Trump apologist.

The man has acted like a Russian agent from day one. I think there''s a damn good reason and it accords with all we read. What doesn't accord is the triple pretzel you guys need to tie to bring Russia in on someone else's side.

You have 17 intel agencies to fight, too. But, you and Hannity are right, the 17 intel agencies and all media but Fox are wrong.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
I don't believe that you even believe in your case anymore.

With the recent exposure of Google and Twitter censoring anyone with conservative leanings, an 11 count indictment being unsealed that is the first indictment for the Uranium One scandal and the continued exposure of crimes by Clinton, Obama and Democrats...

The Democrats asshattery is expected.

That explains why GOOGLE NEWS on my Android likes to pop-up stories that are anti-Trump and Anti-America. Not once has it mentioned any of the many positive things occuring in the economy.

My wife's I-Phone feeds her nothing but CNN headlines. Of course we know what those mostly are..

That's why its important for Trump to keep forging ahead with making America greater for everyone. Eventually, people will see those pop-up headlines and think... "Oh well.. that's Trump for ya. My life is getting better, so I hope he keeps doing what he's doing!"

Being anti-Trump is not anti-American. OK?

And my life, along with many others, got much much better through Obama's term. Yours did, too, if it is getting better under Trump. So, please don't act like it just started just now.

The google app you have just isn't put out by Fox news, so you're going to be beset with real news, and a lot of it is bad for Trump, blame porn star Trump and his ****hole decisions for that, not the news media.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: Scrubdog

Potential plausibility of the report is how the slate article describes the dossier. Unverified sources and the "reporter" reports on what some of his friends think about it. Come on man. You claim "YOU guys will listen to nothing at all"??? I don't believe that you even believe in your case anymore.

Forgot to ask, what part of that report is wrong?

This should be easy for you, so let's have it.

a reply to: Scrubdog

"You have 17 intel agencies to fight, too. But, you and Hannity are right, the 17 intel agencies and all media but Fox are wrong."


Please name all 17 intel agencies and each ones individual assessments.

originally posted by: Scrubdog

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: Scrubdog

Potential plausibility of the report is how the slate article describes the dossier. Unverified sources and the "reporter" reports on what some of his friends think about it. Come on man. You claim "YOU guys will listen to nothing at all"??? I don't believe that you even believe in your case anymore.

Forgot to ask, what part of that report is wrong?

This should be easy for you, so let's have it.

The entire report is an opinion column by a left of center opinion publication. I already explained to you that I accept that you have an opinion on the matter and everyone is entitled to that. Your claim that we have a Russian plant in the white house is more than anyone here needs to read to know where you are coming from.

a reply to: Scrubdog

You still refuse to answer the question in the op and are coming here with sources and your "facts" from more than 6 months ago. For God's sake you still are sitting the debunked 17 agency line.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

There are few people who stopped listening to new information that doesnt fit into their chosen narrative.

Being on the receiving end of an all out MSM blitz by the status quo makes you have to task yourself with critical thought and actually LOOK for developments in stories that are suppressed or misinformed to the public by corporate media.

Waiting for expert opinion to give you the talking points needed for social soap box parroting leaves you pretty stale after a few months without "worthy" updates to your information.

I am sure they could name everything anti Trump in the last 3 news cycles but nothing even remotely damming about anyone they side with or even another current event.

They can tell you nonsense about Trump and their opinion of him, and end it with an insult to him or his base.....Thats why they are always surprised when things happen and need people to write them books about "what happened".

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: Scrubdog

You still refuse to answer the question in the op and are coming here with sources and your "facts" from more than 6 months ago. For God's sake you still are sitting the debunked 17 agency line.

What question in the OP?

That the dossier was used in the FISA warrant?

Take it up with the judge at the Suppression hearing.

You and Hannity have no idea how a criminal proceeding works.

Oh well, it won't matter. I truly think you already think you know all that's happened. Mueller knows 5x what we know, has decades of experience, is 5x the lawyer I am and 3x smarter, so I am sure that whatever he finds is what is to be found, and he'll evaluate it under the law.

You all sure loved the Benghazi hearings, where even the Republican controlled committee cleared her, but are now back demanding Clinton's head. (BTW - why aren't you all here demanding hearings on what happened to the 4 in Africa? Don't bother, I already know it's of no interest now). The DOJ will respond accordingly to whatever need there is to deal with Clinton's actions. Even if Hillary did something wrong - doubt it, but whatever - that doesn't clear Trump.

Many here seem to think it does, and some people seem like they're only capable of following one scandal which renders all the others irrelevant.

Speaking of scandal, wonder what woulda' happened had Obama paid off a porn star a month before the election? Eh, never had to worry about it with Obama.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: xxspockyxx

There are few people who stopped listening to new information that doesnt fit into their chosen narrative.

Being on the receiving end of an all out MSM blitz by the status quo makes you have to task yourself with critical thought and actually LOOK for developments in stories that are suppressed or misinformed to the public by corporate media.

Waiting for expert opinion to give you the talking points needed for social soap box parroting leaves you pretty stale after a few months without "worthy" updates to your information.

I am sure they could name everything anti Trump in the last 3 news cycles but nothing even remotely damming about anyone they side with or even another current event.

They can tell you nonsense about Trump and their opinion of him, and end it with an insult to him or his base.....Thats why they are always surprised when things happen and need people to write them books about "what happened".

Actually "look for developments"?

Ha, follow Fox News, there are your developments that most look for.

We don't need to "insult him" - what he does speaks for itself.

Oh, and there have been plenty of "worthy" updates. I was asked for which parts of the Steele dosier have been corroborated, and linked that Slate article. What has been corroborated stays corroborated b/c it's fact.

I've asked which part of the article is wrong and haven't seen anything yet specifically addressing it. Nor have I seen any of you address the fact that Trump goes about his life looking exactly what you'd expect a Russian plant to look like.

So, onward. Follow Hannity. Guy is dumber than you guys and yet you look to him? Weird.

a reply to: Scrubdog

The dossier is debunked.
It was misrepresented to the FISA court to obtain the warrant.

You do this and you claim the dossier is verified yet you cant tell us what part is verified and who verified it.

Either put up or shut up. Your constant thread derailment is getting old.