James Comey doesn't seem to understand what "spying" means.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Let me ask you a question. If you were a higher up at one of the intelligence orgs, and you received information of a terror cell planning an attack on the American people, information that was credible but, as yet, unverified, would you follow up on it?

Well, that's the way I see the Steele Dossier. And, I have no reason to think that the dossier is illegitimate, as some suggest. In fact, none of it has proven to be false.

Please point out any part of the dossier that has been proven true?

I mean, we can ask the supposed author, but under oath he has already stated that he couldn't verify any of it.

Baker told all his higher ups that the dossier was unverified.

Links for this one would be nice...

which part has been verified as true? Any of it? And do you think if Trump writes one up on his Democratic opponent and uses it for the same purposes, that would be cool?

Remember, you can't have it both ways.

a reply to: Lumenari

Please point out any part of the dossier that has been proven true?

Some of the money laundering parts, for one.
Please point out any part of the dossier that has been proven false.

I think I'm going to give him a solid B+ here, if I'm honest.

It doesn't really matter what he says, certain elements will buy it in totality and regardless of any evidence otherwise.

On top of that, he used the programming trigger of semantics. Co-opting of language to define "what actually happened" is a deeply, deeply embedded trait. Anything that is presented in that context will automatically trigger the information to be routed through specific pathways. Those may vary a bit in specifics from individual to individual, but the behavioral response will be effectively the same.

"I never saw that as stealing, Occifer, its just a swift, efficient transfer of ownership with a temporal displacement in the awareness of the original owner. Therefore, the laws pertaining to theft don't apply, we must instead reference swift, efficient transfers of ownership with a temporal displacement in the awareness of the original owner. Since those statutes do not exist, no crime was committed."

Good 'ol Chewbacca defense!

Gets em every time.

a reply to: network dude

which part has been verified as true? Any of it?

That would be Mueller's purview. What part has been verified as false? Any of it?

And do you think if Trump writes one up on his Democratic opponent and uses it for the same purposes, that would be cool?

He does that all the time. How about "Obama wasn't born in America"? Or, "Ted Cruz' father may have been involved in the JFK assassination"?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

None of it needs to be proven false. The onus is on the alleger to prove their allegations. The default position is they are untrue. So any part that is not verified as true is automatically untrue.

Otherwise, you are a child molester ... let's act as if it's a fact until you 100% prove it did not happen. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

which part has been verified as true? Any of it?

That would be Mueller's purview. What part has been verified as false? Any of it?

And do you think if Trump writes one up on his Democratic opponent and uses it for the same purposes, that would be cool?

He does that all the time. How about "Obama wasn't born in America"? Or, "Ted Cruz' father may have been involved in the JFK assassination"?

Prove a negative? Um, even idiots realize that ins't an option, you aren't one of those are you?

And no, your examples aren't anything like what I'm discussing. If Trump paid a foreign agent to provide an unverified smear report on his opponent, then used that same unverified report to get the IC to spy on his opponent, you would be super cool with that? I just need to get your yes or no on this, for posterity.

It's cute that you want to compare apples to peanut husks, but the real world doesn't work that way.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No... you allege something *you* have to prove it. We don't have to disprove anything

Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Any & every accuser. From the left's creepy sex fixation related allegations to their bitter collusion delusion. You allege it you prove it or by default it never happened

a reply to: network dude

If Trump paid a foreign agent to provide an unverified smear report on his opponent, then used that same unverified report to get the IC to spy on his opponent, you would be super cool with that?

Heck ND if it is that easy we should have came up with one years ago... maybe hillary and its garbage people would be in jail instead of ruining this country

a reply to: Sookiechacha

😆 My God getting desperate

Mueller proved it fake by default (aka no references in any charges) 😆

a reply to: JBurns

I think it's important to understand where the left is at with this. It's either good, or not. If it's not, then cool, we can investigate and jail the bad guys, even if they are republicans, if it's not cool, then Trump would be a fool not to go that route. He is already a bad guy, might as well earn the title, and provide a teachable moment at the same time.

Again, it can't be both ways, even if you are an idiot democrat.

a reply to: network dude

Sookie is a child molester, true until proven false. Or is it only good for the goose? That's the world they want to live in.

a reply to: network dude

You're moving the goal posts. Look, you all like to say that the dossier is fake, but you don't have any proof of that. Mueller did an investigation, partly into the allegations of the dossier. We'll have to wait to see the report, or hear from people who have, to verify what, if any of the dossier panned out. Just declaring it's fake doesn't make it so. Just like Trump declaring the report has exonerated isn't true either.

And yes, Trump makes up inflammatory lies about people all the time. He doesn't need to hire investigators for that. He hires investigators to go prove his lies, like that time he sent investigators to prove his allegation about Obama not being born there.

Was there spying? Depends on what you consider spying. Does the FBI quietly and covertly following up on leads of criminal behavior intended to hurt Americans? I sure hope so!

a reply to: JBurns

No... you allege something *you* have to prove it.

What did I allege?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You said money laundering had been proven. Could you please show that proof?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Comey was clear that Trump was not the target of the investigation, he was a victim. So there is no reason whatsoever to not let him know he will be surveiled during the investigation. Not letting him know made it spying as there was no FISA warrant to listen in on him.

Comeys a total idiot

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

You're moving the goal posts. Look, you all like to say that the dossier is fake, but you don't have any proof of that. Mueller did an investigation, partly into the allegations of the dossier. We'll have to wait to see the report, or hear from people who have, to verify what, if any of the dossier panned out. Just declaring it's fake doesn't make it so. Just like Trump declaring the report has exonerated isn't true either.

And yes, Trump makes up inflammatory lies about people all the time. He doesn't need to hire investigators for that. He hires investigators to go prove his lies, like that time he sent investigators to prove his allegation about Obama not being born there.

Was there spying? Depends on what you consider spying. Does the FBI quietly and covertly following up on leads of criminal behavior intended to hurt Americans? I sure hope so!

Don't worry, you have been vague enough here, that when it's proven that spying happened, and it's legality is exposed, that your immediate disbelief and disregard will look normal. BAMN, amirite?

a reply to: network dude

Don't worry, you have been vague enough here, that when it's proven that spying happened, and it's legality is exposed

What?
Are you suggesting that Barr will state that "spying" happened, but it was legal?

We know that when Comey announced the FBI was re-opening Hillary's email investigation, the FBI was also investigating the Trump Campaign. All I'm saying is that the answer to the oranges of the spying, is in the Mueller report.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Comey was clear that Trump was not the target of the investigation, he was a victim.

Comey never told Trump he was a victim.

a reply to: Khaleesi

Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, was indicted on Monday with his longtime associate, Rick Gates, on charges of money laundering and making false statements to officials related to lobbying work in Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com...
thesteeledossier.com...