Maggie's Farm

Zachie-poo--"The investigation was not started due to the Steele Dossier."


Wrong. It was one of many tenuous threads they hung onto to start it. Even McCabe says that, though it's alleged he gave much more weight under oath.

From IG Horowitz's report:

“We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order...On October 18, 2016, after speaking with Steele that morning, Ohr met with McCabe to share Steele’s and Simpson’s information with him. Thereafter, Ohr met with members of the Crossfire Hurricane team 13 times between November 21, 2016, and May 15, 2017, concerning his contacts with Steele and Simpson. All 13 meetings occurred after the FBI had closed Steele as a CHS and, except for the November 21 meeting, each meeting was initiated at Ohr’s request.”

"Ohr", being Bruce Ohr, whose wife (hilariously) worked with the Clinton campaign...



Zachie-poo--"In fact, Mueller did not investigate for collusion, but criminal conspiracy."

Of all the asinine deflections you've made, that might take the cake. "I swear, yer honor! We wuz only conspirin' with 'em! NOT colludin'"

"Th claim was “The Russia hoax, started under Obama using a document, the Russia dossier”. The Inspector General report states, “These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later, and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.” The report also “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” the opening of the investigation."

Which statement is in direct conflict with the one I quoted, but which still manages to support my point (and surprisingly McCabe's) that it was one thread of many in the Russia nonsense. And which is also refuted by the Nunes memo, a document that's stood up better than almost anything else related to the sordid affair.


"Per the Mueller report, 'In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion’.”"


Right. An asinine and utterly cowardly distinction, which of course you defend.

This isn't a high school debate, sport, and you're not scoring any points. I'm calling you out for defending people at the highest level of DOJ interfering in a US presidential election and a sitting administration and you're making a fool of yourself.

Please continue. It's lovely.

You're taking the bait again, pookie.

“It was one of many tenuous threads they hung onto to start it.”

Not a false statement. The original comment was about the Russia hoax, for which the Steele doco was a foundation.
In fact what I said aligns with one of the few TRUE statements McCabe makes and with my quote from IG, as well as the Nunes memo. Crossfire H was only part of the "Russia hoax', which is what the original discussion was about until you tried to change it to suit your argument.

"It’s a legal distinction."

And here we have Pookie in all his glory. The fact that you're hanging your hat on this tells us all we need to know, another example of your trying to deflect and change the subject with an ancillary argument.

“did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced”

Very careful language, first semester law school right there. Do you think they testified to or wrote down why they were falsifying FISA warrants, altering emails, leaking damaging info info to the press? Lying to the press and to congress? Are you really that naive? Seriously? No wonder you're playing debate team on an obscure internet site instead of helping put Republicans in jail. The entirety of their actions documented by the IG are utterly redolent of bias. And by defending them yours are as well.


Again, it's not a high school debate and you're not scoring points. You're defending institutional interference in politics by DOJ and I'm calling you out for it.

But please continue.

"You cited the Inspector General's report when you thought it confirmed your biases, but reject it when it does not; in other words, special pleading."

Back at ya, skippy! But you're skipping the part where I point out the weasel language--you probably don't understand such subtleties anyway. And you fail to offer any reasonable defense of the extraordinary behavior detailed in the report OTHER that referring to the weaseling language used.

The difference between me and you is that I'm criticizing the interference and bias of the agencies--you're defending it. The IG report clobbers those agencies while managing to protect them. Have you actually read it?

As you like to say, the fact is that the Clinton campaign and the IC used known Russian disinfo to interfere in the election, the president and the heads of the agencies had full knowledge of the dirty trick and talked about it in a Whitehouse meeting, they leaked yet more misinfo to help justify and kick off Mueller, misrepresented FISA warrant apps multiple times to surveil a presidential campaign, falsified emails--in short, interfered in the electoral process. No bias?

But don't worry little buddy! Somewhere, Peter "Insurance Policy" Strozk" is smiling, knowing that he managed to buffalo at least some fools who still defend what he did on the internet.

To add--the section of the report I cited gave actual numbers and events in support of my argument. The section you cited used language designed more appropriate to a summation by a defense attorney than an honest assessment of the events.

But if that's all you've got, by all means go with it.

My citation stated in actual numbers the times the dossier was discussed and used by FBI et al. And citing actions and referring to statement by participants that are clearly evidence odf bias.


"Huh? The Steele dossier wasn't released until after the election."

Another deflection. Really reaching on this one. This has nothing to do with when it was "released". Steele showed the dossier to FBI BEFORE the election. CIA had it too.

“We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order...On October 18, 2016, after speaking with Steele that morning, Ohr met with McCabe to share Steele’s and Simpson’s information with him.”


Can you not read a calendar? How desperate are you to score a point?

Fortunately the majority of the voting public has the moral and ethical clarity you lack.

Spin little buddy, twist. It's all you've got when you don't have the facts and get called out. Hang onto it with everything you have.

It's becoming a bit sad and I'm trying my best not to enjoy the schadenfreude. But I'm bored today.

Thank god most of the voting public is smarter--and more honest--than you.

We keep posting facts—which you then ignore. To move the discussion forward you might want to address the following:
Russia interfered with the election;
There were contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian agents;
The Trump campaign welcomed foreign election interference;
The investigation was launched before the FBI had the Steele dossier;
The investigation was based on valid legal predicates;
The Steele dossier was released after the election.



To quote you, "so"? And, "duh".

Every bit of that can be true and none of it differentiates 2016 from other elections or justifies the falsification of warrants, the bogus emails, the leaks, the lies and obfuscations, the meetings to discuss the dirty tricks, the nexus between the Clinton campaign and the Ruskies, the "lack of candor" of the DOJ, (another Horowitz bon mot), which you refuse to address or even acknowledge because of your bias.



"The Steele dossier was released after the election."

You really need to drop this one. Your use of the word "released" is as weaselly as Horowitz's use of "documentary or testimonial," though much less artful. It does nothing to further your argument (as weak as that is) and only makes you look petty. It's easy to see why they haven't brought you on board.

But please, keep at it. Strozk smiled again, Klinesmith just put his feet up in the corner office where he's been hidden away, and Comey just dropped $275 on a nice brunch with Brennan. Dick Cheney just ate another puppy.

You're doing the lord's work here, little fella!

"It directly contradicts the claim that the "Russia hoax" started with the Steele dossier—which is actually the claim at issue. You could says, "Yes, but ..." and could have a defensible position."


One more time, since your reading comp skills are as weak as your ethics, as I've said multiple times, backed up by the public words of McCabe, the IG report, and just plain old remembering what happened, the dossier was a foundational doco of the collusion hoax, which has been my very "defensible position". And hoax it was, despite your wanting to make it about "conspiracy", process crimes that came about as a result of the investigation itself, Trump's trolling, and when the dossier--which was sourced from the Russians by the Clinton campaign--was "released".

In case you weren't following, the investigation was predicated by the hoax, AKA dirty trick, which dirty trick was discussed in a Whitehouse meeting, known to the highest levels of LE and IC, and pushed by them.

But you know all this. You just don't like it.

We'd all love for you to explain how the malfeasance detailed in the IG report is explained by anything other than bias or partisanship. Did the FBI just sneeze and knock over an ink bottle and the spill just happened to form the falsehoods contained in the FISA apps? Comey and McCabe leaked stuff out of, what, boredom? Strozk's "insurance plan" was about his new ski boat?

Meanwhile, Samantha Power's mommy is still wondering who in the world could have gotten hold of her baby girl's password...but she's glad you've had her little Sammie's back. Spyin' Sam's now vested in her Fed retirement and healthcare. Like I said, it's the lord's work yer doin' here, pookie.

And your new BFF Dick Cheney just stomped a kitten. A KITTEN!!!