Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    And yet Kathleen Kavalec's notes are contrary to what you are saying about Steele. Are you saying she is lying to the FBI? Are you saying that you don't believe a state official, or that you don't trust a state official?

    My name is a reference created in response to someone belying the reputation and laws about Texas, but then again, you can take it anyway you want..... feel free to think that I am a hack, people who post on an internet message board as much as you do have no idea about the outside world from your bubble.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Again, you did not read her notes. If you had, Steele should not have been a source at all for the FBI for leaking information to the media while being an informant, it violates his confidentiality agreement. Her notes show exactly how much he did not want Trump to be President.
    Steele wasn't the source of the leaks to media. I already linked you to the buzzfeed case where the judge (who I trust more than whoever's notes) says steele wasn't the source, but instead, it was an aide to mccain.

    Edit: and again, I can't stress this enough, not wanting someone to be president, because you have found evidence that he's compromised by a foreign power, is not bias.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Steele wasn't the source of the leaks to media. I already linked you to the buzzfeed case where the judge (who I trust more than whoever's notes) says steele wasn't the source, but instead, it was an aide to mccain.
    You obviously only want to use your view. I can't have a discussion with someone who will not read simple things posted. If you WON'T understand that a state department official who interviewed Steele who said he gave information to sources at the Washington Post and the New York Times , I have no reason to believe you are even trying to have a rational discussion. Steele told her, you won't or can't admit it, that's fine. That doesn't mean that it did not happen. Thanks for showing how close minded people on this forum are. You win, you're ability to only see one view wins.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    You obviously only want to use your view. I can't have a discussion with someone who will not read simple things posted. If you WON'T understand that a state department official who interviewed Steele who said he gave information to sources at the Washington Post and the New York Times , I have no reason to believe you are even trying to have a rational discussion. Steele told her, you won't or can't admit it, that's fine. That doesn't mean that it did not happen. Thanks for showing how close minded people on this forum are. You win, you're ability to only see one view wins.
    Ah yes, you're the rational one, looks at title, oh wait, you're not. Just because you can't digest simple facts, doesn't mean they're not simple facts. Thanks for showing just how much bias you put in your titles.

    I'll say it again, not wanting someone to be president, after receiving intel that they're compromised by a foreign power, isn't bias. Buzzfeed, the news organization that published the dossier, did not get it from steele. This is my assertion. Steele never gave the dossier to news orgs, (he did talk to multiple news orgs after the FBI falsely denied it had an ongoing investigation, when they should have been truthful and said, "no comment"). He was not the source of the leak, mccain's aide was. Sorry that fact is so hard for you to digest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  4. #44
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    The notes taken by state official Kathleen Kavalec who interviewed him disagree with what you are posting. They are referenced here in this thread. Feel free to read them and link me your information that you are using to back up your claims. As I said, mine are in this thread. And she gave these notes about Steele to the FBI before their FISA applications.
    I read them, and if Steele said Russian informants in the US were taking payments in Miami from a "consulate" doesnt mean an exchange house doesnt exist. Same with the Russian debt Manafort owes, since subpoenaing financial information from any Russian bank is futile, US intelligence have to rely on estimates, like Steele did, which concluded that FSB has something on Manafort to force his assistance for years before he event became Trumps campaign manager. The rest is just smart spy craft, disseminating your intelligence to several protected sources is ensuring your intelligence doesnt disappear and your assets aren't at the bottom of the Volga River.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    You're one of the people I qualify as a hack, as displayed by your title. Steele was against trump because of the evidence he uncovered. A prosecutor isn't biased against a defendant if they uncover information that the defendant is guilty and indict him. Bias is inherently unfounded. As has been noted, steele wasn't the one who gave buzzfeed the dossier. It was leaked from mccain's office. You lying doesn't reflect well on you.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Not quite true. He was anti-trump... after he received information that he was compromised by russia. He wasn't biased.
    Exactly. He did exactly what any intelligence officer would do with that information.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  5. #45
    I can't keep up with all the spy stuff. At this point, I'd rather rather Trump and House Dems come to some sort of uneasy truce. This seems wildly unproductive.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I can't keep up with all the spy stuff. At this point, I'd rather rather Trump and House Dems come to some sort of uneasy truce. This seems wildly unproductive.
    Considering this is false, you shouldn't keep up with it anyway.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    Considering this is false, you shouldn't keep up with it anyway.
    I mostly don't. I've never heard of Kathleen Kavalec and only barely know who Steele is. I'm not saying the minutiae isn't interesting for the people that are into it, but I think a lot of people way overestimate the extent to which the general public knows or cares. I spend way more time than the average person following politics and policy in particular, but reading about all the machinations of the various spy networks makes me feel the same way I do when I start reading about a new game that I don't actually understand the mechanics of yet.

    edit - This still sounds too snarky. All I'm intending to say is that I basically gave up on the day-to-day because there's a new name that I've never heard doing something that barely makes sense.
    Last edited by Spectral; 2019-05-14 at 03:45 AM.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I can't keep up with all the spy stuff. At this point, I'd rather rather Trump and House Dems come to some sort of uneasy truce. This seems wildly unproductive.
    The dems don't even control all of the ongoing investigations into trump/his campaign. There's never going to be a "truce" where the dems agree that the DoJ/FBI can close all of it's ongoing investigations, even if trump resigns, unless pence pardons him (and that's not really the dems agreeing). If the FBI/DoJ keeps giving congress evidence and telling them, "We can't indict him until he's out of office," (which is what the mueller report effectively said) congress isn't going to drop it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    The dems don't even control all of the ongoing investigations into trump/his campaign. There's never going to be a "truce" where the dems agree that the DoJ/FBI can close all of it's ongoing investigations, even if trump resigns, unless pence pardons him (and that's not really the dems agreeing). If the FBI/DoJ keeps giving congress evidence and telling them, "We can't indict him until he's out of office," (which is what the mueller report effectively said) congress isn't going to drop it.
    It's not even that. A 'truce' would require Trump to stop trying to label Dems as obstructionists and traitors. And why would he do that when that solidifies his grip on his base?

    Then again, most people who say that Democrats and Trump should find compromise or anything of that sort usually just mean that Dems should just give Trump whatever he wants, so I guess your take is the only one they'd care about.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •