Bullshit masquerading as reportage ( rhymes with garbage): Tales of Peter Strzok

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 2:16am

Due to the extensive political education I am receiving at c99 University, I have been schooled in reading political opinion disguised as factual reporting. The current Fourth Estate is now, in the words of Newton Minow, a "vast waste land", one which is strewn with land mines to eliminate reflection by the unwary. For those who do not peruse AOL, let me serve you up a helping of just one article from today. It's not that this particular day is unlike another day. It isn't. But amongst other publications, many of which you are already familiar, this is a target-rich environment. Almost any of their commentary could have been selected for this essay but I found this one particularly juicy. Mmm! So for those of you willing to wallow in "journalism", I suggest donning your hip waders before embarking.

The following quotes are taken from this article appearing in AOL.

Lest you think I am quoting too extensively from the article, I have a question: does "fair abuse" apply to fiction? Attorneys need not reply because I will gleefully ignore any contrarian views'

GOP Rep. Francis Rooney said on Tuesday that he wants to see the FBI and Justice Department purge agents with perceivable political biases who he believes are working for the "deep state." Rooney is the latest GOP lawmaker to criticize the FBI over what President Donald Trump's allies see as a tainted investigation into his campaign being carried out by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Next statement strains credibility but read on. Warning: do not have liquid in your mouth.

Rooney then went on to list examples of the FBI putting the "ends before the means," including "with Hillary Clinton, with her $84 million of potentially illegal campaign contributions" and the Clinton Foundation's supposed involvement with the Uranium One deal.

Yes, I suppose that statement is as credible as the sun revolving around the earth. This next claim is equally credible:

There is no evidence, moreover, that the Clinton Foundation received any kickbacks when the State Department allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in the Canadian company Uranium One in 2010. Uranium One has mining stakes in the US.

Misattribution is the name for the following untruth:

The DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which opened an investigation in January into the FBI's handling of the email probe, discovered text messages sent by Strzok to another FBI employee, Lisa Page, during the campaign that expressed disdain for Trump and other political leaders.

As a result, Strzok was abruptly removed from Mueller's Russia probe in late July and relegated to the human resources department. Page left for unrelated reasons. The reason for Strzok's reassignment was not made public until early December, when the content of his text messages was leaked without official DOJ authorization to members of the media.

Oh, is that all there is? That's just the cover story. Strzok got caught committing flagrant conflicts of interest of which I shall name but a few:

1. He ambushed Gen. Flynn with an FBI interview. Although allegedly "spur of the moment", court reporters just happened to be available and Flynn had no legal representation.

2. Strzok was the head of a scheduled interrogation of HRC, in which amazingly enough there were neither court reporters, video recording, but Clinton had 2 or 3 attorneys present, all of whom were rightful subjects for interrogation themselves: Mills, Palmieri, Samuelson--and all of whom were given immunity.

3. Strzok convinced J.W. Comey to amend his planned exoneration of Clinton email non-investigation, chief amongst which changes included alteration of "grossly negligent" email handling to "careless" handling of such documents.

4. Besides schtupping FBI colleague Lisa Page, who was only peripherally involved in the investigation, he actually did say that the Evil Queen should have won the election "100,000,000 to zero".

Here comes the best part:

5. Strzok was the liaison between the FBI and Christopher Steel, the author of the infamous "Trump dossier". That fully discredited document is now disowned even by the FBI which may have been partially funded by the agency.

The U.S. is a peculiar place: people get jailed for telling the truth; the rich get away with anything.

Tags:

fbi

bullshit

reportage

Vote

Comments

Submitted by mimi on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 2:47am

Alligator Ed, enough is enough.

I am taking a break. See you later, alligator.

—

https://www.euronews.com/

Submitted by MrWebster on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 1:06pm

The fix was in from the start

My initial understanding over the dust up about Clinton's private email server was through an article by Greenwald exposing Hillary's hypocrisy over the issue. As Greenwald pointed out, she pretty mich did what a number of people people did in moving classified information to private machines and offsite. These people were all punished even though they had no intent in using it for selling it, espionage, etc. Intent did not matter. Hillary's hypocrisy was in previously demanding maximum punishment for exactly the same sorta thing she did.

In reading about Mueller I looked at commentators who had some legal creds other than those repeating democratic party induced conventional wisdom. Or a credible source to confirm the conventional wisdom. Found an ex-prosecutor named Andrew C. McCarthy who lead the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and the original team looking bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/andrew-c-mccarthy

He was written some detailed articles about the legal shenanigans of the DOJ involving both Mueller and the Hillary email investigation which were absolutely suspect and not the norm. He did not name Strzok personally, but only prosecutorial practices which were extremely suspect--which now looks like involved Strzok.
For example, Mueller got a court order to have Manefort's lawyer talk about his involvement in the case. While in the case of Clitnon, three people were not forced to do it even though they were absolutely acknowledged to have given directions to IT people.

Or that charging Flynn with lying is not standard practice. The standard practice is to indict on the worst of the charges and charges which directly related in this case to collusion. The standard practice in conspiracies is to get the low level lackies to admit guilt on the main charge, and then move up the hierarchy.

He noted the case of setting up a special prosecutor, there must be some evidence of crime before hit can be set up. This seems to be required by law. But not such charge or evidence was presented.

The Justice Department did not, as the pertinent special-counsel regulations require, identify specific crimes it suspected had been committed by Trump-campaign officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein disclosed no factual predicate calling for a criminal investigation from which Trump’s Justice Department would be ethically required to recuse itself. Under the Mueller ‘collusion’ precedent, it is evidently now American practice to criminalize foreign-policy disputes under the pretext of conducting a counterintelligence investigation.

Instead, Mueller’s investigation was rationalized by the need to conduct a counterintelligence inquiry into Russia’s “cyber-espionage” meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Though there was no probable cause to believe Trump-campaign officials had participated in Russia’s hacking (and remember: the FBI and Obama Justice Department had been investigating for months before the special counsel was appointed), Mueller was encouraged to focus on whether Trump-campaign officials somehow “coordinated” in Russia’s perfidy.

Mueller’s investigation was not a criminal investigation. It started out as a fishing expedition, under the vaporous heading of “collusion,” into “contacts” between Russian officials and Trump associates — notwithstanding that collusion is not conspiracy and that it was perfectly legal for Trump associates to have contacts with Russia (just like Clinton associates did). It was to be expected that the Trump campaign and transition would have such contacts once it was apparent that Trump could well become — and did in fact become — the next president of the United States.

Only one conceivable crime could have arisen out of the “collusion” that was the pretext for Mueller’s probe: the knowing complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s hacking of Democratic email accounts. Of course, there was never evidence of such a scheme . . . but why should that matter? The point here was to have the theater of an investigation run by a prosecutor — the rest is just details.

See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements.

The issue is not defending Trump, but opposing the McCarthy-ite hysteria that has now caught up Jill Stein. It is a process of criminalizing dissent and punishing political opponents from high to low.

On the part of Hillary, given what Greenwald said about nearly identical cases and DLJ/FBI BS, Clinton got off which put others in jail.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 11:21pm

This is worthy of a separate posting

@MrWebster @MrWebster Far more eloquent and complete than my essay. Thank you for the commentary.

My initial understanding over the dust up about Clinton's private email server was through an article by Greenwald exposing Hillary's hypocrisy over the issue. As Greenwald pointed out, she pretty mich did what a number of people people did in moving classified information to private machines and offsite. These people were all punished even though they had no intent in using it for selling it, espionage, etc. Intent did not matter. Hillary's hypocrisy was in previously demanding maximum punishment for exactly the same sorta thing she did. In reading about Mueller I looked at commentators who had some legal creds other than those repeating democratic party induced conventional wisdom. Or a credible source to confirm the conventional wisdom. Found an ex-prosecutor named Andrew C. McCarthy who lead the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and the original team looking bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. http://www.nationalreview.com/author/andrew-c-mccarthy He was written some detailed articles about the legal shenanigans of the DOJ involving both Mueller and the Hillary email investigation which were absolutely suspect and not the norm. He did not name Strzok personally, but only prosecutorial practices which were extremely suspect--which now looks like involved Strzok. For example, Mueller got a court order to have Manefort's lawyer talk about his involvement in the case. While in the case of Clitnon, three people were not forced to do it even though they were absolutely acknowledged to have given directions to IT people. Or that charging Flynn with lying is not standard practice. The standard practice is to indict on the worst of the charges and charges which directly related in this case to collusion. The standard practice in conspiracies is to get the low level lackies to admit guilt on the main charge, and then move up the hierarchy. He noted the case of setting up a special prosecutor, there must be some evidence of crime before hit can be set up. This seems to be required by law. But not such charge or evidence was presented. The Justice Department did not, as the pertinent special-counsel regulations require, identify specific crimes it suspected had been committed by Trump-campaign officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein disclosed no factual predicate calling for a criminal investigation from which Trump’s Justice Department would be ethically required to recuse itself. Under the Mueller ‘collusion’ precedent, it is evidently now American practice to criminalize foreign-policy disputes under the pretext of conducting a counterintelligence investigation. Instead, Mueller’s investigation was rationalized by the need to conduct a counterintelligence inquiry into Russia’s “cyber-espionage” meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Though there was no probable cause to believe Trump-campaign officials had participated in Russia’s hacking (and remember: the FBI and Obama Justice Department had been investigating for months before the special counsel was appointed), Mueller was encouraged to focus on whether Trump-campaign officials somehow “coordinated” in Russia’s perfidy. Mueller’s investigation was not a criminal investigation. It started out as a fishing expedition, under the vaporous heading of “collusion,” into “contacts” between Russian officials and Trump associates — notwithstanding that collusion is not conspiracy and that it was perfectly legal for Trump associates to have contacts with Russia (just like Clinton associates did). It was to be expected that the Trump campaign and transition would have such contacts once it was apparent that Trump could well become — and did in fact become — the next president of the United States. Only one conceivable crime could have arisen out of the “collusion” that was the pretext for Mueller’s probe: the knowing complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s hacking of Democratic email accounts. Of course, there was never evidence of such a scheme . . . but why should that matter? The point here was to have the theater of an investigation run by a prosecutor — the rest is just details. See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454293/mueller-investigation-polit... The issue is not defending Trump, but opposing the McCarthy-ite hysteria that has now caught up Jill Stein. It is a process of criminalizing dissent and punishing political opponents from high to low. On the part of Hillary, given what Greenwald said about nearly identical cases and DLJ/FBI BS, Clinton got off which put others in jail.

Submitted by MrWebster on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 12:56pm

Wish I had more time.

@Alligator Ed There is one essay I have been thinking about which requires some research though. I have thought for awhile that the new McCarthyism/Russian hysteria really echoes the themes of the real German Nazis propaganda against the Jews and Soviet Union. For example, the constant charge about Russia undermining ta-da! Western democracies is almost identical to attacks on Jews undermining not only Germany but all of European civilization. A 1930's German would have totally understood and believed what Herr Clapper said about Russian genetic criminal behavior.

And now, this:

https://tytnetwork.com/2017/12/27/anyone-of-russian-descent-now-targeted...
Anyone Of “Russian Descent” Now Targeted In Senate Investigation

Anyway, trying to work on it bits and pieces. During the Cold War from what I can remember, I don't remember this sort of racist attitude toward ethnic Russians, but it was more "those commies of the Soviet Union". Maybe it was there, but I was young.

Submitted by Ellen North on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 2:48pm

@MrWebster

@MrWebster

Oh, super - seems likely that now labeling anyone a 'terrorist' or 'suspected-to-have-Russian-blood' be enough to railroad people into Gitmo. Think they finally have all of the bases covered to 'disappear' most of the US population at any given moment? Going by the criteria, that could probably cover anyone who freaking voted in the election, or was related to anyone who did...

Please do that essay - these terrorists are 'legalizing' the 4th Reich more quickly all of the time...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by mimi on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 6:47pm

@MrWebster - Yes

@MrWebster

I have thought for awhile that the new McCarthyism/Russian hysteria really echoes the themes of the real German Nazis propaganda against the Jews and Soviet Union. For example, the constant charge about Russia undermining ta-da! Western democracies is almost identical to attacks on Jews undermining not only Germany but all of European civilization. A 1930's German would have totally understood and believed what Herr Clapper said about Russian genetic criminal behavior.

yep and the 1930 German didn't mind to put a big "J" stamp in their ID cards to indicate someone had Jewish blood. May be we will see a big "RU" for "Russian" one day on drivers licenses here, who knows. It certainly sounds and smells like it is coming.

I really look forward to your essay. Thank You.

—

https://www.euronews.com/

Submitted by Steven D on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 5:53pm

Agreed

@MrWebster I hope you do Mr Webster.

My initial understanding over the dust up about Clinton's private email server was through an article by Greenwald exposing Hillary's hypocrisy over the issue. As Greenwald pointed out, she pretty mich did what a number of people people did in moving classified information to private machines and offsite. These people were all punished even though they had no intent in using it for selling it, espionage, etc. Intent did not matter. Hillary's hypocrisy was in previously demanding maximum punishment for exactly the same sorta thing she did. In reading about Mueller I looked at commentators who had some legal creds other than those repeating democratic party induced conventional wisdom. Or a credible source to confirm the conventional wisdom. Found an ex-prosecutor named Andrew C. McCarthy who lead the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and the original team looking bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. http://www.nationalreview.com/author/andrew-c-mccarthy He was written some detailed articles about the legal shenanigans of the DOJ involving both Mueller and the Hillary email investigation which were absolutely suspect and not the norm. He did not name Strzok personally, but only prosecutorial practices which were extremely suspect--which now looks like involved Strzok. For example, Mueller got a court order to have Manefort's lawyer talk about his involvement in the case. While in the case of Clitnon, three people were not forced to do it even though they were absolutely acknowledged to have given directions to IT people. Or that charging Flynn with lying is not standard practice. The standard practice is to indict on the worst of the charges and charges which directly related in this case to collusion. The standard practice in conspiracies is to get the low level lackies to admit guilt on the main charge, and then move up the hierarchy. He noted the case of setting up a special prosecutor, there must be some evidence of crime before hit can be set up. This seems to be required by law. But not such charge or evidence was presented. The Justice Department did not, as the pertinent special-counsel regulations require, identify specific crimes it suspected had been committed by Trump-campaign officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein disclosed no factual predicate calling for a criminal investigation from which Trump’s Justice Department would be ethically required to recuse itself. Under the Mueller ‘collusion’ precedent, it is evidently now American practice to criminalize foreign-policy disputes under the pretext of conducting a counterintelligence investigation. Instead, Mueller’s investigation was rationalized by the need to conduct a counterintelligence inquiry into Russia’s “cyber-espionage” meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Though there was no probable cause to believe Trump-campaign officials had participated in Russia’s hacking (and remember: the FBI and Obama Justice Department had been investigating for months before the special counsel was appointed), Mueller was encouraged to focus on whether Trump-campaign officials somehow “coordinated” in Russia’s perfidy. Mueller’s investigation was not a criminal investigation. It started out as a fishing expedition, under the vaporous heading of “collusion,” into “contacts” between Russian officials and Trump associates — notwithstanding that collusion is not conspiracy and that it was perfectly legal for Trump associates to have contacts with Russia (just like Clinton associates did). It was to be expected that the Trump campaign and transition would have such contacts once it was apparent that Trump could well become — and did in fact become — the next president of the United States. Only one conceivable crime could have arisen out of the “collusion” that was the pretext for Mueller’s probe: the knowing complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s hacking of Democratic email accounts. Of course, there was never evidence of such a scheme . . . but why should that matter? The point here was to have the theater of an investigation run by a prosecutor — the rest is just details. See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454293/mueller-investigation-polit... The issue is not defending Trump, but opposing the McCarthy-ite hysteria that has now caught up Jill Stein. It is a process of criminalizing dissent and punishing political opponents from high to low. On the part of Hillary, given what Greenwald said about nearly identical cases and DLJ/FBI BS, Clinton got off which put others in jail.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by chuckutzman on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 2:07pm

The National Review citiation has a wealth of good reporting

regarding the Trump/Russia hysteria. Interestingly enough, I found that I already knew most of it by occasionally watching Fox (usually on YouTube where I can fast-forward past the garbage).
It is a sad state of affairs when Fox is the most reliable source of the MSM, but that's the truth in this matter.

—

chuck utzman

TULSI 2020

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 3:53pm

Intellectual honesty has a hefty price tag

@chuckutzman

At least that's how I look at it. In the National Review, there are still plenty of stories that are shameful and intellectually bankrupt, but this change in infirmation resources feels larger than just a single-issue paradigm shift. And it certainly feels permanent.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by MrWebster on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 1:07pm

Indeed, intellectual integrity comes at a price.

@Pluto's Republic Yah, you go where you can find what you believe is true. Sander's campaign released a video of SoS Clinton in India telling an audience that outsourcing was good for America, and don't worry, plenty of jobs will keep going to India. This was in response to a question about the worrisome political rhetoric that would stop the flow of outsourced jobs to India. Clinton said don't worry, jobs will keep coming your way.

So I started looking into whether Clinton got money from outsourcers. Seems not directly, but the Clinton Foundation got a shitload of money from the biggest Indian companies involved with replacing and outsourcing American high tech workers. And the only article about this was what looked like a good sourced piece in Brietbart. Holy shit. And also, the head of one of the countries openly slurred American engineers. But you go where the facts were indeed the facts.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:09pm

Most of us were source-bullied for a decade, or longer.

@MrWebster

The jaws of that beast clamped down increasingly hard over time. It's just SOP brainwashing, but we weren't thinking that way. Both sides were squeezed into their increasingly narrow channels of controlled controversy. Such a waste of human intelligence.

What I saw was the growth of forbidden topics. Everyday something flipped to the forbidden list. In 1984, the people evolved into a species that could assimilate and adapt. For a few, it was a crisis of the psyche.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by QMS on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 2:36pm

It is a process of criminalizing dissent

this is our next hurdle

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 2:47pm

Currently that hurdle is as low as the Pacific Trench

@QMS

Submitted by QMS on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 2:57pm

can't get under it

@Alligator Ed prosecutorial powers used to recognize certain unabridged rights. Freedom of speech and assembly come to mind. Upside down hurdle. Rights are wrong. Just ask Orwell.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 3:57pm

Criminalizing dissent

@Alligator Ed

....is basically how you all got here. We've been living with it for a long time.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by QMS on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 4:04pm

no entiendo

@Pluto's Republic how we got here how? by swallowing injustice, I guess you mean. that's a tough concept to absorb on an empty stomach. maybe I mis-understand

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 4:41pm

I meant to say: How you got to c99.

@QMS

Which was designed to rescue you, in case you were jettisoned into cyberspace for insubordination.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by snoopydawg on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 4:33pm

I've been following this since it started

I'm pretty sure that no one is surprised that I can offer some more links to debunk this brainwashing that has taken over the country.
The websites that have been covering this have done a lot research into debunking this and finding how far up the administration it goes. This propaganda started way before the election and possibly even before the DNC emails were released by Wikileaks. The one thing that stands out about the emails is that not one person from the DNC said that they were false. And many of the emails told us what we had already were saying about how the primary was skewed so that Hillary would come out the winner.

Addressing what Mr. Webster wrote about Flynn, I've seen other articles that say the same thing. Flynn was entrapped into giving a statement when he didn't know that his conversations had been caught on a wiretap. And that the Steele dossier was used to get a FISA warrant.

Remember what Watergate was about and then question if spying on Trump's campaign doesn't go in the same direction. I didn't bookmark the article that discussed this. Unless it's in one of the links in these articles.
Clinton campaign propaganda appears to have triggered Obama administration spying on Trump’s campaign. December 23, 2017 4:00 AM

DID PRESIDENT OBAMA READ THE ‘STEELE DOSSIER’ IN THE WHITE HOUSE LAST AUGUST?

Wife Of Fusion GPS Founder Admits Her Husband Was Behind Fake "RussiaGate" Story

The Foundering Russia-gate ‘Scandal’

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Deja on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 11:05pm

@snoopydawg One link doesn't work,

@snoopydawg One link doesn't work, snoopydawg.

The one I wanted to initially read lol.

The one about the GPS wife.

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 11:44pm

@Deja

@Deja

I looked it up by copy/pasting the text given and found it that way, thank goodness. It's a must-read in full at source, if at all possible.

http://theduran.com/wife-of-fusion-gps-founder-admits-her-husband-was-be...

Wife of Fusion GPS founder admits her husband was behind fake “Russiagate” story
She bragged about it on her Facebook page.

by Alex Christoforou Alex Christoforou
December 23, 2017, 18:21

The Russiagate story concocted by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, who coincidently funded Fusion GPS (the firm behind the ‘Trump dossier’ that the entire Russia election meddling is based upon), is unraveling at record speed.

Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who is the man in the middle of the entire Russiagate scandal, boasted on Facebook about how ‘Russiagate,’ would not exist if it weren’t for her husband.

Tablet Magazine reports…

A Tablet investigation using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous dossier suggests that central elements of the Russiagate scandal emerged not from the British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s top-secret “sources” in the Russian government—which are unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control—but from a series of stories that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for TheWall Street Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and Donald Trump was simply another loud-mouthed Manhattan real estate millionaire. Understanding the origins of the “Steele dossier” is especially important because of what it tells us about the nature and the workings of what its supporters would hopefully describe as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected president of the United States. ...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 1:32am

Thanks Ellen

@Ellen North

The link works for me and there are many other website that have written about this. In the ones I've checked they all include a link to the Obama and Steele dossier article.That's the one to read. This is one of the issues that the republicans want investigated as well as this essay states.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Deja on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 2:20pm

Thanks Ellen North. Some serious sh*t!

@Ellen North
The other ones worked fine, but I'm on my phone. They're all very good!

The FBI couple, and their texts are a bit out there, and I wouldn't blame Trump for wanting to clean house, though I don't know if he legally can. Talk about conspiracy! It doesn't sound like assassination would have been off the table, at least on Page's part.

He better have a food taster. The Obama's had to worry about idiots letting crazies onto the grounds and into the White House once. The Trump's have to worry about inside jobs. Serious shit!

Submitted by Ellen North on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 3:07pm

@Deja

@Deja

... The Obama's had to worry about idiots letting crazies onto the grounds and into the White House once. ...

Looked almost as though the numerous threats of that nature - on and off the White House property - were intended to keep Obama in line. This was shortly prior to his pushing the TPP on a fanatical level.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:18pm

The things we have seen in the past

@Ellen North

...come to haunt us in this strange present, where they become significant too late to entangle into the speeding future.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by Ellen North on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:07pm

@Pluto's Republic

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic

Well, we can pretty much extrapolate into a disastrous and likely brief future if we can't figure out some pacific means of getting the psychopathic out of public office and policy and replacing policy-makers with real, sane, human people. 'We have the technology'; what we lack is an agreed-upon method of ensuring such as free and fair elections with accurately informed voters, all votes counting and an actual choice of people worth voting for. Among a whole swack of other things, none of which will likely work without that one.

I like national strategic voting myself, and under (edit: those) circs, if everyone voted only for progressives of whatever party, the political replacements would soon be made. But how to herd carefully dis-informed cats?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.