The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump

[Fearandloathing]

I lay most of this at the feet of declining civility within our culture and our politics. I blame, since I simply must blame someone or something for the decline - rightly or wrongly - on our generation. We failed to responsibly lead, and we're reaping what we've sown. What's worse is that our generation can't fix the problems we've created or permitted to grow. That will fall to others who I fervently hope can chart a better course for the country and our culture. It's a cynical view perhaps, but it's one I can't dismiss as much as I'd like to. We've nearly spent ourselves into oblivion, and we have little to show for it, as our current situation attests.

Excellent post and great insight.

Oddly, it seems opposite what I see happening here. The generation behind mine is awful, the one behind that typical millenials...but behind that, some very smart and cheerful kids becoming adults. Maybe because it is the second generation of immigrants are always the most proud citizens, this generation is emerging smart, informed and when you can get the ear buds out make fine conversation. (I believe that generation will be longer lived but the most unhealthy of all....no one realizes what I learned too late - high stress doesn't kill, it merely erodes all your abilities ten years sooner)

I place the future in their hands as I believe they are emerging as the true Canadian and will be an example of how people can live together. Most of these kids don't see race and when they do they push back. Some time ago I heard a story about a very bright kid whose phys ed teacher (from Oregon) asked him if his father made good tacos. Immediately the kid walked up to the adult and said "excuse me but you are mistaken, my dad is not Mexican and neither am I, I was born here and so was he. When you're here long enough we will talk about who makes tacos"

Punked the ****er.

I have great hope in our future

 

[Vern]

"its pointless to argue with you when you have a “quote” to cling to."
Says the guy who could only post up about one citation again and again and again! :lamo

Forget it Vern. You aren't worth the time. Too much like talking to a brick wall, and an insulting, arrogant, condescending, brick wall at that.

of course I'm not worth the time because I'm calling out the falsehoods you posted. You don't have the time or integrity to admit you posted falsehoods. In case you forgot, here's the falsehoods I called you out on

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal

and eorhn, you posted a falsehood in this post. And its the classic conservative falsehood where you accuse me of exactly what you did.

who could only post up about one citation again and again and again

You only posted one link. I posted 4. Eorhn, this is a debate forum not a pre teen conservative chatroom. You don't get to post things just because you wish it was true. And you do that consistently.

 

[eohrnberger]

of course I'm not worth the time because I'm calling out the falsehoods you posted. You don't have the time or integrity to admit you posted falsehoods. In case you forgot, here's the falsehoods I called you out on

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal

and eorhn, you posted a falsehood in this post. And its the classic conservative falsehood where you accuse me of exactly what you did.

who could only post up about one citation again and again and again

You only posted one link. I posted 4. Eorhn, this is a debate forum not a pre teen conservative chatroom. You don't get to post things just because you wish it was true. And you do that consistently.

"destinations unknown"
So first you claim that the uranium hadn't left the US, and then, when it left the US to Canada for processing, moved the goal posts.

When provided a quote that uranium was in fact shipped overseas, you move the goal posts again.

Once something is shipped offshore, as it was according to the cited quote, just how enforced and enforceable are US shipping restrictions?
Care to answer that? Nope, you skip that.

Once US shipping restrictions are no longer enforced or enforceable, gee golly! It could end up just about anywhere, i.e. so a reasonable conclusion is "destinations unknown"

I know that following logic isn't your strong suit, but there it is.

If you want to dispute this, you are going to have to prove that No US Uranium left either the US or Canada.

So why not answer the question as to why Hillary and Obama came to the conclusion that handing over control of 20% of the US uranium to the preeminent geo-political rival, Russia, is somehow in the US nation's best interests? Surely we can see how it was in Hillary's best interests, Hill and Bill collected a pile of money from it. But in the nation's best interests? I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you can respond to this question. So far, no one from the left has, or has not been able to. Maybe you can.

The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Yes, some of the dossier has been debunked. There are parts of it that are still in question. Those parts may or may not be debunked. We'll have to see if they are or are not. So definately not as partisan black and white you appear to need to have things. Frankly, I think this is a limitation of the hyper partisan mind, but details, details.

I made the claim that "Unmasking is illegal"?
Quote my post to prove it. Because I don't recall having made that claim.

If it is anything, it is an abuse of power, as is the use of national intelligence and law enforcement agencies to spy on a political opponent.

In summary, it is precisely this pernicious malignant of others posts which makes you a dishonest a poster which you've demonstrated yourself to be. I hardly believe for a moment that I'm the only one on this forum that holds this opinion. And this is why I'd just as soon return to ignoring you, hoping that you might ether reform, or just go away.

I've said my peace, and I shan't be responding to you further in this thread for the reasons that I've cited.

 

[Vern]

"destinations unknown"
So first you claim that the uranium hadn't left the US, and then, when it left the US to Canada for processing, moved the goal posts.

When provided a quote that uranium was in fact shipped overseas, you move the goal posts again.

Eohrn, I didn’t move the goalposts, I was wrong about uranium leaving the country. But the fact is uranium from Uranium One is not sent to “destinations unknown”. You’re still trying to justify that falsehood. Uranium One does not control where it goes. The trucking company that picks up uranium from multiple sources and the US govt control where it goes. I posted the export licence for the trucking company. they needed permission to take it to the Canadian facility and the Canadians need permission to ship it anywhere but back to the US.

Once something is shipped offshore, as it was according to the cited quote, just how enforced and enforceable are US shipping restrictions?
Care to answer that? Nope, you skip that.

Once US shipping restrictions are no longer enforced or enforceable, gee golly! It could end up just about anywhere, i.e. so a reasonable conclusion is "destinations unknown"

Yea, that’s you still clinging to “destinations unknown.” They know where it went because we still control where it goes. Its just so sad to see you create a narrative out of thin air to cling to original narrative. Its sad because you do that a lot.

So why not answer the question as to why Hillary and Obama came to the conclusion that handing over control of 20% of the US uranium to the preeminent geo-political rival, Russia, is somehow in the US nation's best interests? Surely we can see how it was in Hillary's best interests, Hill and Bill collected a pile of money from it. But in the nation's best interests? I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you can respond to this question. So far, no one from the left has, or has not been able to. Maybe you can.

Its a dishonest question (big shock coming from you). the decision is not based on what's in our best interests. its based on if it is in any way a threat to our interests. They weren’t our pre-eminent geo political rival at the time and now read this slowly, we control where they can ship the uranium even if it goes to Canada. And no I don’t see how it was in Hillary’s best interest. That’s just you still obediently believing everything your conservative masters tell you.

 

[Vern]

"The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Yes, some of the dossier has been debunked. There are parts of it that are still in question. Those parts may or may not be debunked. We'll have to see if they are or are not. So definately not as partisan black and white you appear to need to have things. Frankly, I think this is a limitation of the hyper partisan mind, but details, details.

Okay, this will be easy for you. Post what has been debunked. And not for nothing, I kinda asked that already. It's implied when I say "nothing has been debunked" and call your claim a falsehood. while we wait for that response, here's another link showing how accurate the intel has been

"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia

FYI, that's the 5th link I've posted since you're pretending to count. And don’t forget, your dear leader also attacked Nato. Your f*****g head would have exploded if President Obama had said what your dear leader said.

I made the claim that "Unmasking is illegal"?
Quote my post to prove it. Because I don't recall having made that claim.

If it is anything, it is an abuse of power, as is the use of national intelligence and law enforcement agencies to spy on a political opponent.

I like your "nuh uh I didnt but if I did I'm still right." and of course you have to obediently post the conservative narrative they were spying a political opponent. No eohrn, they were spying on the Russians and your dear leader's campaign officials and relatives were calling and visiting them. If they were spying of trump, they wouldn't have needed to unmask anybody. quick, make up a narrative out thin air to explain that away. its what you do best. anyhoo, since you asked and are obviously incapable or remembering or looking for yourself

and also the illegal unmasking.

and eohrn, the reason you cant remember is because you don't think for yourself. You simply repeat narratives. its similar to Perry not remembering the cabinets he wanted to cut. he's simply playing the part and repeating lines he memorized.

 

[Vern]

In summary, it is precisely this pernicious malignant of others posts which makes you a dishonest a poster which you've demonstrated yourself to be. I hardly believe for a moment that I'm the only one on this forum that holds this opinion. And this is why I'd just as soon return to ignoring you, hoping that you might ether reform, or just go away.

I've said my peace, and I shan't be responding to you further in this thread for the reasons that I've cited.

shouldn't you hold your cutting and running until after you back up your "some of the dossier has been debunked"? Or after you acknowledge that some parts were accurate? Wait, are you just feigning umbrage again because you know you cant back up your posts and need an excuse to cut and run? probably. anyhoo, before you cowardly cut and run yet again, here's a list of the falsehoods you've posted.

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again

I was debating whether to add " nuh uh I didn't say that" but I see reality is taking a toll on you and your obedient narratives.

 

[eohrnberger]

Eohrn, I didn’t move the goalposts, I was wrong about uranium leaving the country. But the fact is uranium from Uranium One is not sent to “destinations unknown”. You’re still trying to justify that falsehood. Uranium One does not control where it goes. The trucking company that picks up uranium from multiple sources and the US govt control where it goes. I posted the export licence for the trucking company. they needed permission to take it to the Canadian facility and the Canadians need permission to ship it anywhere but back to the US.



Yea, that’s you still clinging to “destinations unknown.” They know where it went because we still control where it goes. Its just so sad to see you create a narrative out of thin air to cling to original narrative. Its sad because you do that a lot.




Its a dishonest question (big shock coming from you). the decision is not based on what's in our best interests. its based on if it is in any way a threat to our interests. They weren’t our pre-eminent geo political rival at the time and now read this slowly, we control where they can ship the uranium even if it goes to Canada. And no I don’t see how it was in Hillary’s best interest. That’s just you still obediently believing everything your conservative masters tell you.

No, not a dishonest question. You are asserting "we control where they can ship the uranium even if it goes to Canada". Citation provided that it was also shipped out of Canada to Europe and elsewhere. From there, it isn't a leap to conclude that it very likely end up in "destinations unknown".

But, yes, I know. Anything that doesn't agree with your leftist echo chamber is dishonest to you.

 

[eohrnberger]

shouldn't you hold your cutting and running until after you back up your "some of the dossier has been debunked"? Or after you acknowledge that some parts were accurate? Wait, are you just feigning umbrage again because you know you cant back up your posts and need an excuse to cut and run? probably. anyhoo, before you cowardly cut and run yet again, here's a list of the falsehoods you've posted.

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again

I was debating whether to add " nuh uh I didn't say that" but I see reality is taking a toll on you and your obedient narratives.

Still haven't produced a quote of my post where I asserted that "Unmasking is illegal", which I don't believe I had, yet you continue to dishonestly list it as me being dishonest.

Produce the quote.

 

[Vern]

No, not a dishonest question.

Okay, lets call it disingenuous at best. Why do you try to pretend the deal was approve because it was "in the best interest of the US". Its not based on "best interest". Why are you still not getting that?

From there, it isn't a leap to conclude that it very likely end up in "destinations unknown".

Yes, its a leap. Its not shipped via UPS. Its a tightly controlled and regulated commodity. Just because you can convince yourself UPS might lose a package doesn't justify "destinations unknown".

But, yes, I know. Anything that doesn't agree with your leftist echo chamber is dishonest to you.

this is kinda funny eohrn. Its not about me. I'm proving your points false but yet you keep repeating them. that makes it dishonest. Its really that simple. Of course you don't think "destinations unknown" was dishonest because you created a narrative out of thin air to cling to it. What about the other falsehoods? They must be so false, you cant even create a narrative out of thin air to justify them because I don't see you addressing them. Here's the list again.

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again


I believe I specifically asked you what has been "debunked". How's that coming?

 

[eohrnberger]

Okay, lets call it disingenuous at best. Why do you try to pretend the deal was approve because it was "in the best interest of the US". Its not based on "best interest". Why are you still not getting that?

So the President, the SoS, the US government shouldn't put the nation's best interests first? I kinda thought that's why there were there, to further the nation's best interests.

Yes, its a leap. Its not shipped via UPS. Its a tightly controlled and regulated commodity. Just because you can convince yourself UPS might lose a package doesn't justify "destinations unknown".



this is kinda funny eohrn. Its not about me. I'm proving your points false but yet you keep repeating them. that makes it dishonest. Its really that simple.

Exactly the same thing that you do, so you've got no valid objection on that count.

Of course you don't think "destinations unknown" was dishonest because you created a narrative out of thin air to cling to it. What about the other falsehoods? They must be so false, you cant even create a narrative out of thin air to justify them because I don't see you addressing them. Here's the list again.

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again


I believe I specifically asked you what has been "debunked". How's that coming?

And I ask you to cite my post where I call "Unmasking is illegal". If you want to continue to fight your own strawman, you really don't need me for it.

 

[Vern]

So the President, the SoS, the US government shouldn't put the nation's best interests first? I kinda thought that's why there were there, to further the nation's best interests.

You cant explain the national security risk so you think its up to me to explain why its in our best interest. That's you arguing a point no one made. But it does help you deflect from the falsehoods you've posted.

Exactly the same thing that you do, so you've got no valid objection on that count.

eorhn, you supposing "bad things could happen" is not an argument. I cant believe that's the excuse you use to cling to the falsehood of "destinations unknown" yet you do.

And I ask you to cite my post where I call "Unmasking is illegal". If you want to continue to fight your own strawman, you really don't need me for it.

This is funny for several reasons. First, I've asked you to back up your "parts of the dossier has been debunked" and you haven't. We both know you cant and we both know you lack the integrity to admit it. I don't quite understand the "strawman" point but when desperately trying to deflect from their falsehoods conservatives tend to babble. And its also funny because I did post where you said "unmasking is illegal". Its in post 205 and it was from this thread. But eorhn, I've seen you not read the wiki leak you posted trying to prove Bush was president in 2000. So you are very good at seeing what you want.

Now if you can please back up the "parts of the dossier that's been debunked" and please acknowledge that parts of the dossier have been quite accurate. Oh and here's the list again because I suspect you've yet to read it

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again

 

[eohrnberger]

You cant explain the national security risk so you think its up to me to explain why its in our best interest. That's you arguing a point no one made. But it does help you deflect from the falsehoods you've posted.



eorhn, you supposing "bad things could happen" is not an argument. I cant believe that's the excuse you use to cling to the falsehood of "destinations unknown" yet you do.



This is funny for several reasons. First, I've asked you to back up your "parts of the dossier has been debunked" and you haven't. We both know you cant and we both know you lack the integrity to admit it. I don't quite understand the "strawman" point but when desperately trying to deflect from their falsehoods conservatives tend to babble. And its also funny because I did post where you said "unmasking is illegal". Its in post 205 and it was from this thread. But eorhn, I've seen you not read the wiki leak you posted trying to prove Bush was president in 2000. So you are very good at seeing what you want.

Now if you can please back up the "parts of the dossier that's been debunked" and please acknowledge that parts of the dossier have been quite accurate. Oh and here's the list again because I suspect you've yet to read it

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again

The perfect example of posting the same thing again and again and again.

As I've posted multiple times now, "Unmasking is illegal" cite the post where I make this claim, yet you've not. Backup up this claim of yours.

I'm done here with you.

 

[trouble13]

You are more concerned with a private citizen and what she may have done, than with indictments, and CLEAR proof the Trumps campaign aids WANTED to sell us out to the Russkies? Your priorities are screwy, but hey, ignorance is bliss, enjoy.

You mean what she may of done while holding the office of SOS. Why do you care what trump might of done while he was a private citizen but not her when she held a public office. Could it be plain old partisan hate by you rather than actual concern?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Vern]

The perfect example of posting the same thing again and again and again.

As I've posted multiple times now, "Unmasking is illegal" cite the post where I make this claim, yet you've not. Backup up this claim of yours.

I'm done here with you.

Yes eorhn, I am posting the list of your falsehoods over and over because you are not addressing them. I just hope you're not thinking that proves your "who could only post up about one citation again and again and again" falsehood isn't a falsehood. And now your claiming I didn't post your quote where you claim "unmasking is illegal". I don't know what to say to that because I posted the quote in post 205. You either are pretending not to see it or have some magic narrative like you did with "destinations unknown". If it is a magic narrative you have thankfully spared us having to read it. Anyhoo, asking me to back up something when you refuse to back up your claims makes you a hypocrite. Asking me to back up something I've already backed up when you refuse to back up your claims makes you a dishonest hypocrite. Now I get to add to the list of falsehoods you've posted

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again
"Unmasking is illegal" cite the post where I make this claim, yet you've not

Eohrn, before you cowardly cut and run again, could you explain why you don't think you have to post anything from the dossier that has been debunked and don't have to acknowledge that parts of the dossier have been quite accurate? I just want to understand why or how your sense of entitlement and lack of accountability means you don't have to be honest. thanks in advance

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes eorhn, I am posting the list of your falsehoods over and over because you are not addressing them. I just hope you're not thinking that proves your "who could only post up about one citation again and again and again" falsehood isn't a falsehood. And now your claiming I didn't post your quote where you claim "unmasking is illegal". I don't know what to say to that because I posted the quote in post 205. You either are pretending not to see it or have some magic narrative like you did with "destinations unknown". If it is a magic narrative you have thankfully spared us having to read it. Anyhoo, asking me to back up something when you refuse to back up your claims makes you a hypocrite. Asking me to back up something I've already backed up when you refuse to back up your claims makes you a dishonest hypocrite. Now I get to add to the list of falsehoods you've posted

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again
"Unmasking is illegal" cite the post where I make this claim, yet you've not

Eohrn, before you cowardly cut and run again, could you explain why you don't think you have to post anything from the dossier that has been debunked and don't have to acknowledge that parts of the dossier have been quite accurate? I just want to understand why or how your sense of entitlement and lack of accountability means you don't have to be honest. thanks in advance

destinations unknown
The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”
Unmasking is illegal
who could only post up about one citation again and again and again
"Unmasking is illegal" cite the post where I make this claim, yet you've not

So "who could only post up about one citation again and again and again" ? :lamo

Still waiting for you to substantiate where I stated that "Unmasking is illegal". Until then, have a nice day.

 

[Vern]

So "who could only post up about one citation again and again and again" ? :lamo

Still waiting for you to substantiate where I stated that "Unmasking is illegal". Until then, have a nice day.

eohrn, why do you think dishonesty is a valid debate tactic? You used "citation" as "link" and I already responded by pointing out I've posted 4 links to your 1 (post 202). You think if you pretend not to see that and pretend "citation" means "anything vern posts" you've got a winning argument. And you think if you demand I back up something I've already backed up you don't have to apologize for posting the falsehood "parts of the dossier have been debunked" and you don't have to acknowledge the fact that parts of the dossier have been quite accurate.

You're just another conservative who posts conservative narratives as fact and gets his head handed to him. Out of some emotional need to not admit you made a fool of yourself or desperately cling to the narratives or both, you flail, whine, deflect and pretend not to see what I post. If you cant handle looking foolish then stop posting falsehoods.

 

[eohrnberger]

eohrn, why do you think dishonesty is a valid debate tactic? You used "citation" as "link" and I already responded by pointing out I've posted 4 links to your 1 (post 202). You think if you pretend not to see that and pretend "citation" means "anything vern posts" you've got a winning argument. And you think if you demand I back up something I've already backed up you don't have to apologize for posting the falsehood "parts of the dossier have been debunked" and you don't have to acknowledge the fact that parts of the dossier have been quite accurate.

You're just another conservative who posts conservative narratives as fact and gets his head handed to him. Out of some emotional need to not admit you made a fool of yourself or desperately cling to the narratives or both, you flail, whine, deflect and pretend not to see what I post. If you cant handle looking foolish then stop posting falsehoods.

You have posted the same thing over and over, claiming that I posted "Unmasking is illegal".
You've have yet to produce this post of mine.

I don't think you can. I think you made that you, or perhaps someone else posted that and you attributed it to me. Whatever.

I'm inclined to think that you tend to make **** up as you go along, just like that one.

So have fun Vern posting to yourself Vern. I'm done here.

 

[Vern]

You have posted the same thing over and over, claiming that I posted "Unmasking is illegal".
You've have yet to produce this post of mine.

I don't think you can. I think you made that you, or perhaps someone else posted that and you attributed it to me. Whatever.

I'm inclined to think that you tend to make **** up as you go along, just like that one.

So have fun Vern posting to yourself Vern. I'm done here.

mmmmm, a double spaced reply,mmmmmm. eohrn, I posted a quote of you referring to "illegal unmasking" in post 205. And in the reply I mocked you with ""nuh uh I didnt but if I did I'm still right."

You responded to post 206 (not 205) with this

Still haven't produced a quote of my post where I asserted that "Unmasking is illegal", which I don't believe I had, yet you continue to dishonestly list it as me being dishonest.

Produce the quote.

and I responded telling you it was in post 205 and from this thread.

And its also funny because I did post where you said "unmasking is illegal". Its in post 205 and it was from this thread. But eorhn, I've seen you not read the wiki leak you posted trying to prove Bush was president in 2000. So you are very good at seeing what you want.

again I told you to look in 205

I don't know what to say to that because I posted the quote in post 205. You either are pretending not to see it or have some magic narrative like you did with "destinations unknown". If it is a magic narrative you have thankfully spared us having to read it.

Eorhn I get it, you want to cling to the falsehood that "parts of the dossier have been debunked" and cant acknowledge the fact that "parts of the dossier have been quite accurate" and pretending I haven't posted a quote of you saying "unmaksing is illegal" is the best you can do. And don't forget you magically changed your definition of "citation". You again prove when it comes time to for a conservative to choose narrative or integrity, they choose narrative.

 

[eohrnberger]

mmmmm, a double spaced reply,mmmmmm. eohrn, I posted a quote of you referring to "illegal unmasking" in post 205. And in the reply I mocked you with ""nuh uh I didnt but if I did I'm still right."

You responded to post 206 (not 205) with this



and I responded telling you it was in post 205 and from this thread.

again I told you to look in 205



Eorhn I get it, you want to cling to the falsehood that "parts of the dossier have been debunked" and cant acknowledge the fact that "parts of the dossier have been quite accurate" and pretending I haven't posted a quote of you saying "unmaksing is illegal" is the best you can do. And don't forget you magically changed your definition of "citation". You again prove when it comes time to for a conservative to choose narrative or integrity, they choose narrative.

OK. Retracted. Unmasking is not illegal, but it is an abuse of power.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . .

The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”

The dossier is partially debunked.

What’s True, False And In-Between In The Trump Dossier?

 

[Vern]

OK. Retracted. Unmasking is not illegal, but it is an abuse of power.

geez why was that such a freaking ordeal eorhn? Anyhoo, of course you think its an abuse of power its just the next narrative in line. If it took so much for you to acknowledge actual facts (not illegal and you said it) why would I want to get into a discussion of your opinion that its an "abuse of power"? I can only point unmasking is routine and your obedient opinion is based on what liars have told you. remember when you thought it was illegal?

The dossier “either debunked" or not yet debunked”

The dossier is partially debunked.

What’s True, False And In-Between In The Trump Dossier?

This too required repeated requests to back up and now you are posting a daily caller editorial. You could have posted the DC editorial 20 posts ago. Let's review it posted 23 things from the dossier and it only called 1 thing false. So you can now say "one thing has been debunked" (if the DC editorial is true). But eorhn, you cant say "yet to be debunked" anymore. It said 3 were true and 1 was partially true. But you really need to understand as a lying conservative media outlet, its trying to "downplay" how accurate the dossier is. Lets look at this one

“There was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”*
Unsubstantiated. Trump and his campaign have adamantly denied the allegation.

The problem with this is it ignores (yea, see how pretending not to know is a conservative trait) that the republican platform was changed to benefit Russia and Trump bad mouthed Nato. I've already posted this.

"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.
"

so the DC should have listed that as "quite accurate" or "amazingly correct" but they call it "unsubstantiated" because Trump denied it.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . . .
so the DC should have listed that as "quite accurate" or "amazingly correct" but they call it "unsubstantiated" because Trump denied it.

Calling it "quite accurate" or "amazingly correct" is probably an overstatement. There are still the items in the dossier that have not been substantiated.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/07/trump-russia-steele-dossier-moscow - See section 'Unsubstantiated claims'

In the cited DC article, they are very specific about the points that are unsubstantiated

The Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump for at least 5 years.”

• Unsubstantiated. Trump has adamantly denied receiving any help from the Russian government.

“The Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, for several years.”

• Unsubstantiated. The Trump campaign has denied receiving help from the Kremlin during the campaign. But the date of this Steele memo — June 20 — is significant because it followed 11 days after the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting attended by Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, campaign chairman Paul Manafort and a group of Russian lobbyists. Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after he was offered damaging information about Clinton. But he claims that no such information was provided.

“The Kremlin’s cultivation operation on Trump had also comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development deals in Russia.”

• Unsubstantiated. Trump and his real estate company did discuss real estate projects in Russia, but there has been no evidence produced so far that those were part of a Kremlin “cultivation operation” of Trump.

Russians sought to “exploit Trump’s personal obsessions and sexual perversions to obtain suitable ‘kompromot’ [compromising material] on him.” Kremlin operatives filmed Trump in compromising positions in a Moscow hotel.

• Unsubstantiated. In a press conference just after BuzzFeed published the dossier on Jan. 10, Trump called the sex allegations “phony stuff.”

And there are a lot more points they raise. Yes, seems that DC has been accurate in their assessment of the dossier.

There's a taint to the Steele Dossier. I do recall it being reported that Steele was obtaining some of this materials that made it into the dossier from Russian Intelligence. Probably need to look into this a bit more.

 

[Vern]

Calling it "quite accurate" or "amazingly correct" is probably an overstatement. There are still the items in the dossier that have not been substantiated.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/07/trump-russia-steele-dossier-moscow - See section 'Unsubstantiated claims'

In the cited DC article, they are very specific about the points that are unsubstantiated

yes eorhn, there are still items that have not been substantiated. We're discussing the one DC claims to be false and the 4 it called true. yes they were "very specific" about the unsubstantiated points but based on my citation I pointed out, they were "very specific" to believe Trump's denials and "very specific" to ignore the republican party platform was changed concerning the Ukraine and "very specific" to ignore trump started attacking Nato. And don't forget, removing the sanctions was the first thing trump was concerned about. they were "very specific" about leaving that out also.

so to sum again, only one claim was debunked and several were validated so you don't get to say "not yet debunked". And again DC is ignoring actual facts to make this claim

“There was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”*
Unsubstantiated. Trump and his campaign have adamantly denied the allegation.

And there are a lot more points they raise. Yes, seems that DC has been accurate in their assessment of the dossier.

Of course it "seems" that way to you. It requires you to ignore the point I've posted several times such as the republican party platform was changed concerning the Ukraine and trump started attacking Nato and removing the sanctions. Do we need to discuss your ability to see only what you want to see again?

There's a taint to the Steele Dossier. I do recall it being reported that Steele was obtaining some of this materials that made it into the dossier from Russian Intelligence. Probably need to look into this a bit more.

I guess we do need to discuss your ability to see what you want to see. There is no taint. that's just another false conservative narrative you believe no questions asked. Steele used his contacts to get information. He was a spy remember. some of them still working for Russia is not the same as Trump colluding with a foreign power. Trump was colluding with the Russian govt in exchange for political favors. Steele was getting intel. If you cant see the difference, please don't reply.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . . .
I guess we do need to discuss your ability to see what you want to see. There is no taint. that's just another false conservative narrative you believe no questions asked. Steele used his contacts to get information. He was a spy remember. some of them still working for Russia is not the same as Trump colluding with a foreign power. Trump was colluding with the Russian govt in exchange for political favors. Steele was getting intel. If you cant see the difference, please don't reply.

Hmm Apparently opinions on this would vary.

Rather, Steele would have tapped up his network of sources deep inside the country, some of them dating from his time there and others cultivated later, British officials suggested.

In turn, these individuals will have had sources of their own. Steele would likely have subcontracted some of his Trump investigation to trusted intermediaries in Moscow, who will have reported back to him via secure channels.

This method of intelligence collection may explain the odd language anomaly in the Trump dossier that emerged into the public eye late on Tuesday. In a September briefing note, Steele mentions the Alpha-Group, a reference to the consortium headed by the powerful oligarch Mikhail Fridman. The more usual English spelling is Alfa.

Almost certainly, a native Russian speaker wrote the original material, correctly transliterating the Russian “f” as “ph”. It was Steele’s job to collate, evaluate and verify this material before passing it to his American client Fusion GPS, a Washington-based political research firm. The company had been hired originally by one of Trump’s early Republican opponents before the contract was taken up by senior Democrats.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...redibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author

Interesting to note that this assessment from UK Foreign Office official. Where do you suppose the "native Russian speaker wrote the original material" came from? Alas, that's lost to history, it would appear, but does bolster the position to take the information in this dossier with a skeptical eye.

As in, have you ever played the party game 'Telephone' ? From one person to the next, to the next, and the message at the end is much different than what it was in the beginning. That is reason alone to be skeptical of the contents of the dossier. The 'odd language anomaly' only even more so.

And then there's the Russian prostitute's pissing on the bed part.

Yeah, the dossier should be viewed with a skeptical eye.

 

[eohrnberger]

yes eorhn, there are still items that have not been substantiated. We're discussing the one DC claims to be false and the 4 it called true. yes they were "very specific" about the unsubstantiated points but based on my citation I pointed out, they were "very specific" to believe Trump's denials and "very specific" to ignore the republican party platform was changed concerning the Ukraine and "very specific" to ignore trump started attacking Nato.
. . .

Trump's main issue with NATO was whether the member countries were paying their agreed upon 2% of their GDP for their own defense.

• Trump Says NATO Allies Don’t Pay Their Share. Is That True ...https://The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-trump...
  May 26, 2017 · What is Mr. Trump’s complaint? “NATO members must finally contribute their fair share ... Trump Says America’s NATO Allies Aren’t Paying Their Fair ...
  
• Trump demands other NATO members pay their fair share ...https://Politics, Policy, Political News - POLITICO/.../donald-trump-congress-speech-nato-235543
  Trump’s complaint about other NATO members not spending enough on ... treaty obligations and come to the aid of fellow NATO members not paying their fair share. ...

Seems that his 'attacking' (cajoling I think more accurate) did end up with the desired result.

• NATO members to increase defense spending - CNNPoliticswww.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/nato-members-increase-defense-spending
  Jun 29, 2017 · Video embedded · NATO members to increase defense spending. ... Allies must pay fair share for NATO. ... the average for non-US NATO members is still just 1.46% of GDP, ...
  
• Just Five of 28 NATO Members Meet Defense Spending Goal ...https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence...
  Most NATO countries are boosting their military spending by small amounts if any, despite the concern over Russia’s growing assertiveness, according to a report ...

And Trump applauds NATO members when they meet this part of the NATO treaty obligation.

Trump applauds Merkel’s ‘commitment’ to boost NATO ...

Kinda carrot and stick, don't you think? I suppose you could argue about Trump's tactics, but I don't think you can't argue about his results.