Inspector General Review of the Trump/Russia Investigation
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Please show us where Hill "rebutted" the fact that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
And likewise, where she "rebutted" the fact that DNC consultant Chalupa was helped by Ukrainian officials to get dirt on Manafort.
She rebutted the interpretation and use of such factoids to smear the investigation of Russian interference, and of Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine. It's in her testimony.
You cut and paste all the time. Show us her words in her testimony where she rebutted my statements.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Can you provide a link?
Do you ever think someone would go full defense mode heading into a summit?
Sure, but back to your earlier comment -- do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Here's the link to the Macron headline:
do you realize how much untruth is packed into this sentence?
do you deny that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
Can you just please stop?
Please.Stop.
It's so embarrassing.
I'm sorry you're embarrassed that you'd rather hide in the security of MSNBC falsehoods than face the facts. It happened.
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
What’s the point?
paulsurovell said:
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
for two years or more here, your DNC - Russia narrative has been debunked countless times. I'm not going there again. Because tomorrow or a week from now you'll bring it out again, you'll get called on it, and again demand that someone debunk it again.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
What’s the point?
What's the point of this comment?
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
What’s the point?
What's the point of this comment?
What’s the point in reading or replying to anything you write? Life’s too short to spend it responding to your horseshit.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
for two years or more here, your DNC - Russia narrative has been debunked countless times. I'm not going there again. Because tomorrow or a week from now you'll bring it out again, you'll get called on it, and again demand that someone debunk it again.
IF it's been debunked countless times it should be easy to show how it was debunked. But you can't because it's never been debunked. It's only been "debunked" because certain "authorities" in your echo chamber tell you it's been debunked. But look for the actual "debunking" and it's nowhere to be found.
Here are some excerpts on dirt about Trump in the Steele dossier that Hillary and the DNC paid for:
paulsurovell said:
The topic is whether the headline reflects what Macron said in response to your comment:
nohero said:
Also, it's 2019, and most people know not to use online headlines in order to support their arguments.
One could call it "dishonest" to rely on the headline alone, just
because you like it, instead of a more accurate, actual quote for the
true meaning.
The "topic" is Russian interference, and whether what Macron actually said could be used to defend Paul's position on that. Using the real words, it can't.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
What’s the point?
gee, that was my answer too.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Please show us where Hill "rebutted" the fact that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
And likewise, where she "rebutted" the fact that DNC consultant Chalupa was helped by Ukrainian officials to get dirt on Manafort.
She rebutted the interpretation and use of such factoids to smear the investigation of Russian interference, and of Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine. It's in her testimony.
You cut and paste all the time. Show us her words in her testimony where she rebutted my statements.
Maybe Paul could actually read Dr. Hill's testimony instead of insisting that she didn't say what she actually did say.
If Hillary "paid for" the Steele dossier, you might as well say that everyone who contributed to her campaign paid for it also. They had as much to do with the actual underwriting of the dossier as she did.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Please show us where Hill "rebutted" the fact that Hillary and the DNC paid Steele (thru Fusion GPS) to get dirt on Trump from Russian government officials?
And likewise, where she "rebutted" the fact that DNC consultant Chalupa was helped by Ukrainian officials to get dirt on Manafort.
She rebutted the interpretation and use of such factoids to smear the investigation of Russian interference, and of Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine. It's in her testimony.
You cut and paste all the time. Show us her words in her testimony where she rebutted my statements.
Maybe Paul could actually read Dr. Hill's testimony instead of insisting that she didn't say what she actually did say.
You claimed that she rebutted my statements, but you can't show us any of her words where you think she did that. It appears that she rebutted my statements in your mind only.
paulsurovell said:
IF it's been debunked countless times it should be easy to show how it was debunked. But you can't because it's never been debunked. It's only been "debunked" because certain "authorities" in your echo chamber tell you it's been debunked. But look for the actual "debunking" and it's nowhere to be found.
Here are some excerpts on dirt about Trump in the Steele dossier that Hillary and the DNC paid for:
the fact that you refuse to admit that your narrative has been refuted countless times is the reason no one is going to spend the effort to refute it again.
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:
Paul, I am not going to get into an argument with you, I was just trying to explain why your posts bore me.
What matters is that you made an accusation about my truthfulness but it turns out you can't give a single example to back it up.
Truthfulness is a meaningless concept in terms of your posts. That was my point.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
What’s the point?
Sigh... I can't believe I got sucked into this again. Paul is like kudzu, he starts growing on a thread and then he kills it.
"I am very confident based on all of the analysis that has been done -- and, again, I don't want to start getting into intelligence matters -- that the Ukrainian Government did not interfere in our election in 2016."
Deposition of Fiona Hill, October 14, 2019, page 168, lines 8-11.
Klinker said:
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The statement is 100% factual.
Please explain why you disagree.
it's a few facts around which you put a false narrative.
When you say that something is a "false narrative" you are not explaining why you think it's a "false narrative". Please explain why you disagree with my statement.
What’s the point?
Sigh... I can't believe I got sucked into this again. Paul is like kudzu, he starts growing on a thread and then he kills it.
If you really found my posts "boring" you would stop reading them.
nohero said:
"I am very confident based on all of the analysis that has been done -- and, again, I don't want to start getting into intelligence matters -- that the Ukrainian Government did not interfere in our election in 2016."
Deposition of Fiona Hill, October 14, 2019, page 168, lines 8-11.
Mueller ignored the Steele dossier's Russian government official sources and its funding by the Hillary campaign and DNC. He likewise ignored DNC consultant Chalupa's collusion with Ukrainian government officials.
So what "analysis" is she talking about? @nohero doesn't know and doesn't ask, because Hill.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
IF it's been debunked countless times it should be easy to show how it was debunked. But you can't because it's never been debunked. It's only been "debunked" because certain "authorities" in your echo chamber tell you it's been debunked. But look for the actual "debunking" and it's nowhere to be found.
Here are some excerpts on dirt about Trump in the Steele dossier that Hillary and the DNC paid for:
the fact that you refuse to admit that your narrative has been refuted countless times is the reason no one is going to spend the effort to refute it again.
Why don't you show me how my narrative has been refuted? You can't because you're parroting, not reasoning.
drummerboy said:
If Hillary "paid for" the Steele dossier, you might as well say that everyone who contributed to her campaign paid for it also. They had as much to do with the actual underwriting of the dossier as she did.
Hillary's contributors didn't know her campaign and the DNC were underwriting the dossier. In fact, the Hillary campaign lied for months, denying that they were behind it, so the contributors had no role in this. It was the campaign and the DNC.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
If Hillary "paid for" the Steele dossier, you might as well say that everyone who contributed to her campaign paid for it also. They had as much to do with the actual underwriting of the dossier as she did.
Hillary's contributors didn't know her campaign and the DNC were underwriting the dossier. In fact, the Hillary campaign lied for months, denying that they were behind it, so the contributors had no role in this. It was the campaign and the DNC.
oh - Was Hillary aware of the underwriting of the dossier? Did she OK it? Is there a receipt that says "Dossier to be provided" on it, with maybe her signature?
Is there any proof at all that she knew anything about this until after the fact?
I know you know the answer to all these questions is no - yet it makes no difference to you in constructing your narrative. You simply want to attach her name to it so as to make it appear more damning.
That qualifies as a mistruth.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
"I am very confident based on all of the analysis that has been done -- and, again, I don't want to start getting into intelligence matters -- that the Ukrainian Government did not interfere in our election in 2016."
Deposition of Fiona Hill, October 14, 2019, page 168, lines 8-11.
Mueller ignored the Steele dossier's Russian government official sources and its funding by the Hillary campaign and DNC. He likewise ignored DNC consultant Chalupa's collusion with Ukrainian government officials.
So what "analysis" is she talking about? @nohero doesn't know and doesn't ask, because Hill.
I provided a quote from a primary source, along with a cite and a link.
It's not the only such primary source, which anyone interested in the facts can easily find using the Google.
Dr. Hill only one of the many experts and qualified people whose statements of fact debunk the "alternative facts" pushed by Paul.
"Whatabout Mueller" is a stupid argument.
paulsurovell said:
Why don't you show me how my narrative has been refuted? You can't because you're parroting, not reasoning.
you can start in this thread by reading the responses.
And your second sentence is 100% pure projection.
drummerboy said:
oh - Was Hillary aware of the underwriting of the dossier? Did she OK it? Is there a receipt that says "Dossier to be provided" on it, with maybe her signature?
Is there any proof at all that she knew anything about this until after the fact?
I know you know the answer to all these questions is no - yet it makes no difference to you in constructing your narrative. You simply want to attach her name to it so as to make it appear more damning.
That qualifies as a mistruth.
the more important aspect of the investigation is that the oppo research on Trump led to Russia because that's where he did business, not because the DNC was colluding with the Russian government. Saying it was Russian collusion with the DNC puts the causality of why the investigation was conducted there completely backwards.
ml1 said:
the more important aspect of the investigation is that the oppo research on Trump led to Russia because that's where he did business, not because the DNC was colluding with the Russian government. Saying it was Russian collusion with the DNC puts the causality of why the investigation was conducted there completely backwards.
Trump Tower Moscow?
Letter of Intent?
Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen admits to lying about it?
Any of this ring a bell for Paul, I wonder …
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump-russia-mueller.html
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
If Hillary "paid for" the Steele dossier, you might as well say that everyone who contributed to her campaign paid for it also. They had as much to do with the actual underwriting of the dossier as she did.
Hillary's contributors didn't know her campaign and the DNC were underwriting the dossier. In fact, the Hillary campaign lied for months, denying that they were behind it, so the contributors had no role in this. It was the campaign and the DNC.
oh - Was Hillary aware of the underwriting of the dossier? Did she OK it? Is there a receipt that says "Dossier to be provided" on it, with maybe her signature?
Is there any proof at all that she knew anything about this until after the fact?
I know you know the answer to all these questions is no - yet it makes no difference to you in constructing your narrative. You simply want to attach her name to it so as to make it appear more damning.
That qualifies as a mistruth.
"Hillary" is shorthand for "the Hillary campaign" which is shorthand for "Hillary for America". She presumably took responsibility for what the campaign did. On the other hand, what's important is not the person but the conduct by her campaign and the DNC which constituted collusion with members of the Russian government and perpetrated a fraud on Americans.
Now don't tell me that for the last two and a half years your problem with "my narrative" has been that I sometimes wrote "Hillary" instead of "the Hillary campaign" or "Hillary for America" but that you agreed all along that the Hillary campaign and the DNC engaged in collusion with Russian government officials to defraud the American people.
Or maybe you should tell me that and get yourself off your reality-denying hook.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The topic is whether the headline reflects what Macron said in response to your comment: