BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RiverRaider

  1. Please... Its Disgusting
  2. Its not a real fire obviously but it's not horrific either.... adds a little ambiance etc... More enjoyable than I thought it might be,... just not as enjoyable a s real campfire
  3. I think they use the chart to mock you
  4. He would have paid her off even if he wasn’t a candidate... no prosecutor is going to pursue it and no prosecutor would... Cohen pleas guilty in return for something... so people could say co-conspirator
  5. Cohen plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit in exchange for god knows what... all so you could say "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone to charge Trump after he leaves the White House
  6. Stormy Daniels and Micheal Avanatti Remember when they were gonna take Trump down and the Rubes were whipped up in a frenzy over it
  7. Pelosi served up some pudding for the famished masses
  8. Google "Home Smith" they are local or near enough local if you live in Massachusetts Also call the Boston Center for Independent Living and ask for resources
  9. He did denounce them .. in reality, on several occasions
  10. Interesting opinion piece from Today's "The Hill" front page... Some people were blindsided by the Mueller Report despite the fact that it was obvious leading up to it's release that there wasn't going to be an big "Collusion" reveal I wonder if those same people are going to caught flat footed again when this s*it hits the fan? Attorney General Barr puts former intel bosses on notice Things seem to be moving quickly now. It has been a remarkable few weeks in American history. Momentum is building toward uncovering the distasteful possibility that the targeting of a U.S. presidential campaign was actually a political operation, fostered at the highest levels of government, masquerading as an FBI counterintelligence investigation. Attorney General William Barr has signaled that his interest in examining the origins of the investigation into the Trump campaign extends beyond whether the FBI operated “by the book,” as former FBI Director James Comey asserts. Barr also wants to understand the role that the larger intelligence community, or IC, may have played in all of this. Barr has thrown punches that have left an interesting mix of characters with a standing eight count. Certain eyes around D.C. are a little glassy right now. Barr’s words and actions are telling. First, he raised the concern that the Trump campaign was “spied” upon. His use of the word “spying” appears more calculated than casual. The wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed is also telling. “The FBI doesn’t spy” became the sputtering counter-refrain of those trying to mask their nervousness. It’s a fair point that’s beside the point. The FBI is charged with acting under strict legal restrictions and court orders. Spying is not a term traditionally associated with those activities. But it also misses the point Barr appears to be making. The IC does spy; that’s what they do. Barr may have been referring less to the FBI and more to the IC’s possible murky involvement. This seems to be validated by Barr’s second haymaker in as many weeks: his appointment of a surrogate investigator, U.S. Attorney John Durham. Why would the attorney general add a third investigation to those under way by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Huber? Because those investigations are focused on the FBI. Durham’s assignment is not similarly constrained; his marching orders appear broader. Through Durham, Barr can start dusting for fingerprints across the government, not just the FBI. The squirming has begun. In just the past week, we’ve seen a rush to comment by the former directors of national intelligence and the CIA. The FBI’s former general counsel has chimed in publicly and, of course, fired FBI Director Comey has been on a media offensive, practicing character assassination as a strategy with Barr among those in his crosshairs. Each appears to be anxious about his own role in handling the controversial Steele dossier from the Trump-Russia investigation, and so there is some elbowing under the basket to get optimum positioning. And who can blame them? The attorney general has stated that he is going to focus particularly on the dossier’s exploitation, and specifically on the actions of the leadership of those agencies. Interestingly, this establishes these leaders as principal witnesses in Durham’s inquiry. In essence they are using their easy access to public media platforms to coordinate and communicate their stories among themselves. Ordinarily, this type of witness activity is troubling, if not borderline obstructive when done privately. In this case, Durham may be licking his chops as a prosecutor since a certain element of finger-pointing among the principals has emerged. Each also is dealing with an elephant that’s not just in the room but sitting uncomfortably in their laps. Christopher Steele’s dossier is clearly a Russian intelligence operation (“active measure” in IC-speak) that took advantage of a cooperative outreach by the Hillary Clinton campaign. If these IC leaders didn’t recognize it as such, then it truly was amateur hour at the top. The more troubling scenario would be if each made a conscious decision to ignore the obvious Russian interference attempt and, instead, wring political value out of the dossier. This is a key area that deserves Durham’s attention. After all, this Russian active measures operation was used to further an FBI counterintelligence investigation against American citizens, and even secure a court order to electronically intercept former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The American people shouldn’t feel badly if all this seems confusing. Even experienced counterintelligence investigators are scratching their heads. The former FBI general counsel to Comey, James Baker, added to the confusion last week with some lawyer language — that the FBI “took the dossier seriously, but not necessarily literally.” Say what? IG Horowitz likely will take note of that statement as he finalizes his review of possible abuses by Comey and his team of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process. It seems doubtful that a FISA court judge would have granted an electronic surveillance order had he been told the FBI believed Page was acting as an agent of Russia — but not literally so. Barr also wants to understand the role of CIA confidential sources, or “assets,” that were cozied up next to Page and another former Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos. Both were announced as Trump campaign members the same week in March 2016, and almost immediately began attracting attention from an interesting cast of characters associated with the agency long before the FBI counterintelligence investigation was launched that July. The CIA has its own set of restrictions about the use of assets against Americans, and this deserves Durham’s focus as well. Former CIA Director John Brennan has commented on his belief in the sufficiency of FBI predication to investigate the Trump campaign but has said little about the CIA’s role in all of this. Durham will want to make sure that CIA asset activity didn’t somehow help create that predication. IC leaders aren’t used to being held to account by the Justice Department, and their oversight by Congress generally is mild. Theirs is a comfortable world, obfuscated and kept mysterious by the liberal use of their classified-information shield. The demonization of Attorney General Barr has begun — a sign that he is probably on the right track. And the IC leaders are on notice. Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director
  11. He's a good looking guy and a snazzy dresser... doesn't mean he's homosexual
  12. I bet he knows all about this Grind thing too...
  13. What's a Grinder?
  14. Some you guys know an awful lot about "Social Media"
  15. They prefer to be called "The Resistance"
  16. Maybe Nadler should hold him in him in contempt if he refuses to testify? How do you suppose that would go over?
  17. Looks like something a woman might post
  18. Reading the Hill this morning I came across this piece from Sharyl Atkinson, Iv'e been saying this for months (over a year?) Best case scenario the FBI and Intel Community were inept Is there a 3rd. option? I'd like to hear from those who have defended the likes of Comey, Clapper etc... For the record I'll say again that I think they were corrupt Lets discuss Two scenarios on Trump-Russia investigators — and neither is comforting BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/21/19 09:00 AM EDT As the investigations into the Trump-Russia investigation proceed, it’s not too difficult to figure out a few of the theoretical starting points. The first and most obvious theory is the one largely promulgated in the media for the better part of two years. It goes something like this: The sharp, super-sleuth investigative skills of top officials within the Justice Department and our intel community enabled them to identify Donald Trump and his campaign as treacherous conduits to Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. That theory was summarily dismissed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that there wasn’t so much as even coordination between Russia and Trump, or any American. So that leaves several other possibilities … and none of them is good: They knew One possibility to be considered is that top Obama administration officials knew all along there never was any real collusion or crime at play, but they manufactured the false Russia premise in order to justify their political spying. Under this hypothetical scenario, they wanted to get inside information on the Trump campaign and, perhaps, gather dirt against the competition for blackmail or political purposes. This effort included surveillance using paid spies and wiretaps on multiple Trump associates, as reported in the press. The Obama officials had lots of help from foreign players such as the United Kingdom and Russia’s nemesis, Ukraine. Ukrainian-linked Democrats assisted with an early effort to gin up negative press coverage about key players, such as Trump associate Paul Manafort, who had been hired by the pro-Russian Ukrainian government prior to the anti-Russian Ukrainian government taking over in 2014. There were other Ukraine entanglements, such as the lucrative position earning millions of dollars that then-Vice President Joe Biden’s songot in 2015 to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company under the anti-Russia Ukraine regime. Anyhow, under this scenario, after Trump defied all predictions and won the election, those who had conspired against him went into panic mode. They rightly worried that Trump, his national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and others outside the “establishment” would be able to see what Justice Department and intel officials had been up to in secret. They were worried that not only would their furtive activities in 2016 be exposed but that their behavior during the past decade-plus, when there were many other documented surveillance and intel abuses. These abuses include improper surveillance of American citizens, political figures, journalists and other targets. One can only imagine all the things they did that never became public. Whose communications did they pretend to capture accidentally? Whose bank records, photos, emails, text messages, internet history and keystrokes were monitored? What unverified or false evidence did intel officials present to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get wiretaps on political enemies? Who improperly “unmasked” whom? Hypothetically, these government officials — desperate to keep their deeds in the dark — rushed to amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Putting Trump under investigation, even if under false pretenses, would accomplish the goal of keeping him from poking around into their business and practices. Any attempts he’d make to find out what was going on inside his own Justice Department or intel agencies would automatically be declared “Obstruction!” However, they were sloppy. First, they were sloppy in the improper actions they undertook over a decade or more. They never imagined outsiders would ever really get a look at the evidence of their alleged wrongdoing. Then, they became sloppier in their panic-stricken attempts to cover up after Trump got elected. As you can see, this scenario presumes a level of corruption. For those who aren’t prepared to accept the possibility that some within our Justice Department and intel community would frame Trump and his associates to keep their own alleged crimes secret, there is at least one other possibility. But it may not be much more palatable. They didn’t know If special counsel Robert Mueller is correct and there was no collusion or even coordination between Russia and Donald Trump, or any American, and if the Obama administration officials who insisted that was the case are not corrupt, then they collectively suffered from one of the most historically monumental cases of poor judgment in U.S. intelligence history. Under this scenario, the seasoned experts entrusted to protect our national security committed the kind of bush-league mistakes that few novice investigators would make. They jumped to conclusions with no evidence. They let their own biases lead them down trails in the wrong direction. They misinterpreted evidence, misread people’s actions and barked up the wrong trees. They misconstrued exceedingly common business and political contacts with Russians as deep, dark, dastardly plots. They wasted energy and resources chasing specters, ghosts and conspiracies where none existed. Under this scenario, the misguided obsession over nonexistent treachery and enemies of the state caused the officials to underestimate or ignore the real threats that were right under their noses. We do know this much: Only after Trump was elected did these officials ring major alarm bells about the Russians. It’s as if they are utterly unaware that the election interference they suspected and detected happened while they were in charge. Or maybe they just hope to convince us to look the other way. Instead of looking the other way, we might be well advised to open the books and examine how these officials were running their shops well before 2016. What does either scenario imply about how these operators behaved behind closed doors? How did they use their power and the powerful tools at their disposal? How well did they guard the nation’s interests and our deepest secrets? Whether they were corrupt or inept, whether they knew or whether they didn’t know, the questions seem important to answer.
  19. Iv'e had my fill of his crazy today I think...
  20. You have to be pulling my leg here... if not seek professional help