Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About
from the owning-the-libs-by-pretending-to-do-his-job dept
House intelligence oversight leader Devin Nunes released his supposed bombshell Friday. The Nunes memo was supposed to contain info showing the FBI had engaged in a questionable, politically-motivated investigation of Trump staff. How this news was supposed to be shocking was anyone's guess. Anyone who has followed the FBI's activities since the days of J. Edgar Hoover already knows the FBI engages in questionable, politically-motivated investigations. The only new twist is the FISA court's involvement and the use of secretive surveillance powers to collect domestic communications.
The FBI responded by noting the memo [PDF] contained "material omissions of fact." What's contained in the memo likely provides rhetorical ammo to those who believe Trump and his advisors did nothing wrong during the run-up to the election. But it will only provide limited support. What's contained in the memo are accusations the FBI sought (and obtained) FISA warrants to surveill one-time Trump advisor Carter Page. The FBI -- according to the memo -- used the dubious Christopher Steele dossier to buttress its allegations. It apparently continued to do so even after it knew the Steele dossier had been paid for by the Democratic National Committee.
The memo notes this interception was not performed under Title VII, which covers the recently-renewed Section 702 collection powers. This surveillance was performed under Title I -- a more "traditional" FISA process in which the government seeks probable cause-based warrants from the FISA court, much like law enforcement officers seek warrants from magistrate judges.
The memo suggests the FBI should have dropped the investigation -- or at least given the FISA court heads up -- once it became apparent the Steele dossier was politically compromised. But the FBI continued to ask for renewals and these requests were approved by law enforcement officials Trump and most of the Republican party no longer care for. The list includes James Comey (fired), Andrew McCabe (resigned), Sally Yates (fired), and Rod Rosenstein (who Trump would apparently like to fire).
The memo also points out that Christopher Steele was "terminated" (as a source) by the FBI for disclosing his relationship with the agency to the press. Steele also apparently stated he was very interested in preventing Trump from winning the national election. There's also mention of a conflict of interest: a deputy attorney general who worked with those pursuing an investigation of Carter Page was married to a woman who worked for Fusion GPS, the research group paid by the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump.
This all seems very damning at first blush. The Nunes memo is the party's attempt to derail the FBI's ongoing investigation of the Trump campaign and its involvement with Russian meddling in the presidential election. But there's a lot missing from the memo. The facts are cherry-picked to present a very one-sided view of the situation.
The rebuttal letter [PDF] from Democratic legislators is similarly one-sided. But adding both together, you can almost assemble a complete picture of the FBI's actions. The rebuttal points out Christopher Steele had no idea who was funding his research beyond Fusion GPS. It also points out the dirt-digging mission was originally commissioned by the Washington Free Beacon, a right-leaning DC press entity.
It also points out something about the paperwork needed to request a FISA warrant. To secure a renewal, the FBI would have to show it had obtained evidence of value with the previous warrant. If it can't, it's unlikely the renewal request would be approved by FBI directors and/or US attorneys general. The multiple renewals suggest the FBI had actually obtained enough evidence of Carter Page's illicit dealings with the Russians to sustain an ongoing investigation.
Beyond that, there's the fact that Devin Nunes -- despite spending days threatening to release this "damning" memo -- never bothered to view the original documents underlying his assertions of FBI bias. In an interview with Fox News after the memo's release, Nunes admitted he had not read the FBI's warrant applications. So, the assertions are being made with very limited info. Nunes apparently heard the Steele dossier was involved and that was all he needed to compile a list of reasons to fire current Trump nemesis Robert Mueller... disguised as a complaint about improper surveillance.
It's this complaint about abuse of surveillance powers that really chafes. Nunes throttled attempts at Section 702 reform last month and now wants to express his concerns that the FBI and FISA court may not be protecting Americans quite as well as they should. Marcy Wheeler has a long, righteously angry piece at Huffington Post detailing the rank hypocrisy of Nunes' self-serving memo.
Because Nunes and others ― up to and including House Speaker Paul Ryan ― claimed to be motivated by a concern about civil liberties, it was generally assumed the privacy community would join the clamor. But those of us who’ve been through several surveillance fights with these posers know the reality is far more complex. Ultimately, two principles are at issue: the rule of law and privacy. In both instances, Nunes and Ryan are on the wrong side of the issue.
[...]
A mere three weeks ago, Nunes and Ryan were happy to have Americans surveilled with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. Back then, Ryan backed suspicionless, warrantless searches of Americans as a necessary trade off. “This [bill] strikes the balance that we must have between honoring and protecting privacy rights of U.S. citizens, honoring civil liberties, and making sure that we have the tools we need in this day and age of 21st century terrorism to keep our people safe.”
Today, however, when a former Trump campaign adviser is at issue, Nunes and Ryan have discovered the due process they personally refused for so many Americans.
This isn't Devin Nunes' first ride on the surveillance hypocrisy merry-go-round. Just like Dianne Feinstein on the other side of the political aisle, Nunes doesn't give two shits about domestic surveillance unless it's being used against him and his. Somehow, Nunes believes libertarians and anti-surveillance progressives will join him in his excoriation of the FBI and its alleged abuse of domestic surveillance powers. But he's not going to win any converts. The hill Nunes has chosen to die on with this memo is this: the law should protect the powerful from questionable snooping. It has nothing to say about the marginalized groups targeted most frequently by security agencies and law enforcement.
Every single privacy activist I know cares about privacy in significant part to ensure the rule of law and to prevent the arbitrary exercise of justice to focus just on select groups like Muslims or Chinese-Americans, rather than those who pose the greatest risk to society, like people allegedly doing Russia’s secret bidding. Yet the actions of Ryan and Nunes reverse that, using a sham concern for civil liberties as a way to prevent themselves, their associates, and the president from being subject to the rule of law like the rest of us would be.
Moving beyond that, there's the damage done to the FBI by the president and the party that follows him. Trump proclaimed himself a "law and order" president and stated he would always have law enforcement's back. But he's spent most of his time in the White House battling the FBI and DOJ, hoping to make investigations into his campaign's questionable relationship with Russia vanish. He wasted no time alienating the FBI simply because its former director wouldn't give him a pledge of loyalty.
Now, with Nunes releasing a completely unredacted memo, the FBI will suffer even more harm. The agency now knows its sources might be exposed for purely political reasons. Very few people will work with the FBI knowing their names might be splashed all over documents released voluntarily by intelligence oversight committee members. This administration has made it clear no one is safe from public disclosure, even as it does everything it can to shut down unauthorized leaks. Again, the hypocrisy is undeniable. While every administration desires to control the narrative, few have been this transparent about their motives.
There should be no rush to lionize the FBI and the officials Trump has discarded because of perceived lack of loyalty. The FBI is no better than it was before Trump took office. It's no champion of civil liberties and it is in the wrong position to pretend to speak truth to power simply by continuing to exist. Abuse of surveillance powers is a very real thing and the FBI remains one of the worst offenders. The memo is Nunes photoshopping a bunch of smoke over a small, ordinary flame and claiming it's photographic evidence of the FBI's antipathy towards Trump. If abuse occurred under Nunes' watch, then it should be called out. But laying bare the details of an ongoing investigation just to score political points is a terrible abuse of Nunes' oversight powers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: devin nunes, fisa, fisa court, fisa warrant, russia, russia investigation, surveillance
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Two key points from the Nunes memo
In a stunning case of "own goal", the very end of the memo points out that the FBI had an investigation going long before the Steele memo (which isn't a memo at all, but a series of reports) came along. There are two reasons that the FBI paid attention to the Steele memo: (1) Steele has a reputation, a very good one, along with lots of experience and a sizable network of contacts (2) the contents of Steele documents matched things THEY ALREADY KNEW TO BE TRUE.The second point bears some explanation, because most of you don't have jobs that require the assessment of raw intelligence that comes from multiple people who may be omitting things or fabricating things or deliberately embedding some truth in a web of lies. The Steele memo is just that kind of raw intelligence, which is why -- if you take the time to read it -- you'll notice that Steele himself points out the possible presence of these issues.
But when you get your hands on raw intelligence, and it gives you -- let's say -- 100 facts that you can check, and you find that 82 of them are true, 16 are unverifiable, and 2 are false -- then you have good reason to think that at least some of those 16 are worth further investigation because they may well turn out to be true. That's why you get a warrant: first, to re-re-re-verify the 82 and second, to find out about those 16. That's your JOB.
Then of course you have to make some progress. Because if you don't, then you're not going to get multiple judges to renew your warrant multiple times. You might still not be able to check all 16 of those outstanding items, but if you can check 4 and make progress on 7, then you're getting there and it's reasonable for a judge to grant more time. If you can't check any of them, then maybe you're barking up the wrong tree and the warrant you seek isn't going to help anyway.
One more thing. This isn't an edge case. Anyone who goes out of their way to pal around with intelligence agents from another country, even a friendly one, should expect that they're going to get surveilled: by us, by them, and by third parties who are of course interested in such things for reasons of their own. And anyone who openly brags about it should REALLY expect scrutiny. I have no great love for the FBI, but in this case, they did exactly what any sensible organization should do: start watching people who are heavily interacting with known agents of a hostile foreign power.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hypocrisy thick enough to build a house with
Gotta love how some of the same people who were perfectly fine with warrantless surveillance of domestic data are now feigning shock that someone who was already under an investigation looking into the target's ties to another country had the investigation re-authorized for another period of time under a process that apparently requires them to demonstrate that it was productive and finding something.
Scoop up domestic communications just in case? Not a problem, no, no need to bother with a warrant, that's just excessive and helps no one but criminals, terrorists and commies.
Continue to investigate someone close to someone in power? Oh you better believe that's not acceptable.
It's a blatant attempt to screw with another ongoing investigation, a move positively ripe with hypocrisy, and I can only hope it blows up in their faces in epic fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Yup, only the target matters to Techdirt, not principle.
Just look at this aspect some clever person noticed: Steele claimed to have info direct from the Kremlin on a super secret highly valuable Rooski plot, which Putin personally would want to find who leaked. No trouble, just asked his old pals. -- NOTHING about this fabrication stands the laugh test.
Keep digging this hole, kids. Likely to be indictments with people going to jail, and then you'll have new martyrs to re-write NYT pieces on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Ambiguous. MUCH comes easy to me that's difficult to impossible for YOU.
However, assuming it's not a compliment: WHAT'S THE LIE? STATE IT PLAINLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
State what that proves for the "Trump-Russia" allegations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
That your last one-liner? Not going to at all address topic?
[ To others: I've been commenting here off and on for about six years, 5000 or so comments, and yet the fanboys STILL do the same trivial one-liners, usually with vile ad hom, in response. ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Huh? Steele's fabrications, THE MEMO and specifics in it relating to FBI / Deep State falsifying to FISA court aren't a "topic"?
Oh, I get ya now. You're just here for ad hom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
full blinders of the never trumpers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The head of the FBI is Trump appointee Christopher Wray, who Trump said is "a man of impeccable credentials." Wray himself says that the Republican House memo is false and misleading.
The renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant was done by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General appointed by Trump. Trump said that Rosenstein is "highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. Democrats like him; the Republicans like him." He worked on Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary’s real estate dealings.
Rosenstein wrote the memo for Trump that Trump used to fire James Comey. Comey is a registered Republican who served in the Bush Administration and donated to the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney.
All 11 FISA judges were appointed by Republican appointee John Roberts
Robert Mueller is a Republican, appointed the Director of the FBI by President George W. Bush in 2001.
Yeah, the lefties really stacked the deck there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
alas, we have two sets of laws... this memo makes it clear but won't change anything. cockroaches throughout this rooted system.
UN-CLASSIFY EVERYTHING and let the chips fall where they will... NO MORE SECRETS... THE POWER SYSTEM IS CORRUPT TO ITS CORE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Not being a Trump sycophant does not make one a "lefty."
Accusations from Trump staff are not the same as facts. The memo makes clear only that they're as partisan as expected.
Uh huh. Just like your crowd was demanding #ReleaseTheMemo. And (see the First Word post) it's turned into an "own goal."
Criminal investigations don't broadcast all their evidence. At least not before it's presented in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Mueller is a Deep State spook / operative / fixer.
There you go again with the simplistic and false distinctiion whether The Establishment front persons have R or D by name. Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt tap dancing
//////
Yawn. A hypocrite congressman -- is there any other kind? But heavily attacking the Nunez messenger here does not refute his message/Memo.
TD is way too quick to trumpet the Democrat Party disinformation -- the Nunez Memo indeed showed serious FBI/DOJ criminality in this specific instance. That such FBI/DOJ criminality has been routine for decades is not justification to ignore it here.
Dismissing this episode as mere routine partisan politics is severely disingenuous.
The FISA Court was created specifically to counter very serious FBI/CIA/NSA criminality discovered by Congress in the 1970's -- therefore, that court, Congress, the President, and American public should not give the FBI even the slightest trust or leeway here. Plus, if Carter Page was a 'legitimate' suspect, FBI should have just gone to a normal court for its warrant request.
If anybody here has hard factual evidence negating the substance or implications of the Nunez Memo -- let's here it here loud and CLEAR. (skip the endless URL links to speculative commentary)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
bzzt
There's no such thing as "the Democrat Party" (at least not in the USA). It's "the Democratic Party".
"Democrat" is a noun; the adjective is "Democratic". The confusion arises because "Republican" is both a noun and an adjective. (Compare vs. the nouns "democracy" and "republic".)
By using "Democrat" as an adjective in this way, you give yourself away as having a right-wing bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
Plus, every single other thing about his post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
Sheesh. That doesn't matter right now.
OH MY GOD! THE WORST CRIME OF ALL! A PERSON WITH "RIGHT-WING BIAS" AT TECHDIRT! -- CALL CNN AND GET THIS STORY OUT!
Try addressing THE TOPIC, which is the FBI knowingly went to FISA court with a "dossier" knew was paid-for and is laughably false, as if this Steele was getting Putin's best secret straight from his pals.
Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
(Well, maybe a crime against grammar, but that has nothing to do with the bias.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
They actually need to be "democratic" to actually be "democratic" not just acting like they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
But heavily attacking the Nunez messenger here does not refute his message/Memo.
I'd say the fact that he admitted that he hadn't actually read the document the memo was 'based upon' does that nicely. In the same way that I wouldn't put any weight into a movie review done by someone who admitted that they hadn't actually watched the movie, why would I or anyone else give any weight to a memo written by someone who didn't even bother to read the source material?
Dismissing this episode as mere routine partisan politics is severely disingenuous.
I'd argue that anyone claiming that releasing the memo isn't politically motivated is being far more disingenuous. The same people that had no problem authorizing even more extensive surveillance of the american public now decide that surveillance of a single person is a problem for some mysterious reason? Now they care about surveillance and issues related to it? I'm not buying it, and I don't see why anyone would.
This is pretty clearly yet another attempt to get rid of the investigation that's plagued Trump from day one by painting the FBI as compromised and therefore too biased to investigate him or those around him, and while I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that the agency is filled with paragons of virtue(or even not heavily flawed and with serious problems), trying to kill it off via an underhanded trick like this is not helping.
If anybody here has hard factual evidence negating the substance or implications of the Nunez Memo -- let's here it here loud and CLEAR. (skip the endless URL links to speculative commentary)
So provide what is almost certainly classified information currently held by the FBI? No problem, I'm sure they'll be happy to make such information public so long as someone makes sure to say 'pretty please' in their request for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
And I'm in Phoenix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
YES. Because facts will get rid of THAT investigation.
If you're going to discuss THE MEMO, you might start with that Steele claimed to have info direct from Putin's close pals in the Kremlin, who blithely blurted highly valuable secret just by being asked!
Oh, and actually, Steele didn't even communicate with anyone in the Kremlin, it's all fabricated.
So you are FOR investigating Trump based on known fabrication.
And you are AGAINST investigating how FBI / DNC created it all out of the blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
So you are FOR investigating Trump based on known fabrication.
No. I'm for investigating him because he's a lying piece of shit. Him, his mail-order whore, and those scumbag kids - all of them.
Sometimes you're judged by the company you keep. And it sure looks like a lot of his company was talking a lot with Russia.
Don't want to get on the FBI's radar? Don't talk to Russian operatives. It's as simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt tap dancing
Now watch, in the future it will come to light she was more heavily involved than we know just because I defended her here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Double Yawn
Most folks will continue to view the claims and accusations of the politicians and the investigators through their own partisan lens. Techdirt has at least done a decent job of discrediting the more outlandish claims that Trump has been vindicated or that this is a smoking gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
**Sheesh. READ THE MEMO! Not your notion, or Techdirt's diversion, but READ IT.
The FBI KNEW WAS PAID-FOR AND LAUGHABLE ON THE SURFACE (secrets direct from Kremlin!), THEN STILL USED IT WITH FISA COURT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Just to be doubly clear, I think Trump, Nunez, and most Republicans are pathetic on surveillance issues. Just like Obama, Feinstein, and most Democrats. Ditto the FBI. Nevertheless, if it turns out a federal agency was using marginal intel to get FISA approval for spying on Americans (and not telling the Court what it knew about the dubiousness of the intel), then heads should roll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
In this case the police already had the neighbor's house under surveillance before getting that questionable intelligence. The questionable intelligence came not just from someone with an axe to grind, but families who wanted an intervention. (The Trump dossier was commissioned first by Republicans, and then by Democrats.)
The police are on record telling the judge that the new intelligence was questionable, but they already had plenty of other intelligence.
Far from not finding anything when they busted down the door, they've already made a couple arrests and are being seen carting meth lab equipment out the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Let's see if I've got this straight:
No FISA warrants "were paid for" by an opposition candidate.
Steele's Fusion GPS Trump dossier on the other hand was paid for. First by Republicans, and then by Democrats.
Accusations in it were investigated by the FBI....
...but the FBI investigation isn't based on it. There's a mountain of evidence from other sources.
Investigating such accusations - even when privately funded - is normal. For example Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI based on the partisan hit piece Clinton Cash, written by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer and commissioned by Trump Campaign Manager Steve Bannon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Nope. You made up your story, there.
THE MEMO IS THE MEMO.
Sheesh. READ THE MEMO! Not your notion, or Techdirt's diversion, but READ IT.
The FBI KNEW WAS PAID-FOR AND LAUGHABLE ON THE SURFACE (secrets direct from Kremlin!), THEN STILL USED IT WITH FISA COURT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Heck, I didn't even try soon as saw it's not apposite!
Yeah, a WHOLE HAYSTACK. Every direction I take a grasp, there's the Deep State in cahoots with Hillary / DNC, trying to sway the election with the FALSE "Trump-Russia" story that was fabricated by Steele following a prior outline! NOT A BIT OF either story at all verified.
State just ONE part of the Steele dossier which is fact.
You kids are just blind to facts. You want SO much to pin anything on Trump. THE MEMO SAYS THAT THE FBI KNEW IT WAS ALL FALSE. Didn't pass my laugh test, but FBI took it to FISA. THAT'S CRIMINAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
I don't like Trump but there's enough stuff he's actually done to complain about; there's no good reason to make stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Again ambiguous. Are you agreeing and laughing at the feeble netwits of Techdirt? ... Since is only three characters, I think most likely is a Techdirt fanboy, compelled like a barking rat to make some response, yet unable to come up with an entire on-topic sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Well, MY efforts don't at all affect this.
There are more memos in the pipeline. Though you and the MSM will try to laugh it off, this has substance and specifics.
You probably expected Hillary to win the election, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
Why? Do you have some criminal liability in this? Explain.
You're not even capable of dealing with the topic. You're firing off one-liners to avoid it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant
That this continually gets brought up annoys me. It doesn't matter *who* funded what. What matters is whether the source of the funding was hidden from the FISA court, and whether hiding the source is an abuse of power (or not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irrelevant
I'd prefer to spend my effort addressing PaulT's comment, which I feel is more intelligent, so I'm just gonna take the easy way out and say, what part of the above quotation from the article you linked to screams "FACTS!" to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irrelevant
Since you have to know who funded what in order to know whether power is being abused, it absolutely matters who funded what. You can't know if power is abused in an action if you don't know the identity of the actor.
Impressive. You actually disproved your own claim in the very next sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irrelevant
Typical. You make no sense.
NO, the sheer fact that the "intelligence" was PAID-FOR means it's unreliable to start with. WHO PAID does NOT matter. I say that regardless whether "R" or "D" by their name, while you are implying that if those on your side pay, then it's fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Well, sure. That's why it's called an investigation, and opposed to a blind acceptance. With a mountain of evidence from other sources, there's no need to blindly accept the report's contents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Typical. You give me no reason why, just wave it away. I did use a couple of 3 syllable words, want me to tone it down a notch?
"NO, the sheer fact that the "intelligence" was PAID-FOR means it's unreliable to start with."
The comment I was referring to was literally about the fact that it was paid for, and that was the subject of my response. Again, do you need us to tone it down so the slow children can catch up? You don't seem to be following this conversation at all.
"while you are implying that if those on your side pay, then it's fine."
Only to ranting idiots. What I said was simply that you have to know who the source of funding was to know if there was a conflict of interest. That applies no matter which team your immature mind thinks you're on, or even if an outside 3rd party does it
I'm sorry that you're too dumb to follow any of the points raised here and instead have to erect imaginary targets to attack. Life must be hard being so angry and stupid all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Why would anyone complain? Corporations BUY slanted reports -- yet can still be true, and I believe that those are!
Do you complain when Google pays for Masnick's opinion here at Techdirt?
Google "sponsors" Masnick:
https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Yes it is typical of you, and so long as you're diverting, that'll be my typical response.
THE TOPIC is whether the FBI knowingly went to FISA court with a "dodgy dossier", in order to swing the election to Hillary.
Try looking at your browser tab and then the large headline at top: that is THE TOPIC, not your silly diversioning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
"Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About"
Huh. That doesn't say what you just claimed it did. Strange. I mean, it's related, but it's not the subject you just claimed it was.
I will notice that you interjected in a conversation with someone else about the question of whether you need to know the identity of someone paying for intelligence in order to know if there was a conflict of interest. I said it was necessary, no matter who was paying for it. You then ranted at me about things not related.
Are you confused again? Need to take your pills yet, you're losing it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
> Only to ranting idiots
I interpreted it similarly, which is why I sought to detatch the source of funding from the issue at hand: whether the FISA application was valid. If obscuring the funding was inappropriate than it doesn't matter who funded. It just matters that it was obscured.
PaulT, please refrain from ad-hominem attacks (i.e., "ranting idiots"). They are, believe it or not, *fallacies of irrelevance*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
NO, the sheer fact that the "intelligence" was PAID-FOR means it's unreliable to start with.
Yeah, so every paid informant in the country is now unusable in any criminal investigation, if you want to apply that standard.
You people really are uneducated, and that's sad. That being said, I hope you actually get what you wish for - it'll be a field day blaming you tards for a sharp uptick in crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Wait a second, smarty-pants! I DO WANT TO APPLY THAT STANDARD!
You're just making up claims of what I believe. Where I come from that's LYING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Wait a second, smarty-pants! I DO WANT TO APPLY THAT STANDARD!
OK.
You're just making up claims of what I believe. Where I come from that's LYING.
Wait, I'm lying now? Tell the voices in your head "one at a time, please."
(And you wonder why we laugh and call you "uneducated")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
That IS a lie.
This is another lie.
And it's crude ad hominem.
And it's OFF-TOPIC, just diversion from topic.
THE TOPIC is whether FBI knowingly went to FISA court with "dodgy dossier" to investigate and smear Trump and thereby throw the election, and then to destroy him him in office.
Those are HIGH CRIMES that deserve hanging. All you have to counter the facts is ad hom at me. You will not "win" this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
That IS a lie.
You're not any less full of shit just because you're mastered the art of repeating yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
No, he asked if you wanted to apply the standard, to which your answer should be a reasonable "yes" if you believe what you just said. But, instead, you ranted again about people saying what their words clearly do not say.
Is that nice man in the white coat due to visit your room and give your meds soon? The entertainment value is slowing and I don't like to see the mentally impaired suffer more than they have to from their emotional anguish.,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Oh, more simplistic ad hom.
And I'm supposed to take you seriously?
How much longer are you going on this topic? Because I'm wearied and ready to quit. You clowns haven't written any point of substance.
IF the FBI went to FISA court with known false info, are you concerned? Yes or no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
If you would like to offer something of value to respond to, I'll be happy not to mock you. As it is, the comment I responded to was a self-absorbed whine addressing something different to what I'd said in the previous post. My choices were ignore it, defend with facts or spend the last half hour of my work shift taking the piss out of someone acting like a deranged moron, and I was in the mood to engage the clown.
"IF the FBI went to FISA court with known false info, are you concerned?"
The internal politics of foreign countries are reasonable sideshow entertainment, but not something that actually concerns me. I am concerned about the reaction of the orange idiot you have antagonising other countries' leaders on Twitter during his 4am bathroom trips, but that's not directly related.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
IF the FBI went to FISA court with known false info, are you concerned? Yes or no?
I'll tell you what I'm concerned with - that your whole fucking bullshit argument is based on a NY Post OPINION piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
I DO WANT TO APPLY THAT STANDARD!
So if you do want to apply the standard he pointed out, he's not lying anymore.
You really do NOT think these rants through, do you blue boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irrelevant
Maybe, but in this case, the funder is irrelevant. The issue I'm trying to figure out is whether or not the DOJ/FBI/LOL/WTF/BBQ is allowed to hide certain information in their FISA application.
Let me be clear here. None of us have access to the underlying info, so it's all BS at this point anyway. It's he-said, she-said, partisan bickering.
But I'm playing with hypotheticals.
If the 3-letter-guys are not allowed to withhold a certain type of information, such as the funding used to gather evidence used to create the FISA application, then it doesn't matter who funded it. It just matters that they hid the information.
I shouldn't have used the term "abuse of power". I should've questioned whether or not the FISA process was done correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irrelevant
How does the first sentence disprove the second sentence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
In any case the source of the funding wasn't hidden from the FISA court. That's a false narrative from the Trump crowd.
Washington Post: Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
The GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
Now, there's not a BIT in that which could reasonably be banned except by a rabid partisan.
So of course it was "hidden" here at "free speech" Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I don't want you to be misinformed even more than you already are, so make no mistake, people just don't like YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Why do you kids ALWAYS substitute another word?
I used "hidden" because it's accurate. Is it NOT "hidden" to you?
> I don't want you to be misinformed even more than you already are, so make no mistake, people just don't like YOU.
OH MY GOD! All is now clear. NO WONDER I've had thousands of posts hidden here. You don't like me. Dang. What a sap I've been.
[ TO ANYONE REASONABLE READING, IF ANY, WHICH I DOUBT: this is about the limit for Techdirt fanboys. Don't waste your time engaging them. You may as well talk at a barking rat. ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
That was discussion AND THEN I wrote that it's "hidden" here at Techdirt, its own unique (far as I've ever seen) sly cheaty, chicken way of disadvantaging dissenters.
---
And of course YOUR goal is to bury and divert discussion any way can. And the only way you're capable of is off-topic drivel that actually TAKES away the little value there is in your precious Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
No, please: TELL me why! I'm too stupid, by your own statements.
I'm so stupid that I've become sure it's because Techdirt discriminates against viewpoints. Doesn't matter what words I use or how.
I've been told directly by Masnick that ME being called an "ignorant motherfucker" is just a joke. But OH, my god, LINK to another site with different opinion! HIDE IT QUICK!
Techdirt only pretends to be a neutral "platform", but is in fact a partisan: SNEAKILY, behind the scenes. Techdirt won't even admit that an administrator okays the "hiding"!
And again, for anyone reasonable: you will NOT find on Techdirt even ONE fanboy comment which has been hidden. It's ALWAYS to disadvantage dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
No, just ranting idiots, trolls and spammers. Given that you seem to believe what you spew and you don't try to sell anything, you're in the first category.
"Doesn't matter what words I use or how."
Absolutely it does. Try posting in a manner that doesn't read as "ranting idiot" and see how it comes across. I know it's hard for you, being all ranty and idioty, but get one of the orderlies in your institution's ward to help you out, you might be surprised at the results.
"Techdirt won't even admit that an administrator okays the "hiding"
Because they don't hire one? The spam filter you rant and rave about combined with the votes of the community you regularly abuse are not a single human being, no matter how much it feeds your persecution complex to pretend they are.
But, it doesn't matter. Yet again, no matter what your original point was, all that's left is a childish dick whining about things that don't really exist, while his original point is buried beneath the weight of people mocking his mental affliction. Sad, but you do bring this upon yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
EVERY dissenter here brings it on themself! Anyone with brains or sense avoids this cesspit. It can be fun to make ankle-biters howl, but it's pointless.
You've now spammed the site with yet more empty ad hom that accomplishes nothing. Have anything on topic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Well, you're here, so even by your own words you're a lesser human being. I won't rise to your silly bait, I'll just note that your attempt at insulting me covered yourself particularly well.
"You've now spammed the site"
I responded to a small proportion of the messages you wrote. So, if I'm spamming then you truly are doing so at a much greater rate. Thus, since spamming is expressly against the community rules here and is a stated reason for reporting posts, you therefore admit that the "censorship" you constantly whine about is completely justified by your own behaviour.
Again, your childish flailing makes you look worse than any of the people you try to attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
""You've now spammed the site"
I responded to a small proportion of the messages you wrote. So, if I'm spamming then you truly are doing so at a much greater rate."
I read about a plaintiff who accused his defendant victim of making "excessive unnecessary filings" and should be sanctioned for inflating the docket. In reality, the defendant's filings were his replies to the plaintiff's (truly unnecessary, filled with irrelevant claims and ad-hominems) filings. But of course the plaintiff was operating under the belief that any opposition from his victim is an undeserved attack on himself, and thus any attempt to defend oneself against his lawsuit's many spurious claims must be done solely out of malice against him. Narcissostic sociopaths are like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I think the troll in this case is reasoning something like:
Several of those points seem questionable, but I can see how it could hold together internally, with the right mindset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
For someone who claims to be a reasonable person, he does seem to spend a lot of time emotionally invested in a site that neither wants him nor has any value to anybody else (according to him).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Uh, yeah, I wrote that, and here YOU are, not noticing that if true, it includes YOU. Sheesh. Netwit with zero self-awareness. A barking rat has more substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
But I presume that you do (or else why would you have stated it?), and the premise doesn't include any exceptions which would cover you, so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Anyone with brains or sense avoids this cesspit.
So you're here because you have no brains or sense? Glad to see you're finally recognizing what we have already pointed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Anyone with brains or sense avoids this cesspit.
And your inability to see yourself immersed in that cesspit is WHY it's a cesspit. YOU are the feces, I'm just a fool who fell in.
I can go on like this all day, kids, proving that I do snark better than you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I can go on like this all day, kids, proving that I do snark better than you...
Yeah, cause nothing spells out "I'm intelligent!" like someone who points out what a shithole a site is, then continues posting on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
It has been my experience that people trying to silence or flag others are trying to hide from a truth that makes them uncomfortable.
So... which truth in the drivel is upsetting to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
So if you don't want to be flagged/hidden, be nice, post some solid facts to back up your claims, and when someone posts evidence that contradicts your evidence, figure out why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Because of that drivel you keep getting hidden. The community doesn't want to be distracted by ridiculous statements from someone, especially one that has constantly proven he/she will not even attempt to investigate or logically reason out his/her opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
The loss of Hamilton and MyNameHere really left a gaping hole in the tar pit you call a heart, didn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I would! -- But that doesn't mean I like the gov't of China.
Er, thing about tar pits is that the tar flows and fills again.
But why would you think I note their loss? (I did check MyNameHere's account just a while ago, so LIKELY this is an administrator who saw that check. WHY ELSE this comment from out of the blue?)
Anyhoo, NO! I advise every reasonable person to FLEE this cesspit you call a tech site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Wait, are you admitting that he's your alt? If not, I'd not bother. That particular failure has openly admitted to signing out when making comments just to get a reaction from this community. He's not honest enough to let people keep track of his posting history, even similar cowards such as yourself.
"WHY ELSE this comment from out of the blue?"
Huh, that's one of your idiot brethren I don't see here.
"I advise every reasonable person to FLEE this cesspit you call a tech site.":
We'd rather if the unreasonable people do that instead and leave the reasonable ones to have adult conversation on the matters that are actually happening. Could you do that, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
No, you're delusional paranoid as usual.
Er, show how me that's done: try stating something on topic, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I merely asked a question. If you look up the meaning of those words in a dictionary, you'll find that they apply far more to your reaction than to what I said.
"Er, show how me that's done"
Easy, refrain from commenting on this site if you're not going to be one of the reasonable people. If you need examples, go to any thread where you are not present, you'll usually find the conversations far more reasonable.
"try stating something on topic"
I've responded directly to the words you've typed, and kept them within the topic you were discussing. It's not my fault that your topic was whining about this community rather discussing than any facts at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
And... I'm not allowed the privilege of responding to ad hom, right?
I've raised the topic of the FBI knowingly taking false info to the FISA court, and THIS irrelevant drivel is actually your response to THAT topic which is in the headline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Of course you are. But, your question was how do you get the reasonable people to have adult conversation without the unreasonable people derailing things. The easy answer is for the unreasonable ones to leave. Since you are playing an unreasonable person, your choices are to leave, be reasonable, or put up with people mocking the idiot in the room. Your choice.
"I've raised the topic of the FBI knowingly taking false info to the FISA court"
...and done a lot of stupid crap in the thread in the meantime so that, even if the things you mentioned are as relevant as you believe, you derailed the conversation away from them with your own actions,.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
So long as it's against Google there's no cock you won't suck. Hell, Kim Jong-Un could rape you with an atomic bomb and you'd gladly take it just for a meaningless swipe at Google.
How's that SOPA fund working out for you, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I'm not fleeing, am I? What's your definition of fleeing? I've been wallowing here off and on since 2010.
And yet you kids STILL do this ridiculous ad hom. It's ALL you've got.
FINE IRRATIONAL complete non-sequitor two paragraphs there. Congrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I'm not fleeing, am I? What's your definition of fleeing? I've been wallowing here off and on since 2010.
No shit? Nobody's denying that. Anyone functioning human with half a brain can identify you like a sore thumb.
I suspect my definition of "fleeing" is the same as yours - you demand that others leave a site, which you advise leaving, yet refuse to leave. You're not one for sarcasm, are you? Hardly surprising from the Prenda advocate.
If it meant that you'd get to piss in the general direction of Google you'd let China and the NSA stick their surveillance up your rectum, but it's not surprising. Copyright types like you have some freaky sexual deviations, just like MyNameHere's love affair with Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Er, that's not "fleeing". I'm still here, aren't I? Let me check... Yup, still here!
Another word you don't understand. This IS sarcasm. Oh, I make points, like asking all whether they'll address the topic, which is that the FBI knowingly went to FISA court with false information, but none of you kids have yet taken that up.
This is a LIE. I've never even defended ANY lawyer here. You are simply associating my defense of copyright with any and every bad person. Again, for the record, on the notion that some reasonable person will ever read this, I've stated that those particular lying lawyers should be HUNG.
Good ad hom! MORE OF THIS DISTRACTING DRIVEL. IT SO HELPS THE SITE. (And I'm being SARCASTIC, since you state that's beyond you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Er, that's not "fleeing". I'm still here, aren't I? Let me check... Yup, still here!
Yup, so your brains and sense haven't arrived yet?
(I predict a dozen or so more posts before the inevitable "I've got better things to do than defend my indefensible whatever the fuck I mean." post)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
The departure of MyNameHere and Hamilton seems to have driven out_of_the_blue absolutely mad with grief, given how much overtime he's putting in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Let me check... Yup, still here!
Precisely the point. You're still here, which makes you shit at fleeing a site you demand that others flee.
Keep running around biting your own tail and mistaking it for intercourse. It's barely passes the muster for pity.
I've never even defended ANY lawyer here
John Steele, Evan Stone, Keith Lipscomb, Monique Wadsted...
You are simply associating my defense of copyright with any and every bad person
Funny how every time there's a defense of copyright you cocksuckers can't find a single decent individual to back you up. Again, shooting a foot into the whole "the populace demands, nay, BEGS for infinite copyright" notion you love to parade around so much.
I've stated that those particular lying lawyers should be HUNG
So you'd be all for a lack of copyright enforcement, then.
Keep drinking that Cary Sherman pale ale, blue. Maybe he'll actually extend copyright lengths on your behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
I'm not fleeing, am I?
No. you're here because you have no brains or sense.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180203/17114939148/devin-nunes-releases-memo-that-doesnt- show-surveillance-abuses-he-hypocritically-cares-about.shtml#c537
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Well, when somebody covers the thread in ridiculous comments that have nothing to do with the subject of the actual conversation, what else do we have to add? Facts and logic don't work. Hiding your comments just makes you rant about them being hidden. Ignoring you hasn't made you go away. So, surely we might as well have fun with your inherent comedy value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
NOTHING! You add not one bit of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
It's not much, but it's more value than you've ever attempted to add.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
> It's not much, but it's more value than you've ever attempted to add.
Oooh, burned ME! Gosh, no one has EVER in history of teh internets, been SO put down!
Anything on topic, though, smartypants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Repeating: you add NOTHING -- well, except bytes to the page. No information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
Derp State is inside the electorate.
Both are well represented. It's sorta why you keep getting fucked over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt HIDING THE LINK. HERE IT IS AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is assuming that the actors that demanded the fisa autorization didnt simply lie and that the court didn't just blanket authorize the surveillance as they usually do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Going by that, even if warrants under both involve the same process (which is not necessarily guaranteed), that would just mean that the legislation which Nunes recently voted to reauthorize does not actually contain the process which was used in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The kicker is, of the two the one he voted to reauthorize is worse, as it has less checks and balances. Title I at least requires some review of the surveillance conducted, whereas Title VII surveillance doesn't even necessarily require a warrant, and includes a slew of other problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't see how the fact that he voted or not to reauthorize a process that was abused during the campaign is relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"material omissions of fact."
Doesnt say what is in there is false. Just says that there are some omissions of fact.okay...So no, the FBI isnt arguging about the validity of information of said document as it was released...catch that..
A small nuance maybe, but an important one...
My question is...so why not fill in the blanks FBI..?
Give us the complete picture...remove the impetus for the partisian bitching..(not that that would stop some people of course)..Either prove potus right or wrong..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because the information which would be necessary in order to fill in those blanks is classified, meaning that the FBI is forbidden to release it.
Just as information which is contained in the Nunes memo was classified, until Trump decided to declassify that memo. (Which may not automatically declassify the underlying information for release in other forms; it probably should, but I no longer expect the logic surrounding classification to be sane.)
If you've missed this, you must not have been paying much attention to the (very public) debate preceding the release of the memo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
'On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter 'the Committee') voted to disclose publicly a memorandum containing classified information provided to the Committee in connection with its oversight activities (the 'Memorandum', which is attached to this letter).'
The memo itself contained classified information, and as such it's a given that the document it was based upon(sorta, given Nunes didn't actually read it) also contains classified information, and as such any 'corrections' would involve release of similarly classified information.
To 'fill in the blanks' therefore would require the FBI to release classified information, and even assuming they can make that decision entirely on their own(which I doubt, but I'm not sure offhand), they'll still need to go through the process of figuring out what they can and can not afford to make public.
However, as the following quote seems to suggest, it's not that simple.
'The Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from it disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President's responsibility to classify, declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods and national defense.'
Assuming I'm reading that correct, and it's legally sound, the WH would have veto power over any attempt by the FBI to declassify evidence showing why and where the memo is flawed, so long as they determined that the release of such information would be harmful to 'intelligence source and methods and national defense'. Given the motivation for the memo's release, I think it's fairly safe to assume that such a veto would be a given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong as usual for city kid using rural phrase: "chomping at the bit" means READY to GO and WIN the race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/champ - see the verb definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you're one of those with the fancy French pronounciation*, eh?
I quoted, and that's the vernacular as I first heard, so there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
REPEATING the "hidden" comment just for fun:
Actually, I quoted, so entirely accurate, and in the vernacular I grew up in, with an "O" is the sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's NO written guidelines at Techdirt, so I simply CAN'T be violating any. It's just RANDOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two key points from the Nunes memo
The second point bears some explanation, because most of you don't have jobs that require the assessment of raw intelligence that comes from multiple people who may be omitting things or fabricating things or deliberately embedding some truth in a web of lies. The Steele memo is just that kind of raw intelligence, which is why -- if you take the time to read it -- you'll notice that Steele himself points out the possible presence of these issues.
But when you get your hands on raw intelligence, and it gives you -- let's say -- 100 facts that you can check, and you find that 82 of them are true, 16 are unverifiable, and 2 are false -- then you have good reason to think that at least some of those 16 are worth further investigation because they may well turn out to be true. That's why you get a warrant: first, to re-re-re-verify the 82 and second, to find out about those 16. That's your JOB.
Then of course you have to make some progress. Because if you don't, then you're not going to get multiple judges to renew your warrant multiple times. You might still not be able to check all 16 of those outstanding items, but if you can check 4 and make progress on 7, then you're getting there and it's reasonable for a judge to grant more time. If you can't check any of them, then maybe you're barking up the wrong tree and the warrant you seek isn't going to help anyway.
One more thing. This isn't an edge case. Anyone who goes out of their way to pal around with intelligence agents from another country, even a friendly one, should expect that they're going to get surveilled: by us, by them, and by third parties who are of course interested in such things for reasons of their own. And anyone who openly brags about it should REALLY expect scrutiny. I have no great love for the FBI, but in this case, they did exactly what any sensible organization should do: start watching people who are heavily interacting with known agents of a hostile foreign power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
AND YET, Hillary Clinton and the actual "Uranium One" scandal goes without notice from certain types!
You clowns can deny all you want, but FACT is that the FBI went to FISA with known FALSE and highly suspect "information", known to be paid-for, and that Steele is entirely rabid anti-Trumper.
This is an "AC" yet got "First Word", eh? -- My conclusion is it's more behind-the-scenes control by Techdirt, just like all the hidden manipulation evidenced in THE MEMO.
Oooh, incoming! I'm outta this topic, kids! Ad hom away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
Hillary Clinton and the actual "Uranium One" scandal goes without notice from certain types!
Yup. As designed. Because no one would want Jon Huntsman who happens to be (wait for it...) Ambassador to Russia to come under scrutiny since he signed off on the deal while governor of Utah.
Seems like most of the dumb fucks who brought this horseshit up in the first place realized it would be a mistake, given the current political climate. Did you not get THE MEMO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
Incorrect. Those "certain types" had a look to see what the "Uranium One scandal" is about, and are still waiting for any evidence of wrong-doing by Hillary Clinton. Anything at all.
You've STILL never given any reason why - in an investigation that was already running - it was wrong to look into the report. From a source with such non-partisan credibility that its reports on Trump were commissioned by both Republicans and Democrats. You wouldn't take it on blind faith, but with a mountain of other sources and evidence there was no need to.
You've yet to explain how it invalidates all those other sources and evidence.
And since you drag Hillary into this, is it wrong to investigate the Uranium One deal because Republicans demanded it? Was it wrong for the FBI to investigate Hillary based on the partisan hit piece Clinton Cash, written by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer and commissioned by Trump Campaign Manager Steve Bannon?
Because you'd look damned hypocritical if you claim otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
Because that's NOT the topic! -- And I don't CARE! Irrelevant! It WAS looked into, even before I knew of it!
Topic is whether the FBI LOOKED INTO IT AND FOUND IT'S PAID-FOR CRAP. That's what I've said all along.
The FBI, after finding it's crap, and knowing, THEN went to FISA with it, using it as pretext for political witchhunt.
Now, you can divert and make up stuff all day. I know you're good at that, just from examples here.
But we don't matter. You aren't going to stop people by denying the facts, even less than I'll cheer them on to find the real criminals who made up and used a dodgy dossier.
You and MSM are using NOISE because it's all you've got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
You aren't going to stop people by denying the OPINIONS
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
That's a false narrative from the Trump crowd.
Washington Post: Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say
Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two key points from the Nunes memo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
101st comment this topic! 3 hours wasted.
I just note that only my first two comments were "hidden" (so far), proving that it's a Techdirt administrator making choice to hide, and gave up when I showed would stick around.
SNEAKY Techdirt. Full of ad hom, too. The kids love that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 101st comment this topic! 3 hours wasted.
I MAY wander off, so now you kids MAY be able to get in the last word...
And there it is!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180203/17114939148/devin-nunes-releases-memo-that-doesnt-show-s urveillance-abuses-he-hypocritically-cares-about.shtml#c1181
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 101st comment this topic! 3 hours wasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: null
FLEE! Even if you want your link taken, just FLEE! This is a cesspit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: null
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: null
WHO YET has a link from a major newspaper that Techdirt doesn't even want seen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: null
So go ahead, keep laughing. I often hear you folks whine like babies about how condescending I appear when I shove the truth in your faces. Now you know why I don't care about hurting your "widdle feewings" when I show how stupid you clowns are.
Just remember... laughing at the village idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: null
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: null
Would you like a quote from someone in particular? It's not like you are going to be smart enough to understand it or anything but I am happy to help!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: null
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
Cause the kids just love whack-a-mole. Hiding usually happens after I state am leaving, did this time.
Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
So Techdirt is OKAY with FISA warrants being paid for by opposition candidate, for "research" that duplicates prior outline, even though the FBI knew Steele hadn't actually talked to any informants, let alone from the Kremlin, and that it was paid-for.
Yup, only the target matters to Techdirt, not principle.
Just look at this aspect some clever person noticed: Steele claimed to have info direct from the Kremlin on a super secret highly valuable Rooski plot, which Putin personally would want to find who leaked. No trouble, just asked his old pals. -- NOTHING about this fabrication stands the laugh test.
Keep digging this hole, kids. Likely to be indictments with people going to jail, and then you'll have new martyrs to re-write NYT pieces on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
So Techdirt is OKAY with FISA warrants being paid for by opposition candidate
I'm sure the check for that payment is right next to the one from Mexico for the wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
THAT link is your proof?
So I take it you didn't notice the bright red box in the upper left corner that says OPINION?
An OPINION piece is your proof?
Thanks again for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you uneducated folks really are as stupid as the rest of us think you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
Is that your OPINION? Cause you just implied that OPINION means nothing! You netwits can NEVER look at yourselves, have near zero self-awareness.
It's opinion about FACTS. You're trying to overlook that there are even facts.
And why is Techdirt HIDING that if so meaningless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
Lemme tell you what...my OPINION is as worthless as the OPINION link you keep reposting.
Keep backing yourself into a corner dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
Thanks for permission I don't need!
Oh, you "educated" types are SO superior that think you can grant permission.
And you "educated" types don't see the futility of this back and forth, YOU are compelled to keep responding.
There. Now you go again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
I would like to point out a mistake you are making.
Just because they attended a class and got a piece of paper that says they did a good job regurgitating information they were fed does not mean that they were actually/properly/successfully educated.
A person can be exceptionally well educated without having attended a single hour of class in Kindergarten up to University.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
Actually, I've been letting "educated" stand in for "indoctrinated". There's basically ONE opinion allowed to graduates of Ivy League schools, though inversely more opinion with decreasing prestige of other colleges.
Masnick is just an average born 1-percenter, with Ivy League McEducation that cost his parents a bundle and has after 20 years resulted in a shrinking web-site where he spews. If hadn't been born rich, he'd be starving on the streets. If Google wasn't fiddled with subjective bias into the vaunted "algorithm", he wouldn't get even those alleged 27 Bangladeshi a day.
And with all his mighty talents and borrowed virtues, Techdirt / Masnick STILL has to sneakily hide comments behind the scenes. -- And yet to admit an administrator is at all involved!
Hoots all round to those who helped me today with rabid ad hom. You kids cannot just let me have my say, but insist on attacking, hiding, and then repeating if I dare to snark back. Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS THIRD TIME.
And you "educated" types don't see the futility of this back and forth, YOU are compelled to keep responding.
No more futile than you, with your "conclusive" link to an OPINION piece.
Keep fighting the good fight dumbass :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All of the hypocrisy and non of the shame
If it hurts the left, make it look like the right was doing something wrong. That said, I really don't see anything in this memo other than to clearly point out that deep state does exist "an open secret anyways" and that nothing serious actually happened here. It looks like business as usual to me.
The difference is that this time the Republicans are bitching about the word "classified" getting in their way.
I don't care either way, both sides deserve and have earned the complete disrespect of the other. Both harbor secrets from the citizens and are so full of shit that every time they vomit words the only people not puking are the ones eating that were already eating their shit to begin with!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All of the hypocrisy and non of the shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All of the hypocrisy and non of the shame
I can agree with that. The problem is that we need to get those that still think they on either of those rails to get off at the nearest stop and if one is not soon to go ahead and bail out while it is still moving before it completes de-railing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All of the hypocrisy and non of the shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The legacy media companies spent the last year filling the airwaves with hateful rhetoric for the current administration stating they had been illegally spied on. "He doesn't know what he's talking about! He's crazy! See he has mental deficiencies! He's a lier!"
Oops. The document lays out in legal terms that actually all that hot air has been materially wrong.
Relating to our analysis here, I get the impression that the hateful rhetoric of the last year has impacted your view of the topic Tim. The analysis is filled with the FUD disinformation being floated by legacy media to deflect from information that is beginning to come out. Due to how many headlines have been retracted by these legacy media companies in the last year, the credibility of these sources have become suspect. Go back three months and plot how many retractions and outright falsehoods have been floated out there. Portions of your argument that rely on these sources are going to come back and bite you in the ass as additional information comes to light.
That is just a little bit more than nothing. The memo is the first in a series that will be released in the coming weeks. It marks the transition point from a public relations campaign to when the legal and law enforcement end takes over. Techdirt has provided great coverage of complicated topics in the past, especially around law enforcement over-reach. Looking forward to a critical reflection on the biases impacting the lens through which we're reporting, and recalibration to reasoned objective analysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
Sounds like the claims in the dossier are something that needs to be investigated, maybe by a Federal Bureau of Investigation or something, just to be sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...
THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED "RAW".
And as is quite clear to anyone who actually read them, Steele's reports are just that. He's never claimed otherwise. He's never claimed that everything or anything in there is absolutely correct. That's not his job: his job is to gather raw intelligence and report it.
Then it becomes the job of other people to figure out how much of it is true and how much isn't. That's the "analysis" part.
And in this particular case, quite a bit of it matched up with what the FBI already knew -- from other sources. We don't know what those are. They might have been other people gathering raw intelligence. They might have been wiretaps. They might have been documents. They might have been agents' reports. We just don't know.
But when multiple independent enquiries all start telling you the same thing, you'd be a fool not to pay attention and investigate further. Which is exactly what the FBI did. That's what we pay them to do.
Pretty much all counterintelligence investigations work like this. The task is to sort through the mess and figure out what the truth is. That's why it takes time, and that's why any competent investigator will seek out every scrap of evidence that they can. Hence: FISA warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm...
I'm pretty sure Keill's comment was facetious, especially based on the last sentence. Though with an actual idiot trying to singlehandedly convert the comments into a cesspit, it's understandable that you'd expect it to have been more of the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, kids, "hiding" only works if the subject line isn't repeated. And if I can't respond at all.
Now, I've just been alerted to new topic, so off I go again... MAY return, so go ahead without me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know, kids, "hiding" only works if the subject line isn't repeated. And if I can't respond at all.
I thought you said the site was a shithole, and you have neither brains nor sense for posting here?
I hope your OPINION link goes over just as well over there, old fart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The laughable argument of "Steele got fired for leaking things therefore (somehow) the dossier must be completely false" reminds me of someone trying a similar lie elsewhere.
Last month, Ars ran an article soundly debunking the most recent of James O'Keefe's whole-cloth fabricated stories - the one claiming Twitter targets conservatives for bans. Some liar in the comments falsely claimed that O'Keefe wasn't a criminal, claiming the charges had been cleared and the prosecutor and judge on his case had been disbarred for it. In essence, claiming that because the prosecutor was disciplined for something therefore O'Keefe was innocent. Too bad for him another commenter called him out on the lie, noting that:
In short, both idiocies try to claim that "this thing X did can be discounted because of a completely unrelated thing X did at a different time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake News
Stick to tech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News
Stick to your day job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fake News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fake News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS FOURTH TIME.
Cause the kids just love whack-a-mole. Massive hiding usually happens after I state am leaving, did this time.
Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
So Techdirt is OKAY with FISA warrants being paid for by opposition candidate, for "research" that duplicates prior outline, even though the FBI knew Steele hadn't actually talked to any informants, let alone from the Kremlin, and that it was paid-for.
Yup, only the target matters to Techdirt, not principle. -- As shown here by "free speech" Techdirt unable to stand my little bits of text, so hiding them!
Just look at this aspect some clever person noticed: Steele claimed to have info direct from the Kremlin on a super secret highly valuable Rooski plot, which Putin personally would want to find who leaked. No trouble, just asked his old pals. -- NOTHING about this fabrication stands the laugh test.
Keep digging this hole, kids. Likely to be indictments with people going to jail, and then you'll have new martyrs to re-write NYT pieces on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS FOURTH TIME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS FOURTH TIME.
I see your expertise in legal matters. And it's FUNNY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS FOURTH TIME.
Pro tip champ, if you’re going to make fun of someone else’s spelling, don’t fuck up your own. Makes you look kinda like a pedantic little crybaby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS FOURTH TIME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another that was "hidden" which I think deserves to be out and in bold face:
No, please: TELL me why! I'm too stupid, by your own statements.
I'm so stupid that I've become sure it's because Techdirt discriminates against viewpoints. Doesn't matter what words I use or how. I've been told directly by Masnick that ME being called an "ignorant motherfucker" is just a joke. But OH, my god, LINK to another site with different opinion! HIDE IT QUICK!
Techdirt only pretends to be a neutral "platform", but is in fact a partisan: SNEAKILY, behind the scenes. Techdirt won't even admit that an administrator okays the "hiding"!
And again, for anyone reasonable: you will NOT find on Techdirt even ONE fanboy comment which has been hidden. It's ALWAYS to disadvantage dissent.
"The censor dogs are deleting my best posts!" http://cheezburger.com/9095694080
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul: What the FBI/FISA Memo Really Tells Us About Our Government
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/05/what-the-fbifisa-memo-really -tells-us-about-our-government/
Just as I say. So, going to ban Ron Paul now too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul: What the FBI/FISA Memo Really Tells Us About Our Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's time to abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
"The G-men have degenerated into nothing more than a racketeering enterprise, a banana republic-style criminal conspiracy of vast proportions.
Now we know that the FBI was plotting a coup against President-elect Trump."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2018/01/carr_scandal_ridden_fbi_ must_be_abolished
Mueller and other Cartoons...
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/mueller-cartoon/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?"
The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy - and presented to the court only if verified. There's no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump "Steele dossier" was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017.
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedu res?amp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"KELLYANNE CONWAY | Delusional Dems Promised Russian Collusion, Now They're Running From The FISA Truth"
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/column-1/awesome-kellyanne-super-bowl-interview-dems-promised- collusion-but-its-not-happening/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some more links, since Techdirt hates other views so much that "hides" the prior:
"Trump: 'Little' Adam Schiff 'One of The Biggest Liars & Leakers in Washington' Along With Comey, Warner, Brennan & Clapper"
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57918
Raimondo: FISA-Gate The Plot To Destroy Our Republic
https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2018/02/04/fisa-gate-plot-destroy-republic/
Much of the insanity visible above is because they aren't widely read, fear to hear other views, don't even have vague notion of how "uneducated" people might regard Trump simply as "meh, better than Hillary". No, to them, mere wait-and-see means that you too are The Enemy.
It's very simple: they cannot and will not see how the evil Trump won so he must have stolen the election. QED. -- They can never start to look at facts rationally, because to them, "that way lies madness"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some more links, since Techdirt hates other views so much that "hides" the prior:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some more links, since Techdirt hates other views so much that "hides" the prior:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some more links, since Techdirt hates other views so much that "hides" the prior:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spam much?
I mean, I get the whining and complaining about never winning an argument because their logic is faulty and their facts are non-existent or misinterpreted at best, but spamming the comments with post after post, with links to questionable news sites is the definition of spam and is going to get their posts flagged faster and with less people actually reading them. Not that many of us do anyway.
I guess it takes all kinds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who hated the process of due
Each film that he paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
(Go ahead, blue, report this comment. You take reported comments to be the gospel truth, after all.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In March 2016 Carter Page Was an FBI Employee - In October 2016 FBI Told FISA Court He's a Spy..."
SO, kids, actually the FBI didn't have to investigate Page's "Russian ties", they PAID HIM to make them! Then just wove that into the needed new story.
There are no end to rabbit holes, but NONE of this in ANY way or degree implicates Trump. Actually, Trump is exonerated and those Techdirt supports are shown to be outright Deep State criminals attempting to overturn the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "In March 2016 Carter Page Was an FBI Employee - In October 2016 FBI Told FISA Court He's a Spy..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt back to old tricks, "hiding" and blocking!
Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS FIFTH TIME.
Cause the kids just love whack-a-mole. Massive hiding usually happens after I state am leaving, did this time.
Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
So Techdirt is OKAY with FISA warrants being paid for by opposition candidate, for "research" that duplicates prior outline, even though the FBI knew Steele hadn't actually talked to any informants, let alone from the Kremlin, and that it was paid-for.
Yup, only the target matters to Techdirt, not principle. -- As shown here by "free speech" Techdirt unable to stand my little bits of text, so hiding them!
Just look at this aspect some clever person noticed: Steele claimed to have info direct from the Kremlin on a super secret highly valuable Rooski plot, which Putin personally would want to find who leaked. No trouble, just asked his old pals. -- NOTHING about this fabrication stands the laugh test.
Keep digging this hole, kids. Likely to be indictments with people going to jail, and then you'll have new martyrs to re-write NYT pieces on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt back to old tricks, "hiding" and blocking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another that was "hidden" which I think deserves to be out and in bold face:
No, please: TELL me why! I'm too stupid, by your own statements.
I'm so stupid that I've become sure it's because Techdirt discriminates against viewpoints. Doesn't matter what words I use or how. I've been told directly by Masnick that ME being called an "ignorant motherfucker" is just a joke. But OH, my god, LINK to another site with different opinion! HIDE IT QUICK!
Techdirt only pretends to be a neutral "platform", but is in fact a partisan: SNEAKILY, behind the scenes. Techdirt won't even admit that an administrator okays the "hiding"!
And again, for anyone reasonable: you will NOT find on Techdirt even ONE fanboy comment which has been hidden. It's ALWAYS to disadvantage dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Will The Conspiracy Against Trump and American Democracy Go Unpunished?"
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"Russiagate is a dagger aimed at the heart of American governmental institutions. A conspiracy involving top officials of the Obama Department of Justice, FBI, and other "security" agencies was formed together with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, the purpose of which was to defeat Trump in the presidential election and, failing that, to remove Trump from office or to discredit him to the point that he would be reduced to a mere figurehead. This conspiracy has the full backing of the entirely of the mainstream media."
Yes, if Techdirt has its way.
BTW: the fanboys above are horrified simply by that anyone could be serious about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will The Conspiracy Against Trump and American Democracy Go Unpunished?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Will The Conspiracy Against Trump and American Democracy Go Unpunished?"
Flagged as spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AND NOW MORE WHACK-A-MOLE!
Techdirt "hiding" the link, SO HERE IT IS SIXTH TIME.
Cause the kids just love whack-a-mole. Massive hiding usually happens after I state am leaving, did this time.
Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
So Techdirt is OKAY with FISA warrants being paid for by opposition candidate, for "research" that duplicates prior outline, even though the FBI knew Steele hadn't actually talked to any informants, let alone from the Kremlin, and that it was paid-for.
Yup, only the target matters to Techdirt, not principle. -- As shown here by "free speech" Techdirt unable to stand my little bits of text, so hiding them!
Just look at this aspect some clever person noticed: Steele claimed to have info direct from the Kremlin on a super secret highly valuable Rooski plot, which Putin personally would want to find who leaked. No trouble, just asked his old pals. -- NOTHING about this fabrication stands the laugh test.
Keep digging this hole, kids. Likely to be indictments with people going to jail, and then you'll have new martyrs to re-write NYT pieces on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOR Browser sessions being poisoned after one or two comments again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THAT one was poisoned after its one comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For someone who hates this site with the intensity of a billion suns you seem to love spamming it and proudly declaring your ability to waste over three hours on it. That's just sad. Irreparably sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All my questions NOT answered.
Masnick actually responded to similar here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180130/22212639127/we-need-to-shine-light-private-online-c ensorship.shtml#c380
But as always he's ambigous: taking opportunity to say only no "Moderator", leaving "administrator" open!
So repeating my response when first pointed to that today:
Oh, I see the Techdirt system now! Instead of a "Guidelines" page easily found, we're all supposed to READ every comment in every topic! How are new users to know this?
But what I ask it how does that "system" work! It's no answer to say "system"!
IS THERE SOME PERSON WITH ADMINISTRATOR ACTION WHO OKAYS THE HIDING? That's SAME as "Moderator", then. Of course Masnick took opportunity to evade.
What guidelines does "the community" go by? Make it up as go along?
Who is this "community"? Where do I go to complain to them, then?
Is there ANY appeal from this "system", or is it Soviet style: The People Have Spoken?
To have any input means allowing Techdirt / Google to run javascript, so THERE'S A PRICE TO PAY.
To EVEN SEE the hidden comments means allowing Techdirt / Google to run javascript, so THERE'S A PRICE TO PAY.
How many clicks required out of how many readers?
How do readers who do NOT click have any effect on the system so they don't have to waste time see the "hidden" comments?
This "system" may be only one fanboy, then. -- And surely an administrator, because I'm again getting browser sessions poisoned after making one comment. -- In my theory, the random delays mentioned show that an "administrator" hasn't yet taken action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All my questions NOT answered.
Wow, you really do not understand how this works, at all.
Paranoid much? Do you wear tin foil hats?
You see those multicolored buttons in the upper right of each posted comment? That's the voting system. Hover over them with a mouse to get more info. If enough people vote or flag your comment as spam, it gets hidden.
See voting system explanation above. Past that, there aren't any hard and fast rules that I am aware of.
The community is anyone who visits this site and/or chooses to leave a comment, such as you or me. You've got the complaining part down pat, since that's all you do on here.
If the people have spoken, that is called democracy, or is that concept to difficult for you? Soviet style is dictatorship, of which, this is not. So yes, we have spoken, you're a moron. The only appeal is to educate yourself and stop being a moron.
What are you on? TD does use javascript but there are other ways to make a website where you can have input. And what price? You mean the 5 minutes it takes me to respond to a topic I'm interested in? And no, Google has nothing to do with this, TD has operated like this long before Google was a sponsor. Someone else also pointed out that they are only ONE sponsor.
Finally! This is actually a good question and for my own curiosity, I would be interested in knowing this as well.
Uh, they don't? You can't affect anything if you take no action. Since the only way to really interact with a website is either by mouse or keyboard, then by definition they can't affect it. For instance, I unhide your comments for giggles and to point out how wrong you are.
See all my posts above that prove this horribly wrong. Also, I'm sure the admins don't have enough time to hide all your spammy posts and write new articles. If your browser session is getting 'poisoned', either 1) you're being an abusive, spammy, troll and the spam filter is catching you; or 2) you have some serious malware infections on your computer. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All my questions NOT answered.
(Grrr. Does this site's markdown permit any means of doing nested quotes, such that each quote level is distinguished from the previous?)
The price is that of letting unknown and possibly untrustworthy JS run on your computer, and do whatever it wants. In addition to consuming system resources (generally trivial amounts thereof, but still), there's always the chance that the JS involved may do something malicious, or at least "call home" - and the very fact that your computer contacted the relevant server to download the JS tells the people who host that server something about you.
The list of scripts which want to run on this page includes three Google domains: google.com, google-analytics.com, and ajax.googleapis.com. I have scripts forbidden from the second, on the grounds that (as I understand matters) that's their main ads-and-tracking face and I don't want to be tracked in that way, but allowed from the other two. I don't recall whether I allowed scripts from those domains for the purposes of Techdirt, or for the purposes of some other site; the only reason I would have done the former is if some aspect of the site's commenting functionality does not work without scripts from those domains.
If (parts of) Techdirt's comment functionality relies on JS loaded from one of Google's servers, then indeed, using (those parts of) the Techdirt comment system requires allowing JavaScript from Google.
I think this may be based on the idea that the number of flag (or "funny" or "insightful") clicks required for "enough" may vary depending on the total size of the potential pool of people who could so click. I entertained that idea myself, for quite some time.
More recently, I've realized that the logistics of arranging that would be prohibitive; there's no real practical way to track the number of people who didn't click, much less those who don't even allow scripts from the site. It still might be possible to have the "enough" threshold vary depending on the total number of votes (in all three categories) for all comments on the article, or for all comments within the past X time period, or some such thing - but the benefits of doing such seem slim at most, and the complexity of implementing it would be relatively high, so it doesn't seem likely that anyone would bother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All my questions NOT answered.
Hence, on this site, at worst, you have some ads served and maybe some tracking from Google. However, that has jack all to do with commenting on the site. TD could have just as easily coded it to use JS and run absolutely nothing from Google or any other site. The act of commenting is also not what triggers 'the price' as just browsing the site does the same thing.
I understand your point you were making but it doesn't change the fact that the AC I was replying to doesn't understand computer, internet, or web technology at all, and is just spouting off a bunch of nonsense because he is ticked off that people keep hiding his posts for being abusive/trolling/spam and wildly out of touch with reality. My post was just pointing that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All my questions NOT answered.
They could have, but they (apparently?) didn't, and that fact has consequences which are worthy of being noted. It isn't a major negative, but it is still a negative.
It isn't the act of commenting, at least not as such - it's the act of interacting with the parts of the comment system which rely on that JS.
IIRC from last time I tried it, it is in fact possible to both read comments and post comments here without allowing scripts - although I think that was before the switch to Markdown, so the "post comments" part may no longer be true.
But it is not possible to "show hidden comment", to flag comment (in either a positive or a the negative way), or to see the Insider Chat, without allowing scripts.
It is, however, entirely possible to browse the site without doing those things. I did so myself when I first started coming here, until I got curious enough to want to see some of the hidden comments.
(I agree that the AC in question is a nut, mind. This just happens to be one detail where his nuttiness sits on top of on a small kernel of valid point.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All my questions NOT answered.
As you said, you can block scripts based on domain name so no, his nuttiness doesn't sit on top of a small kernel of a valid point. He doesn't even have a speck of a valid point. If you don't want Google to track you, go ahead and block their scripts. Any scripts that contribute to the actual functioning of the page are just that, page functional scripts, they have no price associated with them other than actually allowing you to interact with said page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All my questions NOT answered.
Have you checked to verify that the scripts which provide the functionality and the scripts which provide tracking, et cetera, do actually come from different domains? Even if they do in the case of Techdirt (which may well be the case), they certainly don't always.
Given the number of sites out there which do not work properly unless scripts from googleapis.com are allowed, and the fact that when I check the NoScript "domains from which this site wants to load scripts" on Techdirt I see ajax.googleapis.com on the "allowed" list, and the fact that AJAX is used for "asynchronous Web applications" (per Wikipedia), and the fact that the comment-flagging buttons and/or the show/hide feature look to be exactly that sort of asynchronous interface, it seems entirely plausible that part of Techdirt's commenting system may rely on the AJAX scripts hosted by Google for use by others.
(The scripts by which Google most actively tracks people probably do run from different domains, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing to stop Google from noticing and logging access patterns to googleapis.com just as much as ones to its other domains - and that would permit tracking, even if in a lesser form.)
If that is the case, then "the scripts that allow commenting and voting/flagging" are not "completely different from" "the scripts that come with a price".
Note that I am not saying that that is the case with Techdirt. My original comment on this subject was very much in the form of an "if", with minor supporting circumstantial evidence, specifically because I am not currently in a position to testify on that subject. I could just as easily believe that an experiment which showed that it is not the case as one which showed that it is. (I haven't bothered with even the minor inconvenience of carrying out such an experiment because, to date, I haven't actually cared that much.)
But I have seen enough sites which do not work properly without allowing scripts from at least googleapis.com that I do consider the original position to have a small kernel of validity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All my questions NOT answered.
So even if the scripts come from a google domain, it's no guarantee they were written by Google and a FAR cry from saying there is automatically a 'price'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
That browser session which posted the "system" questions got poisoned IMMEDIATELY after that, and then new sessions were blocked.
By the way, IF my comments keep getting "hidden" on this increasingly stale topic, that's evidence of administrator action, seeing activity on this page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
Have a DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
The link that you repeatedly post in a spammy way that might just be getting caught by the spam filter doing its job, and that we can all see now the multiple times some obsessed tosser has posted it? That one, the opinion post that's not evidence of anything you claim it is?
Yes, that link is rather obnoxious, not least because it's been explained to you why it doesn't say what you think it does.
"IF my comments keep getting "hidden" on this increasingly stale topic, that's evidence of administrator action"
No, it's really not. In fact, it's really more evidence that you're whining about being personally slighted by a piece of software. Admins would be dealing with newer, busier posts while the bots deal with the old ones, not the other way around.
That's just another way in which reality eludes you, sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
HOW EXACTLY DOES THE "spam filter" KNOW TO BLOCK THAT TEXT WITHOUT ADMINISTRATOR ACTION?
It didn't for several times, but does NOW.
PROOF IT'S BEEN PUT IN THERE BY AN ADMINISTRATOR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
...because you keep spammjng the site with the same link, and the spam filter is doing its job.
You can't actually be this stupid, but I don't see what you get out of acting like such an uneducated moron.
"PROOF IT'S BEEN PUT IN THERE BY AN ADMINISTRATOR."
Everything on this site has been put in by an administrator, including the box that you keep hammering bullshit into with your keyboard. Websites don't magically appear, nor do the servers run themselves without administration.
What's not happening is someone employed to read your comments and individually block them, as you claim.
Come on, you can't be this stupid and know how to construct a sentence. Why does acting so stupid turn you on? As ever, you do provide a fascinating case study for mental illness, I just hope you are doing this with careful supervision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
Jesus Christ, he really doesn't understand even basic details about how spam filters work, does he?
Blue. Seriously. Start a blog. I mean it. Not just for the usual "so you can write whatever you want and not have to worry about it getting moderated" reasons. Start a blog because you do not know how spam filters work, like at all.
Start a blog. Allow anonymous comments, without Captcha. Use Akismet or some similar spam-blocking tool, and see what kind of posts it flags. See what they have in common.
It's links, you indescribable thundering moron. That's what spam is.
So when people write posts that have multiple links in them, or write multiple posts with the same link in them, it looks exactly like spam.
I understand that you're angry that you can't pass a Turing test. I'd be angry too. (Well, more like mildly annoyed, as befits the minor inconvenience that having to wait awhile for your posts to show up actually is. But you get the idea.) But I have a passing understanding with how computers work, that they are not magic, that some user behaviors resemble spambot behaviors, and sometimes these produce false positives. Therefore, when I write a comment with a couple of links in it and it gets held for moderation, I do not begin screaming to the high heavens about how there is a vast conspiracy to, I dunno, delay my comment from appearing for fifteen minutes or some goddamn thing.
Seriously, Blue. Start a blog. Wordpress, Blogger, Tumblr, friggin' LiveJournal if you want. You can write whatever you want; nobody will ever flag your posts or hold them for moderation. And you will learn basic facts about how spam filters work. And then maybe you can stop complaining about stupid shit. Or at least complain about it on your blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he GOP memo proves the `deep state' is real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Comment Held for Moderation...
Thanks for your comment. It will be reviewed by our staff before it is posted."
But Masnick says there are NO Moderators and NO moderation!
So how exactly does this magic work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
Well, apparently the specific text of the first link, or some in that comment is blocked.
But there's plenty more!
Key point is that Techdirt CAN'T STAND DISSENT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
You've been told this hundreds of times, yet basic reality still confuses and angers you. What a waste of carbon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
The fact that any of his spam links get through means that whoever checks the spam filter is allowing, not blocking, his idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
As always there's something delightfully funny about watching someone whining about how they're being 'censored' because their comments get caught in the spam filter, when the only reason their comments ever make it out of said filter is because the same people they are blaming are personally clearing their comments.
'Biting the hand that feeds you' comes to mind, and if anything(and in direct contradiction to what the trolls/spammers imply) it makes TD look even better for demonstrating that they'll treat even people rabidly against them just the same as anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
Software. Like the stuff you interact with every time you drool your diarrhoea everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
If he blames the software, he'll have to blame the software the RIAA uses for false flag "anomalies".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
oh my God he really does think computers are magic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Comment Held for Moderation...
Either one can get your comment held for moderation by the spam filter. Mine have been held for both of those reasons on several occasions. After it's been verified I'm not a spammer, my comment gets posted. Let the system do its job and go find something else to do. You aren't going to win this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Declassified Grassley Document Confirms FISA Memo's Explosive Claims"
A declassified document from the Senate Judiciary Committee confirms that the FBI "relied heavily" on an unverified dossier in order to obtain FISA surveillance warrants on one-time Trump advisor Carter Page
Unredacted portions of the document reveal the FBI's extensive involvement with the creator of the dossier, former UK spy Christopher Steele
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-07/declassified-grassley-document-confirms-fisa-mem os-explosive-claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Declassified Grassley Document Confirms FISA Memo's Explosive Claims"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Grassley-Graham Memo: Dossier Author Christopher Steele Lied to FBI, FBI Didn't Tell FISA Court"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'WORST GOVERNMENT ABUSE SCANDAL IN A GENERATION' "Judicial Watch, calling it possibly "the worst government abuse scandal in a generation," said the Nunes memo "makes a compelling case that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court was misled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'WORST GOVERNMENT ABUSE SCANDAL IN A GENERATION' "Judicial Watch, calling it possibly "the worst government abuse scandal in a generation," said the Nunes memo "makes a compelling case that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court was mi
Also, FLAGGED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'WORST GOVERNMENT ABUSE SCANDAL IN A GENERATION' "Judicial Watch, calling it possibly "the worst government abuse scandal in a generation," said the Nunes memo "makes a compelling case that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court wa
Oh wow, you've been told that your opinion piece that you were so in love with really doesn't prove anything so now you're posting links to WND and Breitbart AND you're expecting them to be taken seriously?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes, you were flagged because you're a spamming asshole. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Remember When They Smashed Cell Phones With Hammers" Trump SLAMS Hillary Clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Carter Page Setup By FBI - He Was FBI Employee - FBI Told FISA COURT HE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Carter Page Setup By FBI - He Was FBI Employee - FBI Told FISA COURT HE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Carter Page Setup By FBI - He Was FBI Employee - FBI Told FISA COURT HE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY."
No wonder his mind is so broken and he has no concept of how things work in the real world if these are what he calls news sources!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Carter Page Setup By FBI - He Was FBI Employee - FBI Told FISA COURT HE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY."
No wonder his mind is so broken and he has no concept of how things work in the real world if these are what he calls news sources!
Personally, I will be very amused if blue starts quoting from the Trichordist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Carter Page Setup By FBI - He Was FBI Employee - FBI Told FISA COURT HE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Carter Page Setup By FBI - He Was FBI Employee - FBI Told FISA COURT HE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY."
As ever, he's a fascinating case study in mental illness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spamity Spam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spamity Spam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"New FBI texts show Obama wanted updates on Clinton investigation..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "New FBI texts show Obama wanted updates on Clinton investigation..."
While you linked to the Daily Fail, and so it's likely that some or all of what's in that article is false (seriously dude, try some sources without a reputation for making shit up) - so what? The sitting president wanted updates on an criminal investigation into a high ranking politician and presidential candidate, and he promised not to interfere with the investigation for political reasons.
What specifically is wrong with that? I'm not going to read the whole article as it reeks of sensationalist bullshit, but I see nothing wrong in the bullet points at the top of the article.
"Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot'"
Being non-partisan doesn't mean you have to ignore objective reality. Support him or not, he is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "New FBI texts show Obama wanted updates on Clinton investigation..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funniest so far: Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos of POTUS (Trump)! Pranked by wily Rooskis!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funniest so far: Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos of POTUS (Trump)! Pranked by wily Rooskis!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funniest so far: Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos of POTUS (Trump)! Pranked by wily Rooskis!
Sheesh. What kids. And you'll eventually LOSE BIG on this when indictments come down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Funniest so far: Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos of POTUS (Trump)! Pranked by wily Rooskis!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funniest so far: Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos of POTUS (Trump)! Pranked by wily Rooskis!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Uranium One informant makes Clinton allegations to Congress"
(Since that too was denied above.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"BRILLIANT: Devin Nunes OBLITERATES Manu Raju With Just One Sentence..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Attkisson Explains EXACTLY How Obama Spied On Trump" -- `I've never seen journalists so uncurious about spying'
**Since Techdirt is blocking Citizen Free Press link, taken from there. -- Hope to see you block Youtube! HA, HA!**
And just think of the collateral damage you're doing by blocking links to sites! For shame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"George W. Bush claims 'there's pretty clear evidence Russia meddled' in the 2016 US presidential election - and says Putin 'has a chip on his shoulder' because of the demise of the Soviet Union"
HA, HA! Masnick and Bush both believe this! Neo-cons and neo-libs are the same: anti-Trump and anti-USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DMCAed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/democratic-sen-mark-warner-texted-with-russian-oligarch-l obbyist-in-effort-to-contact-dossier-author-christopher-steele.html
"Secrecy seemed very important to Warner as the conversation with Waldman heated up March 29, when the lobbyist revealed that Steele wanted a bipartisan letter from Warner and the committee's chairman, North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr, inviting him to talk to the Senate intelligence panel. Throughout the text exchanges, Warner seemed particularly intent on connecting directly with Steele without anyone else on the Senate Intelligence Committee being in the loop -- at least initially. In one text to the lobbyist, Warner wrote that he would "rather not have a paper trail" of his messages."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump Calls Out 5 Officials as `Liars and Leakers'
"Little Adam Schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper!" the president wrote. "Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America's "Intellectual-Yet-Useful-Idiots" Exposed
With big sarcastic quotes around "intellectual", that includes Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America's "Intellectual-Yet-Useful-Idiots" Exposed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America's "Intellectual-Yet-Useful-Idiots" Exposed
Also because if blue actually posts any fiction, he'd have to report himself for copyright infringement. Fair use doesn't exist in his world, after all.
The least we can do is honor his copyright choices in life with DMCA votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: America's "Intellectual-Yet-Useful-Idiots" Exposed
I'm sure that if I could be bothered to read them, there would either be tell-tale signs that I could easily point out that they're not correct, or simply cases where the headline's misleading but laughing boy didn't bother to read past it.
We're either dealing with a dedicated performance artist who really needs to tone their schtick down a bit, or someone with actual mental issues who's spending far too much time in right-wing echo chambers. Which perhaps explains why he's so angry and confused when faced with sites that don't deal the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: America's "Intellectual-Yet-Useful-Idiots" Exposed
Now that Shiva Ayyadurai's campaign hit a roadblock, and MyNameHere/Whatever/Just Sayin'/horse with no name put himself on yet another self-imposed exile (one that is lasting longer than his track record would indicate), out_of_the_blue seems to have taken it on himself to assume all responsibilities for all the Techdirt trolls.
Kinda shows the dedication he has to the site, one which he describes as a cesspit that he was fool enough to fall into, yet somehow not un-fool enough to leave...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.scribd.com/document/369858325/xxx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative? All questions are answered.
BTW: 1,381 Responses on a site I'd never heard of before.
Compare that to the few hundred of mere denials that I caused here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative? All questions are answered.
So, you don't care what a site's track record, reputation, reliability, etc. are, you're just going on whether or not the article fits your preconceived assumptions and whether it generates lots of comments. That figures, since basing ideas upon actual facts is not your forte.
So, apart from the fact that the URL indicates it's probably someone's blog (already a red flag if you're trying to pretend it's a primary or unbiased source), what do the responses actually *say*? Do they agree? Disagree? Are they actually on topic? Is there a flame war between a handful of people that have nothing to do with the subject of the article? Are most of the comments literal spam, because the author hasn't installed a spam filter like the one you lose your shit over regularly?
The answers to those questions have a huge effect on whether the source you're depending upon is trustworthy, even before you get to pesky things like the reputation and track record of the author. (No, I'm not clicking on the site, *your* track record tells me it's not worth bothering with).
Come on, I'm sure we can get you applying some critical thinking! Give it a go, explain why this source is relevant other than that it massaged your ego and continued a probably false narrative that you've fallen in love with.
"Compare that to the few hundred of mere denials that I caused here!"
If you think that getting a bunch of people telling you to stop being a trolling moron is achieving something, I'm sorry for the waste of a life you must have led.
But, using your own metric above - the original article here must be true because it has a lot of comments! By your standards listed above, the reputation of the site and author mean nothing, only the number of comments and whether you agree with what's been said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Poll: Americans ‘Overwhelmingly’ Believe Obama ‘Improperly Surveilled’ Trump Campaign"
An IBD/TIPP poll shows that “Americans overwhelmingly believe the Obama administration ‘improperly surveilled’ Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.”
Despite the disgraced American media’s best and most cynical efforts to bury the truth, and to even stop the truth from ever seeing the light of day, this poll (and another addressed below) demonstrate that the American people are almost entirely tuning the partisan, mostly-hysterical news media out and looking to alternative media for the truth.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/10/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-believe-obam a-improperly-surveilled-trump-campaign/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Poll: Americans ‘Overwhelmingly’ Believe Obama ‘Improperly Surveilled’ Trump Campaign"
Again, do you have anything resembling facts, or are you just dedicated to trawling sites known for lying to their readership for spin you agree with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
WHAT. ARE. THE. ODDS. That so convenient of deaths happened just NOW?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
Have a DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
"Harold Charles "Hal" Turner (born March 15, 1962) is an American white nationalist, Holocaust denier,[1] and blogger from North Bergen, New Jersey. In August 2010, he was convicted for making threats against three federal judges with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to Turner's arrest, his radio program, The Hal Turner Show, was a webcast from his home once a week."|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner
Again, try finding some actual news sources. The cesspool you're swimming in does not represent fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
If he'd have posted some kind of neutral link (the air crash is not a matter of opinion or partisan spin, nor presumably any verified identities of the victims involved), then added the conspiracy spin on top, some might be willing to engage in conversation. Instead, he's quoting from people who clearly have an axe to grind, if not living in some strange fantasyland themselves, and is so announcing he is not be taken seriously.
I also love the fact that he's picking this thread to repeatedly post to, even though nothing has happened here for days except people mocking him and me pointing out why his "news" sources are full of shit. Yet, he still apparently believes people will take his random links seriously, even as they've now devolved from well-known (if totally untrustworthy) sources to some random guy's blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
Yet, he still apparently believes people will take his random links seriously, even as they've now devolved from well-known (if totally untrustworthy) sources to some random guy's blog.
Indeed. It's almost like he thinks that more than 27 Bangladeshis read this site, if he believes his efforts to merit some sort of point... but that would mean admitting to his previous mistake. out_of_the_blue would saw off his own legs and plead the cause for fair use before admitting that he made a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
At the same time it takes a truly dedicated troll to come back here day after day, for years just to troll the site.
I don't know, it just beggars belief that there is someone like him who would post nonsense links FOR DAYS on a thread most everyone has abandoned. Sometimes I think he's serious and other times it seems like he can't possibly be serious about everything he posts.
Opinions? Thoughts? Smart remarks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
As for this thread where he's posting random links? Meh, it gives me something to sharpen my rebuttal skills and add some new URLs to use to recognise when someone probably doesn't have factual value to a conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Passengers Killed on Crashed Russian Plane Include CFO of Rosatom/UraniumOne and Russian Source for Christopher Steele's "Dossier" against Trump"
As for whether he believes the nonsense he's posting or otherwise, he's offered very little evidence to suggest he doesn't. out_of_the_blue's gimmick used to be corporate and copyright support at any cost, even his coherence and logic. Goodness knows why he thinks venturing into the realm of politics is a brilliant idea.
Either way, until he posts something that actually makes sense, he's auto-filtered to the spamblocker and the DMCA vote system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Peeling back the layers of Hillary Clinton's deceit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We now have reached a point where liberals praise the Deep State as the pillars of honesty and integrity..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Top FBI Agent Bill Priestap is cooperating with Trump Justice officials, and has turned on Comey's Criminal Syndicate. Complete details. The game is over."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Top FBI Agent Bill Priestap is cooperating with Trump Justice officials, and has turned on Comey's Criminal Syndicate. Complete details. The game is over."
But there are still MANY sites, Techdirt, besides that I can always omit it: don't want them getting traffic from you in first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Top FBI Agent Bill Priestap is cooperating with Trump Justice officials, and has turned on Comey's Criminal Syndicate. Complete details. The game is over."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Top FBI Agent Bill Priestap is cooperating with Trump Justice officials, and has turned on Comey's Criminal Syndicate. Complete details. The game is over."
don't want them getting traffic from you in first place
Should've thought of that before incessantly spamming the site with hyperlinks, dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Top FBI Agent Bill Priestap is cooperating with Trump Justice officials, and has turned on Comey's Criminal Syndicate. Complete details. The game is over."
Your act is getting more desperate and pathetic by the day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Grassley Uncovers Bizarre Susan Rice Email to HERSELF on Secret Meeting with Comey, Yates and OBAMA on Spying on Trump"
Do YOU email yourself for notes, or is that a remarkably clumsy attempt to manufacture evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Grassley Uncovers Bizarre Susan Rice Email to HERSELF on Secret Meeting with Comey, Yates and OBAMA on Spying on Trump"
What is a remarkably clumsy attempt is you trying to actually post anything of significance.
Flagged and tagged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Grassley Uncovers Bizarre Susan Rice Email to HERSELF on Secret Meeting with Comey, Yates and OBAMA on Spying on Trump"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus"
Now, do you have anything from the non-fiction section of the web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See that some of my comments are now being left in view, because "the community" voting them down excuse isn't plausible on a dead topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See that some of my comments are now being left in view, because "the community" voting them down excuse isn't plausible on a dead topic.
Also the Streisand Effect says hi, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See that some of my comments are now being left in view, because "the community" voting them down excuse isn't plausible on a dead topic.
Yes, because there's only a few of us still reading your rambling crap.
But, here's how logic applies in the real world: if it was not the community voting you down, your posts would still be getting hidden. By your own claim, people are no longer reading this thread, but the people you think are hired to hide your posts will never miss one. But, because it *is* the community voting you down and the only people left are the ones having fun mocking you (and thus have no reason to hide your posts), they are still visible.
Once again, your arguments exist on the polar opposite of reality. By your own claims, tit is the community here trying to tell you shut the hell up and leave the sane adults to do the talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: See that some of my comments are now being left in view, because "the community" voting them down excuse isn't plausible on a dead topic.
There's also the small oopsie blue boy hasn't considered: by making sure his presence is known it drives more attention to flag his garbage.
But copyright-types were never really known for thinking things through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HERE AGAIN THE ORIGINAL COMMENT WHICH MIGHTY TECHDIRT CANNOT STAND! CENSORED HOW MANY TIMES NOW?
Knew Techdirt would deny, so here's a link that covers ALL:
The G O P m e m o proves the `de ep sta te' is real
http://ny post.com/2018/02/03/the-go p-m emo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
Had to fracture it because the site is now in the dreaded "filters".
So Techdirt is OKAY with FISA warrants being paid for by opposition candidate, for "research" that duplicates prior outline, even though the FBI knew Steele hadn't actually talked to any informants, let alone from the Kremlin, and that it was paid-for.
Yup, only the target matters to Techdirt, not principle. -- As shown here by "free speech" Techdirt unable to stand my little bits of text, so hiding them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"BOOM! Judicial Watch President: CIA Laundered Clinton-DNC Dossier Into White House Intel Briefing - It's Time to Question Obama"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "BOOM! Judicial Watch President: CIA Laundered Clinton-DNC Dossier Into White House Intel Briefing - It's Time to Question Obama"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "BOOM! Judicial Watch President: CIA Laundered Clinton-DNC Dossier Into White House Intel Briefing - It's Time to Question Obama"
Probably because some rabid asshole is actually spamming the site with links to them. Any idea who that could be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Former Chief Asst. U.S. Attorney: Entire Media Missing Most Important Point About Steele Dossier"
"The real problem with the dossier is that the sources are these [ALLEGED] anonymous Russians who are often 3-4-5 steps removed in terms of hearsay from the things that they claim to have seen [...] Steele himself has not been to Russia in 20-years."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Former Chief Asst. U.S. Attorney: Entire Media Missing Most Important Point About Steele Dossier"
Cool. I've never been to Australia, but I work daily with a guy there on multiple projects. So, anything illegal I collude with him on is OK and never happened because I've not actually been there? Nice to know!
You actually believe this shit, don't you? I mean, given the "alternate facts" reality in which you spend your time it's hardly surprising, but it is sad to see someone so incapable of dealing with the way the real world is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus"
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "FBI-gate: The Outlines of the Story Are Coming into Focus"
Actually, I don't believe he's stumbled across a link to a source that *doesn't* have the reputation of lying to their readers yet. If nothing else, this thread is proof positive of the damaging mental effects that wallowing in the right-wing derposphere has on those who don't seek outside sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, goes to full House after vote split along "party" lines...
Most significant is the finding that “none of the interviewed witnesses” provided evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Not a bit of evidence. Techdirt and fanboys went ape insisting... er, something: they're not even rational enough to state what the accusations are.
I'll have the last laugh, kids, despite your rabid censoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slow process still going, WILL show what Nunes claimed:
Yes, still UPDATING in part to protest Techdirt's egregious, undeserved, outside of common law, violation of the forms contract, viewpoint discriminating CENSORING.
Techdirt puts up HTML input form for anyone to use, states advocates free speech, reserves no rights, and therefore TD has ZERO basis to even disadvantage viewpoint. -- So long as comments are okay under common law: it's NOT even Techdirt's choice to make. -- CDA 230 does NOT authorize censorship, only states that sites must act in "good faith" by The Public's definition.
On topic: I'll be proved right eventually, and the kids of Techdirt will just ignore.
From: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/14/someones-doing-the-doj-and-fbi-interro gations-and-its-not-congress/
That site claims 1,019 Responses! Compare to TD's single digits of late. (This which I drove into frenzy is not typical!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UPDATE: Comey memo released; shows Comey partisan to criminal.
Nunes and Gowdy rebuke: https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=879
Trump sez: "James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/987173366401585155
So more hoots! -- Eventually, Techdirt will be forced to eat this STORY. If doesn't shut down first!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DeSantis letter direct from source:
Read it and fall apart, Techdirt! You're not just WRONG in this piece, you're LYING. -- AND CENSORING! -- And WHY, when have so little influence? That's the real HOOT! Flat lying just to fire up your FEW fanboys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see you HAVE given up on censoring this old thread, though!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see you HAVE given up on censoring this old thread, though!
If waiting until a thread is long dead then posting nonsense that nobody is likely to reply to counts a win for you, then have it. But, as per usual, it neither proves what you think it does nor does it mean anything of any substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YET ANOTHER UPDATE! I'm not going to let this drop, CENSORS.
> ... reporter Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News wrote this gem on September 16, 2016:
> `"...U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate ... a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News. That meeting, if confirmed, is viewed as especially problematic by U.S. officials..."
> **Dozens of stories were written from the Isikoff piece, doing real damage to the Trump campaign. Of course, now we know *Isikoff's reference to "intelligence reports" was just him renaming a dossier funded by Democrats and dug up by his longtime pal* Glenn Simpson and some foreign spies.** Once Simpson gave his Clinton campaign opposition research to the feds, it was news.
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/read-michael-caputos-full-awesome-statement-telling-s enate-intel-to-go-to-hell/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TODAY: the alleged "13 Russians" demanded speedy trial!
Mueller tried stalling, will now be forced to present his ridiculous fantasy in public trial, and will FLOP.
Also of late, Federal judge accused Mueller team of LYING, and demanded to see their authority. (That memo is secret! From the deep state.) That's rare from a judge.
Stay tuned, kids! More loss for YOU in store!
I see "PaulT" is upset that I'm still here amusing myself and troubles to say I'm wasting my time. Sheesh. Nope, kid. I ran this topic, and own it, and will be proved right, and YOU will never have the honesty to admit that the whole "Trump-Russia collusion" story is fake from start. You'd rather believe lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TODAY: the alleged "13 Russians" demanded speedy trial!
No, I just take note every time I get an email showing a ranting idiot is still obsessively posting in a thread he himself claims nobody is reading.
"You'd rather believe lies."
You *really* want to start examining the nature of your "news" sources before trying that attack on others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TODAY: the alleged "13 Russians" demanded speedy trial!
Well, take another! Thanks for informing I have a hot-line to your email!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TODAY: the alleged "13 Russians" demanded speedy trial!
The question is - if you don't know about this email feature, why are you obsessively spamming this particular thread, given that by this point only people subscribed to it as I am are still reading it? You are surely aware that by this point the only people reading will be people subscribed to alerts? There is literally nobody else here except those who mock you, for very good reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality Check: The FBI Planted a Spy In the Trump Campaign?
http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-fbi-spy-in-trump-campaign/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality Check: The FBI Planted a Spy In the Trump Campaign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reality Check: The FBI Planted a Spy In the Trump Campaign?
http://truth in media .com/reality-check-fbi-spy-in-trump-campaign/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reality Check: The FBI Planted a Spy In the Trump Campaign?
It's the spamming asshole being "blocked" (i.e. correctly filtered as spam), not any specific link. If you linked to a factual source, the result would likely be the same. That's unlikely to happen organically, but that's reality for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another update.
"... Who, What, Where, When, & Why"
Since cheaty Techdirt puts sites I reference into its "filters", you'll have to take out the space in link:
www.zero hedge.com/news/2018-05-26/dummies-guide-russia-collusion-hoax-who-what-where-when-why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another update.
Yes, it puts any URLs from idiots regularly reported as spammers into its spam filters. That's how it does and should work. Try not spamming, maybe even link to a factual source for a change, and that would eventually change. Once again, no wonder you read the bottom feeding fiction you class as news, you're too dumb to understand the basic mechanisms you rail against.
Also, once again, according to your own words we are the only two people even reading this thread any longer. If your aim is to make me laugh with your checklist of known disreputable sites then bravo, else your obsession is as pointless as it is comical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who hated the process of due
Each film that he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
Last worded, blue boy. I'm legitimately impressed you kept this shit up for months. And by impressed, I mean disgusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gohmert GRILLS "tech" spokes-droids:
That's the gist. He thoroughly proved them partisans prepared only to answer about Russia (for the Democrats to talk up), lying and waffling on other countries.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/17/watch-tech-giants-cant-answer-rep-gohmert-on-fo reign-propaganda-aside-from-russias/
PS: No! I'm not YET done with the topic, just usually get to giggling at Techdirt's follies elsewhee and forget to update here. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gohmert GRILLS "tech" spokes-droids:
I noticed that, but I'm not sure anyone else is reading at this point.
Still getting your world news from the fictional part of the internet, I see! Consistency is a virtue, I suppose, even if it is you being consistently misled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost impressive
After checking the article on a whim it would seem that blue's obsessive fixation on things covers more than TD, to the point that they are spamming an article months after it was posted and everyone else has gone on to other things.
As always they are the gift that keeps on giving, so have fun poking at them I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who hated the process of due
Each film that he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodlatte, Nunes Call for Carter Page FISA Applications To Be
Unredacted
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/23/goodlatte-nunes-call-for-carter-page- fisa-applications-to-be-unredacted/
"'The Crazies Were Right, And I Was Wrong': Former Federal Prosecutor Speaks Of 'Rogue' FBI & FISA Court Abuses"
http://allnewspipeline.com/Frmr_Fed_Prosecutor_Crazies_Were_Right.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. Meadows Goes After Rosenstein For Signing Carter Page FISA
Application `He's a Witness and Should Recuse Himself Immediately'
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/rep-meadows-goes-after-rosenstein-for-signing- carter-page-fisa-application-hes-a-witness-and-must-recuse-himself/
And best of all is self-evidently true: Trey Gowdy - There's No Russia Collusion Evidence 'Or Adam Schiff Would Have Leaked It'
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-23/trey-gowdy-theres-no-russia-collusion-evidence-or-adam -schiff-would-have-leaked-it
This posting just because I now know that you kids are aware of my continuing here -- perhaps there's a site-wide update available to you chumps who pay for it; if not, that mention was a slip because can only be from an Administrator who does monitor the whole site and yet was commenting as an AC. -- But whichever, it's enough for a hoot that bothers you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redacted Sections Of Carter Page FISAs Are `Really Bad' For FBI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poll Finds Today's Democrat Party Scares the Hell Out of Voters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NUNES: Looking at Legal Remedies Against TWITTER Censoring...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Public "Will Be Shocked" At Redacted Portions Of Carter
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-29/american-public-will-be-shocked-redacted-portions-car ter-page-fisa-app-nunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Public "Will Be Shocked" At Redacted Portions Of Carter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Public "Will Be Shocked" At Redacted Portions Of Carter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinton's campaign "colluded" with nearly every top official...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-clinton-campaign-colluded-with-nearly-eve ry-top-official-at-the-doj-and-fbi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who hated the process of due
Each news that he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clinton's campaign "colluded" with nearly every top offi
Thanks for the tribute that stupidity pays to honesty.
This all goes on Techdirt's permanent record, and helps MY case.
By the way, the "ACs" have the tone of Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", especially in persistent use of "blue". So that's my bet. I can't prove the astro-turfing, but certainly a site that attracts such "ACs" as to make up limericks is likely to have true lunatics for re-writers too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clinton's campaign "colluded" with nearly every top offi
You filthy fucking TOR pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
both worked as an average hoe
average joe and out of the blue
gave each other an average screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FITTON: BIG Docs. FBI deemed Steele unsuitable...
[as] "Confidential Human Source" but Ohr and Strzok used him anyway. FISA courts never told about this corruption when asked for anti-Trump spy warrants.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-records-show-do ssier-author-deemed-not-suitable-for-use-as-source-show-several-fbi-payments-in-2016/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump waived both executive and attorney-client privilege.
IF you're brave, kids, you should actually read this one, it's notably straight-forward even though Gingrich is an unreliable neo-con. Be difficult to maintain your rabid Trump-hating, though.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/20/newt-gingrich-muellers-fatal-mistake.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump waived both executive and attorney-client privilege.
Try finding some articles about Pizzagate next time, it's far more fitting.
Have a SESTA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not much new on this front. But YOU keep checking in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When I read those emails, it's always notable that it's the same pathetic waste of skin desperately trying to pretend he has a point, to an audience he himself claims does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GALLUP: Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GALLUP: Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GALLUP: Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years...
Anyway, as PaulT worries by trying to get the last word in, NO, I haven't forgot! Just try to stay topical.
But even IF I lapse here from now to forever, Techdirt will still be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GALLUP: Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years...
Yeah, when you obfuscate your spam, sometime it bypasses the spam filters. This is news to you
You are truly desperate, though. Too much of the actual news not going in your favour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GALLUP: Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years...
Not so much as I'd like, but does fit dismal expectations of High-Tech Fascism, so I still win.
Besides, I've draw you out as rabid fanboy, nothing on topic (either), just yet again try to get the last word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GALLUP: Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years...
Yeah, when you start applying silly labels that you yourself define, it's amazing how many things you can "win"
"Besides, I've draw you out as rabid fanboy"
Yep, no interest in another's opinions or viewpoints, just attach a label and attack that strawman!
"just yet again try to get the last word."
Well, there is someone trying desperately to get one up on everyone else in a thread on a site that he claims nobody reads anyway. Not me, strangely, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Officials Weigh Joint Probes of Big Tech Companies...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-officials-open-to-joint-probes-of-big-tech-companies-1537913021
E njoy. As I wrote last, not much visible going, but be patient, kids! You haven't even won on this one web-page yet! I have millions of allies, they just despise this site and stay totally away. -- I LIKE TECHDIRT! As said way back: Incomparable hoots and I have a special niche here to get noticed. Thanks, Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: State Officials Weigh Joint Probes of Big Tech Companies...
Delusion is a hell of a drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: State Officials Weigh Joint Probes of Big Tech Companies...
Ding! Ding! Time to bark, ankle-biter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: State Officials Weigh Joint Probes of Big Tech Companies...
I'm not entirely sure it means what you think it does, but you do seem to be evolving in how you source your information, at least. It's a shame we're the only 2 people even remotely involved with this article at this point, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: State Officials Weigh Joint Probes of Big Tech Companies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: State Officials Weigh Joint Probes of Big Tech Companies...
Vaginal ruptures are a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This may bring the fireworks:
House subpoenas Sessions to bring UN-REDACTED documents Oct 4:
https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/092718_Subpoena.pdf
Interesting read: the subpoena says what to bring and that he's then NOT to leave without explicit permission! For an AG, I think subpoena is unusual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This may bring the fireworks:
House subpoenas Sessions to bring UN-REDACTED documents Oct 4:
https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/092718_Subpoena.pdf
Interesting read: the subpoena says what to bring and that he's then NOT to leave without explicit permission! For an AG, I think subpoena is unusual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little bit to keep PaulT on the boil.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-03/top-fbi-lawyer-flips-russia-probe-was-handled-abnorma l-fashion-and-rife-political
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little bit to keep PaulT on the boil.
But, whatever. It's amusing to see your desperate flailing even if you mistake my mockery for something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Little bit to keep PaulT on the boil. -- AS IT HAS!
I don't mistake your mockery, you're WRONG again.
Now, if you were so astute as think, YOU wouldn't be here. But you're a compulsive. I'm playing you for fool, but that's incidental to making a stand here after my comments, which are well within common law, are censored by whatever combination of fanboys and Techdirt, tacking on the lie that are too dangerous to read without being warned.
You kids just can't stand ANY other views. -- And by the way, YOU are some sort of foreigner, don't actually have ANY stake in the USA Congress committee, are more and more proving yourself nutty for continuing to try and out-last here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Little bit to keep PaulT on the boil. -- AS IT HAS!
Actually, I'm not. The only thing I've claimed is that there's an obsessed moron who keeps spamming an otherwise dead thread with links to partisan sources about things barely relevant to the original topic, who then dancing around as if he's "won" something. Your posts regularly prove me correct.
I mean, FFS, you accidentally posted a primary source once, now you're citing random Wordpress blogs again. Why are you not only so desperate to prove a point, but refuse to use anything resembling actual evidence? Is it that it doesn't exist, or because whatever right-wing echo chamber you usually live in hasn't told you to read it yet?
I mean, for example, if there is evidence that Clinton is involved in a major money laundering operation, somewhere other than some random asshole's blog must be covering the investigation? Where's the credible sources?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several links of recent progress. This AIN'T going away, kids.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/fbi-has-evidence-that-directly-refutes-premise-of-trump- russia-probe-gop-rep-says/
Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
https://yourperceptionisnotreality.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hi llary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/
Judicial Watch Uncovers More Classified Material on Hillary Clinton's Unsecure Email System
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-more-classifie d-material-on-hillary-clintons-unsecure-email-system/
"Getting Some Disclosure": Carter Page Sues DNC And Clinton Law Firm Over Sham Dossier Used To Spy On Him
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-16/getting-some-disclosure-carter-page-sues-dnc-and-clinto n-law-firm-over-sham-dossier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A convenient omission [by the FBI].
"Trump campaign adviser denied collusion to FBI source early on"
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/412836-a-convenient-omission-trump-campaign-adviser-denie d-collusion-to-fbi-source
If want to know how the "intelligence" / framing racket works, there's a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
33 Trillion Reasons Why NYT Wrong on "Russiagate"
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/11/02/33-trillion-more-reasons-why-the-new-york-times-g ets-it-wrong-on-russia-gate/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 33 Trillion Reasons Why NYT Wrong on "Russiagate"
Ah, appear to have outlasted the trolls!
Still on target to make this the MOST COMMENTS EVER! -- The topic won't be dead until Hillary Clinton and the hidden partisans at FBI are in JAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 33 Trillion Reasons Why NYT Wrong on "Russiagate"
Define "trolls". All we have is you spamming random idiocy every few a weeks and a few people coming in here to mock you for thinking there's a point to your obsessive spamming. If you think that the definition of a troll is "somebody who responds to your words", well there's another concept you don't understand.
"Still on target to make this the MOST COMMENTS EVER! "
Yet, not one of them offering any insight. It wouldn't be so bad if there was really a logical train of thought, or an ongoing discussion, but all we have here is you randomly posting links to things you think agree with you. The majority of them opinion pieces from sources known to make stuff up.
Even if you're correct about everything you claim, you still have not presented an original thought, you just spam links. Even when you accidentally linked to factual sources, you still have nothing other than "here's the first link I've read in weeks that agreed with me!".
Even on your own terms, you're a pathetic failure, a life so empty that getting the most comments on a site he claims nobody reads is his goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 33 Trillion Reasons Why NYT Wrong on "Russiagate"
Copyright supporters, performance rights organizations, fans of Shiva Ayyadurai?
This is you. A full tank of insanity wrapped in a package of grade A horseshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 33 Trillion Reasons Why NYT Wrong on "Russiagate"
And you're logically lower for even noticing!
Sheesh.
By the way, any objective readers can look at "PaulT" history and find he's nearing SIXTEEN THOUSAND COMMENTS! At 5 minutes each, which I think low, that's 1300 HOURS of his doing NOTHING but commenting on this tiny site! At least I STATE that it's foolish! He actually thinks this is more than idle amusement! Must be over 13 by now, but doesn't show it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 33 Trillion Reasons Why NYT Wrong on "Russiagate"
Besides, according to you, nobody reads this website except for 27 Bangladeshis. Which means these "objective readers", by your own claim, are nothing but your own fantasy.
So thanks again for confirming you have the cognition and sanity of a bowl of tapioca that has been left out in the sun to fester into a rotting mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 33 Trillion Reasons Why NYT Wrong on "Russiagate"
I get an email every time someone posts on an article I've previously commented on. Which means I'm alerted every time you post.
What's your excuse?
"By the way, any objective readers can look at "PaulT" history and find he's nearing SIXTEEN THOUSAND COMMENTS!"
Over the space of over a decade, usually posted during downtime at work when I'm essentially being paid to be idle, but prefer to mock you than find something more productive to do. Lazy, I admit, but nothing like your pathological levels.
Which raises the question - how many posts have YOU made? You're not honest enough to allow people to follow, and I bet that number is WAY higher on your end of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who hated the process of due
Each link that he'd made
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
[Quotes from Zero Hedge re-write]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/burying-the-other-russia-story-1541810056
However, EVEN IF derailed by anti-American wacko Schiff, I'll still keep railing here. Truth never rests and doesn't require politicians to validate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
John Steele was arrested. Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email. The Pirate Bay is still online.
And you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
I wonder why you have to quote from a rewrite from a known biased and untrustworthy source rather than quoting the original? Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
Fair use doesn't exist in blue's world, remember. Based on the traffic he sent to those links, he'd qualify himself for life imprisonment.
out_of_the_blue is the biggest fucking freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
Time to bark again little doggie.
Because the original is behind a paywall! Mystery solved.
Sheesh. That, which I stated up-front, the only quibble you have with it?
Meanwhile of course, YOU believe every word of this not merely biased and untrustworthy but LYING and CENSORING site. Zero Hedge does NOT censor comments, but Techdirt is too fragile to risk it, that's my complaint and motive in making this have the most comments ever. -- And THANKS for your help, guys! Otherwise, I'd have to write more!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
By your own rules you qualify for copyright infringement, but we all know you're too dishonest to follow the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
So, you both support bypassing demands for payment when it's convenient for you, and accept that derivative works are acceptable under fair use?
Interesting, I'll keep that in mind for the other threads when you're claiming otherwise.
"Zero Hedge does NOT censor comments"
I've seen claims otherwise, but it's quite possible that they don't (or, that they do but since you're part of the cargo cult you never disagree enough to have it happen to your own comments). In that case, great, but there's plenty of right-wing echo chambers such as the ones you frequent that not only ban people who dissent but try to scrub their old comments from history (something which, no matter how much you whine, it can be shown does not happen with your comments here).
"Otherwise, I'd have to write more!"
You mean you'd present original opinions and attempt an argument rather than just spamming other peoples' blogs peppered with insults against those who dare mock you? I can see why you'd prefer not to be doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheer up, libs! The invesigation may be derailed:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still nowhere near Trump!
Devin Nunes: 'Fourth bucket' of classified emails show info withheld from FISA court
NOTHING even vaguely pointing at Trump / campaign with or without Rooskis has turned up in the year and half that and Mueller's witch hunt has been going. The basis was ENTIRELY fabricated. Committee "Dems" will have to fabricate more if try to get anywhere!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-fourth-bucket-of-classified-emails-show-info-wi thheld-from-fisa-court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still nowhere near Trump!
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still nowhere near Trump!
You lose, blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The weekly tranche of updates / refuting of Techdirt.
House Intel Panel Hiring Money-Laundering Sleuths...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-intelligence-panel-hiring-money-laundering-sleuths
Ho liday Doings And Undoings
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/holiday-doings-and-undoings/
This next supports the Deep State premise, and is entirely biased, so you don't have to bother. Still might be interesting IF even mildly receptive or just want to know what "conspiracy kooks" believe.
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=109414
Mueller Withheld "Details That Would Exonerate The President" Of Having Kremlin Backchannel
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/mueller-withheld-details-would-exonerate-president -over-trump-tower-moscow
EVEN WASHPO STATES IS ALL A FABRICATION PAID FOR BY CLINTON:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/07/11/inside-the-link-between-the-russi an-lawyer-who-met-donald-trump-jr-and-the-trump-dossier/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The weekly tranche of updates / refuting of Techdirt.
"EVEN WASHPO STATES IS ALL A FABRICATION PAID FOR BY CLINTON:"
That link is clearly from over a year ago. Over 6 months before you started spewing your drivel in this thread, in fact.
Are you becoming so desperate to post here that you're not even restricting yourself to new information? Or, did the people who tell you what to think only just write about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The weekly tranche of updates / refuting of Techdirt.
For one, that would be copyright infringement by his standards.
For two, reposting the same shit to prove a point is Ajit Pai's gimmick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The weekly tranche of updates / refuting of Techdirt.
I'm actually curious if he knows, or if he just takes his orders from his right-wing echo chamber without so much as looking to see if it's fresh, let alone true.
My guess is that after he admitted freeloading and that he prefers to read suitably biased rewrites of people doing the actual work of reporting, he was desperate to post something that couldn't be mocked at face value, but he was also desperate to link to what his favourite writers just made up. So, he jumped at the opportunity to post a link to a relatively trustworthy source, but did so without looking at the URL to see how old the opinion piece he was getting so excited over actually was.
He also doesn't realise that opinion pieces don't suddenly become fact rather than opinion just because they're published by a source whose reporting section is typically reliable, but he certainly isn't the brightest bulb, as he keeps proving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally I like how he thinks any of this is going to appeal to this mystical wave of "rational, reasonable readers", which will turn into an unprecedented wave of backlash against Masnick and Techdirt and vindicate his narcissism.
Sure, maybe the average reader might be turned off by a website with message threads several hundred replies long, except for the fact that:
The loss of Hamilton in blue's corner has driven him mad with grief. Techdirt is seeing the end of 2018 and Shiva has yet to make any headway. Hell, the closest appearance Hamilton has made in weeks is to insult people for masturbation. And as for John Smith/horse with no name/MyNameHere/Whatever/Just Sayin'? He's as insane as ever. I'm just waiting for him to scream "Curse yooooou, PaulT" to the sky...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The weekly tranche of updates / refuting of Techdirt.
Time to yap again, ankle-biter "PaulT"!
You, with nearly 16,000 comments here, literally at least a full work year wasted on this tiny little site, have negative cred to accuse anyone of being a nut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The weekly tranche of updates / refuting of Techdirt
I post here to give my personal views. You spend hours trawling the worst of the internet in order to parrot someone else's, on a site you claim they will never be read. Even by your own standards, you're still a failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steele Dossier Unverified Months After FISA Warrant Granted
James Comey Admits...
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/08/james-comey-admits-steele-dossier-unverified -months-after-fisa-warrant-granted/
Unlike the "Trump-Russia collusion" (by the way, Comey admitted that "collusion" isn't even a crime!), here's a huge pile evidencing actual crimes and why to LOCK HER UP:
THREE whistleblowers hand over hundreds of documents 'showing the Clinton Foundation misused funds and made quid-pro-quo promises to donors about access to Hillary'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6470709/Whistleblowers-hand-hundreds-documents-Cli nton-Foundation-wrongdoing.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steele Dossier Unverified Months After FISA Warrant Granted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most amazing point is the less evidence, the more screeching!
Here's a sample (all from one site, but there's truly nothing backing any headlines except screeching):
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12/09/schiff-trump-may-face-real-prospect-of-jail- time/
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12/09/maxine-waters-i-told-you-so-trump-is-a-criminal-he- must-be-impeached/
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12/08/dem-rep-cohen-trumps-presidency-direct ly-a-byproduct-of-vladimir-putin/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/07/mueller-memo-details -michael-cohens-lying-to-investigators-on-russia/
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12/07/dem-rep -cohen-donald-trump-is-a-criminal-enterprise/
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12/07/john-dean-c ongress-will-have-little-choice-other-than-to-start-impeachment-proceedings-after-cohen-filing/
http s://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/12/07/dem-rep-heck-i-think-theres-enough-evidence-to-prove-trump-co mmitted-a-crime/
NONE of those have anything that gets near Trump! ALL just MORE assertions and wishing. Here's a typical "quote":
It's easy when all you all have to do is assume. But that's not enough for indictment, not even impeachment. Dershowitz, who's tracking details, is still of the opinion that it's JUST assertions, a conclusion I arrived at within seconds in 2016.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most amazing point is the less evidence, the more screeching
Yeah, most sane people know that about Breitbart, which is why they don't frequent the place.
What's the matter? Have there been more embarrassing Trump revelations and indefensible behaviour from him today that require deflection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most amazing point is the less evidence, the more screec
You mis-understand: I'm not exactly defending Trump except on the HOPE that he'll stir up the swamp. For instance, I DO NOT support Trump on the missle attack (for supposed chemical weapons by regime) in Syria last year, NOR support him on moving the embassy to Jerusalem, let alone support him for the insane Zionist Nikki Haley as UN amb. Nor for the Goldman-Sachs executives.
On same line, YOU never attack Trump for those ACTUAL bad acts (which just happen to please Zionists), ONLY for the totally fabricated "Trump-Russia collusion" the totality of which can still be summarized in one word: NONE.
You're at times reasonable. Please take some SLIGHT effort to understand the above. kthxbai
First attempt here failed. Lucky I edit off-line, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Most amazing point is the less evidence, the more sc
That you appear to be an anti-Semitic who gets most of his information on the subject from videos on a source known to outright fabricate stories? I think I understand perfectly.
Oh, and if you think I only criticise Trump for increasingly proven collusion with a foreign power, you should read my comments a little more closely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess you were right, the less evidence you have the more screeching you make. A broken clock is right twice a day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What took you so long, anyway? Three days! You're slipping, blue, or the evidence you like to bandy about so much isn't as plentiful as you claim. I'm thinking both!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI, CIA Told WaPo They Doubted Key Allegation In Steele Dossier
https://www.zero hedge.com/news/2018-12-16/fbi-cia-told-wapo-they-doubted-key-allegation-steele-dossier
Well known but now under oath so possible BIGGIE!
https://www.washington times.com/news/2018/dec/12/christopher-steele-hillary-clinton-was-preparing-t/
Reporter Who Met With Christopher Steele Now Doubts The Infamous Dossier
Michael Isikoff, the journalist who was first to report allegations from the Steele dossier, said in a new interview that many of the salacious allegations in the document are "likely false."
https://daily caller.com/2018/12/17/michael-isikoff-steele-dossier/
Now up to 427 comments! Thanks for your help, kids! Couldn't do this without YOU, not least that you create both the need and the hoots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI, CIA Told WaPo They Doubted Key Allegation In Steele Dos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI, CIA Told WaPo They Doubted Key Allegation In Steele
I wonder if you're ever work out that it's an automated spam filter that's filtering (not blocking) your spam, and that you've just proven that, or if you're continue on your self-important fantasy of their being a conspiracy against you? Doubtful, since you obviously choose the opposite of educational sources for your other reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FBI, CIA Told WaPo They Doubted Key Allegation In St
HUH? How do those sites get "automatically" marked as spam?
I think it's manual, all I'm saying. -- Well, that and due to childish spleen by Techdirt / Masnick to put them in the mighty "filter".
The only thing "automatic" here is that you fanboys keep responding, though futile. Truly like ankle-biters as I've long said, just enjoy barking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI, CIA Told WaPo They Doubted Key Allegation I
They don't. It doesn't matter where the link goes to, any dickhead who refuses to log in and posts multiple links to any site risks getting tagged.
Are you actually this stupid, or is it just a character you like to play?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI, CIA Told WaPo They Doubted Key Allegati
HOW am I "tagged"? With the magic of TOR browser. You intrigue me.
YES, on the above question. Enlighten how I'm "tagged".
Otherwise you're just as always bloviating with supposed expertise, as typical of any compulsive with 15,000 comments who responds over and over to person he states is incorrigible, and on a web-site that doesn't matter, on a now ancient topic. So 'splain also how YOU'RE the sane one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We don't have to be sane. It doesn't prove you're not stupid. What's stupid is you bending over backwards to defend a President throwing a tantrum because the government won't fund his toy. On a site you claim nobody reads, so your feverish efforts are just as insignificant. Therefore, stupid.
Again, you lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI, CIA Told WaPo They Doubted Key Alle
Well, since you demand factual information for a change rather than reposting fiction, let me educate you:
Most spam filters operate based on the content on the post. While the IP address may raise the possibility of being filtered depending on how many of your moronic posts have been reported, an IP that has never been used before, posting anonymously and containing several random links will quite correctly be marked as possible spam. Whereas, when you changed the text so that they did not appear to be links, that did not trigger the spam filter.
tldr - your posting content, not your IP, is what marks you as a spamming moron
"any compulsive with 15,000 comments "
I guarantee that if you were honest enough to have a way of people tracking your posts, your number would be way higher than my 10 year posting history.
"on a web-site that doesn't matter"
If it matter so little, why are you so obsessed with posting here?
"on a now ancient topic"
The original topic is irrelevant, I'm only replying to new posts from you. Every one is a fresh example of idiotic insanity, and I respond to each fresh example of insanity that you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that comment thread was ever an indicator of anything but the spamming of a site you claim nobody reads, but have fun perpetually wetting your panties.
You lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who hated the process of due
Each news that he'd made
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partisan Obama actively tried to undermine President-Elect
> Judicial Watch today released two sets of heavily redacted State Department documents, 38 pages and 48 pages, showing classified information was researched and disseminated to multiple U.S. Senators by the Obama administration immediately prior to President Donald Trump's inauguration. The documents reveal that among those receiving the classified documents were Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN).
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama -state-department-urgently-provided-classified-russiagate-documents-to-multiple-senators-immediately -ahead-of-trump-inauguration/
Alabama attorney general looking into disinformation campaign targeting Roy Moore
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/423021-alabama-attorney-general-looking-into-disinform ation-campaign-targeting
Related because pretended to be Russians!
ROFL the latest #FakeNews story trying to keep the #Russiagate Hoax alive. McClatchy makes ridiculously false allegations of Michael Cohen visiting Prague
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/rofl-the-latest-fakenews-story-trying-to-keep-the-russiaga te-hoax-alive-mcclatchy-makes-ridiculously-false-allegations-of-michael-cohen-visiting-prague/
Appare ntly an unnamed "Eastern European" intelligence agency has dug up "proof".
NOT THE ONION - Bob Mueller is so desperate to cover everything up that he has tried to block discovery in the Concord Management case by claiming that someone's nudes are a threat to national security. Must be Hillary's.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/not-the-onion-bob-mueller-is-so-desperate-to-cover-eve rything-up-that-he-has-tried-to-block-discovery-in-the-concord-management-case-by-claiming-that-some ones-nudes-are-a-threat-to-national-securi/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partisan Obama actively tried to undermine President-Elect
No, the link just appears to be some random blogger, whose word you take as truth because they say what you wish was real. We can always tell when you're desperate because you stray as far from primary sources as you can. If only the real world conformed to your wishes as well, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Partisan Obama actively tried to undermine President-Ele
Sheesh. More of your projection. It's YOU who believe the whole "Trump-Russia" allegations without LEAST question. When it comes to Trump, you don't require ANY substance. Just the allegations are enough.
The burden of proof is on YOU. After TWO YEARS of Mueller investigating, what has turned up specifically on "Trump-Russia" affecting the election? HMM? State even ONE specific criminal act by Trump or campaign to support even your efforts here to contradict all the links I put up. C'mon, just ONE specific charge.
You of course CAN'T. -- In my view because there was/is NEVER any real substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Partisan Obama actively tried to undermine President
It's a couple of months old, but there's plenty, and I found it in far less time than it took you to link to your gibberish:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury
M aybe you need to get out of that echo chamber and update your talking points, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Cohen Report Is Based On Third-Hand Information
https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/28/michael-cohen-prague-mcclatchy/
Just like ALL else in "Trump-Russia", it's mere allegations giving an "intelligence agency" source, can't be substantiated, can't even be verified as to origin!
Tom Fitton: The Clinton Campaign Generated the Trump/Russia Collusion Narrative
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/tom-fitton-the-clinton-campaign-gener ated-the-trump-russia-collusion-narrative/
The politically motivated origin of these mere assertions is the key part that Techdirt / fanboys can't stand even being seen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Incredible Mueller-Russia Fiasco
"This is an extremely elaborate case involving a combination of criminal abuse of governmental powers and propaganda."
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/01/the-incredible-mueller-russia-fiasco.html
Non -partisan site, BIG article with plenty of links covering the whole. IF you kids were actually interested in the topic, you'd read it -- and it would demolish your assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Incredible Mueller-Russia Fiasco
Huh, I've never heard of them before. I wonder what their credentials are, and if they have any further credibility than the average raving lunatics you post here apart from their supposed lack of political bias. (Googles)
"Site that posts misleading headlines and exaggerates true stories to be more sensational or to fit a political narrative."
"Notes: Activist Post promotes typical conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. "
Hmmm...
Oh, and since the writer you linked to feels the need to misrepresent the truth in the opening paragraph, I don't think I'll bother reading the whole thing. Thanks for trying, but you failed as miserably as you normally do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Incredible Mueller-Russia Fiasco
You're spinning, blue. And your government-shutting, table-slamming President is still not getting that wall. So much for getting Mexico to pay for it if you have to beg the Democrats for money! Breitbart that, wise guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The inevitable is beginning to be admitted.
ABC's Karl: `Zero Evidence' that Trump or Campaign Colluded with Russians
Monday on ABC's "The View," ABC News chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl said there has been "zero evidence" on "the central question of did Donald Trump or anybody in his campaign coordinate or collude with the Russians."
Karl said, "We are now just, I believe, weeks away from getting a final report from Robert Mueller, and there is so much anticipation, so much speculation about what he is going to show. He's been looking into, you know, this whole range of issues. And I am led to believe by people who have interacted with the special counsel that we should be prepared for him to release a report that is anti-climactic."
He continued, "He's already gotten more than 30 indictments, the president's inner circle, his campaign chairman convicted, his national security adviser indicted, his personal lawyer. You know, so much has already been there. But on the central question of did Donald Trump or anybody in his campaign coordinate or collude with the Russians in their effort to meddle in the 2016 campaign, we have seen zero evidence of that."
Via Ron Paul: The New York Times Smears the President
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/january/15/the-new-york-ti mes-smears-the-president/
Good vitriol by David Stockman on "journalists" whom he calls "kids" with yet more baseless smear.
FISA shocker: DOJ official warned Steele dossier was connected to Clinton, might be biased
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425739-fisa-shocker-doj-official-warned-steele-doss ier-was-connected-to-clinton
I don't know what's "shocking" except to you who so desperately ignore the truth because want the election overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The inevitable is beginning to be admitted.
"I don't know what's "shocking" "
Neither do I, but nobody said that except the opinion piece you linked. Are you still incapable of telling the difference between reporting and subjective opinion?
But, it's a good thing that there's plenty of evidence that's not related to one man's biases, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's office denies it!
After yet more unsupported allegations from two "sources requesting anonymity" last week:
"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," the special counsel's office said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-bruce-ohr-told-the-fbi-11547770923
But UK serf "PaulT" will dismiss the Wall Street Journal too, I'm sure. He has no immediate interest except excuse for more empty ad hominem as he does above.
BuzzFeed's Trump Story Latest In Long List Of Russia Bombshells That Weren't
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/18/buzzfeed-cohen-media-russia-bombshells/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's office denies it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's office denies
But, your mindless obsession with making the most comments on a thread you claim nobody but you and I will ever read, on a site that almost nobody else ever visits, is noted.
Again, by your own claims, you're a failure of a human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's office de
That's better than what you claim for self! Far nearer to true.
Now, given true, why are YOU so low and vicious as to point it out? -- Actually, can only be because you recognize an adequate human being and are are trying to lower me.
You are TOPPED again, UK serf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's offic
How's that corporation cock taste, blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's office denies it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's office denies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BuzzFeed story so fake that even Mueller's office denies it!
Why would I dismiss a publication that's been documented to have been reduced in quality and increased in political bias since Rupert Murdoch bought it? It's a mystery why you think I'd not believe a source at face value when they're known to have changed their editorial content since being owned by the worst propagandist out there.
There may well be something to the story you're trying to push for once, by the way, it's just that your sourcing sucks.
It is also strange that you're so late with this story. You usually come in here breathlessly spewing any such story you can the moment you read it and whine that this site doesn't cover news the instant you read it elsewhere. Yet, here you are, days late with a story that's been covered to death before you decided to post it. Did the echo chamber you go to not let you out, or did they just take longer than normal to rewrite it for you?
"BuzzFeed's Trump Story Latest In Long List Of Russia Bombshells That Weren't"
Yet not as long as the ones that *were*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stone Indictment Only Confirms No Trump-Russia Conspiracy
In all the excitement today (blue letter day, Masnick replied to me!), nearly forgot the weekly update:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/roger-stone-indictment-underscores-no-trump-russia- conspiracy/
(headline re-worded for effect, and because Techdirt so fragile now that can't allow more than 64 characters)
Judge Orders Release Of Sealed Records From BuzzFeed's Dossier Lawsuit
The FBI cited Steele's unverified claims as part of a probable cause affidavit to obtain spy warrants against Page. Republicans have accused the FBI of misleading the surveillance court by relying on Steele's unverified dossier and for failing to disclose it was ultimately funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/30/buzzfeed-dossier-lawsuit-unsealed/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stone Indictment Only Confirms No Trump-Russia Conspiracy
There once was an out of the blue Who hated the process of due Each link that he'd made Was DMCAed And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOTAL OF ZERO: "we don't have anything that would suggest"
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS.
Getting difficult to find mention of "Trump-Russia" collusion because THERE WAS NONE.
That's the KEY and only really relevant FACT of the whole "investigation". The central charge has come up with ZERO AFTER TWO YEARS.
But of course not to Techdirt because the kids just want to get Trump. They demand fairness and full due process for their petty thefts of copyrighted content, but for overturning a national election the mere allegation is enough.
Devin Nunes: Task force combing through transcripts for criminal referrals in FBI bias investigation
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-task-force-combing-through-transcripts-for -criminal-referrals-in-fbi-bias-investigation
Not into Trump: into the FBI.
And in a total shocker -- the shock being that NBC admits:
Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-conspiracy- between-trump-campaign-n970536
SO AFTER A YEAR, TECHDIRT: YOU HAVE NOTHING AT ALL SUBSTANTIATED OF THIS LITTLE NERD RAGE HIT PIECE.
NOTHING. AT. ALL.
Now, if you had ANY decency or honesty, you'd admit that, you and all the fanboys above would write complete retractions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOTAL OF ZERO: "we don't have anything that would suggest"
"THIS LITTLE NERD RAGE "
You almost had a moment of self reflection there. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOTAL OF ZERO: "we don't have anything that would suggest"
"" If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr told CBS."
Both Burr and Nunes are Republicans. How hard were they looking for facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOTAL OF ZERO: "we don't have anything that would suggest"
You got your boys like Manafort to toss themselves under the bus.
Wow, such an achievement.
What happened to those plans for Mexico to pay for the wall?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WSJ has good question:
"WSJ Columnist: Why is the Media Ignoring the Real Bombshell FISA Memo?"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/02/08/strassel-tweetstorm-grassley-memo-n24 45871
1) Why isn't the (mostly) unredacted Grassley memo front page news? Here's why: Because it confirms the Nunes memo and blows up the Schiff talking points (which the media ran with). - Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2018
3) It is proof that the FBI did not tell the Court the extraordinarily partisan provenance of the dossier. - Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2018
5) It provides evidence that Steele was getting information from the Clinton team itself! Via the State Department! So now, not only do we have a dossier based on unnamed shady Russians, but on Sidney Blumenthal. How much of this was engineered by the Clinton campaign from start? - Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2018
MY answer: "the Media" starts with "Them"!
Schiff-ting The Goal Posts: House Intel Chairman Claims Trump-Russia Collusion "Compelling" But Not Necessarily "Criminal"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-17/schiff-ting-goal-posts-house-intel-ch airman-claims-trump-russia-collusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WSJ has good question:
Oh dear. I mean, I know the Cohen testimony has to be painful for you and for some reason you feel obliged to post in this thread whenever something goes badly for Trump. But, an opinion post from TownHall from over a year ago? That's your idea of breaking factual news today? I mean, other right-wing idiots at least seem to be trying some new superficial attack on a lower rung Democrat or flailing to try and pretend that Trump isn't looking like an idiot in Hanoi right now...
"Russia Collusion "Compelling" But Not Necessarily "Criminal""
So... you finally admit that he was colluding? That's progress, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WSJ has good question:
PaulT, you've now admitted that you get PAID while TROLL Techdirt. I don't say paid "to", just that you've admitted are either such a drone that aren't allowed to do anything, or are actively stealing from your employer instead of working. In any case, your 15,000 comments mean that (at 5 minutes each or so average) you've spent literally an entire year of 8 hour work days on this tiny little site. You have ZERO standing to sneer at anyone.
That's a quote, silly, not my evaluation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WSJ has good question:
Yes, I've never denied that I spend downtime at work responding to idiots like you, nor that this has been a go-to activity for years. I am productive enough that 30 mins or so per day while waiting for jobs to complete isn't questioned.
i wonder if your obsession with my being employed and the number of posts I have made exposes some deep-seated personal problem you have yourself - say, nobody will hire you because of your mental illness, and you secretly know you have posted many, many times more than I have?
"That's a quote, silly, not my evaluation."
Ah, I apologise in that case. Since you don't pick sources that deal in thing like facts or impartiality, it is hard to tell where their idiocy ends and your own begins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ has good question:
Well, nice "work" if can get it, I guess. For a drone. Obviously not advancing, and too incompetent to get a real job.
Commenting at "idiots" is useless yet you've made it your real work? If "idiots" then clearly it's YOU who have mental problems. However, what you mean by "idiots" is simply political opponents. You don't have the gravitas to stick to topic / ideas, so go for ad hom.
And NO, what I do is state my own opinions first, don't care whether get response, but which entails responding to paid trolls like you to further explain and defend, just necessary and unpleasant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ has good question:
You care enough to spam this shit for a whole year.
No one believes you, blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No news from the Cohen testimony because nothing but allegations
Yes, after hype and delays and big attention, the Cohen testimony FLOPPED.
What Cohen actually stated is NO "Trump-Russia collusion"! He was never in Prague which is a key point of the faked "Steele dossier".
The whole schmear fell apart.
But "The Media" won't ever admit that. All they have is silence. And all Techdirt has is denial / ad hom.
So "Democrats" (actually globalist / deep state fiends) have moved on to other "investigation" equally well based: nothing but allegations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words Cohen wasn't privy enough to the dirtiest of the dirt. Big whoop.
I like how after Trump was elected based on the proud boasting that he would toss Hilary Clinton in jail, Manafort and Cohen got their asses thrown in the clink instead.
Nice going, fucknut!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nancy Pelosi just admitted that Democrats have nothing on Trump
SAYS NO IMPEACHMENT.
https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/nancy-pelosi-just-admitted-that-democrats-have-nothing-on -trump/
Even Schiff-ty Schiff is having to back down because there's ZERO evidence for "Trump-Russia collusion".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nancy Pelosi just admitted that Democrats have nothing on Tr
Ah, thanks for reminding me to check out the Manafort verdict. I always know when something Trump doesn't like happens to one of his guys, since you always come in here posting about something irrelevant to current events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nancy Pelosi just admitted that Democrats have nothing on Tr
And that is of course not what Nancy Pelosi said. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Trump 'not worth' the 'divisive' costs of impeachment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nancy Pelosi just admitted that Democrats have nothing o
Yeah, but that's just pesky reality. Our guy here filters his news through right-wing fiction bloggers and tabloids so that he doesn't have to face that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nancy Pelosi just admitted that Democrats have nothi
I'm well aware of that, but thought I'd inject some reality anyway. And one of these days I might even comment logged in so I can trigger a zombie rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi, blue! How's it feel like drawing more attention to a "feckless cunt"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO MORE INDICTMENTS! -- I always predicted would end in ZERO.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/mueller-report-released-russia-investigation-trump-campaign-electi on-live-updates-today/
RESULT: nothing even near Trump and campaign.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-mueller-report-is-in-they-were-wrong-we-were-right-a91 5d23a6d82
Everyone who questioned this buillshit scam from the start - who endured accusations of being Kremlin agents, Putin stooges, Trump supporters, anti-US haters, who got banned from cable news & had smear jobs published in the New Yorker & the like - should wear it all with pride. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 24, 2019
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO MORE INDICTMENTS! -- I always predicted would end in ZERO
No more indictment by the SCO. However, there are several other ongoing investigations, some of which are by state, which means no pardon power for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO MORE INDICTMENTS! -- I always predicted would end in
Yeah, most of the reports seem to suggest that this isn't over by a long way. Plus, even if direct collusion isn't proven, a large number of criminal activities by people associated with the administration have been found and prosecuted as a result of all this. Even if they're not Russian spies, they are criminals and traitors and should be remembered as such.
But, I'm sure we'll continue to have a constant feed as to what the right-wing blogs are saying about the situation as this story continues, since someone is incapable of reading anything over there without spamming it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So WHO was RIGHT ALL ALONG, kids? Techdirt that censors me?
Nope. NOT EVEN PART RIGHT. ZERO COLLUSION.
...2 years, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 warrants, 500 witness Interviews Later, NO Collusion...
You nasty little netwits will of course never admit to even yourselves, but you KNOW.
Won't crow much here, but on advice of Wikileaks and Caitlyn Johnstone, will now and then, not going to let you clowns forget that you were happy to be lied to and to repeat the lies with ZERO factual.
[substitute horizontal rule since petty little Techdirt removed because I liked it]
AND YET the who pack of lies served at least one purpose: diverting from and foiling Trump's reform of gov't. Just like the little band of yapping ankle-biters here diverts: ANY OTHER TOPIC WILL DO.
AND already denied:
The Deep State / Establisment don't need facts any more, real or alternative. That should scare the hell out of Techdirt, but won't because these unfounded assertions are made by fellow travelers.
[substitute horizontal rule since petty little Techdirt removed because I liked it]
Other good news this week: top two including founder at Southern Poverty OUT.
[substitute horizontal rule since petty little Techdirt removed because I liked it]
And the non-Empire strikes back:
Devin Nunes: No Rest Until Mueller Scope Memo Released, `Dirty Cops' Rounded Up
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/devin-nunes-no-rest-until-mueller-scope-memo-released-dirty-c ops-rounded-up/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So WHO was RIGHT ALL ALONG, kids? Techdirt that censors me?
No Hilary arrest, no Mexico paying for the wall, Manafort and Cohen going to jail...
Right, we're supposed to believe your boi Trump's hands are completely squeaky clean?
Article 13 vote!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So WHO was RIGHT ALL ALONG, kids? Techdirt that censors
Of course he's not "squeaky clean". Even Barr said he wasn't completely exonerated, and the sheer amount of corruption uncovered by the report's investigation means that it was well worth it, even if it didn't directly uncover personal collusion by Trump. Although, I'm pretty sure there must be some juicy details there as Trump hasn't insisted it be published (unlike, say, the Starr Report and the 9/11 Commission Report, both of which had been fully published as paperbacks by this point after their summation). There's definitely something there, even if the smoking gun wasn't in full view.
But, our resident drooler found some propaganda blog that tells him to ignore common sense and reality, so that's what he will do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been neglecting this while watching in horror the refusal
of "Democrats" (and Deep State) to admit Trump was exonerated. They (like insane little bitter-ender UK serf "PaulT" above) simply won't give up, just go on to new allegations. I bet that like "PaulT", they're paid while troll and lie.
But I hope there are real legalities coming that puts FBI and other criminals, including Clinton, IN JAIL. -- I'm not holding my breath because was insane from the start, then over-played by media simply repeating endlessly.
Anyhoo, here's what rational people say:
Greenwald: Robert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.
I'll repeat from the second para without the clause:
no evidence ... that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-c onspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/
Mueller completely dropped the ball with obstruction punt
https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mainstream-media-doubles-down-on-trump-conspiracies/
Even the New York Times has to admit:
That's of course playing UP the ZERO that was found.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/steele-dossier-mueller-report.html
Greenwald calls media reaction to Mueller report 'genuinely stunning'
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-media-reaction-to-muelle r-report-is-genuinely-stunning
I only wish this was the final update needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been neglecting this while watching in horror the refus
There's 2 fun facts here. One is that people who genuinely believe that they are innocent and/or exonerated don't keep on about it. It's only those who believe they are guilty who blab on about it constantly. You and Trump constantly talking about it indicates some guilt. The second is that it's essentially irrelevant whether actual collusion was found - there was enough corruption and criminal activity uncovered by the Mueller investigation that it was a resounding success regardless of whether the original aim of finding collusion was successful. Hell, because of Manafort the investigation even made a profit.
It's also not over - the sheer level of redaction in the report indicates that there is a lot more to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've been neglecting this while watching in horror the r
Funnily enough, the reactions blue is focusing on this time belong to Glenn Greenwald. As in, the guy who blue (and MyNameHere/Whatever/Just Sayin'/horse with no name/John Smith) said wasn't worth believing about Snowden, because:
So apparently Greenwald's opinions are kosher in blue-land, now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've been neglecting this while watching in horror t
Of course. Anyone who agrees with his pre-conceived views is 100% trustworthy and anyone who dares disagree is "fake news". Up until they do agree/disagree with him, in which case the label flips. This is why he's incapable of taking in factual information - reality is far too nuanced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've been neglecting this while watching in horr
Thank you as usual for adding noise, and another comment.
500 comments is within sight, but the exact topic is a bit tapering off. On other hand, now that Trump has ordered release of "classified documents" and Barr actually looks like investigating -- there's a person assigned -- will surely be MORE related.
The truth coming out can only PROVE me right, you little netwit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the truth like how Prenda Law would win and SOPA would pass. I'm shattered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've been neglecting this while watching in horror t
You sort of get the point, but I've long distrusted "Glenwald", and more since handed a lot of money by another suspect Rich Guy. -- Glenwald is useful to quote because can't be easily pooh-poohed by other lefttists, is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't take a Ph.D to know you don't trust anyone. Copyright-types are the same that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear out_of_the_blue,
We know you'll be reading this.
We also remember you said that 2018 would be the last full year that Techdirt is alive due to the ongoing Shiva Ayyadurai lawsuit.
So from all of us 27 Bangladeshis who read this site, here's a message:
Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email. Also, suck it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong misquote..
We also remember you said that 2018 would be the last full year that Techdirt is alive due to the ongoing Shiva Ayyadurai lawsuit.
I PREDICTED in 2017 and since stated that 2018 WAS Techdirt's last full year by defining it as attenuated. The feeble remainder is painful to look at. It's down to regulars pretending to be ACs because too chicken to openly attack the site's most reviled dissent. Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong misquote..
Yeah, a feeble remainder that your hero Shiva Ayyadurai couldn't rape to death. What a fucking accomplishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong misquote..
You also predicted Perfect 10 would win.
That didn't turn out so well did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Golem [Trump] Strikes Back
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-golem-strikes-back/
I've been trying to ignore this, kids, hoping you and the outright evil people would just fade away, but no. You/they keep making up more and bigger lies to keep the original lie current, still planning on making it succeed by endless repetition.
The second paragraph above is the most important point in all this. It's literally 1984 level of The [Deep State] Party writing what serves its purpose and all the hidden organs of The Establishment join in support of known lies without least wavering, to say that 0 + 0 = whatever number they want.
IF get your wish here, kids, and you may, you will have witnessed the end of civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Golem [Trump] Strikes Back
Huh. Nearly a full month before you spouted nonsense supported only by some random opinion piece you think agrees with you and no facts.
What’s the matter - have even your usual comic book sources been unable to say positive things about the orange one recently? Oh, and it’s “hamburders” according to cofefe man...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, can't even quote 1984 right. It's 2 + 2 = 5. Or does quoting things give you erectile dysfunction because fair use doesn't exist in your world?
This thread can swell to a thousand posts. Ten thousand posts. You'll take it as a victory no matter what happens. The least anyone with a functioning brain is to use it as a demonstration and point you out as the de facto example of what a copyright fanatic fucktard looks like.
Have a DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for blue's weekly reminder.
Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email.
SOPA isn't law.
Also, 14th June marks Paul Hansmeier's sentencing. I'll grant that he's put in a lot of effort to delay it; it was supposed to be a couple days ago. Unfortunately for the copyright fans judges have finally decided they've had enough of the IP-flavored bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, haven't forgetten, kids! Slow progress and TD also dull...
I point out again, after all the renewed and even more WRONG furor when the report was released has also faded, that the sum total of allegations is actually less than zero.
But there's still news on the attack side to find the criminals who manufactured "Trump-Russia collusion" out of NOTHING.
Now, I admit freely this may yet, even likely, just fade away as scandals in high places do. That should not give you joy. Enough is now out that if you have any sense or decency, you're alarmed at the attempt to overthrow an election.
There's yet hope because a thousand threads remain to be pulled (just in this: are dozens more areas of scandal), any one of which could unravel the whole Deep State / Globalist project. The Yellow Vests are still protesting in Paris (27 weeks I think), showing that there's a firm core of people who don't blind themselves to what's really happening.
Judicial Watch: State Department Emails Show Coordination Between Obama State Department and House Democrat Leader on Christopher Steele/Russia
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-departmen t-emails-show-coordination-between-obama-state-department-and-house-democrat-leader-on-christopher-s teele-russia/
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/obama-state-at-center-of-anti- trump-coup-cabal/
'Severe, Serious Abuses' By FBI, CIA Are 'Going To Come Out': Rep. Peter King
https://catsroundtable.com/congressman-peter-king-911-funding-first-responders-right-thi ng/
By the way, all these scandals have a core group (Insiders in Techdirt parlance) that first install cronies into office then mutually protect, just like all criminals do:
Now it's time for Techdirt fanboys to arrive to censor and ad hom. -- Including "ACs" which aren't, as shown by fact that they show up here after Techdirt's "Insider" system alerts to new comments on this now ancient topic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, haven't forgetten, kids! Slow progress and TD also dull.
Cat's Roundtable? I assume that some random person's blog, being the only think you could come up with that fit your narrative this time round. Credibility is always secondary to agreement with you.
"including "ACs" which aren't, as shown by fact that they show up here after Techdirt's "Insider" system alerts to new comments on this now ancient topic..."
As ever, I'm intrigued by how you come up with idiotically complex conspiracy theories about why people respond to your laughable ramblings. Rather than accepting that they just clicked the box requesting updates when there are new comments, as per the tickbox clearly visible below every reply box.
Though, this does again bring up the same question - if this thread is so dead, why do you keep posting here? It can't be to push up the comments count as you've previously claimed, since you only bother commenting once per month.
I'm going to guess that the news of Epstein's raid is getting the echo chamber worried again and they're lashing out to deflect from Trump's know associations with him (and, no, the fact that Clinton has also been on flights with him does not absolve Trump from wrongdoing. At least he hasn't got Barr to "summarise" the evidence this time round).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Honestly blue was a lot more spammy for roughly half a year since he started his post count crusade on this topic, on this site that nobody reads.
Odds are he's run out of material (read: memes) boasting about the Mueller report "exonerating" his corporation-president hero Trump. Personally I find it easier to rehash all the times he's fucked up instead.
Whether blue wants to take this thread to several hundred or thousand replies is of no consequence. The largest thread on this site is from the early 2000s, admittedly populated by spambots. Blue's hope of breaching that magnitude is ridiculously low. I barely remember to kick his ass here (why bother when his ass gets to be more visibly kicked every time he posts his garbage on the front page?) more than once a month. In his mind he wins on his own terms whether he posts uninterrupted or not. So we take it on our terms instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, my terms include mocking the pointless endeavour. While also taking note of how closely the timing and subjects of his posts coincide with those of other refugees from right-wing echo chambers that occasionally stumble across other sites I frequent.
In my experience the common rehashing is because they a) have no actual evidence to counter the constant fresh claims of scandal on the side of the Trump administration and b) lack the imagination to even attempt a new fiction. So, they recycle the same old tired lies and/or whine about persecution for the actual wrongdoing their heroes have openly committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You took, what, a whole month after the last reminder?
You're slipping, blue. Any further and you'll shoot off the edge.
Go faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey blue, answer me this:
If the Mueller probe "exonerated" Trump why do you feel the need to piss and moan about Mueller getting asked questions? Nothing to fear, nothing to hide, right?
What, are you afraid the impeachment would actually happen? I thought the Republicans controlled the government? What do you have to be scared about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing left to this tissue of LIES except the history:
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/what-goes-around/
I disagree. Mueller KNEW right from start. He's a Deep State hack, complicit in at the very least, the cover-up / ignoring of Epstein's crimes. **Mueller was always to do a hatchet job on Trump, and there just is not the least bit of truth to hang a narrative on.***
No Wonder Google Execs Cried When Hillary Lost - They Funded Crowdstrike - The `Experts' Behind the Russian Hackers Story
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/no-wonder-google-execs-cried-when-hillary-lost-they-f unded-crowdstrike-the-experts-behind-the-russian-hackers-story/
I'll shorten what you kids won't read, anyway. -- The key (second) point is that Roger Stone wants to get the Crowdstrike report supposedly showing Russians hacked DNC, and Mueller is resisting; the FBI never checked that server, only believes what CrowdStrike says, which all means that there is ZERO evidence.
Good current review / reminder of how all the "Russian hack" fabrication began:
RAY McGOVERN: A Non-Hack That Raised Hillary's Hackles
It's not difficult to "react" when simply make up a story out of the blue that the media then repeat without question! Hitler would envy the near-complete unity between DNC / media.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-22/non-hack-hurt-hillary-3rd-anniversary-wikileaks -release-dnc-emails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing left to this tissue of LIES except the history:
You always manage to dredge up sources known to lies to their readers and random blogs nobody's ever heard of, but thanks for the reminder that Mueller's about to testify. You must be very worried.
You see, usually when an investigation successfully incriminates and prosecutes a bunch of criminals while making an actual profit for the taxpayer, people move on. The investigation was an undoubted success by any measure, even if the original target was not ultimately proven (though not, as stated very clearly, exonerated). Yet, both you and the fanta menace are still obsessed with this. It's rather strange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing left to this tissue of LIES except the history:
Hey, "PaulT": obsessed or not, I'm in the RIGHT!
And today after Mueller FLOPPED, you are not just hoping for some dirt to turn up at last, but from here on clearly intentionally WRONG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dirt? The investigation proved Russia interfered with the elections. Which you swore up and down didn't happen, dumbfuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing left to this tissue of LIES except the histo
"I'm in the RIGHT!'
You're actually not, you're just too dumb to understand the real report and depend on crib notes that have had the facts carefully removed from them.
"Mueller FLOPPED"
He did exactly what he was expected to do and what he said he would do - reiterate what was on the report for those too dumb to read it, and answer a bunch of stupid grandstanding questions attempting to get him to deviate from that path. Anyone who was expecting anything different has not been paying attention to the man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing left to this tissue of LIES except the history:
I saw this the other day and it seems to apply to blue https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EALetZvU0AEuNtw.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, kids: the Mueller testimony TOTALLY FLOPPED
Know why? 'Cause the WHOLE FLAP WAS FABRICATED. Two years of digging turned up ZERO.
Now, if Techdirt had the least honesty and self-respect would officially amend above to declare that this piece was unwarranted and in fact, turns out WRONG. But that's not the Techdirt way.
Therefore I get to keep on enjoying adding here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know what else flopped?
Shiva Ayyadurai's case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, kids: the Mueller testimony TOTALLY FLOPPED
Not that you care, but while the Mueller testimony didn't do anything other than repeat what was said in the actual report (which expressly did NOT exonerate Trump), this is a lie:
"Two years of digging turned up ZERO"
No, it turned up massive corruption, enough to get a bunch of Russian agents, Gates, Stone, Flynn and Manafort locked up, the latter of which provided enough revenue to pay for the entire investigation. Here's a handy cheat sheet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Special_Counsel_investigation_( 2017–2019)
That's not "nothing". The only thing that didn't happen was proof that there was direct collusion between those Russian agents and the Trump administration, but Mueller has been very specific in stating that this is because there's no clear legal standard to apply. That doesn't prove him innocent, it only means that he can't be charged at present.
Once again, documented factual information proves you wrong. But, since you get your news from sources that clearly filter out anything that look like non-partisan factual information, I'm not surprised you don't know these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I remember how proud Hamilton and blue were about Manafort and Cohen, and how they were going to get Hilary locked up. But naw, now they're focused on harassing other women (so much easier to do it when they're women of color) and mocking the mooks they sacrificially threw under the bus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, kids: the Mueller testimony TOTALLY FLOPPED
NOTHING ON TRUMP-RUSSIA, AS SPECIFIED.
You simply seize on irrelevance. I could investigate you and turn up something charge-able on you, or someone happened upon, easy. -- For exact point to start, whether your employer knows that you're whiling away the hours of "work" here on this tiny little site. IF SO, then it's liable for all you comment, and if not, then you're STEALING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, kids: the Mueller testimony TOTALLY FLOPPED
"You simply seize on irrelevance"
Irrelevance? Decades of massive criminal activity has been uncovered and finally brought to justice, and you reject this because people called the orange man names in the meantime. I'll absolutely guarantee that if the exact scenario happened and they happened to be associated with Clinton rather then Trump, you'd be calling for the death penalty. But, because they're on your "team", you're willing to wave away any crime.
"whether your employer knows that you're whiling away the hours of "work" here on this tiny little site"
They do. I'm not paid hourly like low level schlubs like you, I'm paid based on performance. I'm good enough at my job that I can mock idiots, watch Netflix, do all sorts of things and still earn my salary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, kids: the Mueller testimony TOTALLY FLOPPED
We have only your word for that.
But do state that you're an elitist too.
OR you're an overlooked low level schlub who lurks in depths of the data center, possibly government since been in apparently one place so long and are on Gibraltar, listening post and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh no, a nameless grunt was being slightly less efficient at work without micromanagement on the minute! Send him for the firing squad!
Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, kids: the Mueller testimony TOTALLY FLO
"We have only your word for that."
You only have my word for the things you cherry pick to attack me over, too. Strange how one moment my word is gospel, the next not to be trusted, huh? Almost as if you can't keep a consistent argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I could investigate you and turn up something charge-able on you, or someone happened upon, easy
No duh? That's how copyright enforcement has worked since Day 1, you daft twat. Thanks for reminding us.
How's that Manafort fund coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Tosses 'Meritless' DNC Lawsuit Against Trump, Russia,...
... Assange, WikiLeaks And The Kitchen Sink
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-30/judge-tosses-dnc-lawsuit-against-trump-russia-assange -wikileaks-and-kitchen-sink
What Progressives Hopefully Learned From Russiagate
[Original one paragraph broken into several because should be dwelt on.]
Firstly, I hope progressives have learned that we're never going to manipulate our way into progressive reform.
Truth is the one and only weapon we have.
Trying to use a deceitful narrative to manipulate toward a desired end is something establishment loyalists do, but if progressives try it it will bite us in the ass every single time.
If we try to manipulate the establishment away, we're pitting our fledgling manipulation skills against manipulators who have generations of mastery in that field under their belt. [Besides BILLIONS, control of "mainstream media", Hollywood, academia...]
You're never, ever going to manipulate desired ends out of an establishment that is teeming with master manipulators.
Truth is the only way.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/what-progressives-hopefully-learned-from-russiagate-353c2484 cbff
Gist of the article is that by supporting a known false narrative while ignoring real problems, you masnicks, SJWs, and "progressives" have actually handed Trump power to do worse!
@"PaulT", here's a challenge: state just THREE FACTS about "Trump-Russia collusion". -- Since Mueller couldn't after two years and millions of dollars investigating, you simply can't do that. You and Techdirt should have the sense to just DROP this. You lost because suckered into supporting LIES. Lick your wounds and LEARN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge Tosses 'Meritless' DNC Lawsuit Against Trump, Russia,.
In case you don't remember, Techdirt predicted that this wouldn't be going anywhere https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180420/17162139684/democratic-national-committees-lawsuit-agains t-russians-wikileaks-various-trump-associates-full-legally-nutty-arguments.shtml. So what you should learn from this is that Techdirt is good at correctly reporting, unlike the sites you keep linking to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge Tosses 'Meritless' DNC Lawsuit Against Trump, Russia,.
" Since Mueller couldn't "
Mueller actually did, it's just that the right wing echo chambers and blogs from people even stupider than you refuse to address his actual words and pretend that he found nothing.
"millions of dollars investigating"
Yes, and Manafort's conviction alone resulted in more money seized than was spent on the entire investigation. If you're going to obsess over what was spent, you have to include all the facts and realise that the investigation MADE A PROFT.
I know that the sad selection of blogs you read instead of factual sources will never mention this, b but it is undeniable fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge Tosses 'Meritless' DNC Lawsuit Against Trump, Russ
Really? State what Mueller found which is related to the overall charge of "Trump-Russia collusion", or to the campaign.
There is ZERO such.
Mueller indicted a bunch of Russians who DID show up in court and now that's fallen apart.
And actually, point is, that a politically resolved prosecutor came up with ZERO on Trump, so that means Trump is SQUEAKY clean, not just innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Judge Tosses 'Meritless' DNC Lawsuit Against Trump,
"State what Mueller found which is related to the overall charge of "Trump-Russia collusion", or to the campaign."
I can only state what the Mueller report said, which is that while there's plenty of evidence of shady dealings, "collusion" does not have a legal definition that allowed him to file charges and he wasn't comfortable indicting a sitting president despite the evidence against him. Despite all this, the convictions and revenue made from the investigation make it completely worthwhile.
The fact that you've twisted this into a fictional alternate narrative does not change the facts as presented in the report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Judge Tosses 'Meritless' DNC Lawsuit Against Trump,
Oh, and if you want to know what hilarious hypocrisy looks like, it's you guys trying to claim the the overwhelming evidence of corruption against Trump doesn't matter because they didn't pin a specific charge on him, while simultaneously claiming that Clinton's guilty of things she's been specifically cleared of by a court of law. Your obsession is strong, your mind weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You want three facts?
Manafort is in jail.
Cohen is in jail.
Hilary Clinton isn't.
Mic drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's another little site for you "PaulT".
Maybe you've heard of this one, it's a stalwart of Perfidious Albion (a name for the treacherous hidden manipulations of the Germans pretending to be British Empire in the 1800s).
Secret McCabe Texts With MI-5 Counterpart Emerge, Spotlighting UK's Early Role In 'Russiagate'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/30/secret-texts-cast-light-uk-early-role-t rump-russia-inquiry
And of course Christopher Steele was a supposedly ex-member of MI-whatever. There's ZERO evidence that his supposed Russian sources exist: deep in Putin's circle but spill the beans to some has-been agent? BALONEY. He made it all up.
[The Censor that Techdirt won't admit to is QUICK today! Cut me off twice.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congratulations, you figured out the spam filter exists. For what now, the five thousandth time?
Here, have a DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Altogether now boys!
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each Barr that he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And gave his blue ass a big screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost September already? Better get to work!
Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email. And just for good measure...
out_of_the_blue just can't stand it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Were Hillary Clinton's Emails Blind-Copied To Gmail...
... Address Named After Chinese Firm?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/hillary-clintons-emails-were-sent-to-gmail-address-with-a- chinese-companys-name_3043380.html
SO, not only were the allegedly hacked emails sent to unknown number of unknown persons, but to SNOOPY GOOGLE. -- In what way could it be said that the emails were held securely at all? At very least, Clinton is GUILTY of leaking secrets, then.
NYT tacitly admits is NOTHING to its own allegations!
Leaked Audio - NYT Executive Editor Tells Staff to Ditch Russia Collusion Lies and Start Focusing on Trump's 'Racism' for Election
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/leaked-audio-ny-times-executive-editor-tells-staff -to-ditch-russia-collusion-lies-and-start-focusing-on-trumps-racism-for-election/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi blue. How's the Jeffrey Epstein fund coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Were Hillary Clinton's Emails Blind-Copied To Gmail...
"SO, not only were the allegedly hacked emails sent to unknown number of unknown persons, but to SNOOPY GOOGLE. -- In what way could it be said that the emails were held securely at all? "
Whereas, her predecessor left out the pretense of a secured server:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-dep artment
This is the problem with you guys. It's not just the ranting about a woman 3 years after you defeated her with the same bullshit, it's the fact that people on your "side" are guilty of the same, or often worse, and you don't say a word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Were Hillary Clinton's Emails Blind-Copied To Gmail.
MY side is The Truth.
You're simply assuming I'm a "Republican" because that's all fits into the propaganda bubble of crabbed little conventional weenie deceived by The Establishment / Eurocrats / globalists.
Nope. i want both neo-cons and neo-liberals to all be hanged for ginning up phony wars out of the blue.
SO now ya know I'm not on the "other" side, maybe you'll embrace my views more, at least to not demonize me?
After all, you say I'm only a "low level schlub"! Why blame ME for the world's problems and yet not look at The Rich who obviously control near all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why Were Hillary Clinton's Emails Blind-Copied To Gm
"MY side is The Truth"
Sadly, you actually believe that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're simply assuming I'm a "Republican"
It's quite clear at this point you're a shill for whoever you think can help you usher in a golden utopia of forever copyright and no fair use.
I'll also note that you have yet to deny that you're surgically attached by the lips to Trump's strap-on.
at least to not demonize me
After all the praises you sung for Prenda Law? Fuck no.
Why blame ME for the world's problems and yet not look at The Rich who obviously control near all?
Why can't we do both? Ajit Pai would be nothing if not for the toadies like you who readily support him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a new month, know what time it is kids?
If you said "Reminder for how out_of_the_endless_shitty_pseudonyms_based_on_puns_blue is an ignorant motherfucker", you got it in one!
Something blue has never been able to explain is why he pisses and moans about Israel being a thing, despite his boi Trump consistently expressing his support for Israel's actions over Iran!
But what else could we expect from the bigly stable genius who stood alongside the alt-right crowds chanting "Jews will not replace us", while demanding that all Jews vote Republican to show their loyalty? Dumbfuck in the White House can't make up his damn mind whether he wants the Jews to replace his base of mouth-breathers or not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, kids! Truth grinds on strongly opposed, why rare now.
Here's a few, starting with semi-related against The Witch going back to 2014, the most important:
Federal Judge Warns Government Lawyers in Hillary Clinton Email Case: `No FOIA Exemption for Political Expedience'
https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-warns-government-lawyers-in-hillary-clinton- email-case-no-foia-exemption-for-political-expedience_3072169.html
Except for blatant crimes such as this resistance to FOIA from State and Comey covering up for her, it's clear that Clinton would long since be in jail.
Watchdog Sues for Documents on James Comey's Alleged `Spies' at the Trump White House
https://www.theepochtimes.com/watchdog-sues-for-documents-on-james-comeys-alleged-spies-at-the -trump-white-house_3072092.html
I suppose that all foreigner, "high level schlub", the one with mysterious cushy "job", PaulT will have is the solipsism that he's never heard of this web-site. He has zero interest in The Truth, sticks to sites in his propaganda bubble.
Lindsey Graham: My Goal is to Declassify FISA Warrant Applications
https://saraacarter.com/lindsey-graham-my-goal-is-to-declassify-fisa-warrant-applications/
Mc Cabe Criminal Indictment Appeal Rejected; DOJ Cleared To Prosecute
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mccabe-criminal-indictment-appeal-rejected-doj-clear-p rosecute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, kids! Truth grinds on strongly opposed, why rare now.
Once again - have you ever tried the non-fiction areas of the internet? They might be more enlightening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's hilarious is how he makes it such a point to say he's for weakening the "Rich", and yet hammers the war drum he has for Trump that I'm genuinely astounded he hasn't broken a hole in the damn thing.
For someone who's so violently against the Rich he's certainly fixated over dying on the hill of a President who has done all he can to ensure the growing income rift between the top 1% and everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear out of the blue,
You're an insecure, insufferable half-wit whose response to authorities like Donald Trump, Cary Sherman and Ajit Pai is to throw yourself to the floor kicking and screaming if so much as their dignity is casually questioned.
Have fun bitching about Biden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey blue - no Breitbart garbage about Ukrainian fake news?
Oh, that's right. Ukrainian fake news was how Trump got his presidency to begin with, thanks to Eastern European social media farms.
Your slipping, jackass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN AS I TOLD YOU WOULD (eventually)!
The Department of Justice's sweeping review into the origins of its Trump-Russia probe is now a criminal investigation, according to the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
(not sure where this blockquote from:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN AS I TOLD YOU WOULD (eventuall
Apparently the "media" are going nuts that might actually start indicting the real criminals. The spin is -- to spare you kids the trouble of repeating it here -- that Trump has ginned this up to distract from impeachment. Right. Of course it's actually that Deep State invented "impeachment" to distract from their crimes.In any case, after 3 years of YOU KIDS shrieking falsehoods as above, it's to stage where might be some action.
By the way, Crowdstrike being central to the Trump-Russia fabrications, guess what major corporation is involved?
Google, others invested $256 million into CrowdStrike so Democrats can use FBI wiretap data to regain Congress
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/google-others-invested-256-million-into-crowdstrike-so- democrats-can-use-fbi-wiretap-data-to-regain-congress/
Howard Stern stated Democrats are COMMUNISTS
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/howard-stern-democrat-quote/
Larry C. Johnson: Bill Barr Has Pulled the Trigger and Altered the Landscape - The Deep State Does Not Truly Understand the Peril They Now Face
http://www.hideoutnow.com/2019/10/larry-c-johnson-bill-barr-has-pulled.html
It's now a criminal investigation. Barr has authority to declassify anything. Witholding documents is now criminal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN AS I TOLD YOU WOULD (event
...and again with the mistaking of openly partisan opinion blog you agree with as some kind of factual source.
"By the way, Crowdstrike being central to the Trump-Russia fabrications"
Crowdstrike... you mean the organisation that Trump illegally tried bribing a foreign government to investigate in return for aid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN AS I TOLD YOU WOULD (event
"Howard Stern stated Democrats are COMMUNISTS"
Oh, and so? Dickhead shock jock who hasn't been really notable since the 90s (at least not where I am, I know he still has fans stateside) has an opinion about something? A guy with a track record of stating stuff just to get an angry reaction for publicity is your go to now?
Do you have any facts that mean anything, or is it enough for you that some random celebrity agrees with you, whether or not the people opposing your rants care what that person thinks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And it took you guys... how long to get to this point? And Hilary's not even in jail yet! I'll grant you one point for actually not skipping out on your shitshow for October...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Hilary's not even in jail yet!"
To be fair, they did "investigate" Benghazi about 30 times. If they had found the remotest piece of evidence that could get her convicted of... something... then they would have done it. Alas, either she really was innocent or they're so utterly incompetent they can't find the thing they stated they were looking for with every tool possible at their disposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn’t, like, a handful of Trump associates actually go to fucking jail? And isn’t Roger Stone on trial, too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Didn’t, like, a handful of Trump associates actually go to fucking jail?
They did. Also note that none of Trump's current political opponents are in jail; the same goes for everyone Trump's threatened with imprisonment.
Maybe we've been going about this all wrong. Maybe we should, in fact, encourage Trump's litigation.
Going by how effective they are, by the time Trump gets to a quarter of the people he wants thrown in the slammer he'll have sent all of his warm bodies to join his targets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN AS I TOLD YOU WOULD (eventuall
6 weeks absence and that's all you've got? Years claiming that investigations don't mean anything despite the mountains of evidence they returned, and now that there's an investigation you agree with, that means its claims are 100% pre-ordained fact?
"President Trump has repeatedly said"
He's said a lot of things, many of them verified as lies. But, he's desperate, and innocent men don't tend to be as desperate as he is. We will await the results of any investigation, both the one you favour and the ones more likely to return results you don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi blue.
Your anti-vaxx cousin has brought the content moderation thread up to nearly 700 comments at this point. So... yeah, even when it comes to deciding the own terms of your victory, you lost.
Personally I can't wait for you to lose your shit when Masnick writes about the story where Richard Liebowitz, copyright law superstar, fucked up on his own case and tried to get away with it by lying about having a death in the family.
Copyright is brain damage. I'd tell you to remember that, but... brain damage!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's beat the one thousand post count by now.
Also the Richard Liebowitz article was put out.
blue just can't stop eating shit, can he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi blue. I like how you've managed to go the whole month without being the douchecanoe that you usually are. Ordinarily that might have been an achievement, but because it's you I'll assume that you needed to take over damage control duties from Richard Bennett again.
Maybe you might fuck off for the whole of the long weekend but who knows, maybe you'll be a complete fucking disappointment again like you always have been. But I think the best part is how your two-year-long crusade to draw attention to this shithole you claimed as your permanent home on the website has now finally borne fruit: there are enough people visiting this thread to flag the neo-Nazi spiels you keep vomiting.
Because that's the summary of your efforts here, like the efforts you praise in copyright enforcement, supported by the lawyers you hate: absofuckinglutely pointless, just like you!
Happy Thanksgiving, you son of a bitch, and I feel sorry for your family that you are the legacy of their genetic material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear out_of_the_blue:
Your hopes of this thread getting shit on just to prove a nonexistent point of comment section length have been dashed. Shredded. Fucking nuked from orbit to kingdom come and the one after that.
Get bent and never come back.
Yours faithfully,
The year 2020, and us 27 Bangladeshis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal investigations began.
Just not the ones that blue hoped for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]