Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is happening with Bruce Ohr?
#1
Is he in more shit or less shit that Andy McCabe?

Why have these Intelligence Sources and such done the wrong thing?
(10-09-2018, 02:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: you believe men have the right and entitlement to molest and sexually assault minors and women.  

If HoTD doesn't agree with you politically you better humour her snowflake mentality or she will smear you for no good reason, like every other indoctrinated SJW. Liar and Slimeball. 
Reply
#2
Maybe Lanny Davis knows.  Sarcastic
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#3
Lanny Davis is an idiot, taking a page right out of the Rudy's 'just say whatever shit the target audience wants to hear' tv-lawyer playbook.

Or, maybe Rudy stole Lanny's playbook from Lanny's Clinton/Lewinksy days.

Either way, both Lanny and Rudy are unreliable sources representing clients who've changed their stories multiple times.

I'm waiting to see/hear the evidence of whatever claims or charges are being put forth.

The same goes for Bruce Ohr. I don't know if he did anything unethical or not. I know what the Republican politicians and pundits are saying and the Democrat response, which, of course, don't sync much.

Ohr was grilled by House Republicans today behind closed doors.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/2...obe-797864
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/...-ties.html

Maybe Ohr was just doing his job/duty and the Republicans are looking for another 'witch hunt' distraction. Or, maybe he crossed a line and moved outside of his sanctioned lane.

Since the Russia interference investigation was not initiated or dependent upon the Steele Dossier (as we know from the FISA warrants), Ohr isn't of much interest to me in that context.
Reply
#4
(08-29-2018, 12:06 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Lanny Davis is an idiot, taking a page right out of the Rudy's 'just say whatever shit the target audience wants to hear' tv-lawyer playbook.

Or, maybe Rudy stole Lanny's playbook from Lanny's Clinton/Lewinksy days.

Either way, both Lanny and Rudy are unreliable sources representing clients who've changed their stories multiple times.

I'm waiting to see/hear the evidence of whatever claims or charges are being put forth.

The same goes for Bruce Ohr. I don't know if he did anything unethical or not. I know what the Republican politicians and pundits are saying and the Democrat response, which, of course, don't sync much.

Ohr was grilled by House Republicans today behind closed doors.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/2...obe-797864
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/...-ties.html

Maybe Ohr was just doing his job/duty and the Republicans are looking for another 'witch hunt' distraction. Or, maybe he crossed a line and moved outside of his sanctioned lane.

Since the Russia interference investigation was not initiated or dependent upon the Steele Dossier (as we know from the FISA warrants), Ohr isn't of much interest to me in that context.

It ABSOLUTELY was initiated and dependent on the Steele Dossier.

That made up the Bulk of the allegations and material. This has been admitted to and agreed on. Was it everything? No there were also some stories like the one cited with Yahoo News....which was leaked by Steele using the same information. Were it not for the Steele Dossier there would not have been enough to base a FISA application nor would their have been a Dossier or FISA to pad the Comey memos in which to initiate the Special Counsel.
(10-09-2018, 02:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: you believe men have the right and entitlement to molest and sexually assault minors and women.  

If HoTD doesn't agree with you politically you better humour her snowflake mentality or she will smear you for no good reason, like every other indoctrinated SJW. Liar and Slimeball. 
Reply
#5
(08-29-2018, 03:37 AM)Fry Guy Wrote: It ABSOLUTELY was initiated and dependent on the Steele Dossier.

hah   No, it wasn't. It was initiated because of information from trump's foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos. George was drunk and running his mouth.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#6
Facts are facts FryGuy.

The FISA warrant shows that Papadopoulos' loose lips initiated the probe, as Duchess noted.

The Dossier did not initiate the investigation itself and was not cited as a primary basis for probable cause in the Page FISA renewal request. That's been confirmed by the warrant itself and even by the Trump-supporting Republican House Intelligence Committee report.  Those are simply facts, no matter how strongly you insist that you ABSOLUTELY know better.

Redacted warrant: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documen...elease.pdf
Redacted House Intelligence Committee report: https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/p...df#page=57
Fact Check: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-document/

So, while you keep insisting you know things that you couldn't possibly know (which sometimes contradict confirmed/posted facts), and while you wait for the Special Counsel to find evidence that the Clinton camp (inexplicably) conspired with Russia to undermine Clinton (in order to legitimize the investigation in your mind)..............I'm gonna stick with reality, logic, facts, and evidence and see where it leads. To each his/her own.
Reply
#7
There is NO reasonable way that a volunteer of one committee saying some silly shit would initiate a FISA probe. It would require far more than that.

If you wait for Mueller to confirm this, you are being silly and unrealistic. You AREN'T really are you?

Now Huber and Horowitz? THERE is where the fun is.
(10-09-2018, 02:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: you believe men have the right and entitlement to molest and sexually assault minors and women.  

If HoTD doesn't agree with you politically you better humour her snowflake mentality or she will smear you for no good reason, like every other indoctrinated SJW. Liar and Slimeball. 
Reply
#8
You don't understand the sequence of events that have already been confirmed and published FryGuy.

The October 2016 FISA warrant on Page (which was later the subject of the dueling partisan memos) contains references to the Dossier, along with a lot of other information. Page had been on FBI radar for three years prior, starting when surveillance picked up a Russian intelligence officer identifying him as a potential target for recruitment following a meeting in Russia in 2013.

It's the date of that October 2016 FISA warrant on Carter Page which confirms that the Russia interference investigation was already well underway at the time. The counterintelligence investigation began at the end of July 2016, just after Wikileaks released the illegally hacked DNC emails and Australia intelligence contacted the FBI to report that George Papadopoulos had drunkenly spoken about Russia having dirt on Clinton two months earlier at a bar in London (about which Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying).

And, while I do read your mansplaining proclamations based on one-sided conspiracy theories, yes, I'm way more interested in seeing the actual evidence gathered by Mueller's team. I'm a very silly lady like that.
Reply
#9
Mansplaining. Oh get fucked. I don't give a damn what genitals you have. I have no issue giving my opinion to anyone male or female so why ARE you being intellectually dishonest and insinuating otherwise? It is not up for question that you are and I am just asking why?
(10-09-2018, 02:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: you believe men have the right and entitlement to molest and sexually assault minors and women.  

If HoTD doesn't agree with you politically you better humour her snowflake mentality or she will smear you for no good reason, like every other indoctrinated SJW. Liar and Slimeball. 
Reply
#10
You're a blatant mansplainer, FryGuy.   And, I shall get fucked soon enough, but not today.  

Go back and read some of your comments and replies to me and Duchess when we're correcting the record or sharing opinions that differ from yours.

We're 'silly' when we don't agree with you.  You ask rhetorical questions after you attempt to explain (often incorrectly) what we already know to be true and/or when we've expressed informed opinions that don't align with your proclamations. Then you insist it would be silly not to agree to agree with you. 

 "You're not a silly lady, are you?"   28

And, more than once, you've actually tried to explain to me what I REALLY think when I've repeatedly stated what I think for myself.  Then you want to argue about it, as if you know better what I think than I do.

Anyway, it's not a problem for me, just an observation. It's hilarious.
Reply
#11
(08-30-2018, 11:41 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: And, I shall get fucked soon, but not today.  

I didn’t really want to tell you, but after seeing this^ I felt it was almost a sign of some sort. I mean, you don’t run around the forum talking about your sex life, soooo...

I had a very vivid, very long duration dream/sex session with you last night.

Not kidding, not exaggerating.

Never have had one with you before, but it was definitely you.

If you ever want details, let me know.

Okay, back to politics.
Reply
#12
Jesus, I'm sandwiched between a blatant mansplainer and an unabashed pervert!  ')

Here's your sign:   Sign_pervert


Let's hold off on the details for today, MS.  


I've gotta finally get some work done and then I'm getting my hair done.
Reply
#13
(08-30-2018, 11:41 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: You're a blatant mansplainer, FryGuy.   And, I shall get fucked soon enough, but not today.  

Go back and read some of your comments and replies to me and Duchess when we're correcting the record or sharing opinions that differ from yours.

We're 'silly' when we don't agree with you.  You ask rhetorical questions after you attempt to explain (often incorrectly) what we already know to be true and/or when we've expressed informed opinions that don't align with your proclamations. Then you insist it would be silly not to agree to agree with you. 

 "You're not a silly lady, are you?"   28

And, more than once, you've actually tried to explain to me what I REALLY think when I've repeatedly stated what I think for myself.  Then you want to argue about it, as if you know better what I think than I do.

Anyway, it's not a problem for me, just an observation. It's hilarious.

It absolutely isn't a problem.

I vehemently disagree with your opinions (and make no mistake I do) and I mock some of what I consider your sillier assertions (as mock forums is kind of set up for - mocking) and try to question what I disagree with whilst explaining why I believe what I believe.

None of that is gender-based.

It would be dishonest especially given my treatment in the past of members like Bullet, Born dragon, On Bended Knee, D, and ordinary peephole, that gender and treatment is not aligned.

But you introduced gender. It seems it is not my treatment of you nor asking if you were a silly lady (as you would not have defined me unfavorably were I do have asked if a bloke was a silly man).

So why then? Because you are a snowflake. You walk through the world where men disagreeing with you is sexist, failure is due to the Patriarchy and your views need to be held in high regard because, vagina.

I am pleased to know this. Mansplaining huh? Hilarious.
(10-09-2018, 02:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: you believe men have the right and entitlement to molest and sexually assault minors and women.  

If HoTD doesn't agree with you politically you better humour her snowflake mentality or she will smear you for no good reason, like every other indoctrinated SJW. Liar and Slimeball. 
Reply
#14
You're a touchy old mansplainer alright FryGuy.


[Image: giphy.webp]

I don't know those people/users you referenced (except OBK vaguely).  

But, I believe you.  While I haven't witnessed it yet, I can easily see you getting set off and  mansplaining up a storm to other men who speak their minds and don't agree with you, especially if they back up their shit too.

The most blatant of defensive mansplainers are equal opportunity gender offenders.

Now, you didn't mean the rest of what you wrote, did you?  What you really meant to say is that you know you're a condescending ignoramus with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove.  It's silly to deny the obvious.  You're not THAT silly, are you?    Awink
Reply
#15
Rachel Maddow discussed Bruce Ohr's background and showed all the Russian Mafia experts in the DOJ that have been fired by the Trump admin.  Bonehead republicans like to mock Ms Maddow but she makes a compelling case.



Reply
#16
Shouldn't that be MZZNBC?
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#17
(08-31-2018, 01:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: You're a touchy old mansplainer alright FryGuy.


[Image: giphy.webp]

I don't know those people/users you referenced (except OBK vaguely).  

But, I believe you.  While I haven't witnessed it yet, I can easily see you getting set off and  mansplaining up a storm to other men who speak their minds and don't agree with you, especially if they back up their shit too.

The most blatant of defensive mansplainers are equal opportunity gender offenders.

Now, you didn't mean the rest of what you wrote, did you?  What you really meant to say is that you know you're a condescending ignoramus with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove.  It's silly to deny the obvious.  You're not THAT silly, are you?    Awink

I see, being that I have never said nor intimated I know more than anyone else (though I make no bones about sharing what I BELIEVE and disputing what I BELIEVE is bullshit or silly), I guess here is your opportunity to show class whether you are being actually honest in your assertions or just more full of shit.

No? Not how it works?

I did not think so either. It is not how the narrative works is it? Manspreading is oppression of women and performed by men against women and is a Patriarchal slight that caused poor snowflake women to weep and melt away at the sight of a man sitting with his legs ajar to make room for his balls. His Patriarchal balls.

Manteruption? Apparently this is when men interrupt women. When women interrupt men? Who knows? I doubt men have got so whiny and butthurt to create an applicable victim agenda.

Manslamming? Men not being conscious enough of their own space to bump into a woman. In some circles this is not pathologised and treated as a Patriachial slight against a fragile and victimised gender. Sometimes it is simply considered an accident as it generally is.

Mansplaining? Yes share information is now getting the treatment. Explain a position or back yourself or disagree with someone and OBVIOUSLY gender matters. If you are a female you are a Liberated woman I suppose trying to fight to make yourself heard and if you are a man you are a mansplainer?

About right, Snowflake?

I think you are going to be a lot of fun. You remind me of another member that used to come here.

I am not touchy and I am glad you find things hilarious. I think you are projecting and I think THAT is hilarious.
(10-09-2018, 02:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: you believe men have the right and entitlement to molest and sexually assault minors and women.  

If HoTD doesn't agree with you politically you better humour her snowflake mentality or she will smear you for no good reason, like every other indoctrinated SJW. Liar and Slimeball. 
Reply
#18
(08-31-2018, 01:39 AM)Rootilda Wrote: she makes a compelling case.

She usually does but, the best part is the evidence she presents to backup why she reached the conclusion she did.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#19
It's nice that you think my presence here at Mock will be fun for you FryGuy. It's mantastic. ")

Mock is often fun, and silly, and hilarious. It can also be thoughtful and educational on more serious topics, to me at least.

So, while it seems unlikely that I'll share your idea of fun much of the time, we all have the choice whether to engage or just move along.
Reply
#20
(08-31-2018, 09:25 AM)Duchess Wrote:
(08-31-2018, 01:39 AM)Rootilda Wrote: she makes a compelling case.

She usually does but, the best part is the evidence she presents to backup why she reached the conclusion she did.

The Republican Trump-loyalists and FOX are now insisting that Bruce Ohr is guilty of something (maybe even a felony!).  

Since Ohr acknowledged to House Republicans that he provided updates from Steele to the Special Prosecutors because they were investigating related claims and it wasn't in his lane to vet ...............some of the hard-line Freedom Caucus Republicans are using that in attempt to discredit or shut down Mueller.

Democrat lawmakers say Ohr did nothing wrong.  He simply passed on what he received to the appropriate channels.

Details:  https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/d...n-grilling

I don't think the attacks on the Justice Department are gonna end until Mueller's team finishes its work and reports its findings, and maybe not even then (if they don't like the findings).
Reply