Looks like propaganda intended to deflect from Mueller closing in

If what stuff is true? What actual claims are supposed to be in the memo?

Mueller has nothing on "Russian collusion". His report will fully exonerate Trump, much to the disappointment of those hoping for a Deep State coup.

There are parallel investigations currently ongoing that the media is largely ignoring. The Nunez memo and the OIG report will be damning and the political fallout is going to be a joy to watch, due to the complete delusion some people are under.

Have you seen list of the highest-end lawyers that left their own multi-million dollar practices to work for Mueller on this investigation, and workfor relative peanuts?

Muller must of had some compelling evidence in order to bring them all on board.

Have you read the dossier and the Glenn Simpson testimony? He basically admits that Russian intelligence fed him disinfo in order to frame Trump. Thats only the beginning.

I hope you realize this was an investigation into foreign interference into the election. Not into Donald Trump specifically. The only few people were arrested were for lying or in manafort's case wasn't even during the election. You think if they had something they'd be in a rush to remove him?

What sources do you have to back this claim up? I keep seeing this here and no one says who's analysis this is.

It's my conclusion from researching this like crazy. You can read the dossier and the testimony online. There are plenty of reddit, voat, and YouTube users who post primary sources and analyze fairly objectively, but you should always do so on your own as well.

He has no sources, just feelings. He's talking about what he wants to happen.

There are a ton of primary sources you can read and corroberate yourself. The "Dossier" ,the DNI report, Glenn Simpson tesitmony, Senator Grassley's letters to Podesta, Debbie Schultz, etc. Theres even a report detailing the fact that the Obama admin had been repeatedly denied a FiSA warrant and proceeded to obtain one using fraudulent information. It's all out there, it's just being ignored.

Nothing in the dossier was proven false, which I imagine is why they're trying to ignore the content and just focusing on its origins and attacking the FBI.

I don't know where you got the idea that a FISA warrant was obtained fraudulently.

"Trump couldn't make a business deal in Russia, so he settled for hookers instead". You have to be stupid to believe that. Among a bunch of other bullshit.

*impartial

It is being speculated that the memo lists specific people involved in a scandal to exonerate Hillary Clinton. Extreme favoritism towards the person being interviewed and tried. Admittance to guilt of using external email servers to discuss a case.

Paying for a Dossier that they used as evidence to plant mics in Trump tower.

Just a lot of speculation right now. We will see when the memo is released. The texts between the FBI agents are really not great.

Nobody thought he was going to win.

Literally a made up quote, whose source is from someone anonymously saying "I heard this."

Anon sources said the president said privately . . . .

Literally a made up quote, whose source is from someone anonymously saying "I heard this."

Most media does this now, so are you going to disown most media.

If you can't see the difference between the NY Times, for instance, publishing a story that's anonymous confirmed by 4 sources close to the story and someone posting a graphic online, anonymously, claiming with absolutely no proof that X happened......

publishing a story that's anonymous confirmed by 4 sources close

Really, you got a source on the Times editorial policy with anon sources, because this article shows that you are making shit up as fact.

It requires one of three top editors to review and sign off on articles that depend primarily on information from unnamed sources – particularly those that “hinge on a central fact” from such a source, Mr. Purdy told me last week in an interview. The editors are Mr. Baquet, Mr. Purdy, and Susan Chira, another deputy executive editor.

Those stories, Mr. Purdy said, are potential “journalistic I.E.D.s.” In other words, they may be bombs that explode unexpectedly and damage The Times and its credibility. Given that, they require special oversight, and a process that may result in slowing down before publishing.

The policy also requires any other use of anonymous sources to be approved by a desk head – for example, the ranking culture, metro or international editor – or that person’s immediate deputy. It also “underscores what has been our policy”: that an editor must know the identity of an unnamed source.

So the NY Times just requires a main editor or a desk head to sign off on the use of anon sources. There's no explicit or public procedure on how they verify what an anon source says is true.

So please tell me some other fevered fantasy bullshit and make more disingenuous arguments.

Let me put it plainly: only an idiot would be unable to understand the difference between the NYTimes' anonymous sources (which are vetted as seen above) and a quote that literally came from a meme and an email forward.

They found those WMDs the Times reported as real in Iraq, yet?

My 5 anon sources told me that the NY times sometimes releases stories and it gets signed off saying they have sources even if they don't. Don't worry I signed off on my sources info so you know it's true.

It's from a truepundit article If I remember correctly.

Link?

Here is an article explaining the source of this quote. Allegedly it was spoken off camera to Matt Laurer after he went off script with his questions. A guy named Bill Still claims his source heard it. Take it for what you will.

https://www.peterdegedo.com/2017/11/30/hillary-clinton-if-that-f-ing-bastard-trump-wins-we-all-hang-from-nooses-fellowship-of-the-minds/

Thanks.

That layout confuses me - is that all a quote from somewhere or have I just been on Reddit too long? Either way, this still sounds like a severely unreliable story to me:

According to Bill Still’s source — an unnamed “NBC associate producer of the forum”

Yes the NBC associate would be the "primary" source. I believe this went around during the election big time. It was alleged to be an insider NBC e-mail between colleagues and got leaked. That's as far as we've gotten to verifying the source. So yeah, still iffy.

Where does it say that it was a leaked email? I didn't see that part. Is that claim in the video?

Want some real scarry stuff that got swept under the rug but has been deemed a credible leak. Look at the gucifer2.0 internal chat leaks around the election time debates...

Threatening employees with the same fate as seth rich and the use of a body double during a debate who did a surprisingly excellent job (shortly after her 9/11 collapse getting into her transport.) conspiring to dox people on reddit and 4chan and threatening actual violence to quiet the effective opposition. Talking about using nsa tools. This being an 'only chance, whatever it takes, no second chances' election. Etc.

who knows, what has leaked so far (which nobody has any idea if it is true or not) is;

the DNC partially funded the steele dossier

the steele dossier was used at least in part to get a warrant to surveil a member of the trump team during the campaign

the FBI did not disclose to the FISC that any of the information used in the warrant application came from the steele dossier

Ah yes it's taken him a year to "close in". What evidence is there that his investigation has gone anywhere in relation to Trump/Russia collusion? Also, how did this affect the election?

No.

because this shit is crazy if all true. Which it looks like it is.

what info have you seen that makes it look like it is all true?

You have to give a shit first.

i reckon it'll show what's being advertised. that there was a concerted effort within the establishment to get dirt on Trump. whether this was part of a larger psyop to set Trump up as "an official (wink wink) outsider" to enable a scarier agenda, who knows. seems like that to me given the incompetence of the opposition. one would hope the ethos enshrined in the constitution and amendments was one fully understood by americans, but given the slide into tolerance of the abuse of nonconformists one wonders if it's mostly forgotten. let's hope not. a place that respects individual non-conformity is a noble goal to achieve for humanity.

January 28, 2018: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/28/gowdy_to_chris_wallace_do_you_want_to_know_the_truth_about_whether_steele_dossier_was_used_to_get_fisa_warrant.html

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) discussed a classified memo prepared by the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee. Gowdy is pushing for the memo to be released so the public can see what role the Steele Dossier played in the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. Democrats on the committee oppose releasing the memo.

Wallace asked about the memo: "The House Intelligence Committee is expected to vote this week on whether to release this four-page memo that you had a big hand in writing, that alleges abuse and bias inside the FBI and Justice Dept. As I discussed with Marc Short, the Washington Post is reporting this morning that the president wants to have the memo released. Do you agree with that?"

"I do, I'm sorry we're at this point," Gowdy replied. "This memo is nothing but a distilling, reducing of thousands of pages of documents provided to us by the [DOJ and FBI]. So there is nothing in this memo that the Bureau is not already aware of."

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-send-batch-letters-related-potential-political-influence-fbi

Grassley, Graham Send Batch of Letters Related to Potential Political Influence on FBI

Jan 26, 2018

WASHINGTON – As part of their ongoing oversight efforts to ensure that the FBI’s law enforcement activities are free of improper political influence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) yesterday sent six letters seeking information and documents regarding Christopher Steele’s work on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary for America. The letters seek information and documents relating to those political organizations’ knowledge of and involvement in Mr. Steele’s work and his reported interactions with the FBI while he was working on behalf of these political organizations. The letters were sent to:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC)
Hillary for America (HFA)
Former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile
HFA Chair John Podesta

Do you have a point in repeating what Trump's lackeys have to say?

They're so desperately trying to get people to care about their memo. The Democrats want to see the memo but also what it's based on. Otherwise they could just write anything they wanted to.

You should come back with #ReleaseTheReport.

Wtf dont make shit up. Schiff said people were too stupid to understand the memo if they read it. Release everything.

No, you're making shit up. I can't really blame you because you may have seen a headline that claimed Schiff said people wouldn't understand the memo. I remember the article because it said Schiff was desperate and there was a cheesy picture with a graphic that said "panic mode" despite no panic at all, just wanting to give people the full story and not just the Republican story.

So, they should release everything. No one should be against seeing the memo, and for them to release as much info about the sources as possible. I have a feeling a lot of what is contained in there has already been leaked out, the memo is merely a summary.

I have a feeling they won't release any source material for the memo, same as they did last spring, and there's going to be big news from the Mueller investigation soon.

Soon...

How long did it take for an unsubstantiated rumor about Trump maybe or maybe not asking about firing Mueller and his counsel maybe or maybe not threatening to quit to make the news? Don't hold your breath. This is gonna be fun.

It's not unsubstantiated. Even Fox confirmed it after denying it.

Besides, based on Trump's history, it wouldn't be out of character for him to threaten to fire Mueller because hey, it didn't work with Comey but maybe this time would be different.

Maybe Trump feels innocent and that's why he wanted to fire him.

You understand firing Mueller is in no way illegal, right?

That's debatable.

Alex blew an early load, this is the 99 page memo released last year - we've known about it for a long time. The current topic is a 4 page memo that, to my knowledge, is still not publicly released. This is not that.

You're telling me that Alex Jones, the pillar of reason, calm, and patience--the man who always diligently vets every claim (he does this during the key time when he's encouraging his users to buy the colloidal silver that the government doesn't want us to know is necessary for optimal health!) jumped the gun on something?

The 99 page memo is a precursor for the 4 page Nunes Summary. If you read it (which I have), it shows that NSA data was Willy nilly being shared by FBI and CIA which was in clear violation. Then goes on to discuss the changes that are being made from that point going forward. The Nunes memo will show.they violated the NSA yet again.

There's a vote tomorrow (Monday, 5pm ET) with the house intelligence committee for it to be released publicly.

State of the Union is Tuesday evening, so Trump could release it then. Watch a big old false flag change the news cycle this week.

Gowdy said that it detailed Hillary's relationship to Steele... I don't know what that means. Maybe she fucked him? Lol

Means she paid for the dossier. As oppo research. Obama then used it to spy on political opponents to help the successor he chose. Lol

Wasn't that already public knowledge though?

No. The MSM has done their best to suppress this. It's been known for a long time to some people but it's not common knowledge, yet.

why don't you mention that the dossier was originally paid for by Republicans? You talk like it only came into existence and HRC request. AT least put the whole story.

Why would I mention fake news?

eh? I was under the impression that is literally the verified truth of the matter.

More red herrings.

Have you seen list of the highest-end lawyers that left their own multi-million dollar practices to work for Mueller on this investigation, and workfor relative peanuts?

Muller must of had some compelling evidence in order to bring them all on board.

What sources do you have to back this claim up? I keep seeing this here and no one says who's analysis this is.

It's my conclusion from researching this like crazy. You can read the dossier and the testimony online. There are plenty of reddit, voat, and YouTube users who post primary sources and analyze fairly objectively, but you should always do so on your own as well.

He has no sources, just feelings. He's talking about what he wants to happen.

So, they should release everything. No one should be against seeing the memo, and for them to release as much info about the sources as possible. I have a feeling a lot of what is contained in there has already been leaked out, the memo is merely a summary.