Patterico's Pontifications

1/2/2018

Did Comey Really Testify That the Entire Steele Dossier Was Unverified?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am

Andrew C. McCarthy published a piece yesterday arguing that there is a “dossier scandal” that undermines the narrative of Russia collusion put out by the New York Times. McCarthy argues that the FBI used the infamous Steele dossier to form part of an application for a warrant to a FISA court, despite the “fact” that Comey had dismissed the dossier as “salacious and unverified”:

Slowly but surely, it has emerged that the Justice Department and FBI very likely targeted Page because of the Steele dossier, a Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed disguised as intelligence reporting. Increasingly, it appears that the Bureau failed to verify Steele’s allegations before the DOJ used some of them to bolster an application for a spying warrant from the FISA court (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court).

. . . .

Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.

. . . .

It has become increasingly clear that Steele’s claims about Page are, at best, highly dubious; more likely, they are untrue. Aside from the fact that Comey has been dismissive of the dossier as “unverified,” Page has vigorously and plausibly denied its allegations about him. The Annapolis grad and former naval-intelligence officer insists he is not even acquainted with the Russian officials with whom he supposedly had traitorous meetings.

I watched Comey’s testimony shortly after he gave it, and did not remember Comey dismissing the entire dossier as “salacious and unverified.” Instead, I recalled Comey applying that label to certain material that he had briefed the President about on January 6 — obviously a reference to the salacious and unverified allegations about Trump having Russian prostitutes pee on a bed in a hotel room.

I read the transcript again last night to confirm my memory, and indeed that is what happened. In fact, Comey was specifically asked whether the FBI had confirmed any criminal allegations in the dossier, and he refused to answer the question in an open setting:

BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “Steele dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I’m not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

. . . .

BURR: So if you’ve got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to for counter intelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement?

COMEY: Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that’s the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened.

BURR: And when you read the dossier, what was your reaction, given that it was 100% directed at the president-elect?

COMEY: Not a question I can answer in open setting, Mr. Chairman.

. . . .

KING: In regard to him being personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way?

COMEY: I obviously can’t comment either way. I talk in an open setting about the investigation as it was when I was head of the FBI. It is Bob Mueller’s responsibility now. I don’t know.

As you can see, Comey would not answer in an open setting whether the FBI was able to confirm anything in the Steele dossier. Usually, when Comey refused to answer questions in an open setting, it was because it related to an ongoing investigation. Take, for example, Tom Cotton’s question about whether the FBI had ever closed the investigation on Michael Flynn (keep in mind that Flynn had not yet been indicted):

COTTON: Did you ever come close to closing the investigation on Mr. Flynn?

COMEY: I don’t think I can talk about that in open setting either.

We now know that the FBI had most certainly not closed that investigation. The question related to an ongoing investigation that eventually led to an indictment.

It is true that Comey referred to certain material as “salacious and unverified” — but he later implied that there were parts of the dossier that were verified and parts that were not. Here is the testimony using the term “salacious and unverified”:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?

COMEY: That’s correct.

COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?

COMEY: I didn’t use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him.

Later, under questioning from Tom Cotton, Comey once again said Trump denied the “unverified and salacious parts”:

COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

Again, the phrase “unverified and salacious parts” is clearly a reference to the peeing on the bed allegation. But “unverified and salacious parts” is language that pointedly does not rule out the concept that there were verified and non-salacious parts as well. Indeed, the pee-on-the-bed story was hardly the only allegation in the Steele dossier. And McCarthy himself has made this exact point in the past:

If the Trump dossier is just a tissue of lies, why are the Justice Department and FBI, now controlled by Trump appointees, concealing information about it rather than anxiously volunteering disclosure? If I had to bet on it, I’d wager that the dossier is like many reports compiled by investigative bodies whose motives are dubious and whose sources are of varying levels of credibility — similar to what you get after investigations by politicized congressional committees, law-enforcement agents who are less than first-rate, or private detectives who, lacking subpoena power, often rely on multiple hearsay. That is, I think the dossier will turn out to be a mixed bag of the true, the false, and the shades of gray in between.

McCarthy went on in his earlier piece to say:

Prior to his dossier work, Steele seems to have enjoyed a good reputation with the American intelligence and law-enforcement agents with whom he had worked. Some of his dossier information appears to come from well-placed sources; some of it is second- and third-hand, and speculative at that. On the face of things, most of Steele’s sources are anonymous, another reason his claims have been given the back of the hand by Trump supporters. But from an investigator’s standpoint, the sources are identifiable: If Steele cooperated with the FBI (and in some instances, even if he didn’t), the Bureau could pretty easily figure out who the sources are, follow the leads, and determine whether the dossier is a complete fabrication.

The FBI plainly did not dismiss the dossier out of hand. If it used some of the dossier’s information in a FISA-court surveillance application, that would only be problematic if agents failed to verify that particular information before seeking the warrant. That would be highly irregular. For now, we don’t know what happened.

There are hundreds of claims in the dossier. Some of them seem outlandish — so much so that, at Forbes, Russia expert Paul Roderick Gregory debunks the dossier emphatically. Nonetheless, to my knowledge, the only claim that has been discredited with persuasive force is the assertion that Trump’s long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, had secret meetings in Prague with Russian officials. Cohen denies having ever been to Prague, and he maintains that his passport shows no visits there — a claim that wouldn’t necessarily discount travel to the Czech Republic but could have been refuted easily if false. If the Bureau concluded that the dossier’s claim about Cohen is wrong, one could infer that the inaccuracy is reflective of Steele’s overall reporting — in which case, Trump and his associates have nothing to be concerned about.

On the other hand, it could be that some of the dossier’s information is wrong but some is accurate. On that score, Business Insider’s Natasha Bertrand has been carefully comparing allegations in the dossier with actual events and has found a good deal of alignment. The factual corroboration is circumstantial — no smoking-gun proof of campaign collusion between Trump associates and Putin’s regime. Much of it is nonetheless disturbing — plainly in the category of suspicious activity investigators would deem worthy of investigation.

So this latest argument that the FBI relied on a document that Comey has already testified was wholly unverified seems to conflate one claim in the dossier with the entire dossier.

None of this is to argue that there was collusion. I’m simply trying here to question an oft-repeated assumption: that James Comey testified that the whole Steele dossier was unverified garbage. He did not do that, so our arguments should not rest on that false assumption.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

140 Responses to “Did Comey Really Testify That the Entire Steele Dossier Was Unverified?”

  1. Comey’s irrelevant

    disgraced deputy director Andy McCabe has confirmed that the sleazy FBI has not verified the dossier

    Embattled FBI admits it can’t verify dossier claims of Russia, Trump campaign collusion

    (this is the dossier the corrupt FBI used to get a rubber-stamping FISA court to approve spying on the Trump campaign)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Good grief you’re still chasing that white rabbit, the rosneft deal went to
    march rich’s old firm, glencore, Qatar investment arm, which has ties to Mueller firm,
    Wilier Pickering and an Italian bank santapaolo, what other claim needs to be rubbished.

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. Sochin is a rather pitiful sort

    http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10772

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. Patrick’s take is exactly the same as mine, and I’ve read every word of Comey’s public testimony to congress, and every word of the dossier.

    The Steele dossier has plenty of information that has proven undeniably accurate, including the details of Manafort’s money-laundering efforts with Putin’s puppets in the Ukraine, and the by-now well-established intelligence operations conducted on Trump’s behalf.

    As is typical in this kind of investigative work, there is also information that is substantively correct, but with certain details wrong.

    Dave (a5c373)

  5. Yes, it’s 50 shades of grey and not a single shade is perceived by the 35cents who can only see black and white….out of self preservation.

    They preach to their own choirs.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (69b6bd)

  6. If you think this post is surreal, wait till he sees the new VF article on Bannnon.

    harkin (8256c3)

  7. Because he is the owner of the company that gave rise to the London Centre for International Law Practice, Idris could well lie at the heart of the biggest mystery we have yet to unravel: how and why Mifsud and Papadopoulos were put into their various roles and then brought into contact with one another. With Mifsud references now scrubbed from the LCILP website and Idris (as well as Mifsud) scrubbed from the Link Campus website, Idris does not seem to want that information to come to light. Idris appears to be just as unqualified for his role in founding LCILP as both Papadopoulos and Mifsud are for the positions they held there and elsewhere. With Idris, though, we are likely starting to get very close to those who are pulling the strings.

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/01/02/two-months-after-papadopoulos-plea-revealed-mifsuds-past-still-being-scrubbed/

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (69b6bd)

  8. Lock him up.

    mg (8cbc69)

  9. But he’s doing semi-contradictory things like disavowing Paul Nehlen, I just wonder if he flames out like Nigel Farage. This could also be staged – i.e. a more White Natty boogeyman set in place by Trump who then can milk the fear for support from his microtargeted “other’ groups and also “traditional” POC who will be convinced of the D impotency and will resign themselves to the less scary of 2 evils.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  10. I’m not sure “salacious and unverified” is a united term applying to only the peeing in the bed and related allegations involving prostitutes. Those would certainly be “salacious”, but “unverified” could extend to many other parts of the dossier’s allegations that are not necessarily “salacious.”

    I think you need to acknowledge that McCarthy has taken a more suspicious and accusatory tone towards the FBI’s work since the revelations about the anti-Trump text messages and emails sent between participants in the summer of 2016, and the revelations about the DOJ officials with odd connections to Fusion GPS. I think he would no longer take the position that he took in the column you refer to last where he assumed that the FBI had done certain things prior to making use of the dossier in a FISA application. When he wrote that it was not public knowledge that the same FBI agent who manipulated language in Comey’s statement exonerating Clinton, was also the lead agent on Trump-Russia and had expressed extreme anti-Trump views in the same time frame. He also didn’t know that the wife of a Associate Deputy Attorney General was an anti-Trump researcher focusing on Russian angles for Fusion GPS, and that the Associate Deputy Attorney General in question had met with both the founder of Fusion GPS — and another admitted anti-Trump media person — and the British MI6 agent who complied the dossier.

    And although he doesn’t say so expressly, I think his latest column is heavily influenced by the testimony from McCabe two weeks ago in closed session — which was leaked by GOP sources most probably — admitted that with regard to the allegations about Carter Page’s trip to Moscow in the summer of 2016, the only facts in the dossier that had been verified was that he had actually gone to Moscow. None of the allegations about meetings he had or the context of those meetings has been verified. Page has denied most of them — he admitted talking to certain energy sector officials he knew from previous work as an investor in the oil and gas industry in Europe and Russia. But one unverified allegation in the dossier is that Page — and Trump presumably — were offered a 19% stake in state-owned Roseneft — worth billions of dollars — if sanctions against Russia were rolled back by Trump. Page denied ever having met the President of Roseneft who supposedly made the offer according to the dossier. He met with Roseneft’s director of investor relations — because Page’s energy sector investment fund had one been an investor in Roseneft.

    To some degree McCarthy is working within certain character number limits — if not “physically” by the NRO website, then at least with respect to the amount of time he can devote to an individual column before his posting deadline arrives. So its not necessarily possible for him to go back and make sure every phrase and sentence he writes is perfectly in tune with something he wrote weeks or months earlier, and offer an explanation or clarification if there is an inconsistency.

    I think his earliest column which you site at the end credited the FBI with a certain level of professionalism in terms of how seasoned counter-intelligence agents would view and make use of a collection of documents from a third party like the dossier. I think the reporting that has taken place since he wrote that column undermines the wisdom of having credited the FBI in that manner. I think his working assumption now is that from the personal POV of some of the agents and DOJ personnel working on the investigation, the dossier allegations were “too good to check”, and they made use of them when necessary without verifying them as they should have.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  11. This, frankly, is stupid argument to have.

    If one thing in the dossier turns out to be true, it doesn’t give any credence to the remainder, and vice versa, if one claim is untrue, it doesn’t mean the whole thing is a lie. HOWEVER.

    From a deception standpoint, the ideal way to craft such a document is to mix truth with lies. Typically, the innocuous stuff would then be shown to be true, but the troublesome stuff would be not true, and better yet, unverifiable. What do we see here? Exactly that pattern – a few innocuous things are true, but the salacious/illegal things are either untrue, or simply unverifiable. The pattern here is a classic from a deception standpoint, meaning it is likely this document was specifically crafted to deceive, and should be simply discarded in whole as untrustworthy.

    That is how real intelligence agencies deal with these sorts of documents, which by the way, surface all the time, and are rarely given credence.

    Read up on Operation Cicero during WWII sometime for a primer on how the British perfected this sort of thing.

    Geoman (a815b9)

  12. More credible:

    [ ] McCarthyisms wedged in National Review

    [x] The New York Times

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. I will add – IF the FBI had actually verified anything in the dossier that was salacious or illegal, we wouldn’t be even having this conversation right now. It would have leaked, or charges would have been brought. Given the level of effort expended by all parties, the press, FBI, congress, Mueller, other intelligence organizations, etc. it seems likely, at this late date, that the dossier is a pile of steaming garbage. It would require extraordinary “proof” at this point for anything credible to come of the dossier.

    And, just to back up – how has Trump treated Russia since he came to office? I would argue – a damn sight worse than the Obama administration ever did, given his approval of Ukrainian weapons sales, and increased the budget for the European Deterrence Initiative, an effort begun under former President Obama to bolster allies’ defenses in response to Russian aggression.

    Geoman (a815b9)

  14. I mean, really?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

    Disinformation is false information spread deliberately to deceive.[1][2][3] The English word disinformation is a translation of the Russian dezinformatsiya,[1][2][3] derived from the title of a KGB black propaganda department.[4] The book Disinformation documents that Joseph Stalin coined the term, giving it a French-sounding name to falsely claim it had a Western origin.

    In the post-Soviet era, disinformation evolved to become a key tactic in the military doctrine of Russia.[30]

    The European Union and NATO saw Russian disinformation in the early 21st century as such a problem that they both set up special units to analyze and debunk fabricated falsehoods.[30] NATO founded a modest facility in Latvia to respond to disinformation[31] and, following agreement by heads of state and governments in March 2015 the EU created the European External Action Service East Stratcom Task Force, which publishes weekly reports in its website “EU vs Disinfo”.[32] The website and its partners identified and debunked over 3,500 pro-Kremlin disinformation cases between September 2015 and November 2017.[32]

    Methods used by Russia during this period included its Kremlin-controlled mouthpieces: news agency Sputnik News and television outlet Russia Today (RT).[30] When explaining the 2016 annual report of the Swedish Security Service on disinformation, representative Wilhelm Unge stated: “We mean everything from Internet trolls to propaganda and misinformation spread by media companies like RT and Sputnik.”[30][1]

    BfC (5517e8)

  15. even cowardpig John McCain never attested to his now-discredited dossier’s validity

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  16. I’m not sure “salacious and unverified” is a united term applying to only the peeing in the bed and related allegations involving prostitutes.

    the golden showers part is so silly the corrupt FBI has every interest in bracketing that part anyway

    they’ve already fired all the dumb-ass fbi slutboys what failed to edit that part out

    but they all get really sweet pensions anyway

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  17. Rush Limbaugh guest host is taking about Kansas SWATting and mentioned Patterico prior to the last break (now).

    BfC (5517e8)

  18. “talking”

    BfC (5517e8)

  19. More credible:

    [ ] McCarthyisms wedged in National Review

    [ ] The New York Times
    DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/2/2018 @ 10:32 am

    C. None of the above.

    BfC (5517e8)

  20. Mr Patterico just got a mention on the Rush Limbaugh Show by the guest host re the Swatting story.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  21. So about the main thrust of the investigation, that the Ruskies were in collusion with Trump to provide DNC internal emails to sink the Clinton campaign. Any movement on that needle?

    Naw.

    Case dismissed.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  22. add to that, strzok’s interview of general Flynn sans council, then you have this ridiculous story y the john Kerry of Australia, vapid mutterings with papafop,

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. 19.Rush Limbaugh guest host is ‘taking…’

    drugs.

    Freudian slip, Shod.

    _____

    Breaking – Hatch to ‘retire.’

    Another barnacle chipped off the ship of state.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  24. Mitt Mitt Mitt!!!

    Another “all-purpose” looking guy like George Z. gone to waste…we could have put him on that Phen Fen stuff Pin and others were talking about and inserted him north of the 38″ …

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/02/colorado-gunman-livestreamed-ambush-style-shooting-that-killed-deputy-report-says.html

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  25. One more thing to add — I guess the Host missed the memo from Anti-Trump HQ that the dossier is not longer the central part of the Trump-Russia collusion meme. On Friday it was revealed that it was drunken disclosures by Papadopolous to an Australian diplomat which was basis upon which the FBi initiated its investigation into the Trump campaign.

    Apparently, the entire investigation can be traced back to Papadopolous — which is a good thing, because now there is at least a chance for Mueller to avoid a “fruit of the poisonous tree” evisceration of his case as a result of the FBI having misled the FISA Court in order to get their FISA warrant to monitor Carter Page’s communications in the summer and fall of 2016.

    Mueller now has the NYT backing him up on both an “independent source” and “inevitable discovery” argument to get around the Fourth Amendment violations that flowed from misrepresenting the origins and veracity of the information taken from the dossier.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  26. Hard to believe Utah is about to turn blue

    mg (8cbc69)

  27. Is an incamera hearing required by rule 17, or can it merely be submission, then there misrule 13, about correcting the record.

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. Certainly the FBI and the Justice Department have been stonewalling Congressional oversight investigations into the documentary basis for a FISA Court secret warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign.

    Leaders at the very top of both organizations were in cahoots with the Hillary Clinton crime family to undercut Trump’s candidacy and put her in the White House where she could reward their loyality with fancy jobs and be in position to pardon the conspirators for their blatant treachery should any of their multitude of crimes be exposed.

    The fix was in, the plan was foolproof, honorable men (honorable men and women all) illegally conspired to subvert a presidential election and got caught with their pants down: the wisdom of our founders emerged to defeat the sub rosa plans of Hillary’s fascist cabal – American voters elected Donald Trump to drain the swamp.

    Now, the rats are caught in the bright lights of public exposure, their crimes against the people writ large, the evildoers can’t run and the can’t hide.

    And, they fully deserve all the contempt, approbrium, and prison time the American people can heap on their disgraced heads.

    Lock ’em up, every damn one of them.

    ropelight (39c0e8)

  29. If you think this post is surreal, wait till he sees the new VF article on Bannnon

    What about this post is “surreal”?

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  30. The pat that was verified, or partially verified, is probably the items from the dossier about Paul Manafort and Carter Page getting money from Russia or Ukrainian in league with Russia befoee tghey had anything to do with Donald Trump.

    Andrew McCarthy also writes about the ew York times (or its sources) changing the source of the onvestigation.

    And he’s absolutely right that the “thousands of emails” that George Papadupolous was told Russia had were Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails (which they in fact, did not have, although they had her hdr22@clintonemail.com email address) and NOT> the DNC and Podesta emails that they actually had, which were later leaked to Wikileaks.)

    The FBI people made the mistake of believing the Russians, directed by ex-KGB colonel Vladimir Putin, were telling the truth.

    It’s hard to see how they could be so stupid.

    Papadoupolous, by the way, either did not beleive what he was told, or he was waiting till he was given them personally (so he could get the credit for turning Hillary’s emails over to the campaign) because he never mentioned this in any of the emails he sent to the campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  31. 28. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/2/2018 @ 12:05 pm

    I guess the Host missed the memo from Anti-Trump HQ that the dossier is not longer the central part of the Trump-Russia collusion meme.

    That’s the wholle point of Andrew McCarthy’s National Review article.

    Except that he’s skeptical.

    How can the dossier no longer be importyant, asks Andrew McCarthy? How can they change their story? No, the dossier must have bene important.

    Patterico says that McCarthy makes a mistake when he says that Comey said the dossier was unverified – he actually didn’t say, ALL claims were unverified.

    On Friday it was revealed that it was drunken disclosures by Papadopolous to an Australian diplomat which was basis upon which the FBi initiated its investigation into the Trump campaign.

    That’s what McCArthy says.

    He adds, quite correctly, that the FBI made a mistake about what Joseph Mifsud was talking about.

    He was not telling the truth. He was not speaking about what was later leaked to Wikileaks. He was lying and he was talking about Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  32. What about this post is “surreal”?

    it paints sleazy fbi turdlord Jim Comey as a truth-teller, when both he and the organization he did so much to corrupt have lied about so so many things

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. I missed that. I thought Patterico would be interested in this when I heard abopuit the KAnsas SWATtiung oin the CBS Evening News I think on Thursday. It proves that somebody can get killed because of a SWATting. I don’t think the liklihood is very high in any particular case, so it’s not a good way to plot to kill someone.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  34. Comey had to tell the truth about how credible the dossier was considered – it is in the record.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  35. It proves that somebody can get killed because of a SWATting.

    it’s also on the youtubes

    to where if someone in a chat room brings up swatting

    someone can reply with a link to this guy getting shot to death

    i’m hoping in this way something good will come out of this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  36. I don’t know how that can possibly be a basis for a fisa warrant, but then again they’ve been playing this Tommy Flanagan deal for so long, they don’t know what the truth is anywhere.

    narciso (d1f714)

  37. Let’s ask Mr McCain of McCain/Feingold if it counts as a campaign contribution from him and the Democrats.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  38. it paints sleazy fbi turdlord Jim Comey as a truth-teller, when both he and the organization he did so much to corrupt have lied about so so many things

    No it doesn’t. It simply takes issue with McCarthy’s characterization of what Comey testified to. That point is valid whether Comey lied or told the truth.

    It’s actually surreal to characterize the post as surreal. It makes a very modest and (as far as I can tell) factually indisputable point. You have to read into it things I did not say to dispute it.

    As for your citation of an article citing anonymous staffers as to what was said in a closed meeting, it’s nice to see that your disdain for anonymous sources is not dogmatic, and you are willing to uncritically accept such sources when you like their conclusions.

    As for me, if I can watch McCarthy mischaracterize the content of an open hearing that anyone can watch on YouTube, I can imagine a staffer innocently (or otherwise) mischaracterizing the contents of testimony at a closed session.

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  39. Mr Patterico just got a mention on the Rush Limbaugh Show by the guest host re the Swatting story.

    Interesting. Who was the guest host and what did he say?

    Patterico (0a74c4)

  40. McCain might say, “You gotta have buffahs.”

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  41. two things though number one the post doesn’t consider that Comey’s testimony could be rife with lies and half-truths: to wit hello america

    when sleazy slimy Comey refers to the “salacious and unverified” parts, he’s *implying* that the balance of the John McCain Hooker Urination Dossier have been verified

    second thing

    it’s not that i’m loving anonymous sources all up in it – but that I agree with Mr. Geoman:

    IF the FBI had actually verified anything in the dossier that was salacious or illegal, we wouldn’t be even having this conversation right now. It would have leaked, or charges would have been brought.

    deductive logic + anonymous sources = truthy goodness

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  42. oops should have said balance of the *claims made in the* John McCain Hooker Urination Dossier

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  43. deductive logic + anonymous sources = truthy goodness

    Actually, it’s a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  44. i like my formulation better

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  45. Mr Patterico just got a mention on the Rush Limbaugh Show by the guest host re the Swatting story.

    Interesting. Who was the guest host and what did he say?

    Patterico (0a74c4) — 1/2/2018 @ 1:10 pm

    Todd Herman. He was running down the story of the guy in Wichita.

    I don’t think he reads your blog directly. He used your nom de plume and pronounced it incorrectly but he was familiar with the details of what happened to you and your family.

    I thought you might like a heads up in case you see an unexpected spike in views.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  46. Yes, it’s 50 shades of grey and not a single shade is perceived by the 35cents who can only see black and white….out of self preservation.

    They preach to their own choirs.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (69b6bd) — 1/2/2018 @ 9:40 am

    When they lock you up for visiting Rand Paul your safe word is going to be “harder”.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  47. Many harbingers on the horizon.

    President Macron set out a raft of policies to fight poverty in downtrodden districts in November after critics labelled him a “president of the rich” due to his generous tax cuts for high earners.

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20180102/france-shocked-by-new-years-eve-attacks-on-police

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  48. Comey needs a few years in the crow bar hotel.

    mg (8cbc69)

  49. I let Karma do my visits on the Wicked Pin. It’s the perfect alibi.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  50. I can see Comey and McCabe on a prison island growing and eating each others fruit.

    mg (8cbc69)

  51. I see Trump flippin burgers @ $8 per hour, riding the bus to his Section 8 apt as part of his 20 year sentence for public masturbation on the White House lawn.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  52. So what of pidesta and weber, they did the actual lobbying. They got a polite letter and an offer to straighten out their registration, not a battering ram. Much wee madecof klimnik the fellow recruited from Mccain international republican institute didn’t they know he was guru.

    narciso (d1f714)

  53. Somewhat off topic:

    The UK Daily Mail is reporting on the observations of an unnamed witness while testifying before Mueller’s Grand Jury.

    The only white man in the room was the prosecutor. Two jurors were wearing ‘peace’ T-shirts. Eleven of the twenty jurors were black. Overall, the jurors looked like they’d been recruited at a Bernie Sanders rally or from a Black Lives Matter protest march.

    The witness said there was no way Trump could get a fair hearing – no chance at all.

    ropelight (39c0e8)

  54. Rush Limbaugh guest host is taking about Kansas SWATting and mentioned Patterico prior to the last break (now).

    BfC (5517e8) — 1/2/2018 @ 11:00 am

    I didn’t see you there, sorry.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  55. Now this furtash fellow was more promising, however they extradited him for paying bribes in India, how about veselberg and prokhorov, they worked with magnitsky funds, they paid their lot with the Clinton foundation. The former even paid nick dentons side of the suit against hulk Hogan.

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. Cheer up. Trump may be disgraced with tar-and-feather but he will return in a few years as Emeritus Sage, just like the war criminals Nixon and Kissinger.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  57. .Rush Limbaugh guest host is ‘taking…’

    drugs.

    Freudian slip, Shod.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/2/2018 @ 11:41 am

    You sure it’s not a Kreuzlingen gesture?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  58. What you mean like with Ted stevens, they didn’t need any actual evidence to hand him, that couldn’t happen again could it. Or ask tom delay.

    narciso (d1f714)

  59. @60. Certain he’s merely an ‘entertainer’– he tells us so. And, of course, he smells; very bad B.O.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. Unlike say Jon Stewart he has an understanding of history and economics.

    narciso (d1f714)

  61. @61. At the Captain’s table tonight:

    [ ] McCarthy wedge w/oil & vinegar

    [x] Lettuce wedge w/Russian dressing

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  62. I can see it now “The James Comey Garden Gnome” that is bent over.

    mg (8cbc69)

  63. So cold out the democrats have their hands in their own pockets.

    mg (8cbc69)

  64. @56

    Does the witness understand what grand juries do?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  65. Obama was a magician he made my doctor disappear.

    mg (8cbc69)

  66. Another “all-purpose” looking guy like George Z. gone to waste…we could have put him on that Phen Fen stuff Pin and others were talking about and inserted him north of the 38″ …

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/2/2018 @ 11:45 am

    What happened to legal weed treating PTSD? Did he not get the memo? They should have had the twitchy deputy from Wind River with them.

    Just two quick comments about that:

    I went to the Wind River Rez three days a week for almost a year and I only really saw one girl who could hold a candle to any of the ones cast.

    Why the hell does a drilling rig have so bloody many so called security guards? I’ve been to sour gas plants, pumping stations, open pit mines, power plants and a hydroelectric facility and I’ve never seen anything like that. The Casper airport probably has less TSA agents.

    Ok, one last comment. The FBI agent showing up during a blizzard in a wind breaker was LOL funny. Elizabeth Olson sort of looks like a low miles Annette Benning.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  67. The trkkie who was the alternate on the stevens case certainly didn’t.

    narciso (d1f714)

  68. you really get the most out of your movie dollar Mr. puller

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  69. Ted Stevens, the knob-gobbling ankle fetishist?

    Are Cubanos pushing for a statue in Ft. Lauderdale? I think they might get their swish-wish.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  70. Macron sounds like a fiber that’s warm in the summer and cold in the winter.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  71. I let Karma do my visits on the Wicked Pin. It’s the perfect alibi.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d) — 1/2/2018 @ 1:49 pm

    It’s weird that you named your Cub Cadet.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  72. I see Stevens pose as statuary…

    Pigeons perched appropriately over the same crapper, cooing into adjacent stall..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  73. The only thing verified in this dossier is that Satchel Page went to Moscow.

    Neo (d1c681)

  74. I see Trump flippin burgers @ $8 per hour, riding the bus to his Section 8 apt as part of his 20 year sentence for public masturbation on the White House lawn.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d) — 1/2/2018 @ 1:53 pm

    Jim Caviezel’s The Count of Monte Cristo is pretty good but you might not like the ending.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  75. I had one polyp removed last week and I got permission from the GE to name it Trump before excision.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  76. Obama was a magician he made my doctor disappear.

    mg (8cbc69) — 1/2/2018 @ 2:20 pm

    I lost my job. Well, I didn’t really lose it. I know where it is. It’s just when I go there someone else is doing it-Bobcat

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  77. Ninth man run out of town, thanks to a Mann act violating contractor, who was the bureaus star witness, whose handler had a daddy fiction, just to put a factotum like begich who had left anchorage with 20 million in debt what ever it took to get to 60 vites

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. I had one polyp removed last week and I got permission from the GE to name it Trump before excision.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d) — 1/2/2018 @ 3:10 pm

    There’s a popular Maury Povich quote: If you feed them long enough they will look just like you. I imagine it does.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  79. Pin:

    It wouldn’t just be about masturbation but the list of offenses might look like Lincoln piling on the South with a Spartan Reconstruction. They just distilled it down to character, or the absence of..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  80. Actually they take high-res pics now and my hemorrhoids did resemble Trumps pucker -face.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d)

  81. you really get the most out of your movie dollar Mr. puller

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/2/2018 @ 2:51 pm

    One more thing. The trailer bear spray scene (spoiler). I can almost guarantee the most they spent on set design was renting that place and however much six cans of spray paint cost. They only thing I haven’t seen just like that is people with a burn barrel indoors. It had just the right amount of junk cars and trash. Could have used a three legged dog because you don’t eat a dog that good all at once.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  82. Do people still go to movies?

    mg (8cbc69)

  83. if it comes to the netflix i’m on it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  84. If you do go to movies how do you sleep at night knowing your movie dollar went to getting some actress groped or raped?

    mg (8cbc69)

  85. Fewer and fewer, eluzabeth Olsen does seem to have the same pained expression,,whether godzilla or this film or avengers, except for the lightning.

    narciso (d1f714)

  86. i like going to alamo for movies but i never tried it when i’m doing low carb before

    plus i don’t think there’s any here yet

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  87. Mittens on the move – Michigan-Massachusetts-New Hampshire-Utah and onto Washington. YAAA.

    mg (8cbc69)

  88. he’s so disgusting Utah is just trashy enough to elect him though

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  89. That dudes gonna be almost pushing 80 by 2024. And I go to movies to nap since They have recliners standard.

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  90. Hoping they won’t screw up infinity war, after last Jedi I’m not so sanguine, although josh brolin as a purplish alien Shrek holds promise.

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. My favorite thing about Utah is dropping in to Snowbird from atop Alta.

    mg (8cbc69)

  92. and golfing in St. George

    mg (8cbc69)

  93. Transcript from closed door session of the Senate Committee For Holding Hearings.
    Testimony of former FBI Director James Comey.

    — Mr. Comey, you said some parts of the Steele dossiers are salacious and unverifiable. Are there any parts that are verifiable?
    — Yes, sir, a great many.
    — Such as?
    — Well, sir, after extensive investigation we confirmed that there is in fact a place called Russia.
    — Crackerjack police work, Mr. Comey. Anything else?
    — Yes, sir. It has a President.
    — Astounding. Were you able to ascertain his name?
    — It took four agents working around the clock for a week, but we did. His name is Vladimir Putin.
    — This is devastating information, Mr. Comey. Will you swear to that?
    — I’ll have to confirm that with my attorney, Mr. Chairman, but in the meantime you could call my friend, Daniel Richman, who has a memo I gave him.
    — The committee will take that under advisement, Mr. Comey. What, if anything, else were you able to verify in the Steele dossier?
    — That there is a person named Donald J. Trump and he was in fact the Republican candidate for President of the United States.
    — How certain are you of this information, Mr. Comey?
    — Fairly certain, Mr. Chairman, but I will need to consult with a memorandum I wrote for complete assurance.
    — No need, Mr. Comey. I think you have sufficiently established that some parts of the dossier are indeed verifiable.

    nk (dbc370)

  94. “Actually they take high-res pics now and my hemorrhoids did resemble Trumps pucker -face.”

    That must have hit your love-life BIG TIME, Rear Admiral Cork Soaker…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. Rear Admiral just lost some IQ with the hemorrhoid removal

    mg (8cbc69)

  96. I have a serious question, asked without snark, of our host and others. Our host wrote, in part:

    … Instead, I recalled Comey applying that label to certain material that he had briefed the President about on January 6 — obviously a reference to the salacious and unverified allegations about Trump having Russian prostitutes pee on a bed in a hotel room….

    Again, the phrase “unverified and salacious parts” is clearly a reference to the peeing on the bed allegation….

    When I read these assertions, I looked for explanation as to why this is “obvious” or “clear.” I gather that the entire dossier — assuming this is it; is it not? — comprises thirty-five odd pages; I haven’t read it, but even a quick flip through it demonstrates that it includes many different factual allegations having nothing to do with prostitutes or urination.

    So why is the inference that Comey was referring to that factual allegation, and only that one, clear and obvious?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  97. cause that’s the allegation the FBI wants to bracket and distance itself from

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  98. Laura Deen was a bit too obvious as a Sally Yates being brought in to supplant the hazzas fromvthe coasts.

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  99. Its at this point, graham Chapman shows up and says ‘this is much too silly’

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. Some girl is standing at the intersection of Harding Pike and White Bridge Road holding up an upside down American Flag and the graduation picture of a black ute. My money is on BLM. It’s 19 degrees.

    Pinandpuller (d05d83)

  101. I saw Stephanie Powers and Rick Schroeder separate occasions at the SLC airport. They are both beautiful.

    Pinandpuller (d05d83)

  102. OT — Holy cow. Tanya Harding is doing an ABC interview airing this week.

    She’s 47 — but in a still photo I just saw from a promotion for the show she looks like she’s 65. Wow. Talk about a hard life.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  103. There’s a correlation between gut biome and the brain or in BB’s case conjoined organ systems.

    Pinandpuller (d05d83)

  104. If Comey had acknowledged the entire dirty dossier was unverified he probably wouldn’t have been fired.

    crazy (d99a88)

  105. Maybe that billion dollar ransom to boko haram was a poor choice.

    narciso (d1f714)

  106. shipwreckedcrew at 106. Tonya also boxed professionally for two years, and she had two losses by TKO. TKO is boxing talk for “beaten to a pulp”.

    nk (dbc370)

  107. @106. 47 is the new 65. Reaganomics.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. Not surprisingly i was on team kerrigan

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Imperator_Rex3/status/948312376855511040?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  109. “Jim Caviezel’s The Count of Monte Cristo is pretty good but you might not like the ending.”

    It had moments but I thought Guy Pearce was the only consistent good thing. The Richard Chamberlain version had nice acting all-round, especially Trevor Howard as Abbe’ Faria but the film itself was disjointed and way too short.
    Just once I’d like them to do the treasure discovery/recovery scene faithful to the book.

    “eluzabeth Olsen does seem to have the same pained expression,,whether godzilla or this film or….”

    She’s got nothing on Sam Elliot, his face has been frozen since the mid-80s.

    “OT — Holy cow. Tanya Harding”

    If you want to know how Hollywood views middle America, watch the new Tonya Harding flick.

    Mahatma Kane Jeeves harkin (8256c3)

  110. @108

    Jihadwatch is garbage. If you go to the source of the article, blame is assigned to a gang, not muslims.

    Davethulhu (99cc74)

  111. two things though number one the post doesn’t consider that Comey’s testimony could be rife with lies and half-truths

    It doesn’t consider whether it is true or false at all because that is not the point of the post. The point of the post is to dispute McCarthy’s characterization of what Comey testified to. I explained this earlier but as usual you ignored what I wrote.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  112. In 1992, Harding was the muse of the ABBB 35 percent, Thomas the Dems and Kerrigan the NT contingent. Don’t for a second think that the 35 won’t mortally kneecap a fusion candidate next round.

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  113. So why is the inference that Comey was referring to that factual allegation, and only that one, clear and obvious?

    Comey in his testimony always paired the word “salacious” with “unverified.” What other factual allegations in the dossier are salacious?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  114. Well it could this group
    http://newsweek.com/mafia-nigeria-migration-sex-work-trafficking-629627

    So what was proven not the rosneft deal, Russian investment in Deutsche bank, well investigate and you don’t know what you would find, with all the other monies

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. Or the ones mentutoned here:
    http://punchng.com/blood-as-nigerian-drug-cult-gangs-take-europe-america-asia-by-storml

    The country has had enough fratucidal bloodshed

    narciso (d1f714)

  116. “For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.

    That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.

    The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America’s top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

    The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.“

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367141-congressional-investigators-find-irregularities-in-fbis-handling-of

    Drain the swamp.

    harkin (8256c3)

  117. @ Patterico (#118): Okay. Implied in your answer is an assurance that none of the other allegations in the dossier has anything to do with sex. I genuinely haven’t read the entire dossier, so I can’t answer your counter-question but, rather, take it as that implied assurance, with which I’m wholly satisfied. Thanks. Re this:

    The point of the post is to dispute McCarthy’s characterization of what Comey testified to.

    FWIW, I had the same reaction to McCarthy’s characterization when I first read it, although it didn’t spark in me sufficient energy to go back and re-read Comey’s testimony.

    I don’t try to stay current about this topic on a day-to-day basis because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of public comment about it is speculation. As always in the public arena, our unknown unknowns are unquantifiable. But it seems to me that there is certainly a very high ratio, at the moment — before Mueller has reported to Rosenstein who may or may not then report something on to Congress, and before any of the parallel tracks of the Congressional investigations have gotten much more traction (which ultimately depends on DoJ cooperation in enforcing contempt subpoenas) — of known unknowns to known knowns. One assumes, presumes, that by this point, some number of persons inside DoJ and FBI and other intelligence organizations and the Congressional committees knows more than we, the public, do about these topics, so perhaps the proportions will shift.

    Until then, though, this is an exercise in the blind men describing the elephant. It’s not to say that any one of them is wrong, but we don’t have the big picture, or even its rough outlines.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  118. (McCarthy thinks he knows the shape of the elephant, and maybe he does, but if he does, that’s based on stuff he hasn’t written about, or so it seems to me. Regardless, I do pay close attention to what he’s written and continues to write.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  119. Also in the realm of known unknowns: How many other spin-off criminal investigations like Flynn’s and Manafort’s (& associates’) already were underway when Mueller was appointed. Nor do we know how many more have begun since Mueller took over.

    The potential “process crimes” — the false statements, perjuries, obstruction of justice-type crimes — generated in the process of the investigations will therefore all be fairly recent, with their respective statutes of limitations clocks only recently begun to tick.

    How can we pretend to know the big picture, when not only are there quite possibly still traps yet to be sprung, but also traps actively being laid?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  120. Yes of course, it overlooks which regime actually acted like a Russian stooge from Venezuela to north Korea (went so far in the last instance to pursue James roaen, like will Smith in enemy of the state, allowed the entire polish cabinet to be decapitated, allowed Ukraine to carved up, gave Iran the kind of windfall that made Olly little tow deal seen like spare change.

    narciso (d1f714)

  121. Okay. Implied in your answer is an assurance that none of the other allegations in the dossier has anything to do with sex. I genuinely haven’t read the entire dossier, so I can’t answer your counter-question but, rather, take it as that implied assurance, with which I’m wholly satisfied. Thanks.

    There are a couple of brief and generic references to prostitutes and sex parties as well. But the splashiest and most specific allegation by far is the pee-on-the-bed stuff. The main point is to distinguish between the sex stuff (primarily pee-on-the-bed plus the other generic references) which are “salacious and unverified” and stuff that could possibly have been used for a FISA warrant having zero to do with sex, which Comey clearly did not label unverified.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  122. FWIW, I had the same reaction to McCarthy’s characterization when I first read it, although it didn’t spark in me sufficient energy to go back and re-read Comey’s testimony.

    It was mainly because I had actually watched the testimony and remembered it differently that I was motivated to look again.

    I don’t try to stay current about this topic on a day-to-day basis because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of public comment about it is speculation.

    I agree and the same goes for me. There’s a lot of professed certainty, including in McCarthy’s writings, but I’m not so sure the certainty is warranted.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  123. So why is the inference that Comey was referring to that factual allegation, and only that one, clear and obvious?

    It seemed clear to me from Comey’s testimony that this is what he was talking about. His prepared testimony says that the other members of intelligence community had nominated him (Comey) to brief president-elect Trump alone on that “salacious” material:

    At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

    The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

    The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect.

    While the notion that Donald Trump is capable of embarrassment about anything is rather quaint, there is nothing else in the dossier that would have warranted the same kid-glove treatment. As Patrick notes, very little of the document is concerned with Trump’s alleged perversions.

    Dave (445e97)

  124. Its garbage, you know how its garbage because of the rosneft deal, which is the big enticement, who owns bank santipaolo, who partners with the Qatar investment trust, one actual intelligence like those miniaturized nuclear warheads, or the Ukrainian supplied boosters who needs to know that?

    narciso (d1f714)

  125. What would they do without fusions handout:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/948414465720094720?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  126. Wait until Easter.

    Steve57 (0b1dac) — 1/2/2018 @ 5:34 pm

    Jihadi watching is like bird watching: You got your domestics, your exotics and your migratory.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  127. Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d) — 1/2/2018 @ 3:18 pm

    Actually they take high-res pics now and my hemorrhoids did resemble Trumps pucker -face.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (6f6c0d) — 1/2/2018 @ 3:21 pm

    Great story, bro. If you can’t handle the strain now wait till Trump gets reelected.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  128. “splashiest”.

    kaf (70c17d)

  129. He’ll be like the Gestapo chief when they open the arc:

    narciso (d1f714)

  130. I periodically get these weird emails that give me real estate listings in Lagos, Nigeria. Walled compounds sound tempting but no dice.
    Violence between Christians and Muslims increased. Political and socioeconomic conflicts often divided persons along religious lines and were expressed in the targeting of religious symbols and spaces. Acute sectarian violence in the Middle Belt heightened tensions between religious groups, even in parts of the country that did not experience the violence. Ethnoreligious violence resulted in numerous deaths and the displacement of thousands of persons throughout the country.

    Religious differences often mirrored regional, tribal-ethnic, and occupational differences. For example, in many areas of the Middle Belt, Muslim Fulani tended to be pastoralists, while the Muslim Hausa and Christian Igbo and other ethnic groups tended to be farmers or work in urban areas. Consequently, ethnic, regional, economic, and land use competition often correlated with religious differences between the competing groups.

    The law prohibits religious discrimination in employment and other practices. Private businesses, however, frequently discriminated on the basis of religion or ethnicity in hiring practices and purchasing patterns. In nearly all states, ethnic rivalries between “indigenes” and “settlers” resulted in societal discrimination against more recently arrived minority ethnic and religious groups.

    A few instances of societal abuse and discrimination occurred against members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refused for religious reasons to join local age-grade associations or women’s associations.

    No action was taken against police, whose use of lethal force to quell November 2008 ethnoreligious violence in Jos resulted in numerous civilian deaths.

    There were no reports of anti-Semitic acts during the year. An estimated 30,000 members of the Jewish community resided in the country and worshipped in 26 synagogues.

    2009 Human Rights Report

    Pinandpuller (a7e4a1)

  131. Mahatma Kane Jeeves harkin (8256c3) — 1/2/2018 @ 7:13 pm

    A guy could edit The Count of Monte Cristo to play from the last scene to the first Memento style.

    Pinandpuller (a7e4a1)

  132. @118 — to read Comey’s comments using the phrase “salacious and unverified” to mean that he is ONLY referencing parts of the dossier that were “salacious” as being “unverfied”, leads to the conclusion that by implication he was suggesting the non-salacious allegations of the dossier had been verified.

    That is TDS manifested in writing.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  133. 137 also is a response to 126.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  134. 126 ignores McCabe’s testimony that nothing about Carter Page’s trip to Moscow, as alleged in the dossier, had been verified other than the fact that Carter Page had actually traveled to Moscow.

    McCarthy didn’t reference that, but I think its a fair characterization to assume that his view on the “verified” nature of the dossier to include the testimony of McCabe last month, as well as the testimony of Comey 8+ months ago.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4724 secs.