Yes I had to look this one up, I thought it was glasses wearing tongue sticking out emoticon or something, Surprise, it's something else!
The whole usable list can be found at:
http://www.gomotes.com/messenger-emoticons/
| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Kim Strassel - Did Christopher Steele Really Snooker the FBI? |
| 2018-02-05 |
| [WSJ] The House Intelligence Committee memo about 2016 surveillance abuses, released Friday, lays out grave evidence that the FBI wasn’t fully forthcoming with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as it sought an order to wiretap former Trump adviser Carter Page. It’s possible the FBI’s lack of candor was even worse than the memo describes. Democrats are disputing the memo on lots of grounds, but they’ve said little about the FBI’s failure to inform the court that the bureau had itself decided one of its main sources, dossier author Christopher Steele, was unreliable. Mr. Steele in October 2016 gave Mother Jones an unauthorized interview about the dossier. As a former British intelligence officer, Mr. Steele would have known that sources are not supposed to blab to the press. The interview appeared but a few days before the election, was at the direction of his paymaster, the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, and was clearly designed to help the ultimate client: the Hillary Clinton campaign. Stuck with a source now brazenly using the FBI for political purposes, the bureau suspended and then terminated Mr. Steele. Only nine days before the Mother Jones interview, the bureau had filed its application for the Page wiretap order, which rested on the Steele dossier. Yet the FBI did not immediately go back to tell the court it no longer trusted Mr. Steele, the author of a crucial piece of evidence. And the Mother Jones interview wasn’t the first time Mr. Steele went to the press. A month earlier he had sat down with an array of media outlets to brief them on the dossier that he’d given the FBI in July. Out of this came a Sept. 23, 2016, article by Michael Isikoff in Yahoo News, published under the headline "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin." The story was a bombshell, blowing the FBI investigation into the public sphere. The FBI and Justice Department intimately knew this article, as they relied on it as part of their wiretap application. And while Mr. Isikoff did not name Mr. Steele as his source, the FBI should have been able to figure out his identity. The Isikoff article relates specific dossier details, though the dossier wasn’t public at the time. It explains that the "intelligence reports" the FBI was reviewing‐the dossier‐came from a "well-placed Western intelligence source." Sen. Chuck Grassley last month referred Mr. Steele to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of whether he lied to the feds about his contacts with the press. From this we can assume that the FBI’s FISA court application claimed Mr. Steele had not worked with the press. The House memo gives the FBI the benefit of the doubt, stating that Mr. Steele "improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts." Then again, what was the date of this claim? If Mr. Steele told the FBI when he first met with them in July that he’d not briefed media, that would have been accurate as far as we know. Did the FBI ask him again after the Isikoff article? Even if it did and if he denied talking to reporters, the FBI would have had every reason to believe he was lying. The provenance of the Isikoff article is exceptionally clear. And the FBI could easily have checked Mr. Steele’s recent whereabouts (Britain or the U.S.) or even asked Mr. Isikoff, though he might not have answered. While Mr. Steele might have proved unreliable, there’s reason to wonder if he’d lie outright to the FBI. The Grassley referral needs be fully declassified, just as the House memo was. The FBI needs to answer straightforward questions about Mr. Steele’s claims, and he needs to provide his version. The FBI got fooled by a source, or it knew its source was lying, or it didn’t bother to check, or it was too incompetent to see the obvious. Take your pick. None of the possibilities look good, especially if you’re a FISA judge. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #11 Hey! It's all good! Keep us on our toes! :) |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2018-02-05 20:36 |
| #10 I am an old fashion keyboard emoji guy. My kids tease me about it. |
| Posted by: F. Ulerelet1030 2018-02-05 12:16 |
| #9 :-bd translate to Yes I had to look this one up, I thought it was glasses wearing tongue sticking out emoticon or something, Surprise, it's something else! The whole usable list can be found at: http://www.gomotes.com/messenger-emoticons/ |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2018-02-05 11:56 |
| #8 I would suspect that the FBI and DoJ were asked to spy on the Trump campaign and responded that they had no grounds to go to FISA for permission. Zero then passed that back the Shillary who then had her minions and a couple of million bucks conjure up the Steele "dossier." The reason the FBI jumped on the dossier is that they were desperate for an excuse to tap into the Trump campaign (because some of them were realistic enough to recognize that she was in trouble in her blue wall states). That desperation made them very gullible and they took the dossier hook, line, and sinker. I suspect some of that eagerness to pursue the dossier's fiction is circular. Shillary wanted inside info on Trump for an October surprise and went to Zero who went to the FBI. Then when the dossier arrived, Shillary told Zero, not the NSC weekly briefing, about the "dossier" which then had Zero "inquire about it" and then press the FBI to use it to get a FISA warrant. Common sense says the FBI was pressed to spy on Trump and needed an excuse to do so. It is too convenient that the dossier arrived. The timing is too good. I bet buried in those emails the FBI and DoJ don't want to release are communications about spying on Trump and further communications about why don't they use the "dossier" to spy on Trump. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2018-02-05 11:37 |
| #7 JohnQC, :-bd |
| Posted by: F. Ulerelet1030 2018-02-05 11:19 |
| #6 I don't buy that the FBI was hoodwinked. Suppose the "premier U.S. domestic intelligence agency" was hoodwinked in which case the upper eschelon of the FBI should be fired for incompetence. Criminality is the more believable explanation. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2018-02-05 11:18 |
| #5 Like all con's it plays upon the susceptibility of the target. Same game the boys and girls at the FBI use in a sting operation. One thing that we've all seen is the near total lack of self awareness and Freudian projection of those on the Left. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-02-05 09:44 |
| #4 US Peons? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2018-02-05 08:37 |
| #3 Steele was instrumental in constructing and selling a 'cover for action' which facilitated (made legal thru FISA) the monitoring of selector (telephonic) signals of US Pesons. I'm not sure how much more obvious or what further evidence is necessary to reveal the criminal activity. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-02-05 08:17 |
| #2 I'm being constantly amazed at the venality of the gov't since I've been cynical about them for 40 years. It just gets worse & worse. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2018-02-05 08:07 |
| #1 How does it go "You can't cheat a honest man"? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-02-05 04:30 |