By the way can't you read, He says"Who said that was ok, Names ... I want Names. " your funny source has what to do about who said it was OK.
When 60 minutes broadcast the Stormy Daniels interview ,
- Thread starter jbander
- Start date
Too funny. You accuse me of not knowing how to read by way of terrible sentence structure.
That wasn't a consensual affair. You can't read.
who cares hypocrite, you can't justify what scum bag does by what someone else does,
Again, I don't care what two consenting adults do. Now a sitting president, in the Oval Office, with an unpaid intern... That's an entirely different story. You attempt to equate this with a private citizen on his own time with a professional sex provider is a desperate attempt to accuse your political enemies with hypocrisy, and only shows your own hypocrisy.
Yeah you could think Stormy suffered enough having sex with porky. It is all about her pee tape.
LOLOLOL.. I hope there is a pee tape.. and I hope they broadcast it 24/7 in Times Square.
For professional investigators, however, the dossier is by no means a useless document. Although the reports were produced episodically, almost erratically, over a five-month period, they present a coherent narrative of collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
As a result, they offer an overarching framework for what might have happened based on individuals on the Russian side who claimed to have insight into Moscow’s goals and operational tactics. Until we have another more credible narrative, we should do all we can to examine closely and confirm or dispute the reports.
Many of my former CIA colleagues have taken the Orbis reports seriously since they were first published. This is not because they are not fond of Trump (and many admittedly are not), but because they understand the potential plausibility of the reports’ overall narrative based on their experienced understanding of both Russian methods, and the nature of raw intelligence reporting.
Immediately following the BuzzFeed leak, one of my closest former CIA colleagues told me that he recognized the reports as the obvious product of a former Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) officer, since the format, structure, and language mirrored what he had seen over a career of reading SIS reports provided to CIA in liaison channels.
He and others withheld judgment about the veracity of the reports, but for the reasons I outline further below they did not reject them out of hand. In fact, they were more inclined for professional reasons to put them in the “trust but verify” category.
So how should we unpack the so-called Steele dossier from an intelligence perspective?
I spent almost thirty years producing what CIA calls “raw reporting” from human agents. At heart, this is what Orbis did.
They were not producing finished analysis, but were passing on to a client distilled reporting that they had obtained in response to specific questions. The difference is crucial, for it is the one that American journalists routinely fail to understand.
When disseminating a raw intelligence report, an intelligence agency is not vouching for the accuracy of the information provided by the report’s sources and/or sub-sources. Rather it is claiming that it has made strenuous efforts to validate that it is reporting accurately what the sources/sub-sources claim has happened.
The onus for sorting out the veracity and for putting the reporting in context against other reporting – which may confirm or deny the new report – rests with the intelligence community’s professional analytic cadre.
In the case of the dossier, Orbis was not saying that everything that it reported was accurate, but that it had made a good-faith effort to pass along faithfully what its identified insiders said was accurate. This is routine in the intelligence business. And this form of reporting is often a critical product in putting together more final intelligence assessments.
In this sense, the so-called Steele dossier is not a dossier at all. A dossier suggests a summary or case history. Mr. Steele’s product is not a report delivered with a bow at the end of an investigation. Instead, it is a series of contemporaneous raw reports that do not have the benefit of hindsight.
Among the unnamed sources are “a senior Russian foreign ministry official,” “a former top-level intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,” and “a close associate of Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
Thus, the reports are not an attempt to connect the dots, but instead an effort to uncover new and potentially relevant dots in the first place.
http://www.newsweek.com/what-exactly-does-steele-dirty-russian-pee-tape-dossier-trump-contain-660327
As a result, they offer an overarching framework for what might have happened based on individuals on the Russian side who claimed to have insight into Moscow’s goals and operational tactics. Until we have another more credible narrative, we should do all we can to examine closely and confirm or dispute the reports.
Many of my former CIA colleagues have taken the Orbis reports seriously since they were first published. This is not because they are not fond of Trump (and many admittedly are not), but because they understand the potential plausibility of the reports’ overall narrative based on their experienced understanding of both Russian methods, and the nature of raw intelligence reporting.
Immediately following the BuzzFeed leak, one of my closest former CIA colleagues told me that he recognized the reports as the obvious product of a former Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) officer, since the format, structure, and language mirrored what he had seen over a career of reading SIS reports provided to CIA in liaison channels.
He and others withheld judgment about the veracity of the reports, but for the reasons I outline further below they did not reject them out of hand. In fact, they were more inclined for professional reasons to put them in the “trust but verify” category.
So how should we unpack the so-called Steele dossier from an intelligence perspective?
I spent almost thirty years producing what CIA calls “raw reporting” from human agents. At heart, this is what Orbis did.
They were not producing finished analysis, but were passing on to a client distilled reporting that they had obtained in response to specific questions. The difference is crucial, for it is the one that American journalists routinely fail to understand.
When disseminating a raw intelligence report, an intelligence agency is not vouching for the accuracy of the information provided by the report’s sources and/or sub-sources. Rather it is claiming that it has made strenuous efforts to validate that it is reporting accurately what the sources/sub-sources claim has happened.
The onus for sorting out the veracity and for putting the reporting in context against other reporting – which may confirm or deny the new report – rests with the intelligence community’s professional analytic cadre.
In the case of the dossier, Orbis was not saying that everything that it reported was accurate, but that it had made a good-faith effort to pass along faithfully what its identified insiders said was accurate. This is routine in the intelligence business. And this form of reporting is often a critical product in putting together more final intelligence assessments.
In this sense, the so-called Steele dossier is not a dossier at all. A dossier suggests a summary or case history. Mr. Steele’s product is not a report delivered with a bow at the end of an investigation. Instead, it is a series of contemporaneous raw reports that do not have the benefit of hindsight.
Among the unnamed sources are “a senior Russian foreign ministry official,” “a former top-level intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,” and “a close associate of Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
Thus, the reports are not an attempt to connect the dots, but instead an effort to uncover new and potentially relevant dots in the first place.
http://www.newsweek.com/what-exactly-does-steele-dirty-russian-pee-tape-dossier-trump-contain-660327
You know the ultimate hypocrite is the one who can't even see their hypocrisy. Your like a clown car coming in the big tent , total nonsense, goofiness and wearing a clown outfit.
actually the number is closer to 4000 being involved in law suits,
I'm talking about the 200 he said he would sue during his presidential campaign.
Oh lookie, I destroyed your argument so you attack me personally. Gee what a surprise.
Ok got it.
You destroyed my argument, now that just adds one more clown to the clown car.
Lewinski was an adult and a very willing adult. She told a friend she was going to DC with presidential kneepads before she left home.
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
You are finally learning. There is hope for you yet
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Exact same thing worked like a charm for BJ Clinton.
You're confused- it was you who said that.
Have fun with all your butt-buds in that car.