She's cooperating, and apparently let loose of some info thats going to be bad for Rosenstein and Peter Strojk.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/...ssion.html

(07-14-2018 10:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  She's cooperating, and apparently let loose of some info thats going to be bad for Rosenstein.

Your comment in not supported in that tweet.

(07-14-2018 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  She's cooperating, and apparently let loose of some info thats going to be bad for Rosenstein.

Your comment in not supported in that tweet.

The other tweets and link have been added.

Apparently 5 hours of answers and cooperation yesterday.

Sing, gummy. Sing!

Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

hell hath no...................

(07-14-2018 04:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

hell hath no...................

Nothing like a woman scorned!

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

That just might be too great a coincidence.

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

That's a possibility. It's also possible that people in high places at the DOJ/FBI didn't want her to talk to Congess because they are afraid she'll be a jilted lover that spills the beans by telling the truth.....

Either way is possible.........

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

So bias matters now? Lol

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

I'm sure that she'll be able to separate her bias towards Stork during her testimony. It's really easy for professionals.

Saying something like, "I hate his guts and hope he dies in a horrible chemical fire", is no more difficult to put aside than say, for example, someone saying after visiting a Walmart that they, "could smell the Trump supporters".

(07-14-2018 06:27 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

I'm sure that she'll be able to separate her bias towards Stork during her testimony. It's really easy for professionals.

Saying something like, "I hate his guts and hope he dies in a horrible chemical fire", is no more difficult to put aside than say, for example, someone saying after visiting a Walmart that they, "could smell the Trump supporters".

Touché. Just ignore the biased statements, as you said they are professionals!!

Hey, Petey boy took out a large withdrawal from the bank of bad karma and the bill is due...

(07-14-2018 06:09 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

So bias matters now? Lol

And this Marc guy claims to be intelligent?

Of course, Gummy may not have a hard-on for only Stork. She may feel the DOJ and FBI threw her under the bus as well.

We'll know soon enough if she's spilling the beans, but so far it certainly sounds like she's not being belligerent bytch. That's not a good sign for the guys who think they're wearing the white hats.

(07-14-2018 06:41 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 06:09 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

So bias matters now? Lol

And this Marc guy claims to be intelligent?

Needs to use the force more....

(07-14-2018 10:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  She's cooperating, and apparently let loose of some info thats going to be bad for Rosenstein.

Your comment in not supported in that tweet.

The other tweets and link have been added.

Apparently 5 hours of answers and cooperation yesterday.

The definition of 'cooperation' is highly subjective.

There are about 5 different levels of 'answering' at a deposition/sworn interview

1) dig in the heels and flip the bird -- consistently answer 'I do not specifically recall at 'any' non-solid word in the question, or *any* hint of doubt'. The definition of non-cooperative.

2) answer the questions in a highly combative, aggressive manner -- Strzok the other day. Highly evasive and extreme parsing of verbiage.

3) answer the question, and only the question, as briefly as possible. Parsing is present but limited.

4) answer the question asked in an open format without excessive parsing wording.

5) freely answer all questions, and give full background to all related material.

One can label all of 3-5 as 'cooperative'.

Sorry when I listen to the Republican's narrative of the interview, this tells me nothing. It tells me she wasnt combative, and didnt go out of her way to create clipped evasive answers. It does not mean #4 or #5 automatically.

Not trying to dump cold water on how you think she is cooperating, I dont know how much she is cooperating re: to the list above. It could be she is telling them not just answers to their questions, but suggesting avenues they pursue. I would doubt that, though, since I don't think she has any immunity deal (I havent heard of any that is).

Many times when the witness isnt a Strzok level, but answers questions without apparent evasion or parsing, I have heard that as 'cooperative'.

In short: I wouldnt read too much into that description just yet.

Quote:We'll know soon enough if she's spilling the beans, but so far it certainly sounds like she's not being belligerent bytch.

Exactamundo.

(07-14-2018 06:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  She's cooperating, and apparently let loose of some info thats going to be bad for Rosenstein.

Your comment in not supported in that tweet.

The other tweets and link have been added.

Apparently 5 hours of answers and cooperation yesterday.

The definition of 'cooperation' is highly subjective.

There are about 5 different levels of 'answering' at a deposition/sworn interview

1) dig in the heels and flip the bird -- consistently answer 'I do not specifically recall at 'any' non-solid word in the question, or *any* hint of doubt'. The definition of non-cooperative.

2) answer the questions in a highly combative, aggressive manner -- Strzok the other day. Highly evasive and extreme parsing of verbiage.

3) answer the question, and only the question, as briefly as possible. Parsing is present but limited.

4) answer the question asked in an open format without excessive parsing wording.

5) freely answer all questions, and give full background to all related material.

One can label all of 3-5 as 'cooperative'.

Sorry when I listen to the Republican's narrative of the interview, this tells me nothing. It tells me she wasnt combative, and didnt go out of her way to create clipped evasive answers. It does not mean #4 or #5 automatically.

Not trying to dump cold water on how you think she is cooperating, I dont know how much she is cooperating re: to the list above. It could be she is telling them not just answers to their questions, but suggesting avenues they pursue. I would doubt that, though, since I don't think she has any immunity deal (I havent heard of any that is).

Many times when the witness isnt a Strzok level, but answers questions without apparent evasion or parsing, I have heard that as 'cooperative'.

In short: I wouldnt read too much into that description just yet.

Quote:We'll know soon enough if she's spilling the beans, but so far it certainly sounds like she's not being belligerent bytch.

Exactamundo.

For what it's worth, I believe the first blurb I read last night from a pub who heard her testimony was that she was co-operative and that, "they had heard some information that was not previously disclosed to them". I'll see if I can find the exact quote so I don't end up with my foot in my mouth.