Quote:President Donald Trump on Wednesday secured concessions from Europe, averting a trade war, the Dow Jones News Wire reported, citing a European Union official. The report came shortly before Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker were scheduled to brief the press at a joint conference in the White House Rose Garden.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/trump-we...urope.html

(07-23-2018 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is your 'primer' on informants for warrants, Lad. Happy reading.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/c...e-dossier/

Quote:If Steele had no connection to the DNC and had been, say, funded by a Trump official to do internal oppo research, and Steele then took the info he found to the FBI, would the FBI have viewed the intelligence he gathered differently?

It should regard it in the same exact way as outlined above. But again, 'if elephants were the size of mice' issue pops up with your premise.

Now another question is not 'what should the FBI do' but 'what would the FBI do' in that case. I cant state at all they would throw the fing rulebook out for your scenario as they did for this one.

And Lad, my issue is also one of veracity when you actually read it.

Seriously, you're relying on Andrew McCarthy?

Here's a source that kneecaps McCarthy's assertions about proper FBI protocol -- Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/04/fbi-dossier-verified/

Quote:“Evidence presented to the court does not have to be rigorously proved or corroborated. But it does have to be plausible and credible — not just rumor or hearsay,” Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The FBI can cite information that the bureau has not fully verified or corroborated as long as the source for the information is made clear and an assessment of the reliability of the information is included in the application.

It is up to one of the judges sitting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to decide if the evidence meets the standard of probable cause that a surveillance target is acting as an agent of a foreign power.

Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director for criminal investigations, said that FBI agents working on FISA cases document all relevant information in a document known as a Woods file, named after former FBI attorney Michael J. Woods, who developed the FISA procedures in April 2001.

“That doesn’t mean that they can’t have other allegations and statements in the FISA application that aren’t yet proven as facts,” Hosko told TheDCNF. “As long as they are characterizing it accurately, they are doing their jobs.”

Are Daily Caller's assertions of typical and proper protocol for FISA warrants correct? I have no idea. Thing is, neither do you.

DC's descriptions seem more reasonable than the standard you and McCarthy are trying to present, which is that hearsay is entirely inadmissible when simply trying to obtain a warrant.

Feel free to prove Daily Caller wrong with citations from the DIOG, but until then I'm sticking with the description that makes the most sense.

4.1%

The president has been keen to use the booming economy as one of his key pitches to voters ahead of this fall's midterm congressional elections.

(07-27-2018 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  4.1%

The president has been keen to use the booming economy as one of his key pitches to voters ahead of this fall's midterm congressional elections.

Congratulations to Donald Trump. He's only .9 behind the 5.0 GDP growth rate set by Pres. Obama in the 3rd Q of 2014. At least he's got a goal to shoot for. Let's see if he can reach it before the next recession hits....or until the national debt his $25T, whichever comes first.

(07-27-2018 01:57 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  4.1%

The president has been keen to use the booming economy as one of his key pitches to voters ahead of this fall's midterm congressional elections.

Congratulations to Donald Trump. He's only .9 behind the 5.0 GDP growth rate set by Pres. Obama in the 3rd Q of 2014. At least he's got a goal to shoot for. Let's see if he can reach it before the next recession hits....or until the national debt his $25T, whichever comes first.

Yeah, we get it, everything that Obama did or that happened while he was Prez is good, everything that trunp did or that happened during his term is bad.

Can't you guys just be happy for America?

(07-27-2018 02:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 01:57 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  4.1%

The president has been keen to use the booming economy as one of his key pitches to voters ahead of this fall's midterm congressional elections.

Congratulations to Donald Trump. He's only .9 behind the 5.0 GDP growth rate set by Pres. Obama in the 3rd Q of 2014. At least he's got a goal to shoot for. Let's see if he can reach it before the next recession hits....or until the national debt his $25T, whichever comes first.

Yeah, we get it, everything that Obama did or that happened while he was Prez is good, everything that trunp did or that happened during his term is bad.

Can't you guys just be happy for America?

I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?

It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.

We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers.

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 02:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 01:57 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  4.1%

The president has been keen to use the booming economy as one of his key pitches to voters ahead of this fall's midterm congressional elections.

Congratulations to Donald Trump. He's only .9 behind the 5.0 GDP growth rate set by Pres. Obama in the 3rd Q of 2014. At least he's got a goal to shoot for. Let's see if he can reach it before the next recession hits....or until the national debt his $25T, whichever comes first.

Yeah, we get it, everything that Obama did or that happened while he was Prez is good, everything that trunp did or that happened during his term is bad.

Can't you guys just be happy for America?

I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?

It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.

We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers.

And given the many lags and intervening influences between presidential idea --> legislative enactment --> policy implementation --> economic effect, we should always be leery of giving any president much credit or blame for particular economic indicators.

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 02:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 01:57 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  4.1%

The president has been keen to use the booming economy as one of his key pitches to voters ahead of this fall's midterm congressional elections.

Congratulations to Donald Trump. He's only .9 behind the 5.0 GDP growth rate set by Pres. Obama in the 3rd Q of 2014. At least he's got a goal to shoot for. Let's see if he can reach it before the next recession hits....or until the national debt his $25T, whichever comes first.

Yeah, we get it, everything that Obama did or that happened while he was Prez is good, everything that trunp did or that happened during his term is bad.

Can't you guys just be happy for America?

I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?

It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.

We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers.

I was happy with good news. Usually, the news was not that good.

I agree with your latter two paragraphs. My attitude is so far, so good. I sense a lot of people think "if it happened under Trump, not a good thing. This automatic diminishing of anything Trump is a signature of The Resistance.

(07-27-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 02:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 01:57 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  4.1%

The president has been keen to use the booming economy as one of his key pitches to voters ahead of this fall's midterm congressional elections.

Congratulations to Donald Trump. He's only .9 behind the 5.0 GDP growth rate set by Pres. Obama in the 3rd Q of 2014. At least he's got a goal to shoot for. Let's see if he can reach it before the next recession hits....or until the national debt his $25T, whichever comes first.

Yeah, we get it, everything that Obama did or that happened while he was Prez is good, everything that trunp did or that happened during his term is bad.

Can't you guys just be happy for America?

I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?

It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.

We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers.

I was happy with good news. Usually, the news was not that good.

I agree with your latter two paragraphs. My attitude is so far, so good. I sense a lot of people think "if it happened under Trump, not a good thing. This automatic diminishing of anything Trump is a signature of The Resistance.

There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

(07-27-2018 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 02:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 01:57 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  Congratulations to Donald Trump. He's only .9 behind the 5.0 GDP growth rate set by Pres. Obama in the 3rd Q of 2014. At least he's got a goal to shoot for. Let's see if he can reach it before the next recession hits....or until the national debt his $25T, whichever comes first.

Yeah, we get it, everything that Obama did or that happened while he was Prez is good, everything that trunp did or that happened during his term is bad.

Can't you guys just be happy for America?

I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?

It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.

We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers.

I was happy with good news. Usually, the news was not that good.

I agree with your latter two paragraphs. My attitude is so far, so good. I sense a lot of people think "if it happened under Trump, not a good thing. This automatic diminishing of anything Trump is a signature of The Resistance.

There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

(07-27-2018 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 02:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, we get it, everything that Obama did or that happened while he was Prez is good, everything that trunp did or that happened during his term is bad.

Can't you guys just be happy for America?

I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?

It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.

We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers.

I was happy with good news. Usually, the news was not that good.

I agree with your latter two paragraphs. My attitude is so far, so good. I sense a lot of people think "if it happened under Trump, not a good thing. This automatic diminishing of anything Trump is a signature of The Resistance.

There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

Same as it was with Obama. Welcome to the party!

(07-28-2018 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?

It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.

We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers.

I was happy with good news. Usually, the news was not that good.

I agree with your latter two paragraphs. My attitude is so far, so good. I sense a lot of people think "if it happened under Trump, not a good thing. This automatic diminishing of anything Trump is a signature of The Resistance.

There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

Same as it was with Obama. Welcome to the party!

Was that intentional? If so, bravo!

But I must disagree. I didn’t like the things he did, not because he was Obama, but because I didn’t the thing he did. I thought Cash for Clunkers was stupid and useless, I was appalled by him drawing a red line, and then backing off, then lying about it, and on and on and on. But I never advocated impeachment or an investigation that made no sense. You heard less from me about 57 states or the Special Olympics than we hear now about a 15 year old bad joke, that many take for a confession. The way in which people react is materially different. I am amazed that he has accomplished as much as he has in the face of such mindless, yet determined Resistance.

(07-28-2018 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was happy with good news. Usually, the news was not that good.

I agree with your latter two paragraphs. My attitude is so far, so good. I sense a lot of people think "if it happened under Trump, not a good thing. This automatic diminishing of anything Trump is a signature of The Resistance.

There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

Same as it was with Obama. Welcome to the party!

Was that intentional? If so, bravo!

But I must disagree. I didn’t like the things he did, not because he was Obama, but because I didn’t the thing he did. I thought Cash for Clunkers was stupid and useless, I was appalled by him drawing a red line, and then backing off, then lying about it, and on and on and on. But I never advocated impeachment or an investigation that made no sense. You heard less from me about 57 states or the Special Olympics than we hear now about a 15 year old bad joke, that many take for a confession. The way in which people react is materially different. I am amazed that he has accomplished as much as he has in the face of such mindless, yet determined Resistance.

I wasn't saying that you disliked Obama just because of who he was. My point was that, just as with Trump, there were many that opposed Obama for no reason besides who he was. There will always be partisans in both parties that can't get over the fact that the person in the White House aligns with a party who is not their own.

(07-28-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

Same as it was with Obama. Welcome to the party!

Was that intentional? If so, bravo!

But I must disagree. I didn’t like the things he did, not because he was Obama, but because I didn’t the thing he did. I thought Cash for Clunkers was stupid and useless, I was appalled by him drawing a red line, and then backing off, then lying about it, and on and on and on. But I never advocated impeachment or an investigation that made no sense. You heard less from me about 57 states or the Special Olympics than we hear now about a 15 year old bad joke, that many take for a confession. The way in which people react is materially different. I am amazed that he has accomplished as much as he has in the face of such mindless, yet determined Resistance.

I wasn't saying that you disliked Obama just because of who he was. My point was that, just as with Trump, there were many that opposed Obama for no reason besides who he was. There will always be partisans in both parties that can't get over the fact that the person in the White House aligns with a party who is not their own.

Well, when Obama made deals favoring Russia, there was little outcry of treason and none at all of him being a puppet. I thought he was either stupid or cowardly for some of the deals he made, but I never thought treason or collusion. A few extremists may have thought so, but I don't think there were many of them, certainly not in Congress. I certainly never thought we needed an an independent counsel. The simpler explanations seemed the best. Well-meaning ineptitude covers it.

I think the partisanship against Trump(because he is Trump) is several orders of magnitude greater than that against Obama (because he was Obama).

(07-28-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

Same as it was with Obama. Welcome to the party!

Was that intentional? If so, bravo!
But I must disagree. I didn’t like the things he did, not because he was Obama, but because I didn’t the thing he did. I thought Cash for Clunkers was stupid and useless, I was appalled by him drawing a red line, and then backing off, then lying about it, and on and on and on. But I never advocated impeachment or an investigation that made no sense. You heard less from me about 57 states or the Special Olympics than we hear now about a 15 year old bad joke, that many take for a confession. The way in which people react is materially different. I am amazed that he has accomplished as much as he has in the face of such mindless, yet determined Resistance.

I wasn't saying that you disliked Obama just because of who he was. My point was that, just as with Trump, there were many that opposed Obama for no reason besides who he was. There will always be partisans in both parties that can't get over the fact that the person in the White House aligns with a party who is not their own.

Yep, and you are clearly one of them.

(07-28-2018 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yep, and you are clearly one of them.

Sick burn, bro.

(07-28-2018 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

Same as it was with Obama. Welcome to the party!

Was that intentional? If so, bravo!
But I must disagree. I didn’t like the things he did, not because he was Obama, but because I didn’t the thing he did. I thought Cash for Clunkers was stupid and useless, I was appalled by him drawing a red line, and then backing off, then lying about it, and on and on and on. But I never advocated impeachment or an investigation that made no sense. You heard less from me about 57 states or the Special Olympics than we hear now about a 15 year old bad joke, that many take for a confession. The way in which people react is materially different. I am amazed that he has accomplished as much as he has in the face of such mindless, yet determined Resistance.

I wasn't saying that you disliked Obama just because of who he was. My point was that, just as with Trump, there were many that opposed Obama for no reason besides who he was. There will always be partisans in both parties that can't get over the fact that the person in the White House aligns with a party who is not their own.

Yep, and you are clearly one of them.

Really?

(07-28-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 05:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There are certainly some who will, but it's more that a lot of people don't believe the number is indicative of anything good yet for the reasons I stated. If we get three quarters with this kind of growth, it will be very hard for anyone to poo-poo the numbers.

And yet, many will. Bacause it is Trump.

Same as it was with Obama. Welcome to the party!

Was that intentional? If so, bravo!

But I must disagree. I didn’t like the things he did, not because he was Obama, but because I didn’t the thing he did. I thought Cash for Clunkers was stupid and useless, I was appalled by him drawing a red line, and then backing off, then lying about it, and on and on and on. But I never advocated impeachment or an investigation that made no sense. You heard less from me about 57 states or the Special Olympics than we hear now about a 15 year old bad joke, that many take for a confession. The way in which people react is materially different. I am amazed that he has accomplished as much as he has in the face of such mindless, yet determined Resistance.

I wasn't saying that you disliked Obama just because of who he was. My point was that, just as with Trump, there were many that opposed Obama for no reason besides who he was. There will always be partisans in both parties that can't get over the fact that the person in the White House aligns with a party who is not their own.

JUST because of who he was? Depends on on what you mean by “who he was”. It meant zero to me that he was black, if that is what you mean. His platform, his background, and his associates did matter. But I was fine when he did something good, which was rare, or when something good happened on his watch, even if he took credit for it.

We get economic growth, and all the left can do is demean it, because it is Trump. We get movement on NK, and all the left can do is demean it, because it is Trump. Everything that happens good is demeaned, and everything that happens bad is magnified, because it is Trump. Lies are told about his lying, and they are cheered, because it is Trump.

In the meantime, the witch hunt keeps on looking for inconsequential transgressions to indict on. If they looked into you or me, I am sure they could find something to indict on, but what do those indictments have to do with either collusion or Russian meddling? The witch hunt continues, because they want to get Trump mp, because he is Trump.

I did not like Obama 'just because of who we was', no doubt about that. As clarified by OO just afterwards. I guess he should be 'deified' or somefink as a natural course or something?

Do you guys really think there was not a large portion of people that opposed Obama just because of who he was? Be that because he was a democrat, because he was black, because he from Chicago, because he went to Harvard, and on and on?

Similarly to Trump, Obama oversaw sustained economic growth, began reducing the deficit, and so on and plenty of people never gave him credit in the same way there are plenty of partisans not giving Trump credit.

I literally never said anything about anyone posting on this board falling in that category - but way to project that. I don’t project and think OO is talking about me when he says there are plenty of partisans who won’t give Trump any credit because he has actually seen me do that. For some reason, though, Owl#’s decides to say I was one of those partisans...