How neutral is Catherine Herridge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Herridge is basically a female Tucker Carlson.

What else would one expect after years at Faux News?

If you really believe this, you know neither Carlson nor Herridge.

Carlson is a commentator. Herridge is a reporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Herridge is basically a female Tucker Carlson.

What else would one expect after years at Faux News?

If you really believe this, you know neither Carlson nor Herridge.

Carlson is a commentator. Herridge is a reporter.

This. Carlson is all opinion - much of which I agree with, but some of which I don't. Herridge is not a pundit. She reports the news and makes it easily accessible for all. The PPP is incredibly ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Herridge is basically a female Tucker Carlson.

What else would one expect after years at Faux News?

If you really believe this, you know neither Carlson nor Herridge.

Carlson is a commentator. Herridge is a reporter.

She’ll never get rid of the smell. She spent too much time carrying the R’s water on Faux News

[Anonymous]

So...why does she not understand that Page's contacts in Russia go well beyond what is described in the "dossier?" Further the Sechin allegetion made in the dossier was actually confirmed by other sources.

It is at best misinformation to leave it out of the discussion and borders on malpractice as a journalist.

THIS is why she is not a well respected journalist, for those asking.

[Anonymous]

She worked for fox.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So...why does she not understand that Page's contacts in Russia go well beyond what is described in the "dossier?" Further the Sechin allegetion made in the dossier was actually confirmed by other sources.

It is at best misinformation to leave it out of the discussion and borders on malpractice as a journalist.

THIS is why she is not a well respected journalist, for those asking.

Oh, she understands the contacts. Evidently better than you.
You do understand that he was working for the CIA, right?

As for the Sechin allegations.....

Dossier:

“TRUMP advisor Carter PAGE holds secret meetings in Moscow with [Rosneft president] SECHIN and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN. SECHIN raises issues of future bilateral US-Russia energy co-operation and associated lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.”

— Memo 94, dated July 19, 2016

“In terms of the substance of their discussion SECHIN’s associate said that the Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered PAGE associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return. PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.”

— Memo 134, dated Oct. 18, 2016


The Mueller report does not confirm a meeting between Page, then a low-level campaign adviser, and the president of Rosneft. But Mueller did document a meeting between Page and a lower-level Rosneft official. The meeting included discussion of a possible sale of part of Rosneft, though apparently not in the context of a reward for lifting sanctions.

“Page said that, during his time in Moscow, he met with friends and associates he knew from when he lived in Russia, including Andrey Baranov, a former Gazprom employee who had become the head of investor relations at Rosneft, a Russian energy company,” the Mueller report said. “Page stated that he and Baranov talked about ‘immaterial non-public’ information. Page believed he and Baranov discussed Rosneft president Igor Sechin, and he thought Baranov might have mentioned the possibility of a sale of a stake in Rosneft in passing.”

The report stated that Page shook hands with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich, who made statements to Page about working together in the future. Page wrote a memo to the campaign that Dvorkovich “expressed strong support for Mr. Trump,” as did other senior members of the Putin administration. But the report added: “The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page’s activities in Russia — as described in his emails with the Campaign — were not fully explained.”

[Anonymous]

Uh, the dossier and Mueller report say the same thing. Page met with Russian officials and negotiated a sale worth billions of dollars, particularly to the middlemen who get a cut, including Page.

Just because Page downplayed it to Mueller doesn't mean that the dossier was wrong, particularly in context of the Trump Tower meetings over "adoptions" (which is code for lifting Russian sanctions)

Please, use your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the dossier and Mueller report say the same thing. Page met with Russian officials and negotiated a sale worth billions of dollars, particularly to the middlemen who get a cut, including Page.

Just because Page downplayed it to Mueller doesn't mean that the dossier was wrong, particularly in context of the Trump Tower meetings over "adoptions" (which is code for lifting Russian sanctions)

Please, use your head.

You do know that all the discussions Page had with the Russians was conveyed to the CIA because HE WAS WORKING FOR THEM!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the dossier and Mueller report say the same thing. Page met with Russian officials and negotiated a sale worth billions of dollars, particularly to the middlemen who get a cut, including Page.

Just because Page downplayed it to Mueller doesn't mean that the dossier was wrong, particularly in context of the Trump Tower meetings over "adoptions" (which is code for lifting Russian sanctions)

Please, use your head.

You do know that all the discussions Page had with the Russians was conveyed to the CIA because HE WAS WORKING FOR THEM!!!!!

Citation for above: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/fbi-didnt-tell-surveillance-court-carter-page-was-‘operational-contact’-cia-‘positive

The finding is included in a list of seven of the FBI’s “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page, a longtime energy consultant who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.

The report said the FBI “omitted” information it obtained from another U.S. government agency about its prior relationship with Page.

The agency approved Page as an “operational contact” from 2008 to 2013, according to the report.

“Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application,” the report stated.

Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he believes the agency in question is the CIA. Page has previously said he provided information to the CIA and FBI before becoming ensnared in the bureau’s investigation of the Trump campaign.

The report stated an employee with the CIA assessed Page “candidly” described contact he had with a Russian intelligence officer in 2014. But the FBI cited Page’s contact with the officer to assert in its FISA applications that there was probable cause to believe that Page was working as a Russian agent.

[Anonymous]

Yes, somehow the FISA applications left out the part that Page was working with CIA. Guess the FISA signers couldn't pass the memory test........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the dossier and Mueller report say the same thing. Page met with Russian officials and negotiated a sale worth billions of dollars, particularly to the middlemen who get a cut, including Page.

Just because Page downplayed it to Mueller doesn't mean that the dossier was wrong, particularly in context of the Trump Tower meetings over "adoptions" (which is code for lifting Russian sanctions)

Please, use your head.

Rosenstein testified that if he knew then, what he knows now about the dossier, he never would have signed the Page FISA warrant.

The dossier was bunk, pure bunk, courtesy of the Russians...disinformation that Clinton's campaign paid for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the dossier and Mueller report say the same thing. Page met with Russian officials and negotiated a sale worth billions of dollars, particularly to the middlemen who get a cut, including Page.

Just because Page downplayed it to Mueller doesn't mean that the dossier was wrong, particularly in context of the Trump Tower meetings over "adoptions" (which is code for lifting Russian sanctions)

Please, use your head.

Rosenstein testified that if he knew then, what he knows now about the dossier, he never would have signed the Page FISA warrant.

The dossier was bunk, pure bunk, courtesy of the Russians...disinformation that Clinton's campaign paid for.

It wasn't pure bunk. There are many elements in it that have panned out as true. There is very little of it that has been flat out debunked, as "unverified" doesn't mean "false"

[Anonymous]

It wasn't pure bunk. There are many elements in it that have panned out as true. There is very little of it that has been flat out debunked, as "unverified" doesn't mean "false"

Are you still beating your spouse? Please verify it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the dossier and Mueller report say the same thing. Page met with Russian officials and negotiated a sale worth billions of dollars, particularly to the middlemen who get a cut, including Page.

Just because Page downplayed it to Mueller doesn't mean that the dossier was wrong, particularly in context of the Trump Tower meetings over "adoptions" (which is code for lifting Russian sanctions)

Please, use your head.

Rosenstein testified that if he knew then, what he knows now about the dossier, he never would have signed the Page FISA warrant.

The dossier was bunk, pure bunk, courtesy of the Russians...disinformation that Clinton's campaign paid for.

It wasn't pure bunk. There are many elements in it that have panned out as true. There is very little of it that has been flat out debunked, as "unverified" doesn't mean "false"

What was "verified" was stuff that was already publicly available, according to Horowitz:

"At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

And, if "many elements" have been panned out as true, then why did Rosenstein testify that if he knew then, what he knows NOW, he never would have signed the FISA application.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, the dossier and Mueller report say the same thing. Page met with Russian officials and negotiated a sale worth billions of dollars, particularly to the middlemen who get a cut, including Page.

Just because Page downplayed it to Mueller doesn't mean that the dossier was wrong, particularly in context of the Trump Tower meetings over "adoptions" (which is code for lifting Russian sanctions)

Please, use your head.

Rosenstein testified that if he knew then, what he knows now about the dossier, he never would have signed the Page FISA warrant.

The dossier was bunk, pure bunk, courtesy of the Russians...disinformation that Clinton's campaign paid for.

It wasn't pure bunk. There are many elements in it that have panned out as true. There is very little of it that has been flat out debunked, as "unverified" doesn't mean "false"

What was "verified" was stuff that was already publicly available, according to Horowitz:

"At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

And, if "many elements" have been panned out as true, then why did Rosenstein testify that if he knew then, what he knows NOW, he never would have signed the FISA application.?

My Lord, pp is truly dense.
Anyone who continues to tout the legitimacy of the phony dossier given what we know to be true has listened far too much to left-wing media and deserves 4 Adam Schiffs.