Dog

Evidence of collusion?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, and but you either didn't read or are deliberately ignoring whose words they are. No matter how many ways you try to twist it, we do not learn (as you claimed) that Lynch knew in advance no charges will be brought. We learn that Lisa Page believed Lynch knew no charges will be brought. Lisa Page is not the authority on what Loretta Lynch does or does not know. 

Because one cannot ascertain the veracity of her statement and whether it reflects Lynch's actual knowledge, the most we "learn" from those words are what Page believed. Nothing more, nothing less. You can read the words as much as you like, as explicitly as you like, but the source is vital in determining what we learn from those words. For example...

Dog knows he is full of shit and is completely aware he's being a dishonest twat misrepresenting
the statements of Lisa Page in his pathetic attempts to malign Hillary Clinton.

The statement is clear. I state without ambiguity that you know you're full of shit & know you're being dishonest. Now tell the class if you "just reading the words there" makes them true or not. Does one learn you're full of shit because I say so, Dog?

Speaking of full of shit....If I had categorically stated that Lynch knew, as you falsely claim you would have a point, I did not and you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a thread in PA, started by our resident "independent", claiming to "know" something.  Does that make this "knowledge" factual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought provoking questions abound, and will remain until the report is released. This time, Rep. Nunes is playing it straight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

There is a thread in PA, started by our resident "independent", claiming to "know" something.  Does that make this "knowledge" factual?

Are you referring to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Thought provoking questions abound, and will remain until the report is released. This time, Rep. Nunes is playing it straight!

Reports are that the Intelligence committee will vote on release to the public. In all likelihood release  will be approved along party lines and we will get to see what all the fuss is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are you referring to me?

I am asking a question.  In a previous post, you said texts indicate Lynch "knew" something.  That stems from Page saying Lynch knew.  Not the same thing as Lynch saying the same.

There exists a thread started by Hillarkey Jack claiming to "know" something about President Trump.  Is that "knowledge"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Reports are that the Intelligence committee will vote on release to the public. In all likelihood release  will be approved along party lines and we will get to see what all the fuss is about.

Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Thought provoking questions abound, and will remain until the report is released. This time, Rep. Nunes is playing it straight!

LOL, every day he sounds more like Joe McCarthy. I know where the communists are, I have a list and I will reveal it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

Reports are that the Intelligence committee will vote on release to the public. In all likelihood release  will be approved along party lines and we will get to see what all the fuss is about.

What fuss? the only fuss is manufactured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2018 at 12:01 AM, Raz'r said:

wait, NOW collusion is bad? This is so confusing.

Always was with exception to the shit for brains partisan hypocrites. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Always was with exception to the shit for brains partisan hypocrites. :rolleyes:

I thought you were on their side. Have you gone D?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I thought you were on their side. Have you gone D?

Rats go wherever there is food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

Now we learn that text messages between Strzok and Page indicate that Lynch knew in advance that Comey would not be recommending prosecution of Clinton and that the preeminent investigative agency in the world lost 50,000 text messages between Strzok and Page.....but there's no smoke.

That one really bothers me.  First off 50,000 texts to one contact, on an FBI owned device? When did you work? Second the loss texts and dates are way to key to be a coincidence.  Someone wiped them we need to know why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so excited - after all these many years of promises and false hopes and shattered dreams you guys keep offering, I just know this will be the one!

Hillary is finally going down. I can almost feel it.  And Trump will be rightfully recognized for the true genius he has always been.  Oh Happy Day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I am so excited - after all these many years of promises and false hopes and shattered dreams you guys keep offering, I just know this will be the one!

Hillary is finally going down. I can almost feel it.  And Trump will be rightfully recognized for the true genius he has always been.  Oh Happy Day. 

It sounds like Nunes really has it nailed down tight on this one. He has demonstrated his competence on a number of occasions and is a valuable asset to the Grand Old Party.  I very much look forward to seeing the  report.  A couple of felony guilty pleas and a couple of indictments and he'll have as much as the Mueller investigation!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he considers a GOP memo critical of top FBI officials “profoundly misleading” after seeing the highly classified source material Republicans used to craft it. 

Few lawmakers have gotten access to the materials House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes relied on to compile his four-page memo, which the committee circulated among all House members last week but has not made public. But Nadler said a letter released Tuesday that he and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte recently had a chance view the classified materials. "Those materials tell a very different story than the conspiracy theory concocted by Chairman Nunes and being repeated in the press," Nadler wrote in the letter to Goodlatte. 

A parade of GOP lawmakers this week have said the memo confirms misconduct and political bias against President Donald Trump by senior officials at the FBI. Democrats say the memo, which Republicans haven’t shown to the FBI or Justice Department, is an attempt to undermine the special counsel investigation into Russian election meddling and any involvement by Trump’s associates. 

Nunes and other top Republicans have been discussing whether to make an unprecedented request to release the classified memo publicly, using an obscure process that would give Trump a chance to weigh in — possibly as soon as next week — and could require a vote of the full House. Many conservatives in Congress and in media have called on them to release the document.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/republican-memo-fbi-jerry-nadler-358918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dog said:

Speaking of full of shit....If I had categorically stated that Lynch knew, as you falsely claim you would have a point, I did not and you don't.

And speaking of knowing one is full of shit, you know as well as I do I never claimed "you categorically stated that Lynch knew". You said:

11 hours ago, Dog said:

Now we learn that text messages between Strzok and Page indicate that Lynch knew in advance that Comey would not be recommending prosecution of Clinton

I pointed that out to be incorrect. You doubled down with:

9 hours ago, Dog said:

Sorry, I'm just reading the words here. The text in question does in fact indicate that Lynch knew (not believed) that no charges would be brought.

To which I pointed out you were "ignoring whose words they are". The text in question only indicates that Page believed that Lynch knew no charges would be brought. As Page is not Loretta's personal assistant, confidant, or even a close friend - the text can only indicate what Page thinks. It cannot and does not indicate what Lynch actually does or does not know. As I pointed out. As was my argument.

I never once claimed that claimed (falsely or otherwise) you "categorically stated that Lynch knew". On that one, we both know you're lying because you realised you lost the argument and needed to make this about me rather than about your statement. Again, proving that you add things to what is said in order to make up an argument more to your liking. Something that you whinge, whine, and bitch about if anyone dare read more than is explicitly stated in your posts.

And for the record, I knew you'd pull something stupid like this. You're a pathetically predictable punchline and the reason for that is you just cannot seem to abstain from making shit up when you've painted yourself into a corner.

YLhepeP.thumb.jpg.ef51717d0841647c329c86de01c30173.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And speaking of knowing one is full of shit, you know as well as I do I never claimed "you categorically stated that Lynch knew". You said:

I pointed that out to be incorrect. You doubled down with:

To which I pointed out you were "ignoring whose words they are". The text in question only indicates that Page believed that Lynch knew no charges would be brought. As Page is not Loretta's personal assistant, confidant, or even a close friend - the text can only indicate what Page thinks. It cannot and does not indicate what Lynch actually does or does not know. As I pointed out. As was my argument.

I never once claimed that claimed (falsely or otherwise) you "categorically stated that Lynch knew". On that one, we both know you're lying because you realised you lost the argument and needed to make this about me rather than about your statement. Again, proving that you add things to what is said in order to make up an argument more to your liking. Something that you whinge, whine, and bitch about if anyone dare read more than is explicitly stated in your posts.

And for the record, I knew you'd pull something stupid like this. You're a pathetically predictable punchline and the reason for that is you just cannot seem to abstain from making shit up when you've painted yourself into a corner.

YLhepeP.thumb.jpg.ef51717d0841647c329c86de01c30173.jpg

 

Whatever... I'm not wasting my time on what is no doubt more of BS's pedantic shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Whatever... I'm not wasting my time on what is no doubt more of BS's pedantic shit.

Gets caught flagrantly lying. Cannot be bothered wasting his time defending his lie. 

And you wonder why everyone thinks you're a joke, Dog. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bus Driver said:
8 hours ago, Dog said:

Are you referring to me?

I am asking a question.  In a previous post, you said texts indicate Lynch "knew" something.  That stems from Page saying Lynch knew.  Not the same thing as Lynch saying the same.

There exists a thread started by Hillarkey Jack claiming to "know" something about President Trump.  Is that "knowledge"?

Good luck, BD. Dog knows he fucked up, which is why he's running away with his tail between his legs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dog said:

No I did not...I said "operatives within the Obama administration". You're not stupid, just dishonest, you can see the distinction. You smear me with the racist label not because of anything I have said but because you're either a bigot who believes all conservatives are racist or you're just a smear merchant. Either way you're a dick.

What is the distinction between operatives within and operatives on?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Thought provoking questions abound, and will remain until the report is released. This time, Rep. Nunes is playing it straight!

 Indeed. I am now wondering what the distinction would be between Dog having Trump's dick within his mouth and Trump's dick on his mouth. Purely metaphorical, I don't believe Dog has Trump's dick in either position, it's just an interesting question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

 Indeed. I am now wondering what the distinction would be between Dog having Trump's dick within his mouth and Trump's dick on his mouth. Purely metaphorical, I don't believe Dog has Trump's dick in either position, it's just an interesting question. 

However, the conclusion overall is that Dog has Trump's dick somewhere. I'm not interested in further exploration of that. It's probably not in his freezer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dog said:

No I did not...I said "operatives within the Obama administration". You're not stupid, just dishonest, you can see the distinction. You smear me with the racist label not because of anything I have said but because you're either a bigot who believes all conservatives are racist or you're just a smear merchant. Either way you're a dick.

I know, I know, pointing out your racism is racist. We get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Any evidence yet or are we still taking Rep. Nunes’ word for it?

There's lots of evidence already on the record going all the way back to the tarmac meeting. Today's installment sounds more like John le Carre fiction than fact. Reports that texts between Strzok and Page refer to a "secret society" within the FBI . Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) says there is an informant talking about the group holding off site meetings...

"We have an informant that's talking about a group that were holding secret meetings off-site ..."There is so much smoke here."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

There's lots of evidence already on the record going all the way back to the tarmac meeting. Today's installment sounds more like John le Carre fiction than fact. Reports that texts between Strzok and Page refer to a "secret society" within the FBI . Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) says there is an informant talking about the group holding off site meetings...

"We have an informant that's talking about a group that were holding secret meetings off-site ..."There is so much smoke here."

Image result for tinfoil hat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

There's lots of evidence already on the record going all the way back to the tarmac meeting. Today's installment sounds more like John le Carre fiction than fact. Reports that texts between Strzok and Page refer to a "secret society" within the FBI . Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) says there is an informant talking about its the group holding off site emeetings...

"We have an informant that's talking about a group that were holding secret meetings off-site ..."There is so much smoke here."

Any guilty pleas or indictments yet?  Where’s the record to which you refer? Let’s see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Any guilty pleas or indictments yet?  Where’s the record to which you refer? Let’s see it. 

Someone once said in casual conversation with their lover that Lynch knew something. It's proof of something... Dog is still working out exactly what that is though as his "from that we learn" line didn't pan out so well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Someone once said in casual conversation with their lover that Lynch knew something. It's proof of something... Dog is still working out exactly what that is though as his "from that we learn" line didn't pan out so well. 

Many people are saying it.  People are very angry about it.  This I can tell you.  Belief me.  

 

Doggy style.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Any guilty pleas or indictments yet?  Where’s the record to which you refer? Let’s see it. 

Can't someone be indicted for losing 5 months of communications?  18 minutes seemed enough a few years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Any guilty pleas or indictments yet?  Where’s the record to which you refer? Let’s see it. 

No pleas or indictment but by way of evidence, just off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing half...

Lynch's, supposed to be a clandestine meeting, with Bill while her department was investigating Hillary.

Lynch issues an edict that the Hillary investigation was to be referred to as a "matter" not what it was, an investigation.

Comey's exoneration memo written months before the conclusion of the investigation and its subsequent editing by Strzok.

The decision to have the FBI investigator not the DOJ prosecutor decide if charges would be brought against Hillary.

FBI involvement in the dossier commissioned by the DNC and Hillary campaign.

Bruce Ohr's meetings with Fusion GPS (where his wife worked) and his subsequent reassignment.

The all but confirmed use of the dossier (Clinton opposition research)to obtain a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump campaign members.

The Strzok/ Page texts referencing the "Insurance policy" against a possible Trump win and the "secret society".

Strzok's hiring and subsequent removal from the Mueller investigation.

The disappearance of many of Strzok/Page text messages.

These may not constitute proof to a legal standard but you have to have your head in the sand to claim they don't constitute evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

No pleas or indictment but by way of evidence, just off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing half...

Lynch's, supposed to be a clandestine meeting, with Bill while her department was investigating Hillary.

Lynch issues an edict that the Hillary investigation was to be referred to as a "matter" not what it was, an investigation.

Comey's exoneration memo written months before the conclusion of the investigation and its subsequent editing by Strzok.

The decision to have the FBI investigator not the DOJ prosecutor decide if charges would be brought against Hillary.

FBI involvement in the dossier commissioned by the DNC and Hillary campaign.

Bruce Ohr's meetings with Fusion GPS (where his wife worked) and his subsequent reassignment.

The all by confirmed use of the dossier (Clinton opposition research)to obtain a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump campaign members.

The Strzok/ Page texts referencing the "Insurance policy" against a possible Trump win and the "secret society".

Strzok's hiring and subsequent removal from the Mueller investigation.

The disappearance of many of Strzok/Page text messages.

These may not constitute proof to a legal standard but you have to have your head in the sand to claim they don't constitute evidence.

Evidence of what, exactly?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Evidence of what, exactly?  

Evidence of corruption within the FBI and DOJ focused on protecting Hillary and defeating Trump possibly coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

Whatever is released about FISA abuses will be heavily redacted to remove the parts that make the recent bipartisan vote to continue those abuses harder to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

Evidence of corruption within the FBI and DOJ focused on protecting Hillary and defeating Trump possibly coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

The Russian bots certainly agree. Perhaps we should have a PA gathering to sort this out and get it fixed. Where should we meet, the basement of Comet Ping Pong?  

Maybe we should wait until after we get the first guilty plea or indictment. Take a deep breath and hold it. It’ll happen soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

Evidence of corruption within the FBI and DOJ focused on protecting Hillary and defeating Trump possibly coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

By the way, you seem to be forgetting that Comey and the FBI did everything they could to sink Madame She Devil during the campaign. Do you really think that anyone has forgotten that already, Captain Bullshit?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dog said:

Evidence of corruption within the FBI and DOJ focused on protecting Hillary and defeating Trump possibly coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hillary said:

I think 

That’s where you always go off track, Dum Dum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

By the way, you seem to be forgetting that Comey and the FBI did everything they could to sink Madame She Devil during the campaign. Do you really think that anyone has forgotten that already, Captain Bullshit?  

If that's true, and I don't believe it is, it would constitute corruption itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

If that's true, and I don't believe it is, it would constitute corruption itself.

If what is true, that the FBI repeatedly discussed an ongoing investigation into Clinton but not the one investigating Trump?  

Did that really happen or can you Doggy Style it away in a flurry of bullshit to confuse morons?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If what is true, that the FBI repeatedly discussed an ongoing investigation matter into Clinton but not the one investigating Trump?  

Did that really happen or can you Doggy Style it away in a flurry of bullshit to confuse morons?  

If, as you claim, the FBI "did everything they could to sink" Hillary, that would constitute corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dog said:

If, as you claim, the FBI "did everything they could to sink" Hillary, that would constitute corruption.

Recognizing a conspiracy would make someone a conspirator. I want no part of that. 

Besides, you said “protecting Hillary and defeating Trump.”  The known record debunks your Doggy Styling. Many people are saying it, this I can tell you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

There's lots of evidence already on the record going all the way back to the tarmac meeting. Today's installment sounds more like John le Carre fiction than fact. Reports that texts between Strzok and Page refer to a "secret society" within the FBI . Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) says there is an informant talking about the group holding off site meetings...

"We have an informant that's talking about a group that were holding secret meetings off-site ..."There is so much smoke here."

Is the presence of "smoke" enough, now?

Lord knows they need a monstrous chimney at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Recognizing a conspiracy would make someone a conspirator. I want no part of that. 

Besides, you said “protecting Hillary and defeating Trump.”  The known record debunks your Doggy Styling. Many people are saying it, this I can tell you. 

Relax, you're safe wrt your claim of an FBI conspiracy to sink Hillary. Recognizing a conspiracy does not make one a conspirator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy McCarthy makes a compelling case that the dismissal of Hillary's mishandling of emails was inevitable because, despite denying knowing about it, Obama had used the insecure system to communicate with Clinton. Communications between Obama and Clinton over the insecure system even occurred when Clinton was in Russia. Reference to these insecure communications was contained in early drafts of Comey's exoneration memo and subsequently edited out. Early drafts named Obama specifically. This was later changed to a "senior government official" and finally even that was removed.

"If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges".

Good read...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455696/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy McCarthy is just one of many people who are saying it.  Many people are very angry about it. This I can tell you.  Belief me!  

You'd think that Mueller was trying to question the Pride of the GOP or something, given the frenzy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

Andy McCarthy makes a compelling case that the dismissal of Hillary's mishandling of emails was inevitable because, despite denying knowing about it, Obama had used the insecure system to communicate with Clinton. Communications between Obama and Clinton over the insecure system even occurred when Clinton was in Russia. Reference to these insecure communications was contained in early drafts of Comey's exoneration memo and subsequently edited out. Early drafts named Obama specifically. This was later changed to a "senior government official" and finally even that was removed.

"If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges".

Good read...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455696/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary

If Clinton had been charged, we would have to turn around and charge half the White House for the same thing. Using the RNC email server (which had been hacked) and those Android phones they were using to communicate with before they got secure phones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Evidence of corruption within the FBI and DOJ focused on protecting Hillary and defeating Trump possibly coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

By the way, you seem to be forgetting that Comey and the FBI did everything they could to sink Madame She Devil during the campaign. Do you really think that anyone has forgotten that already, Captain Bullshit?  

They're not just living in La-La Land, they want to build a wall along the border.

If you really listen to Fox News enough, President Trump is a righteous Christian man who helps little old ladies across the street. He was only trying to help that Stormy lady with her crucifix which had gotten wedged between her breasts.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Evidence of corruption within the FBI and DOJ focused on protecting Hillary and defeating Trump possibly coordinated with the Clinton campaign.

I had no idea it was that serious.  I think you are on to Pizzagate II, fine work Dog.  Yeah, I can see the Fox News headline; Pizzagate II, This One Goes Deeper Than the Cellar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I had no idea it was that serious.  I think you are on to Pizzagate II, fine work Dog.  Yeah, I can see the Fox News headline; Pizzagate II, This One Goes Deeper Than the Cellar!

"The Crust is Thicker than the Original, Because There is More Dough Involved!"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I had no idea it was that serious.  I think you are on to Pizzagate II, fine work Dog.  Yeah, I can see the Fox News headline; Pizzagate II, This One Goes Deeper Than the Cellar!

There is a contradictory theory floated you might prefer offered by Sol. It holds that the FBI did "everything they could" to sink Hillary. What constitutes "everything it could" is left a bit vague but what does that matter when it aligns with your partisanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny that so many people who are so quick to believe that one party is absolutely guilty of corruption and conspiracy has such a hard time accepting that individuals in the other party could have behaved similarly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

There is a contradictory theory floated you might prefer offered by Sol. It holds that the FBI did "everything they could" to sink Hillary. What constitutes "everything it could" is left a bit vague but what does that matter when it aligns with your partisanship.

Please provide another example of the FBI discussing an ongoing investigation into any other Presidential candidate during a campaign.  Ever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Please provide another example of the FBI discussing an ongoing investigation into any other Presidential candidate during a campaign.  Ever.  

I'm not aware of any precedent one way or the other. Of course if you prefer the public be kept uninformed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm not aware of any precedent one way or the other. Of course if you prefer the public be kept uninformed....

You shouldn't bother to read my mind for me.  If you want to know what I think or prefer, you should ask instead of trying to Doggy Style it.

I would prefer an even keel.  There were ongoing investigations into both candidates, but you would have us believe that the FBI is corrupt because they were trying to undermine the candidate whose investigation they did not see fit to publicize.  The only facts that we know about FBI bias contradict all of the smoke that you and so many others are trying to blow, to undermine the FBI and Mueller.  You guys must really love the smell of your own farts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You shouldn't bother to read my mind for me.  If you want to know what I think or prefer, you should ask instead of trying to Doggy Style it.

I would prefer an even keel.  There were ongoing investigations into both candidates, but you would have us believe that the FBI is corrupt because they were trying to undermine the candidate whose investigation they did not see fit to publicize.  The only facts that we know about FBI bias contradict all of the smoke that you and so many others are trying to blow, to undermine the FBI and Mueller.  You guys must really love the smell of your own farts.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason the Hillary investigation was commented on was to tell the country it was over and no charges were going to be filed.  Just like the Trump investigation no comments until it concludes.  Except for the series of leaks flooding the news this week.  I wonder why that is?  Distracting from all the stories coming out about the actions of some in the FBI to have secret societies to attack a duly elected president?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You shouldn't bother to read my mind for me.  If you want to know what I think or prefer, you should ask instead of trying to Doggy Style it.

I would prefer an even keel.  There were ongoing investigations into both candidates, but you would have us believe that the FBI is corrupt because they were trying to undermine the candidate whose investigation they did not see fit to publicize.  The only facts that we know about FBI bias contradict all of the smoke that you and so many others are trying to blow, to undermine the FBI and Mueller.  You guys must really love the smell of your own farts.  

You're just wrong, we do know of facts that support the theory that the FBI was looking to absolve Hillary and sink Trump. Lots of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason the Hillary investigation was commented on was to tell the country it was over and no charges were going to be filed.  Just like the Trump investigation no comments until it concludes.  Except for the series of leaks flooding the news this week.  I wonder why that is?  Distracting from all the stories coming out about the actions of some in the FBI to have secret societies to attack a duly elected president?  

There is that time, just before the election, when they commented on the Clinton investigation.  IMHO, that was odd.  What are your thoughts on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

There is that time, just before the election, when they commented on the Clinton investigation.  What are your thoughts on that?

Are you referring to reopening the investigation in the light of the discovery of Hillary's emails on Carlos Danger's computer? Should that development have been kept from the public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

There is that time, just before the election, when they commented on the Clinton investigation.  What are your thoughts on that?

If you are referring to the finding of more emails on the Weiner server that was really rock and a hard place.   If there were key emails on that computor should the voters not be informed that the Democratic candidate could very well be charged with a felony?  He also exonerated her a few days later..    I think Comey reacted poorly   He should have turned it over to leadership of both parties. 

 

As long as you bring that up why didn't the FBI charge Huma for lying once they had solid proof that she knew about the Hillary private server?  Something both she and Cheryl Mills denied knowledge of, when interviewed by the FBI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

If you are referring to the finding of more emails on the Weiner server that was really rock and a hard place.   If there were key emails on that computor should the voters not be informed that the Democratic candidate could very well be charged with a felony?  He also exonerated her a few days later..    I think Comey reacted poorly   He should have turned it over to leadership of both parties. 

 

Should the voters not be informed that the republican candidate  could well be charged with treason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VhmSays said:

Should the voters not be informed that the republican candidate  could well be charged with treason?

Only when the investigation is over.  He cannot be charged with treason look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason the Hillary investigation was commented on was to tell the country it was over and no charges were going to be filed.  Just like the Trump investigation no comments until it concludes.  Except for the series of leaks flooding the news this week.  I wonder why that is?  Distracting from all the stories coming out about the actions of some in the FBI to have secret societies to attack a duly elected president?  

We are investigating.

We are done investigating.

We are investigating again.

We are done investigating again.  

 

They handled discussions of the Trump investigation properly.  They didn't discuss an ongoing investigation. They broke precedent by discussing the Clinton investigation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

You're just wrong, we do know of facts that support the theory that the FBI was looking to absolve Hillary and sink Trump. Lots of them.

Show us the evidence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

We are investigating.

We are done investigating.

We are investigating again.

We are done investigating again.  

 

They handled discussions of the Trump investigation properly.  They broke precedent by discussing the Clinton investigation.  

I agree when it came to Comey Announcing "we are reopeneing the Hillary investigation"  Prior to that he announced it was over and gave her a pass for being careless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Show us the evidence.  

Scroll up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Scroll up.

Which post has facts instead of the opinion of someone saying something.  I'm not interested in what many people are saying.  I've sniffed enough of your bullshit.  Lets see facts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something big will be breaking just around the time Trump gets called in.

Bet on it.

 

0DVL6HrY_bigger.jpgAdam SchiffVerified account @RepAdamSchiff

FollowFollow @RepAdamSchiff
More

Mueller subpoenas Bannon, Nunes produces spin memo; Mueller interviews Sessions, Johnson claims secret society in FBI; Mueller calls in the President, then what does GOP do...

6:35 AM - 24 Jan 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Which post has facts instead of the opinion of someone saying something.  I'm not interested in what many people are saying.  I've sniffed enough of your bullshit.  Lets see facts.  

Scroll up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Scroll up

I did.  I don't see facts.  Where can I find the facts to support your argument?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Show us the evidence.  

Scroll up.

Yes ineed. Scroll WAY up..... up into the clouds!

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

If you are referring to the finding of more emails on the Weiner server that was really rock and a hard place.   If there were key emails on that computor should the voters not be informed that the Democratic candidate could very well be charged with a felony?  He also exonerated her a few days later..    I think Comey reacted poorly   He should have turned it over to leadership of both parties. 

 

As long as you bring that up why didn't the FBI charge Huma for lying once they had solid proof that she knew about the Hillary private server?  Something both she and Cheryl Mills denied knowledge of, when interviewed by the FBI.

 

See Post # 168.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And despite all of the attempts at misdirection, Mueller is working today, and is knocking on the Pride of the GOP's door.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are you referring to reopening the investigation in the light of the discovery of Hillary's emails on Carlos Danger's computer? Should that development have been kept from the public?

I was referring to this assertion by TM -

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason the Hillary investigation was commented on was to tell the country it was over and no charges were going to be filed."  (emphasis mine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I find it funny that so many people who are so quick to believe that one party is absolutely guilty of corruption and conspiracy has such a hard time accepting that individuals in the other party could have behaved similarly. 

Yep  texts from a key investgator, for the FBI talking about an insurance policy if Trump wins doesn't mean a damn thing, but a false story of candidate Trump telling Flynn to contact the Russians is considered gospel Proof that he is guilty.  

Trump Jr gets invited to meeting with a Russian Lawyer looking for dirt on Hillary - Traitor     The DNC and Hillary pay for a fake dossier on Trump through a foreign agent using the Russians and nothing to see, it's just opposition research.

Now it turns out that same Dossier may have been used to get Fisa warrents to spy on Trump  If that is true it will make watergate look like a third rate Burglary. OH wait nothing to see here never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I was referring to this assertion by TM -

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason the Hillary investigation was commented on was to tell the country it was over and no charges were going to be filed."  (emphasis mine)

That is correct.  What part of "we are reopening disputes" the statement that the case was over when it was first brought up by Comey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I find it funny that so many people who are so quick to believe that one party is absolutely guilty of corruption and conspiracy has such a hard time accepting that individuals in the other party could have behaved similarly. 

They're both right about one thing: how bad the other is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Yep  texts from a key investgator, for the FBI talking about an insurance policy if Trump wins doesn't mean a damn thing, but a false story of candidate Trump telling Flynn to contact the Russians is considered gospel Proof that he is guilty.  

Trump Jr gets invited to meeting with a Russian Lawyer looking for dirt on Hillary - Traitor     The DNC and Hillary pay for a fake dossier on Trump through a foreign agent using the Russians and nothing to see, it's just opposition research.

Now it turns out that same Dossier may have been used to get Fisa warrents to spy on Trump  If that is true it will make watergate look like a third rate Burglary. OH wait nothing to see here never mind.

this post is pizzagate worthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I find it funny that so many people who are so quick to believe that one party is absolutely guilty of corruption and conspiracy has such a hard time accepting that individuals in the other party could have behaved similarly. 

Somehow I think Bernie Sanders wouldn't have that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I find it funny that so many people who are so quick to believe that one party is absolutely guilty of corruption and conspiracy has such a hard time accepting that individuals in the other party could have behaved similarly. 

Why not just look at the facts to compare, and leave opinions out of it?  Criminal conduct is certainly not limited to one party.  So and so says this...is not evidence.  So and so testified to this.  That's evidence.  So and so makes a compelling argument.  Not evidence.  So and so supported his compelling argument with documents.  Opinion supported by evidence.  

Where is the evidence of a "Deep State" within the FBI?  It's all a bunch of people's opinions and compelling arguments.  

Where is the evidence of Trump Campaign collusion with Russia?  Right there in the sworn Affidavit that accompanies Papadocs charging papers.  He swore that it was all accurate when he pleaded guilty.  That's evidence.  

Where is the evidence of obstruction of justice?  Trump's interview with Lester Holt provides the best witness testimony that I've seen, but quite a few high ranking folks have had their time on the barrel with Mr. Mueller lately, and at some point Le Grande 'Orange will as well.  

Evidence vs. Opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol is wrong. The FBI was sitting on a clear felony and crafted  what they thought was a clever way to have their cake and eat it too; a limp dick investigation with exoneration baked in. Protects them against the charge they covered up and it motivates my base to rally against the never ending right wing witch hunt poor innocent Bill and I have to put up with.

Only they were too smart by half. 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hillary said:

Sol is wrong. The FBI was sitting on a clear felony and crafted  what they thought was a clever way to have their cake and eat it too; a limp dick investigation with exoneration baked in. Protects them against the charge they covered up and it motivates my base to rally against the never ending right wing witch hunt poor innocent Bill and I have to put up with.

Only they were too smart by half. 

 

 

Tell us, does your fantasy about being Hillary include fantasies about sex with Bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Tell us, does your fantasy about being Hillary include fantasies about sex with Bill?

I bet he has a cigar with his own shit on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Why not just look at the facts to compare, and leave opinions out of it?  Criminal conduct is certainly not limited to one party.  So and so says this...is not evidence.  So and so testified to this.  That's evidence.  So and so makes a compelling argument.  Not evidence.  So and so supported his compelling argument with documents.  Opinion supported by evidence.  

Where is the evidence of a "Deep State" within the FBI?  It's all a bunch of people's opinions and compelling arguments.  

Where is the evidence of Trump Campaign collusion with Russia?  Right there in the sworn Affidavit that accompanies Papadocs charging papers.  He swore that it was all accurate when he pleaded guilty.  That's evidence.  

Where is the evidence of obstruction of justice?  Trump's interview with Lester Holt provides the best witness testimony that I've seen, but quite a few high ranking folks have had their time on the barrel with Mr. Mueller lately, and at some point Le Grande 'Orange will as well.  

Evidence vs. Opinion.  

Well if we are limited to that definition your drip drip drip thread would be less than a page. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TMSAIL said:

Well if we are limited to that definition your drip drip drip thread would be less than a page. :) 

Except for the sworn Affidavits, testimony, indictments, guilty pleas, online video and documentary evidence, you are absolutely correct.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Except for the sworn Affidavits, testimony, indictments, guilty pleas, online video and documentary evidence, you are absolutely correct.  

So maybe 2 pages with the video clips. 

The point being we discuss issues all day long on this site many without anything more than speculation.  Chess’s point being why is this discussion instantly labeled false when if I remember correctly your thread did not include any of the facts as you laid out when started?  

Trump Jr has not been charged with anything 6 months and 35 pages later.  Yet that was the OP in Drip drip drip  thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites