boyst Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, Kemp said: One sometimes has no choice but to take the easy way out. See above. I'm good. !@#$ off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) @Kemp A serious question to consider: Do you believe it is proper, in a free society, for the Federal government to pursue criminal investigations into the lives of private citizens unprompted by evidence of wrongdoing, instead fishing with the intent of finding wrongdoing? IE. If, as I believe, the Russian Collusion narrative, which was the reason the investigation was initiated, turns out to be politically motivated, and initiated either without evidence or with manufactured evidence, should all of those prosecuted have their convictions overturned without prejudice, and be awarded massive settlements by the government? A serious follow-up question: Do you believe that the normalization of seeking to criminalize members of the opposition party in the wake of losing an election (and that's what the Democrats have done, make no mistake) is a positive for the long or short term health of the Republic? Edited September 17, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Boyst62 said: I'm good. !@#$ off Nope. It's too much fun watching people get nasty when they can't defend their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: @Kemp A serious question to consider: Do you believe it is proper, in a free society, for the Federal government to pursue criminal investigations into the lives of private citizens unprompted by evidence of wrongdoing, instead fishing with the intent of finding wrongdoing? IE. If, as I believe, the Russian Collusion narrative, which was the reason the investigation was initiated, turns out to be politically motivated, and initiated either without evidence or with manufactured evidence, should all of those prosecuted have their convictions overturned without prejudice, and be awarded massive settlements by the government? It is not proper for the Federal government to pursue criminal investigations into private OR public citizens unprompted by evidence of wrongdoing. What started this investigation were the comments of George Papadopoulus, so I don't believe it was unprompted by wrongdoing. Some maintain it was the Steele dossier, which I doubt, but that would still mean that it was prompted by evidence. Unfortunately, we live in a society where these investigations have become common. Clinton was convicted of something that had zero to do with the initial charges, and I don't remember folks on the Right condemning it. One could also argue that the Benghazi investigation was 100% politically motivated and that resulted in zero findings of guilty. At least the Mueller investigation is uncovering quite a few illegal acts resulting in guilty pleas. If at the end of the investigation it is all found to be politically motivated bull, then those leading the crusade against Trump should be convicted and jailed. All I am saying is to wait and see what the investigation yields. Thanks for the sane tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, Kemp said: Nope. It's too much fun watching people get nasty when they can't defend their position. Is that what it is? This reminds me of an episode of Andy griffth. Andy pulled over a woman for speeding and the next thing you know she turned everyone against him. Opie, Barney, everyone... Against him. He then proceeded to watch his whole case fall apart. It was about that time watching that show that I realized I really like grilled cheese. Now, it's a Monday. I won't eat anything fancy today but tomorrow I'll have high end food at a fancy restaurant owned by Dole. One guy owns Dole. His kids don't want to take it over. All of Dole. That's insane. It's in Kannapolis. But they made towels there as cannon or something. All the buildings are gone but there is a really neat movie theatre and a Christmas parade that resembles Halloween. I like dressing up for Halloween. I also like grilled cheese. But, as I have explained , Andy was in the right by giving the woman a ticket. At the end of the show she sped off and got another ticket and paid double. Morale of the story: when you get a hotel room, your gf is in the shower and the smoke detector goes off do not wait 30 min for the front desk to bring the battery. Go get it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1041694123382726656 https://mobile.twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1041100107071012865 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Is that what it is? This reminds me of an episode of Andy griffth. Andy pulled over a woman for speeding and the next thing you know she turned everyone against him. Opie, Barney, everyone... Against him. He then proceeded to watch his whole case fall apart. It was about that time watching that show that I realized I really like grilled cheese. Now, it's a Monday. I won't eat anything fancy today but tomorrow I'll have high end food at a fancy restaurant owned by Dole. One guy owns Dole. His kids don't want to take it over. All of Dole. That's insane. It's in Kannapolis. But they made towels there as cannon or something. All the buildings are gone but there is a really neat movie theatre and a Christmas parade that resembles Halloween. I like dressing up for Halloween. I also like grilled cheese. But, as I have explained , Andy was in the right by giving the woman a ticket. At the end of the show she sped off and got another ticket and paid double. Morale of the story: when you get a hotel room, your gf is in the shower and the smoke detector goes off do not wait 30 min for the front desk to bring the battery. Go get it yourself. To me, Barney is perhaps the single greatest character in a sitcom, ever. Love when he sings a capella: Wore this shirt the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: To me, Barney is perhaps the single greatest character in a sitcom, ever. Love when he sings a capella: Wore this shirt the other day. I find the t shirt to offensive and suppressive in natural. There are many forms of cultural appropriation to influence the masses but the T-shirt might be the biggest example of racism. There are many types of shirts, a-frame shirts V neck, button-up, long sleeve, short sleeve, even pullovers. None of them have the type of inflammatory possibility like the T-shirt We look at those who have worn it and Associate them generally with poor cultural decisions. We often wonder why they're still wearing a Ricky Rudd t-shirt or even a Lacoste t-shirt in 2018 Essentially it goes back to the Smithsonian when couches were unavailable. Many people had to walk around and see that there was literally nothing to sit on and those water fountains were not available for everybody. It's kind of like the story about the puppy who lost his way. That puppy: "society." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: It is not proper for the Federal government to pursue criminal investigations into private OR public citizens unprompted by evidence of wrongdoing. What started this investigation were the comments of George Papadopoulus, so I don't believe it was unprompted by wrongdoing. Some maintain it was the Steele dossier, which I doubt, but that would still mean that it was prompted by evidence. Unfortunately, we live in a society where these investigations have become common. Clinton was convicted of something that had zero to do with the initial charges, and I don't remember folks on the Right condemning it. One could also argue that the Benghazi investigation was 100% politically motivated and that resulted in zero findings of guilty. At least the Mueller investigation is uncovering quite a few illegal acts resulting in guilty pleas. If at the end of the investigation it is all found to be politically motivated bull, then those leading the crusade against Trump should be convicted and jailed. All I am saying is to wait and see what the investigation yields. Thanks for the sane tone. What do you make of the fact that Lisa Page has admitted in her testimony before Congress that the FBI had no evidence of collusion prior to the Mueller investigation? What do you make of the multiple shifts in the FBI's presentation of the timeline of when the investigation into Russian collusion began? What do you make of the notion that none of the prosecutions have anything at all to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election, and are private citizens unassociated with the original purpose of the special prosecutor, and instead have been charged/convicted based on the initiation of a fishing expedition launched with the intent of finding criminality in private citizens unprompted by evidence of their wrongdoing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: I find the t shirt to offensive and suppressive in natural. There are many forms of cultural appropriation to influence the masses but the T-shirt might be the biggest example of racism. There are many types of shirts, a-frame shirts V neck, button-up, long sleeve, short sleeve, even pullovers. None of them have the type of inflammatory possibility like the T-shirt We look at those who have worn it and Associate them generally with poor cultural decisions. We often wonder why they're still wearing a Ricky Rudd t-shirt or even a Lacoste t-shirt in 2018 Essentially it goes back to the Smithsonian when couches were unavailable. Many people had to walk around and see that there was literally nothing to sit on and those water fountains were not available for everybody. It's kind of like the story about the puppy who lost his way. That puppy: "society." Who is "we"? Tee shirts are racist? Wow! 18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: What do you make of the fact that Lisa Page has admitted in her testimony before Congress that the FBI had no evidence of collusion prior to the Mueller investigation? What do you make of the multiple shifts in the FBI's presentation of the timeline of when the investigation into Russian collusion began? What do you make of the notion that none of the prosecutions have anything at all to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election, and are private citizens unassociated with the original purpose of the special prosecutor, and instead have been charged/convicted based on the initiation of a fishing expedition launched with the intent of finding criminality in private citizens unprompted by evidence of their wrongdoing? Lisa Page, as far as I know, is hardly the owner of the primary knowledge surrounding the Mueller investigation. She was an FBI agent. What are the multiple shifts? The prosecutions have not even been laid out in full, yet. When they are, we will be able to determine what it all means. We all know that criminal investigations very often progress in a bottom-to-top trajectory, so what we think we know now could change quite a bit as this investigation progresses. When you bring down a mob boss, you usually get his underlings, first. All I maintain is that until we know all the facts, we don't know very much and everyone agrees that this investigation has been as leakproof as any we may have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 33 minutes ago, Kemp said: Wore this shirt the other day. You know what they say, if the shirt fits - wear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Nanker said: You know what they say, if the shirt fits - wear it. Are you Johnnie Cochran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 You’re saying the t shirt was bloody? Johnny is dead. Except on Seinfeld reruns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) @Kemp (and others interested - @Buffalo_Gal ), give this a read. Sources included: https://www.scribd.com/document/388798572/Building-a-Monster It's a work in progress, forgive some of the roughness of it - I didn't get a chance to polish it as intended this weekend. 4 more sections will be added when I get a break from my other writing gig. Will have the full thing up soon. Edited September 17, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: @Kemp (and others interested - @buffalo_gal ), give this a read. Sources included: https://www.scribd.com/document/388798572/Building-a-Monster It's a work in progress, forgive some of the roughness of it - I didn't get a chance to polish it as intended this weekend. 4 more sections will be added when I get a break from my other writing gig. Will have the full thing up soon. 13 pages!! My son is gonna need to put on his thinking cap. Thank you for putting this together! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, Kemp said: Lisa Page, as far as I know, is hardly the owner of the primary knowledge surrounding the Mueller investigation. She was an FBI agent. Lisa Page was a trial attorney on Mueller's team, and a high ranking lawyer within the FBI. The fact that she testified before Congress that the FBI had no evidence of collusion prior to the Mueller investigation speaks directly to her primary knowledge. If she didn't have primary knowledge, she would have testified that she had no primary knowledge. It certainly would have been more legally advantageous for her to do so. What are the multiple shifts? The multiple shifts have surrounded the beginnings of the FBI's investigation into Donald Trump. There have been at least three official shifts in what the FBI claims have prompted the investigation, and when the investigation began. The prosecutions have not even been laid out in full, yet. When they are, we will be able to determine what it all means. We all know that criminal investigations very often progress in a bottom-to-top trajectory, so what we think we know now could change quite a bit as this investigation progresses. When you bring down a mob boss, you usually get his underlings, first. All I maintain is that until we know all the facts, we don't know very much and everyone agrees that this investigation has been as leakproof as any we may have ever seen. You can read the source documents surrounding the various plea deals. They have all been sourced for you here, on this website. None of the plea agreements reach into the timeline where the players involved were associated with the Trump campaign or Administration. IE. they have nothing to do with Donald Trump. Consider this: The day that Paul Manafort was indicted, Tony Podesta shuttered the doors on his successful DC lobby firm and crawled into the deepest hole he could find, and hasn't come out since. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Lisa Page was a trial attorney on Mueller's team, and a high ranking lawyer within the FBI. The fact that she testified before Congress that the FBI had no evidence of collusion prior to the Mueller investigation speaks directly to her primary knowledge. If she didn't have primary knowledge, she would have testified that she had no primary knowledge. It certainly would have been more legally advantageous for her to do so. The multiple shifts have surrounded the beginnings of the FBI's investigation into Donald Trump. There have been at least three official shifts in what the FBI claims have prompted the investigation, and when the investigation began. You can read the source documents surrounding the various plea deals. They have all been sourced for you here, on this website. None of the plea agreements reach into the timeline where the players involved were associated with the Trump campaign or Administration. IE. they have nothing to do with Donald Trump. Consider this: The day that Paul Manafort was indicted, Tony Podesta shuttered the doors on his successful DC lobby firm and crawled into the deepest hole he could find, and hasn't come out since. Per Fox News, this is what I found as to what Page testified to: More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page's recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News. "I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question," Page said. She didn't say there was no collusion. She said that they could not determine it, at that point in time. I'll have to read your other source material. What is your point about Podesta? If Trump is innocent, he is 100% safe from the investigation, so all any of us can do is wait to see what comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: Per Fox News, this is what I found as to what Page testified to: More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page's recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News. "I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question," Page said. She didn't say there was no collusion. She said that they could not determine it, at that point in time. I'll have to read your other source material. What is your point about Podesta? If Trump is innocent, he is 100% safe from the investigation, so all any of us can do is wait to see what comes out. In May 2017, that "point in time" was after nearly a full year of Trump's team (and Trump himself) being under FISA surveillance. The most invasive and powerful surveillance tools in existence were deployed against the sitting president directly and they still could not determine it. ... Because it never happened. It was always a coup. Always. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: @Kemp (and others interested - @Buffalo_Gal ), give this a read. Sources included: https://www.scribd.com/document/388798572/Building-a-Monster It's a work in progress, forgive some of the roughness of it - I didn't get a chance to polish it as intended this weekend. 4 more sections will be added when I get a break from my other writing gig. Will have the full thing up soon. I've started reading your doc. You point out that election meddling has always existed. As far as I know, 2016 was the first time that a foreign power attempted to get into the actual voting machines. We were told the attempts were unsuccessful, but consider that if votes were changed, we would almost definitely not find this out because of the chaos it would cause. Will read more. 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: In May 2017, that "point in time" was after nearly a full year of Trump's team (and Trump himself) being under FISA surveillance. The most invasive and powerful surveillance tools in existence were deployed against the sitting president directly and they still could not determine it. ... Because it never happened. It was always a coup. Always. A coup led by who? You lay out facts, well, but your conclusion that there is a coup, seems to be more of an assertion than evidence-based, to me, which leads to another obvious question: If there proves to be no collusion and Trump is found to be guilty of other unrelated felonies, should it all be tossed? Does your opinion on this matter mirror your opinion on the Clinton (Bill) investigation? Edited September 17, 2018 by Kemp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 17, 2018 Share Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: Per Fox News, this is what I found as to what Page testified to: More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page's recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News. "I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question," Page said. She didn't say there was no collusion. She said that they could not determine it, at that point in time. If there was any evidence of collusion, the FBI would have been able to determine that there was collusion. The fact that they could not determine it means they had no evidence of it. That's what those words mean. I'll have to read your other source material. Please do. Greg has just provided it again, and tagged you in the post he provided it not 15 minutes ago. What is your point about Podesta? I encourage you to research who Manafort was working with, and in what capacity, during the time frame the court documents surrounding his indictment speak to. If Trump is innocent, he is 100% safe from the investigation, so all any of us can do is wait to see what comes out. It's no longer even a matter of innocence. He is, by any objective standard given what we know directly from Mueller's own interactions with Trump surrounding the investigation, and the indictments that have come out of it, and Lisa Page's congressional testimony, that there was no collusion with Russia. What it is now about is whether or not the Federal bureaucracy, intel apparatus, and prosecutorial arm, working in concert with a political party, should be permitted to manufacture charges for political purposes, sans evidence, and use them to undermine the legitimacy of a duly elected President, and in the process seek our charges to lay on private citizens for whom no evidence of wrongdoing existed before the special investigation began. Also, a point I raised which you haven't yet addressed: From this point forward, every President we elect in this country will have their term begin with accusations of criminality, and their term accompanied by a special prosecutor whose goal is to imprison the family and associates of the President. This is what the Democratic Party has normalized. Do you believe this is healthy for the Republic? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts