Q-baby! Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 31 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I doubt he'd be put in a Canadian gulag. He will be doing HARD time. He might actually sentenced to hang out with all you losers and sex offenders at a TBD tailgate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Lawfare is the heart of the resistance on this issue... (for context) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Lawfare is the heart of the resistance on this issue... (for context) page not found on the lawfare link. go to the thread for a working link (first reply). Edited January 14, 2019 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 9 hours ago, Logic said: Right. The fact that I missed that something was already posted because I don't spend every waking minute on PPP licking Trump's orange ####### means I'm an idiot. Sure. So is everyone around here still pushing the "nothing to see here" narrative, despite the fact that the sitting President was the subject of a counter-intelligence investigation for being a Russian asset, is still under investigation by the special counsel for collusion and obstruction, and refuses to let anyone know the content of his secret meetings with autocrat Putin? Just checking. And exactly how many presidents in history have been the subject of investigations as to whether or not they're a bought-and-paid-for asset of another country? A bunch, right? "Nothing to see here" ? First, your post starts out on a very weak note as you acknowledge being under-informed, and take an odd turn to Fetish Mountain with this licking thing. Second, if you were not under-informed, you would know that there is no "everyone" Here. Third, as a reasonable man willing to listen to your thoughts, here is what I still do not follow from your logic: You seem to believe that Trump is a Russian Asset, that the FBI and Mueller got the goods on him. You're passionate enough to come to this thread, acknowlede you're behind the curve as you do so, and lay out (flimsy)case for ouster of the president. Why is he still in office? Where are the American patriots picking up the mantle for dear James Comey who had so much dirt on 45 that he was fired? I'd think with all the troglodytes willing to set D.C. aflame just based on the things Trump says, surely the greatest intelligence agency in the world could button the Trump case up in a month or so post-Comey. i'll answer your question as well. This is the first time we know a candidate for president was targeted for surveillance by his political adversaries, the first time we have seen the leadership of the FBI exposed as partisan political operatives, and if you're correct, the first time DOJ, FBI, Congress and the US military/joint chiefs of staff have knowingly allowed a "Russian asset" to act as president, no doubt worried sick that it's taking Mueller so long to button up a case that was so obviously treason 3 or 4 months before Trump took office. Sadly, it's also the first time a whole bunch of dipshits knowingly, willingly and with no hesitation decided that it was perfectly acceptable to weaponize intelligence so long as it was against "the other guy". If this had happened to Obama, I'd be a democrat by now. Along the way, I'd have been wondering how the $)&@ it is taking so long when we know the guy is a "Russian asset". You so seem to take every curveball they throw out and think "Yeah, that makes sense!". 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Anyone who now says there is no evidence to at least raise suspicion that Trump is either a Russian plant, compromised by them or simply currying favor for some reason is just not being honest. After all the lies Trump has told, his sucking up to Putin, the secret meetings with him, the Russian influence campaign, Manafort's presence on the campaign, the over hundred contacts with Russia and Trump campaign officials, the literal chaos Putin has wanted that is happening, the alienation of allies and trade partners, the pro-Putin policies be followed and much more. Who's side are you on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Gleeful Gator, please list Trump's pro Putin policies you speak of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 Quote Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to push back against the idea that Donald Trump could be a threat to national security, but conspicuously refused to say whether he was aware of the FBI investigation into whether Trump was acting as a Russian agent, an investigation which began while Pompeo was CIA director. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/pompeo-refuses-to-say-if-he-knew-about-fbi-investigation-of-trump-as-russian-agent/ I just hope he is doing the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 FBI Russia investigation was always about Trump by Andrew C. McCarthy Original Article On Friday night, the New York Times published what was clearly intended to be a blockbuster report that, following the firing of FBI director James Comey on May 9, 2017, the bureau formally opened an investigation of President Trump. But in truth, the only thing the story shows is that the FBI, after over a year of investigation, simply went overt about something that had been true from the first. The investigation commenced during the 2016 campaign by the Obama administration – the Justice Department and the FBI – was always about Donald Trump. We have to remember: The FBI believed the Steele dossier – the collection of faux intelligence reports compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was ultimately working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Justice Department on four occasions brought surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), in which the FBI swore that it believed the dossier allegations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Generally speaking your questions are based on ignorance and false framing. Greg has been ahead of all this for the last two years or so. He has been acting as an investigative journalist and is doing so with collaboration with other people doing the same. Basically tv or internet news hasn't given me any "breaking news" that hasn't been broken first here, well in advance of the networks. You've come into the discussion here after those two years with much of the skepticism that most of us had back then. Greg had to win us over with facts and that took a mountain of work and discussion. You stop down here on occasion and want to relitigate the last two years for your own edification. It's as if you came late to a meeting involving a large number of people and want everyone to review the first 15 minutes that you missed. My answer to you would be to read the ***** threads. In other words, you can't or won't answer a few simple questions. This notion that a person on a Buffalo Bills chat board has more verifiable information than everyone else is bizarre, at best. 21 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not what makes you an idiot. What makes you an idiot (though I would call it a partisan hack, not an idiot) is your failure to engage with or seriously consider the evidence that has been presented to you (now dozens of times) in this very thread and others. Instead of honestly engaging and considering the information presented, you run from it while plugging your ears and calling anyone who doesn't think the way you've been programmed to think is a "white nationalist" or a "Putin puppet". That is why you're a joke down here. You could change that perception very quickly if you decided to be honest and adult rather than a partisan hack. Case in point. If you scroll back just one page you'll see the foundation for this charge is LAUGHABLE revisionist history. He was not investigated for being a Russian asset, he was investigated for firing Comey - who RR wrote a letter saying should be fired and nearly every democrat wanted to ***** can in July of 2017 for cause. But you ignore that reality in favor of the spin attempted by the NYT because you have proven time and time again you care more about reading and hearing only what conforms to your preformed conclusion rather than taking an honest look at the evidence. That's on you. And why you continue to fail over and over again. Which we still don't know the full reason why this continues as RR's scope memo remains classified. And after two years of investigations Mueller's work has netted ZERO indictments or guilty pleas from any American or Trump campaign staff for collusion or obstruction. Again, this is the thinking of conspiracy theorists: "I know the evidence isn't out in the public, but Mueller has it. Trust me. I know because other people told me so and I have no evidence to support it...." That's not being "logical", it's being desperate. It was such a secret meeting that there were cameras, a press conference afterwards, and people in the room with him. This is yet another example of you rushing to believe a regurgitated talking point without fact. Not because you're an idiot or because you haven't read PPP, but because you're a partisan who has already made up his mind TWO YEARS AGO and refuses to move off it, new evidence (or logic) be damned. Did you read the document I shared yet? Especially page 83-84? When did I call you a white nationalist? Please re-post pages 83-84 and save me a little time. I liked your little idiot part. Edited January 14, 2019 by Kemp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Kemp said: In other words, you can't or won't answer a few simple questions. This notion that a person on a Buffalo Bills chat board has more verifiable information than everyone else is bizarre, at best. Nobody (including Greggy) has ever claimed that he has more information than everyone else. The contention has been that the reporting by the large media outlets does not represent a true account of the evidence that's been made available. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, GG said: Nobody (including Greggy) has ever claimed that he has more information than everyone else. The contention has been that the reporting by the large media outlets does not represent a true account of the evidence that's been made available. Who is reporting the truth? Are you saying the MSM is colluding with the "Deep State" or inept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kemp said: Who is reporting the truth? Are you saying the MSM is colluding with the "Deep State" or inept? The available evidence certainly points to the former, at least in how the narrative comes out and how it spreads. Friday's NYT article is a good illustration. It's damning not in what it reported, but what it omitted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 The Times article shows that the FBI was doing what they should be doing to protect the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Kemp said: Who is reporting the truth? Are you saying the MSM is colluding with the "Deep State" or inept? Controlling the media controls the message. There have been exposes of CIA plants in the media, Operation Mockingbird for on that Carl Bernstein provided. Edited January 14, 2019 by TPS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 The ease with which 90% of the media justifies an FBI investigation of a sitting President based on an insane "he could be a Russian agent, or be totally innocent" standard- is a STUNNING example of how worthless most of media is as an impartial advocate for basic due process This is the same media that laughed off the same president using the IRS to financially ruin his political opponents. To believe that Obama didn’t use his FBI/DOJ to hurt Trump and help his party(HRC)you know nothing of the Obama presidency. Or the facts . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 44 minutes ago, GG said: The available evidence certainly points to the former, at least in how the narrative comes out and how it spreads. Friday's NYT article is a good illustration. It's damning not in what it reported, but what it omitted. What did it omit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 18 minutes ago, TPS said: Controlling the media controls the message. There have been exposes of CIA plants in the media, Operation Mockingbird for on that Carl Bernstein provided. In ALL the media though? This isn't plants, this is broad based, open reporting from very separate, diverse media organizations. You think the entire media is controlled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 18 minutes ago, TPS said: Controlling the media controls the message. There have been exposes of CIA plants in the media, Operation Mockingbird for on that Carl Bernstein provided. I have no quarrel with the idea that the CIA and the FBI has a long history for scary stuff. The great filmmaker Errol Morris has Wormwood on Netflix going through an especially egregious case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 13 minutes ago, B-Man said: The ease with which 90% of the media justifies an FBI investigation of a sitting President based on an insane "he could be a Russian agent, or be totally innocent" standard- is a STUNNING example of how worthless most of media is as an impartial advocate for basic due process This is the same media that laughed off the same president using the IRS to financially ruin his political opponents. To believe that Obama didn’t use his FBI/DOJ to hurt Trump and help his party(HRC)you know nothing of the Obama presidency. Or the facts . He lies about Russia, he has secret meetings with Putin and destroys the records, he praises the murderer in public and says he believes this murderous villain more than our intelligence agency, his campaign had over 100 meeting with Russians, he drags his feet on Russian sanctions, he criticizes all our allies and kisses Putin's feet. Ya sure, nothing to see here. Take off the blinders Whose side are you on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts