Dear #DeepState Coup Catchers Durham and Barr

[BillsFanNC]

37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Correct. It's not like there were no prosecutions - and findings of guilt - here.

 

Of course what we have in response is the typical "whataboutism."

 

Yes, the whole Hillary-Fusion-Steele-Perkins Coie thing stinks, and I think it's pretty clear that she was deep into digging up dirt on Trump.

 

But there's a kind of "see, they set up Trump!" thing going on here that assumes that Trump was somehow pure as the driven snow until evil deep state operatives set him up. It's also pretty clear that he and his minions were trying like hell to get dirt on Hillary from Russian state sources. That's why the Bannon quote (above in this thread) is so telling ... that's what one of Trump's key insiders thought of the whole mess, until of course Trump weirdly pardoned him for a completely unrelated offense, and Bannon rewarded him by coming back home to Trumpland.

 

If you want to deflect blame by going to the old "politics is a dirty business," you won't get any argument from me. But that's not going to convince me or anyone other than those in the echo chamber that Trump was just a fine loyal American doing patriotic things ...

 

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

[Doc]

1 minute ago, DRsGhost said:

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

 

Thanks for saving me the trouble.  It's even worse when you realize that Steele actually got (and not just attempted to and didn't get) his dirt from...Russians.

 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

How do you KNOW wtf info was received at Donny Jr’s meeting? And how do we know this was the FIRST meeting of several?

 

And why are you afraid to answer the questions above?

 

Does it completely blow your arguments out the window?

[All_Pro_Bills]

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

How do you KNOW wtf info was received at Donny Jr’s meeting? And how do we know this was the FIRST meeting of several?

 

And why are you afraid to answer the questions above?

 

Does it completely blow your arguments out the window?

Well you don't know either but you're willing to engage in speculation and conjecture of wrong doing.  Neither of which constitute or substitute for facts much less legal evidence or meet a threshold of burden of proof.  And suggest the meeting raises suspicions of impropriety simply because one of the participants, the lawyer  who first met with Fusion GPS that day was...... wait for it......Russian!  Perhaps the problem here is nothing more complicated than a severe case of xenophobia?

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well you don't know either but you're willing to engage in speculation and conjecture of wrong doing.  Neither of which constitute or substitute for facts much less legal evidence or meet a threshold of burden of proof.  And suggest the meeting raises suspicions of impropriety simply because one of the participants, the lawyer  who first met with Fusion GPS that day was...... wait for it......Russian!  Perhaps the problem here is nothing more complicated than a severe case of xenophobia?

140+ meetings and no one in the cult - including DR will acknowledge it because you’re a bunch of hacks.

 

On 4/16/2022 at 7:22 PM, DRsGhost said:

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

Hacks

[BillsFanNC]

How do we know what was discussed?  I'll go with FBI 302's that contained exculpatory statements about Don Jr. that Mueller conveniently left out of his report.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/muellers-hidden-evidence-translator-exonerated-don-jr

 

Quote

 

His account to the FBI undercut the false collusion narrative.

 

“Samochornov could not speak about other occasions, but said there was no discussion about the 2016 United States presidential election or collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign at the meeting,” the FBI reported.

“There was no smoking gun, according to Samochornov. There was not a discussion about dirt on Hillary Clinton. Samochornov did not think Hillary Clinton was mentioned by name at the meeting," the FBI report added. "Samochornov had not heard Veselnitskya say anything about having ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskya did not offer any materials during the meeting and no papers were exchanged.”

 

 

[wnyguy]

3 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

How do we know what was discussed?  I'll go with FBI 302's that contained exculpatory statements about Don Jr. that Mueller conveniently left out of his report.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/muellers-hidden-evidence-translator-exonerated-don-jr

 

 

Now there you go letting truth and facts get in the way of a good story. I blow my nose at you.

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

How do we know what was discussed?  I'll go with FBI 302's that contained exculpatory statements about Don Jr. that Mueller conveniently left out of his report.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/muellers-hidden-evidence-translator-exonerated-don-jr

 

 

 

So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.

[wnyguy]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

 

So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.

Did you read what was posted above or just ignore it?

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Did you read what was posted above or just ignore it?

Let DR fight his own battles - Thanks

[wnyguy]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Let DR fight his own battles - Thanks

Why............ you!

[BillsFanNC]

As if there is a "battle" to fight with @BillStime.

 

I only see your drivel when others quote it, so thankfully it's very little.

 

You're a clown. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

43 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

The “whataboutism” is the easy layup answer for those lazy folk who want to draw a line in the sand, stomp their feet and declare “I don’t want to talk about that!”.   The challenge here is there really seem to be no rules in politics, so everything is on the table.  
 

Frankish opted to super-size that silliness with the old “Trump is pure as the driven snow” deflection, something his supporters say as often as you see a unicorn trotting in midtown Manhattan during rush hour.  
 

I’ll ask you a question I asked Frankish earlier today.  He hasn’t responded and perhaps chooses not to engage. 
 

Shortly after Trump was elected, during the height of the original Big Lie, the outgoing admin was briefed on the Clinton Campaign being intricately involved in the Steele dossier fiasco.  At that point in time, dem leadership was casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election, suggesting a coup had occurred, and fomented stories of Russians on the WH lawn.   
 

Millions believed that narrative, and using Frankish’s hyperbolic commentary, felt Hillary Clinton was pure as the driven snow and lost only because of Russian interference and Trump’s treasonous behavior.   There was considerable strife in the country as a result, citizens distrustful of fellow citizens.   America,mit seemed at the time, was coming apart at the seams.  
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection, to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  
 

I didn’t ask Frankish, but will direct a second question to you.   With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

[BillStime]

20 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

As if there is a "battle" to fight with @BillStime.

 

I only see your drivel when others quote it, so thankfully it's very little.

 

You're a clown. 

 

So now that you have seen the questions - there is no reason not to address them...

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

29 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The “whataboutism” is the easy layup answer for those lazy folk who want to draw a line in the sand, stomp their feet and declare “I don’t want to talk about that!”.   The challenge here is there really seem to be no rules in politics, so everything is on the table.  

 

But you don't mind DR playing that same game, right?

 

[Doc]

39 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The “whataboutism” is the easy layup answer for those lazy folk who want to draw a line in the sand, stomp their feet and declare “I don’t want to talk about that!”.   The challenge here is there really seem to be no rules in politics, so everything is on the table.  
 

Frankish opted to super-size that silliness with the old “Trump is pure as the driven snow” deflection, something his supporters say as often as you see a unicorn trotting in midtown Manhattan during rush hour.  
 

I’ll ask you a question I asked Frankish earlier today.  He hasn’t responded and perhaps chooses not to engage. 
 

Shortly after Trump was elected, during the height of the original Big Lie, the outgoing admin was briefed on the Clinton Campaign being intricately involved in the Steele dossier fiasco.  At that point in time, dem leadership was casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election, suggesting a coup had occurred, and fomented stories of Russians on the WH lawn.   
 

Millions believed that narrative, and using Frankish’s hyperbolic commentary, felt Hillary Clinton was pure as the driven snow and lost only because of Russian interference and Trump’s treasonous behavior.   There was considerable strife in the country as a result, citizens distrustful of fellow citizens.   America,mit seemed at the time, was coming apart at the seams.  
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection, to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  
 

I didn’t ask Frankish, but will direct a second question to you.   With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them? 

 

Who knows exactly, but it's either collusion or disinterest, neither of which is a good look for them and is inexcusable.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

But you don't mind DR playing that same game, right?

 

DR is long gone from this website, friend.  
 

I said what I said, and it applies to everyone, myself included.   However, as in politics, certain rules apply.   Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself.  It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. 
 

When you direct a question to me, I (usually) try to answer directly. I realize I’m not always on topic, may drift a bit, or write a mini-manifesto.   If I have a follow up question, the easy answer is for you to respond “whataboutism!.  

 

In this case, I acknowledge your feelings about the Durham investigation, your feelings about bombshells and your absolute belief that Trump broke the law and for reasons unknown or unshared has yet to be prosecuted.  You could be correct.     I have acknowledged listening to the original complaint, being somewhat willing to keep an open mind as Pelosi et al pursued the Russia angle, and ultimately decided that the entire fiasco was political in nature.  It is inconceivable to me—in spite of the things that bother you—that 4 years and $40m could end with such a thud when Mueller made whatever case he was trying to make.  I could be wrong, but I’d place the odds at 1 in 10,000. 
 

So there you.  
 

I asked two questions earlier today, and would be interested in your thoughts as a Trump hater and Russia purist.  Here is a summary: 
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection (Clinton and Steele), to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  They were briefed in 2016. 
 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/10/07/john-brennan-confirms-he-briefed-obama-on-russia-election-scheme-n2577629

With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

48 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection, to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  
 

 

I think it would be incumbent upon a President not to be neck deep in such an affair from the beginning, but that ship had sailed for Obama. As Obama was going out the door he was too busy having Susan Rice drafting memos stating that everything related to Russia gate was done "by the book."

 

https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/susan-rices-now-infamous-memo-was-blatant-bid-to-cover-obamas-butt/

 

Hillary wasn't supposed to lose, that's really what everything here is about. Post election 2016 had the outgoing Obama administration scrambling in a massive clean up operation. There was no way he was ever going to come clean about the Clinton connection because that would eventually lead to the Obama connection.

 

 

48 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I didn’t ask Frankish, but will direct a second question to you.   With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

 

I don't think they knew, or more importantly I don't think they wanted to know if there was a Clinton connection as the story was breaking. Heck, they still can't be bothered to report on the DNC/Clinton connection to this day. I think those media outlets have sources in the IC that leak to "journalists" who without even a thought towards independently verifying anything, dutifully parrot what their sources tell them to. And then it takes months to years for real journalists doing real journalism to uncover what actually went on.

 

 

[BillStime]

38 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

DR is long gone from this website, friend.  
 

I said what I said, and it applies to everyone, myself included.   However, as in politics, certain rules apply.   Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself.  It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. 
 

When you direct a question to me, I (usually) try to answer directly. I realize I’m not always on topic, may drift a bit, or write a mini-manifesto.   If I have a follow up question, the easy answer is for you to respond “whataboutism!.  

 

In this case, I acknowledge your feelings about the Durham investigation, your feelings about bombshells and your absolute belief that Trump broke the law and for reasons unknown or unshared has yet to be prosecuted.  You could be correct.     I have acknowledged listening to the original complaint, being somewhat willing to keep an open mind as Pelosi et al pursued the Russia angle, and ultimately decided that the entire fiasco was political in nature.  It is inconceivable to me—in spite of the things that bother you—that 4 years and $40m could end with such a thud when Mueller made whatever case he was trying to make.  I could be wrong, but I’d place the odds at 1 in 10,000. 
 

So there you.  
 

I asked two questions earlier today, and would be interested in your thoughts as a Trump hater and Russia purist.  Here is a summary: 
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection (Clinton and Steele), to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  They were briefed in 2016. 
 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/10/07/john-brennan-confirms-he-briefed-obama-on-russia-election-scheme-n2577629

With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

 

 

 

If Obama broke the law - indict him.

 

I do not care what left wing media reports or does not report.  

 

Just like you don’t care what right wing media reports or does not report.

 

[BillStime]

32 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

I think it would be incumbent upon a President not to be neck deep in such an affair from the beginning, but that ship had sailed for Obama. As Obama was going out the door he was too busy having Susan Rice drafting memos stating that everything related to Russia gate was done "by the book."

 

https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/susan-rices-now-infamous-memo-was-blatant-bid-to-cover-obamas-butt/

 

Hillary wasn't supposed to lose, that's really what everything here is about. Post election 2016 had the outgoing Obama administration scrambling in a massive clean up operation. There was no way he was ever going to come clean about the Clinton connection because that would eventually lead to the Obama connection.

 

 

 

I don't think they knew, or more importantly I don't think they wanted to know if there was a Clinton connection as the story was breaking. Heck, they still can't be bothered to report on the DNC/Clinton connection to this day. I think those media outlets have sources in the IC that leak to "journalists" who without even a thought towards independently verifying anything, dutifully parrot what their sources tell them to. And then it takes months to years for real journalists doing real journalism to uncover what actually went on.

 

 

 

 

So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.