leh-nerd skin-erd

Two things: The straw man argument, if one chooses to pursue said argument, would actually be John's argument that because I disagree with him, I see the FBI and DOJ as "the enemy". Please remind me to tell John that "straw man" while not an insult per se, falls to number three on the list behind cult and conspiracy theorist. Have a blessed day.

I'm capable of expressing that sentiment if that was my feeling, John. Your problem here is a limitation of creative thought and application of historical perspective. See, you seem to think that because I don't outright dismiss Durham as a right wing loon, you know how what I think and feel generally. The FBI is an incredible organization that when appropriately managed and directed, is a gift to all Americans. The DOJ falls into the same category. Neither should be wholesale dismissed, nor wholesale embraced. That does not mean I have to hit my knees and pledge unquestioned fealty to either organization. Blind trust in any organization is foolish, John, and binary choices that boil down to "FBI Awesome Always!" and "FBI Enemy" is pure silliness. FBI...DOJ...were they the heroes of the MLK/NAACP surveillance story? Waco, Texas? Ruby Ridge? Whitey Bulger? J Edgar Hoover? The Durham investigation is simply an extension of an age-old dilemma. As I said above, you simply prefer different boogeymen. No declarations of loyalty or independence are necessary with me. You don't sound at all independent to me, but I view the world through my prism, not yours. Btw the second weakest insult on the planet today is to label someone a 'conspiracy theorist'. It's right behind declaring someone a member of a 'cult'. This is your right as an American, John, and I completely understand that. I don't think I'm the closed-minded one here though.

It's tough to judge context on this forum, but I assure you what I am about to say is meant to be respectful and absent malice. I don't think you're open to be educated to any great degree, and I'm not looking to educate anyone. I have blind spots, I make mistakes, and sometimes I'm closed-minded. Last time you and I interacted, I got a heavy vibe that you're a "....I don't want to talk about that...". That leads to one-sided conversations imo, and basically leads to a giant waste of time for all. That said, I'll always try to answer reasonable questions. We may have had different perspectives on your issue with Bongino's tweet. I viewed the tweet as a whole, I did not focus on the use of ***** exclusively. I won't bother searching for a liberal politician using ***** in a tweet, it doesn't matter to me. If that's your only concern about his post, you are welcome to that moral high ground. I considered the rhetoric as a whole--aggressive, adversarial, etc. I'm neither defending nor supporting the tweet. My point was that when a Hillary Clinton refers to 35 or 40 million American citizens as 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable', it's as aggressive, insulting and condescending as anything Bongino wrote. Personally speaking, it doesn't make it worse if she said 30 to 40m hard working, tax paying, family raising, neighbor friendly people who didn't see her as the heir apparent were ******irredeemable or ******deplorable.

The funny part is that a guy like John believes exactly the same thing, he just has different boogeymen. We see that repeatedly, widespread distrust in systems and institutions followed by unwavering belief in systems and institutions favorable to them. All you need to do is change the players.

What you see from Bongino is standard fare across the board. Right wing, left wing, MSM, presidential candidates use this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. As for concerns about the results of the Durham report, here’s the deal. He reported what most conservative believe, which is, high ranking officials at the FBI created a narrative, trampled on the laws designed to safeguard citizens, and acted in a wholly partisan way to influence just about everything including his ordinary Americans interact and who gets elected for what. The anger comes with the realization that in spite of what he found, nothing changes. No one is brought to account. The system protects wrongdoers as it always does. What Durham said yesterday is yeah, it sucks, but that’s life.

I really don’t trust anyone anymore, that probably should be said. However, Gaetz laid a wallop on him when Mr. Durham said “I don’t know if you’ve ever investigated a crime…” to which Gaetz replied “ I don’t know that you have!”. Excellent timing and delivery.

Thank you for abandoning the whole “collusion is misrepresentation” silliness, sadly you followed up with the “spin” narrative. Isn’t this beneath us? I am aware that Mueller wrote a strongly worded letter to AG Barr’s parents after the sad saga concluded. I am also aware that he had unlimited power for nearly 2 years, wielded it aggressively, coordinated with media outlets to leverage the strength of investigation, the full support of tens of millions of democrat loyalists thirsty for blood, completed a 400 page report and had the opportunity to provide sworn testimony before Congress and the American people about all the evidence his team uncovered proving Trump criminally conspired with Russia. There’s definitely some spin doctoring afoot here, you just seem completely incapable of identifying the source.

I used "collusion" the way most Americans not threading a nickledick needle tend to use it. If you see my choice of language as a misrepresentation, it's not material to the matter at hand and not of particular concern to me. What I can tell you is this...the facts and outcome are clear. From AG Barr's summary of the Mueller report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html ...the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. Summary: Lots of people with lots of juice knocked on doors, shook down perps, tried to flip witnesses, shook the trees and really, really tried to find evidence of collusion oops criminal conspiracy. Later on, AG Barr had this to say: The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Summary: The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians. It seems to me that disregarding the entirety of the report, the exceptionally thorough and extremely broad scope of the investigation, the follow up by Barr and his team, and referring to some Illuminati-esque 'bad actors' reflects poorly on those who choose to follow that path. It also indicates to me that while you are no doubt intellectually up to the task of reviewing the Mueller report in its entirety, perhaps emotionally you stopped somewhere after page 10.

Some people believe that Mueller stating Trump and his campaign did not collude with the Russians means he did, and that an official declaration that Trump was politically persecuted means he clearly was not. The narrative is what matters, as does using a tactical approach to rolling out allegations to have maximum effect at the voting booth.

It matters to the extent people feel it matters. We’re not sentencing, nor are we negotiating plea deals. In fact, there are very few people involved in that part of the equation. We’re on the emotional side of the ledger, where we look at information available, we figure the relative value and what it means to us, and figure how it moves us to vote/opine one way or the other. Think the Russia-lusion dealio here, Chi. Back when Mueller said he wasn’t able to not unsay that Trump was or was not unguilty of, people applied emotion to whatever message he was trying to deliver. As for gun control, well the message has been sent that it ain’t all that big a deal.

#slippage

That’s why I’m here, to point it all out for you. You. Are. Welcome!

I don’t know, who said the law is fair? I’ve always said people are above the law. Arguing otherwise is naive or purposefully obtuse. I’ve always said you like your inequity, your president who lies and gropes women, your “election was stolen” better than the Trump version, you’re “my guy only pilfered documents over decades and hid them in different spots” better than the other guy. It simply means you’re as full of cr@p as anyone else. I was just pointing that out. Glad we agree. It’s all good.

Hunter is a stooge, a rich kid from an entitled family. He dodged taxes on a million + that we know of, and broke gun laws at a time when gun violence is top of mind and heads roll for exactly this sort of thing. He and his father were protected by the IC when his laptop was discovered, a favor to an extraordinarily powerful and wealthy man. Meanwhile, he’s “painting” and being paid exorbitant figures for his work by immensely wealthy individuals and donors. So…he abuses the system, does all the rich guy things you guys are always complaining about (when not involving a liberal), f&@&s around with firearms, avoids jail time an average person would not and is financially whole or better. Yeah, liberal justice is truly colorblind. You gotta wonder why all this happens repeatedly, huh? 🤣

4 years wasted by the democrats trying to prove the 2016 Election was stolen, the country in turmoil as BillSy and his crew worry they have to learn Russian and drink Stoli straight, and these guys get ants in their pants after a week. Let's all settle down, let the politicians and seekers of truth do their job(s). As citizens we're now catching up on all this information previously unknown to us.

That's silly. I never suggested Biden was president when he acted in Ukraine, I'm not certain that he's president now. The reality is the twists and turns of this sad saga continue and there is an ongoing investigation into the matter. New information is being revealed almost daily. Time may well prove you right, and if so, we'll be a better nation having had the dialogue about Vice-President Vice-President Vice-President Biden's unusual actions in Ukraine. I don't understand your angst here.

Chi, an hour or so ago, conjuring up a narrative on the Trump/Zelensky conversation that seemed clear, concise and cordial: Also, I would remain skeptical of why the leader of a small country in an existential struggle against a larger invader would be cautious not to in any way implicate or insult the head of the country poised to give it the aid it needs to survive. Kudos, though on the use of 'existential struggle' to give it a distinct Tom Clancy vibe.

You literally stumbled upon the reason Biden flexing his muscles to help his son makes so much sense.....the leader of a small country in an existential struggle...in desperate need of aid for the survival of the country...would certainly not insult Joe Biden by declining to bend to his will and fire the prosecutor sniffing around his son. Taking it one step further, Biden flexing his muscles with the EU, to play ball, and all it cost was one measly prosecutor to place Ukraine back on the road to redemption. "I need you to back me on this, pal" is all it would take. And still, the EU seems to have decided to sit this one out, though they maybe sent a strongly worded letter. Btw--by comparison, when I go down the list of countries traditionally perceived to be corrupt, we seem perfectly comfortable with sending aid without and strings attached. This is middle school stuff, Chi. "Why would I steal your lunch when I have my own lunch?". We're talking about a billion dollars, plus whatever money may have flowed behind the scenes. I'm of the mind that the story needs to be pushed farther so we get to the bottom of it. If it turns out that it's just a series of unfortunate events and a big misunderstanding, these things happen. That's on Biden for personally handling this issue with an obviously huge conflict of interest.

Thanks for sending the link. I can't access the content, but did some additional nosing around earlier today. Big picture, I found a reference to Ron Johnson and a letter about systemic corruption in Ukraine being a concern, but can't seem to find anything revealing actions of EU officials that are in line with the Biden initiative to decline aid earmarked for the country. If the argument is that the billion was hard to ignore, I guess I can't find anything that the EU brought to the table that the Ukranians would even have had to ignore. Does the FT article mention anything specific--withholding aid, pulling envoys or diplomats etc undertaken by the EU? On Senator Johnson, I see that the letter--which, again, appeared to address widespread and systemic corruption, not simply the targeting of one specific individual and aid approved for the country--was not the final word on his involvement here. Johnson was one of a number of senators who later on found that the Hunter/Joe Biden mess directly impacted US policy. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-report-burisma-ukraine-senate-republican-released/ "What the chairmen discovered during the course of this investigation is that the Obama administration knew that Hunter Biden's position on Burisma's board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine," the report states. "Moreover, this investigation has illustrated the extent to which officials within the Obama administration ignored the glaring warning signs when the vice president's son joined the board of a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch." Finally, in reviewing the transcript of the Trump call, it seems fairly obvious that Zelensky was not in any distress during the call, nor did he push back in any way on Trump's request. In closing, I'll move the goalposts just a bit. For all the bluster of Biden and his refusal to provide aid lest they bend to his will, it's very strange indeed that corruption still is a major, ongoing problem in Ukraine and yet aid flows like wine at a Greek wedding. Yet, in that one brief moment in time, with an obvious conflict of interest, Biden put the one guy in his crosshairs that was causing his family members some grief. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/27/1151326940/ukraine-anti-corruption-efforts

I’ve asked this question before, but besides this rambling account that assumes the reader will believe the narrative without question, is there any factual data that backs up this theory that “every ally agreed he had to go” and Biden took the free world on his shoulders and saved the day? I’ve read an awful lot to that effect, but haven’t found a source that can point to any of our allies taking any sort of action to have the prosecutor removed. That leaves me with Biden making his declaration, and his version sounds an awful lot more like Boss Hogg than Dudley DoRight. In addition, the proximity to Hunter in all of this certainly raises questions on why he didn’t recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety in dealing with a local political issue. To boot, in reviewing the transcript of the Trump call to Zelensky, there was no push back from Zelensky when Trump expressed his feelings on the matter. In fact, it reads as if Zelensky agrees with Trump on several fronts.

Oh, I see now. You initiated a conversation with me, asked me a question about Biden but meant Trump. Now I know the format. ✊

Sounds like a nice person, and I didn’t see anything wrong with the embrace. She’s also quite likely to be taking advantage if every tax dodge available, has a carbon footprint the size of Rhode Island, and prefers her security people armed to the teeth. That all just makes her a typical human. You literally attempted to defend Biden in your last response. You’re doing it again. If you’re unaware of Biden’s history of lies and embellishments, or his mea culpa on groping women when it was politically expedient, his close friendship and partnership with white supremacists, notorious misogynists and at least one guy who left a young lady at the bottom of a bay, then I don’t know what to tell you. But yeah..Trump.

Sure John. 13 hours ago Cle posted the message below. Cle references “corruption and deviant as the rest for DC”, and I don’t assume we would argue that Biden is a significant player in DC, would we? Sometime thereafter, Red gives the post the “like” post, indicating agreement with the sentiment offered. That is to say, Red agreed that DC is as corrupt and deviant as Trump, but prefers his version of corruption and deviance to that of others and voted accordingly. If you’re a champion of the notion of the systemic goodness and nobility of DC generally, or of one party specifically, have at it. I’ll have to scroll back a bit to see when you challenged Cle on his premise.

As did you. So endeth the lesson.

Biden didn’t turn the information in “when found”, he possessed the material for more than 20 years, and after a thorough and exhaustive search, the DOJ found additional documents not previously returned. You’re free to carry water and defend like a true believer, but you’re not free to make declarations that are obviously false. You cannot possibly know what material Biden had in his possession, which simply means you’re imaging a fact pattern to suit your bias. The other guy is Joe Biden, pretending not to know his name doesn’t provide cover for your silliness, and he’s relevant because he took and maintained classified material as a Senator, VP, a private citizen when he would have known he absolutely should not have. https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-shamed-irresponsible-trump-classified-docs-before-wh-admitted-sensitive-vp-records 😂 These are facts, Kemp, and all your crusading to the contrary doesn’t change that.