The Big Cat
-
Posts
17,855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Big Cat
-
-
It wasn't an investigation of himself, though that would have been worse. It was an investigation of Flynn's ties to Russia, a country that Trump believes hacked into the election that got him elected president. And Trump asked Comey to stop the investigation. Then fired him when he didn't.
But no, why would that concern you? You want even more executive overreach than even Obama undertook. Let's keep the presidential overreach circle jerk going.
I don't think presidents asking FBI directors to stop ongoing investigations is a good thing. But that's me. You don't like an independent FBI. That's just like, your opinion, man.
The election of a non-liberal president spawned an army of literalist skeptics on this site. From 2009-2017, if anyone so much as farted within 500 miles of the President, the same literalist clowns crapped their own pants in a rush to connect the President to a scheme employing mustard gas to silence any/all dissent. By the powers of copy/paste, they had the lunatic right wing propaganda to prove it, too!
Comey--after getting backhanded by both parties over the private server fiasco--is taking the literal route. The born-again the literalists among us conveniently ignore the rest of this exchange:
COMEY: Wasn't unanimous. One of the members of the leadership team had a view you that although it was technically true we did not have a counter-intelligence file case open on then President-elect Trump. His concern was because we're looking at the potential, again, that's the subject of the investigation, coordination between the campaign and Russia, because it was President Trump, President-elect Trump's campaign, this person's view was
inevitably his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work. And so he was reluctant to make the statement. I disagreed. I thought it was fair to say what was literally true. There was not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump, and I decided in the moment to say it, given the nature of our conversation.
WARNER: At that moment in time, did you ever revisit that as in the subsequent sessions?
COMEY: With the FBI leadership team? Sure. And the leader had that view that didn't change. His view was still that it was probably although literally true, his concern was it could be misleading, because the nature of the investigation was such that it might well touch, obviously it would touch, the campaign, and the person that headed the campaign would be the candidate, and so that was his view throughout.
Can you imagine people here saying that just because Hillary's campaign was up to no good, doesn't mean she was? Jesus. Give me a break. Some of you are such shameless hypocrites.
-
And yet a Genius football mind in BB made it a priority to bring him in a week after being dropped, even after rostering James White, Dion Lewis, Rex Burkhead and Gilly?!
Hmmmm... listen to Big Bill or a Big P***y (cat).
Quite the dilemma.
right
anyways
-
Because Jonathan Williams, 2 FBs and an UDFA bring confidence for you?
no.
no because there's no reason to believe a guy who's been cut five times in four years should.
-
-
Let your top CB walk because it's not important in this scheme. So then you use your 1st round pick on one? Wow stupid
They used their first round pick on a CB, third round pick and a first round pick.
-
Off the top of my head, I'll say McKee's KO return :
That's the precise play I would have brought up. Every !@#$ing thing you need to know about the 21C Bills.
-
The seconds leading up to kickoff of opening Sunday is one of my favorite moments of the year because then and there I have more Bills football to look forward to than at any other point.
Frankly, I'm tired of that puttering out in meaningless week 17 games, but when they're entertaining, like they were to close out 2015, it's a satisfying experience.
This season's debacle of a closer was a pathetic and disheartening way to limp across the finish line. I've never been less into an offseason than I am this year.
So am I happy we're up five slots? Yeah, sure. Why not? Did the exasperatingly deplorable manner in which that game unfolded (THE KICKOFF RECOVERED FOR THE TOUCHDOWN, THE KICKOFF RECOVERED FOR A TOUCHDOWN) have me teetering on an existential breakdown? You bet it did.
-
Live after Berchtold
It's preposterous that a person like this wasn't brought in before.
-
There have been at least 6 (debatably more) first round picks since the start of the drought that were worse than CJ Spiller:
- Mike Williams
- McGahee
- Losman
- McCargo
- Maybin
- Manuel
-
His on-camera skills are more overrated than his coaching skills. He's at his best when he's not trying to be funny. Which is about 3% of the time. He might actually be funny if he could go blue. But he can't. So he's not.
-
-
Because, like every other major nation state, they engage in psyops and informational warfare.
The only difference between what Russia did this past election cycle and what they have done in previous elections is the coverage in the media. If you doubt that, do some more research -- and make sure you dig into the CIA's recent past as well to see how many times we've take a far more direct approach to undermining "free" elections.
You're rolling in this thread, and I get where you're coming from -- but you need to do more homework on this issue. Your bias and conditioning are showing. The neo-McCarthyist narrative predates the election by several years. This isn't new -- it's just a change in the volume. It didn't start with Trump, nor his campaign members. It started in think tanks in DC clamoring for regime change in Moscow.
There are factions within the IC that have been trying to funnel us into a direct conflict with the Russians since at least 2011 if not 2013. These same people flooded HRC's campaign because she promised them No Fly Zones in Syria -- which could only be accomplished by bombing Russian anti-air sites on the ground. In other words, HRC's central campaign plank on Syria was to call for US pilots dropping bombs on Russian troops. That's open war with between the world's two largest nuclear powers -- and she was applauded in the media for taking such a stance.
Once she lost, that group which had been supporting her (openly) changed the game. Without the backing of the sitting US president, they began to implement the same kind of information warfare they're famous for in Europe, Asia, and Africa -- only this time they directed it at their own country. There has been zero evidence proffered to support this "Russia influenced the election" narrative, only speculations and unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. They realize they don't need evidence if they beat us over the head with the story long enough, people will believe it.
I'm not a Trump supporter, never have been. But I am against unelected intelligence officers waging an open coup in an attempt to subvert our democratic process. That's not something to be taken lightly, let alone applauded as many on the left are doing. So eager are they to assuage their post-election depression. What's a better distraction than a shiny new enemy who's hellbent on taking down the country?
Ask yourself this... who owns the Washington Post. Then, when you do that math, go back and look at their editorial coverage since he took over and pay special attention to the Russian narrative. You'll be surprised.
Then ask yourself this... If you really believe Russia interfered in the election and swayed the results, if you truly believe they have the capability to pull that off with their intelligence services -- what do you think our intelligence services are capable of? If the Russians could have done that, is it not possible that the US IC could do the same?
:lol:I think you're assumptions about me are pretty far off the mark.
Nothing you've posted here is contrary to anything I believe or have posited here or elsewhere.
WaPo's coverage against Trump has been deplorable for the better par of year. And the DNC has been in turmoil longer than that. I want the DNC to be strong and to represent progressive ideas that can be sensibly enacted into policy (may be that's a unicorn, who knows?, this country has never tried it before). But the establishment and their general money whoring has managed to strip them of both their identity AND the grass roots movements they depend on to win elections.
I want the RNC to elect candidates who actually govern on the ideals and principles they campaign on. But that doesn't happen either.
-
This is an absurd position to take.
If this is truly your position, your issue should be with the wholly with Franken for asking poorly worded questions, not with the individual who answer the question as it was asked.
It's many things. Absurd it is not. But this is the kind of twisting in the wind that disappoints me so.
-
You believe he was stupid to answer the question within the framework it was asked?
Yep.
If you did more than spit in to the PPP ocean, you'd know the answers.
But as it is, since your presence here is really nothing more than a quick visit to chat nonsense and pass the time until it's time for dinner and you disappear for a few months, I'll let you go, too.
You got a funny way of doing that. And I'll have you know, I'm killing time until I have to get my hair cut.
So you want to just dissolve the entire legislature?
I'm...surprisingly on board with that. Buncha circus animals.
Come on. Two or three of them have to be smart, right? RIGHT!?
-
I know. They are laughably bad. I'm just pointing out the idiocy off all this fakery. Can't find anything legit to cause a scandal? Resurrect the our old cold war nemesis. Dems have to get more creative ! To bad McCain hates Trump or they could exploit this! He's dumb, or evil enough to meet with terrorists. Again!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/02/22/mccain-illegally-in-syria-again-will-he-meet-baghdadi-again/
The more they reach, the less credibility they have. But I'm not convinced that there's nothing there. There are too many dots.
If dems expose themselves in the process, great! Same standard applies to everyone. And if you're so !@#$ing stupid as to go on a witch hunt for stuff you're also guilty of, then I don't want you in my Congress.
-
In order to view Sessions statements as anything approaching perjury, you would have to believe that he wasn't answering the question within the framework which it was asked. For that to be the case, you'd have be viewing the back and forth through a very partisan lens.
I've already addressed this. He was asked a question under oath, and the answer he provided was untrue. Whether he meant to, or whether or not it slipped his mind is to decide whether he's a liar or just stupid.
-
I'm not "giving him the benefit of the doubt". I'm reading the transcript to his confirmation, and telling you that given the question he was asked, which framed his discussions as working within the Trump campaign, he clearly did not perjure himself. He could have spoken more clearly, and in a way that he didn't expose himself to political hackery, but he absolutely did not perjure himself.
If you're reading the transcript, then you can see that he objectively said something that wasn't true. Your rationale for that = !@#$ery. Because I know for certain that when the shoe was on the other foot you didn't concern yourself with technicalities or what so and so meant to say.
It did. And trust me, if I see someone honestly defending Trump for something they heavily criticized Obama for, I will be all up in their **** for it.
Then you must be a busy man these days.
Most elections have a foreign policy component. The Russians "hacking" was media hysteria.
There was no hacking. We've interfered in more foreign elections and governments than just about anybody.
How about this hot story: Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
"Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers."
More at the link on what the specific offers by Kennedy were. Decide for yourself if those were worse than what's gone on this cycle.
Maybe the Dems have this on their minds and think Trump did a similar thing. The Dems running around now like McCarthy did in the 50s. I look for their calls soon to reinstate the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities.
The New Yorker’s Big Cover Story Reveals Five Uncomfortable Truths About U.S. and Russia
- Obama and Clinton have radically different views on Russia.
- The risk of a new Cold War is very real and very dangerous.
- The U.S. media refuses to say if the U.S. interferes in Russia’s domestic politics.
- The U.S. government still has provided no evidence of its theories about Russian hacking
- Fixating on Russia continues to be used to distract from systemic failures of U.S. elites.
Follow link for details. Tough to refute a lot of this stuff.
Another Russian agent! Her and Schumer must resign!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/03/nancy-pelosi-caught-with-her-pants-down/
The GOP shouldn't want Pelosi and Schumer gone. They're rotting the party from the inside out.
-
Most here has never hesitated to critique Trump. There's a handful of whack-jobs who think he's the greatest thing since candied yams, and another handful of whack-jobs on the other end of the spectrum who need him as the Great Satan in their morality play.
But the majority here consider him a repulsive cheeto dust golem. Don't confuse laughing at the hypocrisy of the liberal left with defending the Yamchurian Candidate.
Laugh at liberal hypocrisy all you like, they deserve it. But the toggle switch on the outrage flipped REAL fast around here. And that really can't be ignored.
-
Who was also a complete incompetent who surrounded himself with crooks, thieves and cronies.
I must have missed your outrage the past eight years with all of that, as well as how upset you were to find out Obama's AG had a private meeting with Bill Clinton while 'investigating' Hillary and no one on the left asked her to resign or recuse herself.
Maybe you were posting your outrage under a different name.
Yeah. I'm sure that was it.
You missed it because there was no need to spit into the PPP ocean. Nice try though. Totally not like you to respond with YEAH BUT THE DEMS!
Were you pissed at them then? Are you pissed at the Repubs for doing the same **** now?
Here's the rub:
Sessions wasn't caught "with his hand in the cookie jar", and he didn't lie under oath. He could have been more clear in his answer, but he didn't perjure himself. Sessions, acting in his capacity as chair of the Armed Services Committee, met with dozens of ambassadors and other leaders and envoys on a regular basis as do all other Senators. It's part of their job.
I believe it very reasonable to assume that when Sessions was being questioned in his confirmation hearing that he presumed the questions being asked were in relationship to his involvement in the Trump campaign, rather than in his acting role as a Senator, given the questions were being asked be other Senators who clearly understand that meeting with ambassadors is a regular part of the job.
Right, and I think it's predictable that you're giving him the benefit of the doubt.
And we can debate the space between, whether or not he willfully lied or not, that's fine. I won't profess to know what he did or didn't know he was saying, and I wouldn't be so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt you are.
But if his memory is so shaky, perhaps he's not fit to hold higher office. If he couldn't have foreseen his interpretation of fact as being problematic, perhaps his judgement isn't the best.
So if he's not a liar, then he's stupid. Either way, I'm not surprised to see you hesitate to critique him.
-
Now that is irony.
I have no explanation. I'm very much aware of the irony. And I don't really care. It's Friday.
-
Why do all you die hard Republicans pretend to be otherwise? And then call others intellectually dishonest? Crazy
By now you of all people should have enough piss on your leg to know it's not actually raining.
-
No, you're a hack and an intellectual coward for throwing around claims about other posters, without being bothered to defend them. Only total !@#$s make fiat declarations, birthing them into the air as special truths, with attempting to back them up when asked.
You clearly know nothing about a myriad of positions that I hold, and assuming I'm a blind Trump supporter, which is laughable, as my posting history indicates. I call balls and strikes with both major parties, as I identify with neither.
My major plank in this is, and has always been, the incredible overreach of unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats in our intelligence (and other parts of the Executive) who presume to run the government, and don't like being threatened or challenged.
Love him or hate him, President Trump represents a very clear end to the current power structure if he is successful, and they will do every thing they can to topple him and maintain the current order.
The entire purpose of the CIA is to disseminate disinformation, and overthrow governments. Their central involvement here is very telling. These are terrifying times, as we are currently witnessing an ongoing attempted coup d'état being staged by the deep state against a democratically elected President.
This isn't about Trump vs. Democrats vs. Republicans. It's about the very foundation our nation rests on, and the reality that our "Great Experiment" is in very grave danger of being over.
Completely agree.
And the WaPo smear campaign is only serving to discredit them. Trump's a dick. He's incompetent and he's surrounded himself with crooks, thieves and cronies. But the media has already jumped the shark and they're losing any credibility they'd have on the stuff he should really be held up for. Even the liberal Chicago rag thinks so: http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2017/03/02/donald-trump-has-become-a-meme-for-tyranny
They were also way too easy on Obama. So they're doomed to lose the battle on both fronts.
But when this is your retort to an AG being caught with his hand in the cookie jar having lied under oath, when your inclination is to skew the point toward something else unrelated, I question your ability to call balls and strikes against both teams with the kind of accuracy you claim to have.
-
Be well dude.
Wow. That was easy.
-
I don't think I'll have to, honestly. I'm VERY content watching you right now.
Didn't think so, starter stache.
James Comey's Testimony Before Congress
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Sharing the content of an unclassified memo that Comey himself wrote...is...bad? I guess?