3rdnlng Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 16 minutes ago, John Adams said: I’ll ignore his attorney’s admission and ask this: *If* he asked another country’s president to investigate the Dem frontrunner, would you call for impeachment? Censure? Fair game for a Republican feeding frenzy and remove him as nominee? So, anyone running for office is immune to investigation? There's a mile of difference between asking someone to investigate very suspicious happenings vs asking someone to investigate for pure political reasons that are out of the blue. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: So, anyone running for office is immune to investigation? There's a mile of difference between asking someone to investigate very suspicious happenings vs asking someone to investigate for pure political reasons that are out of the blue. Nothing on Biden is new. But he had the call WITH A PRESIDENT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY a few months after Biden declared his candidacy. Your MAGA glasses don't allow you to put country before Trump. You're an icon-worshipper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 22, 2019 Author Share Posted September 22, 2019 Still doesn’t get it. And he never will because he won’t admit when he’s wrong (all 17 intel agencies as an example) nor will he ever stop and think for himself. Sad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 43 minutes ago, John Adams said: Nothing on Biden is new. But he had the call WITH A PRESIDENT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY a few months after Biden declared his candidacy. Your MAGA glasses don't allow you to put country before Trump. You're an icon-worshipper. The Ukrainian president wasn't inaugurated until 5-21-19. Sorta debunks your theory, eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: The Ukrainian president wasn't inaugurated until 5-21-19. Sorta debunks your theory, eh? I called him “elect” earlier so no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 22, 2019 Author Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: I know you are but what am I is not any more effective than it was in first grade DR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 minute ago, John Adams said: I know you are but what am I is not any more effective than it was in first grade DR. It is when it illustrates that the outrage is not principled, but political. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: It is when it illustrates that the outrage is not principled, but political. That point is straight from Captain Obvious’s billboard. The politics of this are less important than what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 minute ago, John Adams said: That point is straight from Captain Obvious’s billboard. Then why did I have to make it? Rhetorical question: I made it because you denied it. 2 minutes ago, John Adams said: The politics of this are less important than what happened. Literally no one is treating this story as such. It's literally "But THIS time it's a problem!" That's people treating the politics of this as more important than what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 3 hours ago, John Adams said: I called him “elect” earlier so no. You're the master of weakshit arguments. Supposedly Trump's call was in July of 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Then why did I have to make it? Rhetorical question: I made it because you denied it. Literally no one is treating this story as such. It's literally "But THIS time it's a problem!" That's people treating the politics of this as more important than what happened. We spent the last two years talking about the abuse of power of the intel community. Are you not reading this board? Jesus. And to help you out, the topic on the table in this moment is Trump as also part of the problem. Edited September 23, 2019 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: More on this: OH... gee 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) More to the thread, posting this segment for the last vid What that last clip means: That's called rigging the system. Or breaking the law. And it's all on record. Edited September 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 This also belongs here. A sign of progress, breaking free from the IC/Media controlled narratives is nothing but a positive for the future of our country/planet 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: More to the thread, posting this segment for the last vid What that last clip means: That's called rigging the system. Or breaking the law. And it's all on record. But is it breaking the law? Leaking to media and then using a media report as evidence to support probable cause. Illegal or just a bad practice or shoddy work? My growing concern over the surveillance and other dirty tactics that were deployed against the Trump campaign is that in the end so many people were involved, each in a small role, that individual crimes will not be found or will be very difficult to prosecute. Rather the outcome might just be that people are guilty of bad individual job behavior. They acted somewhat within the scope of their jobs but did not commit actual crimes. If nobody is prosecuted, it's a rubber stamp for similar tactics to be used again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: But is it breaking the law? Leaking to media and then using a media report as evidence to support probable cause. Illegal or just a bad practice or shoddy work? If it's not breaking the law explicitly -- it should be. And shows the need for reform to the FISC/FISA procedures. That's always been a needed step in the cleanup process. Not just exposing the people behind the coup, but working to adjust the rules and regulations overseeing the secret court to prevent this kind of abuse. It seems with this hearing we're creeping towards that conversation. 12 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: My growing concern over the surveillance and other dirty tactics that were deployed against the Trump campaign is that in the end so many people were involved, each in a small role, that individual crimes will not be found or will be very difficult to prosecute. Rather the outcome might just be that people are guilty of bad individual job behavior. They acted somewhat within the scope of their jobs but did not commit actual crimes. If nobody is prosecuted, it's a rubber stamp for similar tactics to be used again. It's a rational concern to hold. One I share. That's why we need the above reforms in combination with indictments. If we don't get the latter, we certainly need the former. At least if we get that, we'll be fixing a problem on some level. If they don't indict anyone or change the rules/regs, then we're truly ***** and no longer live in a republic. Which puts it on us, the people, to make that right. And that will get very ugly very fast. Edited September 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino typo/clarity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 43 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: But is it breaking the law? Leaking to media and then using a media report as evidence to support probable cause. Illegal or just a bad practice or shoddy work? My growing concern over the surveillance and other dirty tactics that were deployed against the Trump campaign is that in the end so many people were involved, each in a small role, that individual crimes will not be found or will be very difficult to prosecute. Rather the outcome might just be that people are guilty of bad individual job behavior. They acted somewhat within the scope of their jobs but did not commit actual crimes. If nobody is prosecuted, it's a rubber stamp for similar tactics to be used again. It is illegal to misrepresent evidence to a FISA court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 Not posting for the breitbart article but the second tweet/subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 Just a coincidence, I'm sure. (for the record, Theranos is part of the club) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts