3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 13 minutes ago, garybusey said: What you are doing is talking in circles. A circle is a shape. It looks like this. It's obvious you don't have the mental capacity to differentiate between the two. You are a clown. A clown looks like this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 23 minutes ago, B-Man said: Hillary’s Attempt to Steele the Election by George Neumayr Original Article The media, in its frenzy to normalize left-wing political espionage, says simultaneously of the Nunes memo: there is nothing to see in it, but don’t look. The intensity of the media’s attacks on a Republican is always in proportion to the degree to which he is impeding one of its causes. The doggedness of Nunes — his refusal to let a politicized FBI and Justice Department stonewall his committee — has thrown considerable light on the real scandal of 2016: not that Trump colluded with the Russians to win but that the Obama administration colluded with Hillary to defeat him. . Then what happened?? 8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It's obvious you don't have the mental capacity to differentiate between the two. You are a clown. A clown looks like this: Why? Because he is shooting holes in your silly arguments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 19 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, I need to know how you are defining evidence. I would like to see you declare what would be convincing evidence so I can point back to the post in another couple of months when you try to say that new evidence uncovered wasn't sufficient to prove any collusion. I don't have any further evidence than you do. The Mueller investigation has not released its findings. That is where I think you will eventually see evidence presented. It depends on what the definition of the word "is" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 15 hours ago, GG said: Or lifted from the rapant Facebook posts, which are totally legit now that Zuck has seen the light. Zuck just wants to keep us safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 On 2/16/2017 at 2:27 PM, keepthefaith said: Russia - Trump, the biggest non-story of the year so far. Its still too painful for the left to admit their candidate was awful beyond belief, and that their plan of gutting America may take another 6 years before they can start again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: I thought of a question I would like to pose to the Trump defenders. That you frame your question this way shows you haven't been following along. Most are not defending Trump. Most are defending the most sacred principles of our republic. If we turn a blind eye to a sitting POTUS weaponizing the most invasive spying tools in the USIC arsenal in order to rig an election - and then when that failed to execute a palace coup of a POTUS elect - then we no longer have a country. We have a mirage. THAT'S what this is about ultimately. It's about the sitting President deciding that the will of the people did not matter. That the rule of law did not matter. That 4th and 5th amendment rights DID NOT MATTER. These things mattered so little that officials in the highest echelons of his DOJ, FBI, and USIC actively spied on his political opposition in order to execute a palace coup. This is bigger than politics as I've said from the beginning. This is about whether or not we actually live in a democratic republic or a banana republic. I've also maintained (and stand by) my declaration that I remain open to new evidence and information ALWAYS. That's what I spend half my time doing - researching and double checking "facts" given to us in open source. Despite this openness, I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that makes the case for Russian Collusion or money laundering. Not one. If you continue to approach this as a typical partisan mud slinging fight, you're going to miss the forest through the trees. This isn't about defending Trump. It's about defending YOU, ME and every citizen in this country. Either was have a voice in our elections and leaders or we don't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That you frame your question this way shows you haven't been following along. Most are not defending Trump. Most are defending the most sacred principles of our republic. If we turn a blind eye to a sitting POTUS weaponizing the most invasive spying tools in the USIC arsenal in order to rig an election - and then when that failed to execute a palace coup of a POTUS elect - then we no longer have a country. We have a mirage. THAT'S what this is about ultimately. It's about the sitting President deciding that the will of the people did not matter. That the rule of law did not matter. That 4th and 5th amendment rights DID NOT MATTER. These things mattered so little that officials in the highest echelons of his DOJ, FBI, and USIC actively spied on his political opposition in order to execute a palace coup. This is bigger than politics as I've said from the beginning. This is about whether or not we actually live in a democratic republic or a banana republic. I've also maintained (and stand by) my declaration that I remain open to new evidence and information ALWAYS. That's what I spend half my time doing - researching and double checking "facts" given to us in open source. Despite this openness, I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that makes the case for Russian Collusion or money laundering. Not one. If you continue to approach this as a typical partisan mud slinging fight, you're going to miss the forest through the trees. This isn't about defending Trump. It's about defending YOU, ME and every citizen in this country. Either was have a voice in our elections and leaders or we don't. In about a half dozen posts now I have stated that if there was wrong doing in the FISA warrant process, prosecute those responsible. If it leads back to Obama or even Abe Lincoln, prosecute them. The point I have been trying to make is that none of that should impact the Trump-Russia investigation. And just because you and several other posters have yet to see convincing evidence of wrongdoing, that is no reason to stop the investigation before Mueller, a Republican appointed by a Republican, is done investigating possible wrongdoing. Certainly the case he lays out must be iron clad. If he lays out a theory that is not yet verified with all the I's dotted and T's crossed, his investigation would be vilified to no end. If we turn a blind eye to a sitting POTUS conspiring with Russia to influence our elections, then we no longer have our democracy either. We have a mirage. There is no reason both issues should not be investigated to the fullest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Just now, Bob in Mich said: In about a half dozen posts now I have stated that if there was wrong doing in the FISA warrant process, prosecute those responsible. If it leads back to Obama or even Abe Lincoln, prosecute them. The point I have been trying to make is that none of that should impact the Trump-Russia investigation. If we have proof, evidence, that the Trump Russian angle was concocted by the very same people lying to the FISC and trying to undermine our democracy then it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD IMPACT that investigation. How could you argue otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Well, as I have said several times now too, Trey Gowdy, Mr Benghazi, a hyper partisan Republican that announced he is not running for re-election, has stated he feels the Trump-Russia investigation should continue. You seem so sure that there would be no warrant approved without this dossier. That is not what Gowdy claims. He read the warrant application. Watch the first 1 and a half minutes at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihNQRFk1MDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, as I have said several times now too, Trey Gowdy, Mr Benghazi, a hyper partisan Republican that announced he is not running for re-election, has stated he feels the Trump-Russia investigation should continue. You seem so sure that there would be no warrant approved without this dossier. That is not what Gowdy claims. He read the warrant application. Watch the first 1 and a half minutes at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihNQRFk1MDE "Would it have been authorized were it not for that dossier?" guest host Margaret Brennan asked Gowdy."No, it would not have been," he replied. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gowdy-fisa-warrant-would-not-have-been-authorized-without-dnc-funded-steele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, as I have said several times now too, Trey Gowdy, Mr Benghazi, a hyper partisan Republican that announced he is not running for re-election, has stated he feels the Trump-Russia investigation should continue. You seem so sure that there would be no warrant approved without this dossier. That is not what Gowdy claims. He read the warrant application. Watch the first 1 and a half minutes at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihNQRFk1MDE Are you constantly stoned? That wasn't the question that he answered. He answered the question about the Mueller investigation, and said that the Mueller investigation has nothing to do with the dossier. He did not at all address a COMPLETELY SEARATE ISSUE of whether there would have been a FISA warrant without the dossier. You're not really good at this, are you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 We're talking apples and oranges here guys. There may have been a Trump/Russia investigation without the FISA warrant but it obviously wouldn't include a tap on anyone. After all this time they either have something or they don't. Wrap it up soon as to not hinder Trump's efforts to MAGA. Interviewing Trump or subpoenaing him before a grand jury smacks of a perjury trap and is unworthy of a true investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, GG said: Are you constantly stoned? That wasn't the question that he answered. He answered the question about the Mueller investigation, and said that the Mueller investigation has nothing to do with the dossier. He did not at all address a COMPLETELY SEARATE ISSUE of whether there would have been a FISA warrant without the dossier. You're not really good at this, are you? Are you consistently an obnoxious prick? Watch the video at the link I provided. Watch the first 1:35 or so, jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Just now, Bob in Mich said: Are you consistently an obnoxious prick? Watch the video at the link I provided. Watch the first 1:35 or so, jerk. I'm an obnoxious prick to idiots who can't even process the context of videos they post on this site. I suggest that you watch the first 90 seconds of that video again and see if Gowdy says what you claim it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Are you consistently an obnoxious prick? Watch the video at the link I provided. Watch the first 1:35 or so, jerk. I watched the whole interview. It doesn't say what you think it says. At all. Gowdy said no dossier, no FISA. We KNOW the dossier was concocted by people within the FBI/DOJ/USIC to cover their own asses after Rogers cut off their 702 access. We KNOW and can trace the dossier's creation and it fits into a timeline neatly that shows desperation to INVENT a scandal. You would too if you bothered to read the information that's been provided by myself and others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I think you are trying to split hairs. Are you saying that he doesn't think the Mueller investigation should proceed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I think you are trying to split hairs. Are you saying that he doesn't think the Mueller investigation should proceed? I'm not. I'm going by what the man said. No FISA without the dossier. That's what Gowdy said. That's real. The clip you linked has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FACT. Not a thing. I'M saying that if we can prove the dossier was invented to concoct a Russian collusion scandal - both to rig the election then to overthrow a legally elected POTUS by inflating Russian collusion hype - then of course that would impact the Russian collusion investigation. To argue otherwise is to "split hairs" because your cognitive dissonance won't let you think for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: I think you are trying to split hairs. Are you saying that he doesn't think the Mueller investigation should proceed? Gowdy may want the investigation to proceed for a variety of reasons such as: He's going to work in the justice system again and publicly wants to state his support for the system. He already knows that Trump and his inner circle are not guilty of any Russian collusion and wants to see the investigation reach that conclusion. He believes that Mueller's targets in his investigative work will turn toward the political opposition and away from Trump and co. He sees only political upside for Republicans given that the investigation won't turn up much from the originally intended purpose. The investigation will expose a lot of government abuses which he feels should be known by the public. Edited February 7, 2018 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 On 2/7/2018 at 9:33 AM, Bob in Mich said: I thought of a question I would like to pose to the Trump defenders. Please take a moment to consider and answer. Hypothetical Question If today you, and you alone, came across evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that Trump conspired with the Russians to help him get elected in exchange for future favors, would you come forward with it or would you bury it forever? In this scenario, assume that your actions would be anonymous and also assume no one would ever discover you buried the evidence if that was your decision. What do you think? Please be honest. Don't worry, Bob, row_33 finally answered your question in another thread. With the glorious results, I hope the Russians infiltrate every election in North America from now on! trai·tor ˈtrādər/ noun a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 13 minutes ago, garybusey said: Don't worry, Bob, row_33 finally answered your question in another thread. I found it kinda funny that not one American Trump disciple answered that question. Row_33 doesn't count because he's Russian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts