26CornerBlitz Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: It's the week before the election. That's not late in the game, that's an 11th hour attempt to sandbag, 26. It's politics 101. But it's besides the point. Strzok and the defenders he had in dais (still has, it's still going on) today were lying when they said it never leaked. Why would they lie about it? Too late in the game the way I remember it. If they really wanted to damage his campaign they could have let it come out much earlier to let it gather momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Too late in the game the way I remember it. If they really wanted to damage his campaign they could have let it come out much earlier to let it gather momentum. Not if they didn't have evidence to back it up - which is the point. If they leak it the week before the election (that she was supposed to win), it doesn't do anything other than hurt Trump's campaign and then when she wins, it all goes away. But she lost. Which is why it matters and why they're lying about it. Like they've been lying about when the investigation started this whole time. Why are they so scared of admitting when the investigation actually started? (because it exposes the illegal spying operation on all the campaigns). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Not if they didn't have evidence to back it up - which is the point. If they leak it the week before the election (that she was supposed to win), it doesn't do anything other than hurt Trump's campaign and then when she wins, it all goes away. But she lost. Which is why it matters and why they're lying about it. Like they've been lying about when the investigation started this whole time. Why are they so scared of admitting when the investigation actually started? (because it exposes the illegal spying operation on all the campaigns). Since when does that matter given the long history of investigations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 31 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: If that were actually the case, the investigation of Trump would have leaked out before the election in 2016. Dont be an idiot. I know it’s a big ask. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: Dont be an idiot. I know it’s a big ask. Don't be a shitstain. NVM, you are what you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: Don't be a shitstain. NVM, you are what you are. Ha! Open up your eyes sheep. Your people’s investigation is dead in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: Since when does that matter given the long history of investigations? When you're talking about such a risky gamble as tipping the scales of a presidential election it matters a great deal. If they leaked in July they opened the case it does two things 1) taints their investigation before it begins, 2) forces them to answer questions for weeks and weeks about evidence, while exposing them all to serious legal jeopardy if nothing comes of it. So, they did it a week before the election they were SURE she'd win. No harm then - but what it did was allow them a backdoor defense if she lost. By that I mean, the whole thing was begun because they were covering up illegal spying on multiple campaigns (this has real evidence, not speculation). If they got asked why they were investigating Trump (if it leaked) they could then say it was related to this. But again, the real point is they lied. They knowingly lied. Why? Why are they lying over and over again (three times they've moved the start date of the investigation back) about when this investigation started? That's the question. And its answer lands on 44's doorstep which is why its not being asked and why there's so much smoke being pumped into the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Dont be an idiot. I know it’s a big ask. Well played 1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Don't be a shitstain. NVM, you are what you are. You can do better than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: When you're talking about such a risky gamble as tipping the scales of a presidential election it matters a great deal. If they leaked in July they opened the case it does two things 1) taints their investigation before it begins, 2) forces them to answer questions for weeks and weeks about evidence, while exposing them all to serious legal jeopardy if nothing comes of it. So, they did it a week before the election they were SURE she'd win. No harm then - but what it did was allow them a backdoor defense if she lost. By that I mean, the whole thing was begun because they were covering up illegal spying on multiple campaigns (this has real evidence, not speculation). If they got asked why they were investigating Trump (if it leaked) they could then say it was related to this. But again, the real point is they lied. They knowingly lied. Why? Why are they lying over and over again (three times they've moved the start date of the investigation back) about when this investigation started? That's the question. And its answer lands on 44's doorstep which is why its not being asked and why there's so much smoke being pumped into the discussion. With the guilty pleas already out the as well as the pending indictments, we'll see where all of this ends up at the conclusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 And none of it...NONE OF IT is within the scope of the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Goat Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Reminds me of Church Lady for some reason... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/12/the-peter-strzok-fiasco-wrecks-the-gops-bogus-conspiracy-theory/?utm_term=.e75096dde8c4 https://www.salon.com/2018/07/12/house-republicans-farcical-interrogation-of-peter-strzok-turns-embattled-fbi-agent-into-an-hero/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/rep-louie-gohmerts-question-of-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-in-the-mueller-hearing-was-bonkers.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/peter-strzok-transcript-hearing-watch-fbi-agents-searing-testimony.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/peter-strzok-apos-testimony-reminder-202500090.html https://thinkprogress.org/peter-strzok-debunked-republicans-favorite-fbi-conspiracy-theory-before-his-hearing-even-started-c6504664d7c2/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Look who’s on that list. A veritable who’s who of “free press” outlets. They serve no constructive purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said: With the guilty pleas already out the as well as the pending indictments, we'll see where all of this ends up at the conclusion. Don't hang your hat on the 18 indictments, 13 of which are overseas. (there's one Russian company out of that 13 that has said to the courts, give us a speedy trial.) That is going to be very bad for Mueller when he has to show the court that he doesn't haveshit. There are 5 indictments other than those. None of them have any bearing whatsoever on anything to do with the Trump campaign and Russian collusion. If you are using those 5 indictments and/or guilty pleas to push collusion then you are either sadly misinformed or blatantly disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 56 minutes ago, OJ Tom said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/12/the-peter-strzok-fiasco-wrecks-the-gops-bogus-conspiracy-theory/?utm_term=.e75096dde8c4 https://www.salon.com/2018/07/12/house-republicans-farcical-interrogation-of-peter-strzok-turns-embattled-fbi-agent-into-an-hero/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/rep-louie-gohmerts-question-of-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-in-the-mueller-hearing-was-bonkers.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/peter-strzok-transcript-hearing-watch-fbi-agents-searing-testimony.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/peter-strzok-apos-testimony-reminder-202500090.html https://thinkprogress.org/peter-strzok-debunked-republicans-favorite-fbi-conspiracy-theory-before-his-hearing-even-started-c6504664d7c2/ Those pikers.................. Sean Davis pointed out the New York Times headline released BEFORE testimony began. Sean DavisVerified account @seanmdav FollowFollow @seanmdav Peter Strzok is yet to utter a single word at this hearing, but reality has never stopped the New York Times from pushing a narrative. 7:43 AM - 12 Jul 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Micro expressions is a VERY interesting (and controversial) subject. But these here are pretty blatant. It's like a catalog of Jack Nicholson imitations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Late in the game on 10/31/16 as I recall just before the election with no real attention being paid just before election day. The "late in the game" argument would work a lot better without the whole "Reopening the Clinton email investigation cost her the election!" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 In the first minute of the opening exchange in this clip, notice how carefully (and quickly) Strzok changes his answer by parsing his words when Jordan asks him to repeat "Mr. Ohr provided information to the FBI that included material that is what everybody's calling the dossier." He doesn't do it. Because that's a big revelation considering the implications of the chain of custody of FISA evidence. Remember too that when they're discussing Nellie Ohr, she wasn't just a Fusion GPS employee. She was an acknowledged employee of the CIA. His panicked/unhinged tweets as of late start to make sense when you realize he's going to be implicated in all of this. He ran the operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirdborn Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: a gif of a moment in any ones life can seem damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts