Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 5:39 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I disagree. We have concrete evidence they had the legal cover and opportunity to bug Trump.  

 

That's motive and opportunity. 


We also have concrete evidence they lied about how they got this opportunity (or that they even had it) for over a year. 

 

We also have concrete evidence the FBI (lead by Strzok) was "investigating" Trump Russian collusion since July 16... so if they had this FISA on Page, it would be a dereliction of that investigation NOT to bug Trump at that point, would it not?

Expand  

So there isn't any evidence at all that you can point to. Perhaps its stuffed deep in the butt hole of the deep state? :huh:

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 5:52 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The act is the FISA warrant on Page and all the hoops they jumped through to hide the origin of the "evidence" they used to secure said warrant. 

 

The warrant gives them the opportunity to spy on Trump. 

 

Expand  

 

The act of getting a bull **** FISA warrant through "sketchy" means is NOT the act of "spying on Trump," though.

 

Motive and opportunity are not proof of "spying on Trump."  They are indicators that, IF Trump was spied on, THEN it was the FBI that did it.

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:15 PM, DC Tom said:

 

The act of getting a bull **** FISA warrant through "sketchy" means is NOT the act of "spying on Trump," though.

 

Motive and opportunity are not proof of "spying on Trump."  They are indicators that, IF Trump was spied on, THEN it was the FBI that did it.

Expand  

 

Disagree. It wouldn't be the FBI who spied on Trump, it'd be 44 and HRC. 

 

The act of getting a FISA, on a man no longer associated with the campaign, served no other purpose BUT to get three hops on Trump and his team. There's no other explanation as to why they tried so hard, and broke so many laws, to secure a warrant on a man who was no longer attached the campaign that makes sense. 
 

There's no other reason to target Page for a Title 1 FISA, after being rejected by the FISC two previous times before. 

 

Image result for "potus wants to know everything we're doing"

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:19 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Disagree. It wouldn't be the FBI who spied on Trump, it'd be 44 and HRC. 

 

The act of getting a FISA, on a man no longer associated with the campaign, served no other purpose BUT to get three hops on Trump and his team. There's no other explanation as to why they tried so hard, and broke so many laws, to secure a warrant on a man who was no longer attached the campaign that makes sense. 
 

There's no other reason to target Page for a Title 1 FISA, after being rejected by the FISC two previous times before. 

 

Image result for "potus wants to know everything we're doing"

Expand  

 

Although the evidence strongly points to your theory, there's been no act that demonstrates that spying has occurred.  

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:19 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Disagree. It wouldn't be the FBI who spied on Trump, it'd be 44 and HRC. 

 

The act of getting a FISA, on a man no longer associated with the campaign, served no other purpose BUT to get three hops on Trump and his team. There's no other explanation as to why they tried so hard, and broke so many laws, to secure a warrant on a man who was no longer attached the campaign that makes sense. 
 

There's no other reason to target Page for a Title 1 FISA, after being rejected by the FISC two previous times before. 

 

Image result for "potus wants to know everything we're doing"

Expand  

About what? Russian hacking? Russian disinformation campaign? 

 

Trump doesn't even read his Dailey Intel Briefing. Obama tried keeping abreast of threats to the nation, which is worse? 

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:25 PM, GG said:

 

Although the evidence strongly points to your theory, there's been no act that demonstrates that spying has occurred.  

Expand  

 

Except for Flynn's name being unmasked on a call to Kislyak. We know he was unmasked per Yates' testimony, and that information was shared with the Washington Post's David Ignatius for his January 12th 2016 piece. 

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:26 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Except for Flynn's name being unmasked on a call to Kislyak. We know he was unmasked per Yates' testimony, and that information was shared with the Washington Post's David Ignatius for his January 12th 2016 piece. 

Expand  

 

Again, all the evidence points to the act, but there's nothing that shows that the act has been committed.  It's a slowly rolling train, but until it reaches the depot, I'll still treat it as a theory

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:39 PM, GG said:

 

Again, all the evidence points to the act, but there's nothing that shows that the act has been committed.  It's a slowly rolling train, but until it reaches the depot, I'll still treat it as a theory

Expand  

 

That (and Cug's stance) is totally fair. Wait for the train to arrive. :beer:

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:26 PM, Tiberius said:

About what? Russian hacking? Russian disinformation campaign? 

 

Trump doesn't even read his Dailey Intel Briefing. Obama tried keeping abreast of threats to the nation, which is worse? 

Expand  

Please provide a link to this.

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 6:59 PM, 3rdnlng said:

Please provide a link to this.

Expand  

you should really try that compression thing.... Just don't do it for too long or you might stay in that state forever... Tibs response is going to be, "But we KNOW Trump can't read!"

 

 

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 7:05 PM, Cinga said:

you should really try that compression thing.... Just don't do it for too long or you might stay in that state forever... Tibs response is going to be, "But we KNOW Trump can't read!"

 

 

Expand  

No you are incorrect. Gators response would be "Butt wee no Trump a cant reed reed."

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 7:31 PM, Tiberius said:

Why am I picturing you out there trying to goole something? :lol:

 

Did you find a link to  Trump not reading his intel reports? Too difficult for you? 

Expand  

It is not my responsibility to prove your statements for you. The media has hyped this for some time. As I recall he is briefed daily verbally so that he can ask questions. Of course his office gets a written copy.

Posted
  On 2/12/2018 at 7:43 PM, 3rdnlng said:

It is not my responsibility to prove your statements for you. The media has hyped this for some time. As I recall he is briefed daily verbally so that he can ask questions. Of course his office gets a written copy.

Expand  

If you are too lazy then, don't bug me with a stupid question, you moron <----no, its not a complete sentence

×
×
  • Create New...