Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[njbuff]

2 minutes ago, Albwan said:

       No, you're wrong, for whatever reason you lurk here spewing your non stop TDS drivel, reading your posts reminds me

of watching a mentally challenged homeless person acting weird on a street corner, it's both funny and sad at the same time.

Not sure what your trying to accomplish here but you don't give one *&^& about the country.

 

It looks like he will be posting his TDS drivel until 2025, unless Trump kicks it, of course.

 

Trump lives rent free in these leftists heads. Normal people go about their daily lives............. TDS free.

[SoCal Deek]

Whereas it’s NOT illegal to have your own server and delete thousand of emails. 

[Foxx]

more for @Crayola64.

click the video idiot.

https://twitter.com/AndrewHClark/status/1177256484478083073

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Foxx

[John Adams]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

maybe (maybe) @John Adams and @Crayola64 can learn something here which undercuts their arguments.

again, for you, @Crayola64 you just need to click....idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you a 15-year old girl on Snapchat? Stop tagging me wierdo. 

 

I listened to the whole thing. WTF to I care about whether the whistleblower is a member of the IC? Maguire handled himself fine today. He didn't do anything wrong IMO in delaying sending the complaint to Congress. 

[Deranged Rhino]

30 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

They don't have much choice, they are surrounded by minefields and quicksand.

 

100%

 

Almost like we're witnessing a counterintel sting unfolding in real time since the moment Flynn was indicted. 

 

  

 

The history of the last few years, written many years from now, will be fascinating. 

 

21 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Dude, why bother engaging with leftist morons?

 

They offer you nothing.

 

We both know Trump isn't going anywhere, unless he dies, until 2025. It is only making their heads explode and they can't stand it or him. Pretty simple.

 

Crayola was new down here, and I wanted to see if he was just a person with a different opinion (which is great, and encouraged) who had actually thought through the issues and had something to add -- or if he was a troll. He's proven to be the latter. 

 

I'm an easy target for these sorts of folks because, as an optimist, I want to believe everyone is capable of being honest and sincere in their discussions (once they get past the PPP hazing/adjustments). That's why I still hold out hope for Tibs and others.  

 

But you're 100% correct in the end. 

 

10 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

DRINK!

 

And almost drink for allergic to being honest. Congrats on varying it up a little. 

 

Come on, JA, being allergic to being honest or the truth is a DR staple as well  

 

8 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

It's almost like I said the Steele Dossier was something I ever believed in, or is relevant to this Whistleblower complaint. 

 

...Wait. You just spent two days saying the ICA was accurate. 

 

You do realize the ICA was influence d and relied upon what we now know to be the Steele Dossier, correct? If you didn't know that, and not many do because the media has covered that up for three years, then you should re-examine it. The "crown" material referenced in the ICA is the Steele Dossier. 

 

So if you didn't believe the Steele dossier, then you should not believe the ICA's assessment (which went well beyond the Russian disinformation campaign which we both admit was real and occurred). The ICA covered that, then padded the rest with innuendo from the Steele Dossier about hackers working with Trump's team. All of which we now know to be untrue. 

 

[John Adams]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

...Wait. You just spent two days saying the ICA was accurate. 

 

You do realize the ICA was influence d and relied upon what we now know to be the Steele Dossier, correct? If you didn't know that, and not many do because the media has covered that up for three years, then you should re-examine it. The "crown" material referenced in the ICA is the Steele Dossier. 

 

So if you didn't believe the Steele dossier, then you should not believe the ICA's assessment (which went well beyond the Russian disinformation campaign which we both admit was real and occurred). The ICA covered that, then padded the rest with innuendo from the Steele Dossier about hackers working with Trump's team. All of which we now know to be untrue. 

 

 

Let's try this the remedial way. 

 

Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and that's what the IC report concluded. Yes or No. 

 

That's all I kept asking you and exactly what I was quoting. 

[njbuff]

Russian TRIED to interfere in our 2016 election, but in the end, it did not influence one vote.

 

The Russia thing isn't a Trump issue. The biggest question is............

 

Why didn't Obama and his lackeys do anything about it?

Edited September 26, 2019 by njbuff

[Numark3]

19 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

DRINK!

 

Thats my favorite one (“serious person”)

 

dont you want to be a serious person and ramble to spread info on a Bills forum?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, John Adams said:

 

Let's try this the remedial way. 

 

Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and that's what the IC report concluded. Yes or No. 

 

That's all I kept asking you and exactly what I was quoting. 

 

You're still playing their game by framing it this way, and it's dishonest (them, not you). 

 

We BOTH agree, and have from the beginning, that the Russians had an information campaign running during the 2016 election. This included ad buys on Facebook and social media which tried to incite both sides against the middle (chaos was the goal, not one side over the other). This is "interference", and it was done. The ICA agrees on this point and it's their ONLY point backed by evidence which the public has had access to from the start. 

 

Interference does NOT = meddling or collusion. And the BULK of the ICA lays out unsubstantiated and still unproven claims of:

* Russian hacking the DCC/DNC/Clinton emails -- this is false, proven so forensically and logically (phishing is NOT hacking as an example, yet the ICA blurs the line)

* Russians working with Trump and his team to hack infrastructure (proven did not happen)

* Claims of Trump being compromised by Russia (proven untrue). 

 

It's not as easy as you're making it. Accepting one conclusion of many drawn in the ICA is a fools' errand. The bulk of the information is wrong, misleading, or outright lies. This is not speculation. This has been proven by Mueller and multiple witness testimony. 

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Let's try this the remedial way. 

 

Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and that's what the IC report concluded. Yes or No. 

 

That's all I kept asking you and exactly what I was quoting. 

 

Impossible to argue with a propaganda bot

 

How does one post on here over 100 times in two hours?

Edited September 26, 2019 by Gary Busey

[Numark3]

4 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Let's try this the remedial way. 

 

Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and that's what the IC report concluded. Yes or No. 

 

That's all I kept asking you and exactly what I was quoting. 

 

Good luck getting a yes or no out of him

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're still playing their game by framing it this way, and it's dishonest (them, not you). 

 

We BOTH agree, and have from the beginning, that the Russians had an information campaign running during the 2016 election. This included ad buys on Facebook and social media which tried to incite both sides against the middle (chaos was the goal, not one side over the other). This is "interference", and it was done. The ICA agrees on this point and it's their ONLY point backed by evidence which the public has had access to from the start. 

 

Interference does NOT = meddling or collusion. And the BULK of the ICA lays out unsubstantiated and still unproven claims of:

* Russian hacking the DCC/DNC/Clinton emails -- this is false, proven so forensically and logically (phishing is NOT hacking as an example, yet the ICA blurs the line)

* Russians working with Trump and his team to hack infrastructure (proven did not happen)

* Claims of Trump being compromised by Russia (proven untrue). 

 

It's not as easy as you're making it. Accepting one conclusion of many drawn in the ICA is a fools' errand. The bulk of the information is wrong, misleading, or outright lies. This is not speculation. This has been proven by Mueller and multiple witness testimony. 

 

This is someone’s answer to a yes or no question.  What a guy

[GG]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Good luck getting a yes or no out of him

The answer above proves you wrong. 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Good luck getting a yes or no out of him

 

This is someone’s answer to a yes or no question.  What a guy

 

The best writer!

[Numark3]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

The answer above proves you wrong. 

 

What, where he wrote like 5 paragraphs to a straightforward yes or no question?  That’s exactly what predicted.

 

the dude is longwinded.  I’d tutor him on writing for free

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

100%

 

Almost like we're witnessing a counterintel sting unfolding in real time since the moment Flynn was indicted. 

 

  

 

That's why I still hold out hope for Tibs and others.  

 

 

 

Haven't you ever heard the old adage "fool me once shame on you, fool me 3451298 times, shame on me?

[GG]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

What, where he wrote like 5 paragraphs to a straightforward yes or no question?  That’s exactly what predicted.

 

the dude is longwinded.  I’d tutor him on writing for free

That response was warranted because in a typical weasely lawyer way, the question is not supposed to have a binary Y/N answer.  It's a typical question from a lawyer, which anyone who's versed in that type of a question would never answer. 

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Did you read the complaint? I did. And you're wrong. Again. Because you don't read for yourself...  Talk about stepping on a rake. 

 

Here's the complaint in full. 

 

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wsmv.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/55/755682a2-e05c-11e9-affa-8bd3d74449cd/5d8cb49937039.pdf.pdf

 

 

So, as I'm reading through this, it's quite amusing.

 

At least the rumor-monger admitted that they had no actual knowledge, and that this is based almost exclusively on hearsay. And no, Crayola, you really don't understand what hearsay means.

 

They start off by claiming everything in it is unclassified (when separated from the attachments), then demands that anyone who "retroactively" classifies any portion justify overruling his/her determination that the complaint is unclassified. Though bonus points for trying to pretend that their rumor-mongering is so important that it's going to be silenced by classification.

 

Section 2 is a fairly serious mischaracterization of the phonecall. Again, quite amusing, especially in light of it actually being released.

 

Section 3 is just complete nonsense. According to what some people read to me about what other people said... bullschiff.

 

Section 4 is a laughable recitation of media stories, including the NYT, trying to tie all this nonsense together. Of course, ignoring the clearly uninformed mischaracterizations thus far in the "complaint" - which is actually why hearsay is generally not admissible.

 

The biggest takeaway I got from this is that the rumor-monger was given incorrect information, and seemed to be upset that the information they wanted to release was kept on a different computer server. They even admit in the formerly-classified appendix that the complained-of hearsay nonsense might be valid policy considerations.

[John Adams]

15 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Russian TRIED to interfere in our 2016 election, but in the end, it did not influence one vote.

 

Not sure that's a conclusion anyone can be certain of, but I agree that it didn't change the result. 

 

15 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

The biggest question is............

 

Why didn't Obama and his lackeys do anything about it?

 

Agreed.

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're still playing their game by framing it this way, and it's dishonest (them, not you). 

 

We BOTH agree, and have from the beginning, that the Russians had an information campaign running during the 2016 election. This included ad buys on Facebook and social media which tried to incite both sides against the middle (chaos was the goal, not one side over the other). This is "interference", and it was done. The ICA agrees on this point and it's their ONLY point backed by evidence which the public has had access to from the start.

 

 

Finally, you said it. You must have just come off some afternoon delight to actually agree with me. Skyrockets in sight. 

 

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Interference does NOT = meddling or collusion. And the BULK of the ICA lays out unsubstantiated and still unproven claims of:

* Russian hacking the DCC/DNC/Clinton emails -- this is false, proven so forensically and logically (phishing is NOT hacking as an example, yet the ICA blurs the line)

* Russians working with Trump and his team to hack infrastructure (proven did not happen)

* Claims of Trump being compromised by Russia (proven untrue). 

 

It's not as easy as you're making it. Accepting one conclusion of many drawn in the ICA is a fools' errand. The bulk of the information is wrong, misleading, or outright lies. This is not speculation. This has been proven by Mueller and multiple witness testimony. 

 

Most of the above I also agree with. My concern is that we re doing little if anything to prevent the same interference in 2020, and Trump treats it like it's a joke, which it's not. 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, John Adams said:

Most of the above I also agree with. My concern is that we re doing little if anything to prevent the same interference in 2020, and Trump treats it like it's a joke, which it's not. 

 

The largest interference in the 2016 election came not from Russia, but from our own Intelligence Community. 

 

That's the real threat. Not Russia. The ICA proves that (to me) beyond any doubt. They lied. Knowingly. To save their own asses, not because they feared for the country. Everything Trump has been doing in terms of battling the "deep state" (however you wish to define it, in this case strictly speaking DC bureaucracy) has been about securing 2020's elections from the same malfeasance.  

 

(Even if you buy into GG's stance -- which has meat on the bone -- that even the Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation, it was still pushed knowingly by our own IC against our own election efforts). 

 

The media denies this fundamental truth -- because they were in on it with the IC. 

 

THAT'S the threat.

 

**************************

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The largest interference in the 2016 election came not from Russia, but from our own Intelligence Community. 

 

That's the real threat. Not Russia. The ICA proves that (to me) beyond any doubt. They lied. Knowingly. To save their own asses, not because they feared for the country. Everything Trump has been doing in terms of battling the "deep state" (however you wish to define it, in this case strictly speaking DC bureaucracy) has been about securing 2020's elections from the same malfeasance.  

 

(Even if you buy into GG's stance -- which has meat on the bone -- that even the Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation, it was still pushed knowingly by our own IC against our own election efforts). 

 

The media denies this fundamental truth -- because they were in on it with the IC. 

 

THAT'S the threat.

Well said! I’ve been telling anyone who’ll listen that this is NOT Left against Right. This is Outside against Inside. Oh yes, each party uses the occasional intersections to try and align their Base and keep the money flowing but guys like Comey have convinced themselves they work for a ‘higher purpose’...thus his book title...and that purpose is protecting the government, not the country, from enemies both foreign and domestic. It’s truly twisted!