Dear #DeepState Coup Catchers Durham and Barr

[Doc]

5 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, let me remind you of how all of this started: Don Jr. "breathlessly" took a meeting with a woman who was almost certainly (and it's not as if she was a master of disguise - she was right out of central casting) was a Russian agent:

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/mueller-report-confirms-don-jr-too-stupid-to-collude-with-russia

 

That's not "collusion."

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

That's not "collusion."

 

Call it what you want...

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, let me remind you of how all of this started: Don Jr. "breathlessly" took a meeting with a woman who was almost certainly (and it's not as if she was a master of disguise - she was right out of central casting) was a Russian agent:

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/mueller-report-confirms-don-jr-too-stupid-to-collude-with-russia

 

 

 

You speak of Natalie Veselnitskaya.

 

Veselnitskaya met with Glenn Simpson the day before AND the day after the Don Jr. meeting.

 

Who is Glenn Simpson? The founder of Fusion GPS. The outfit paid by the DNC to produce the now infamous and complete bunk Steele dossier meant to smear Trump.

 

Smells a little fishy.

 

Additionally Veselnitskaya needed DOJ permission to enter the US and was granted that permission by the Obama DOJ, perhaps even signed off by Loretta Lynch herself. Seems like the DOJ needs to answer some hard questions for allowing this dangerous Russian asset into the US in the first place, right?

 

Hmmm..

 

This is critical information that's relevant to the story, yet its never included in the reporting from corporate media outlets.

 

I wonder why?

 

It's also interesting that the left finds it no big deal that Christopher Steele, a foreigner,  was paid to dig up dirt on a Presidential candidate during the 2016 election. Some might call that foreign interference in a US election. Ooohhhh that's different because Trump, amirite?

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by DRsGhost

[All_Pro_Bills]

10 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

You speak of Natalie Veselnitskaya.

 

Veselnitskaya met with Glenn Simpson the day before AND the day after the Don Jr. meeting.

 

Who is Glenn Simpson? The founder of Fusion GPS. The outfit paid by the DNC to produce the now infamous and complete bunk Steele dossier.

 

Smells a little fishy.

 

Additionally Veselnitskaya needed DOJ permission to enter the US and was granted that permission by the Obama DOJ, perhaps even signed off by Loretta Lynch herself. Seems like the DOJ needs to answer some hard questions for allowing this dangerous Russian asset into the US in the first place, right?

 

Hmmm..

 

This is critical information that's relevant to the story, yet its never included in the reporting from corporate media outlets.

 

I wonder why?

 

 

Well, when Natalie contacted Trump campaign officials to arrange a meeting she lied to them about her intentions because she was already working with and/or for Simpson and Fusion GPS.  And by extension the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  And the Obama WH facilitated the relationship and knew all about it.    

 

I believe that's pretty close to what Durham is going to prove and submit for the official investigation findings and criminal charges.

[Doc]

Yup on the previous 2 posts.  But again, not collusion by Don Jr.  And certainly nothing even close to what the Dems did with foreign spy Chris Steele.

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

Yup on the previous 2 posts.  But again, not collusion by Don Jr.  And certainly nothing even close to what the Dems did with foreign spy Chris Steele.

Trump colluded with Russia

[BillsFanNC]

You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options 

 

Now don't tell me. This one definitely has to have Trump! and Cult! I'm guessing maybe a little Coup! for good measure.

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options 

 

Now don't tell me. This one definitely has to have Trump! and Cult! I'm guessing maybe a little Coup! for good measure.

 

Say's the guy all over the Durham thread and attempted to bring back to life the Horowitz's DOJ thread...

 

On 4/16/2022 at 7:22 PM, DRsGhost said:

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Trump colluded with Russia

Mueller's investigation, coincidentally staffed by many current or former employees of the law firm that represents Clinton and the DNC, resulted in no indictments or evidence of any such collusion.  If anybody was out to get him it was these guys.  But they came up empty.  And yet you continue to insist you know better and that unproven accusations of collusion are equivalent to guilt of collusion.    

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Mueller's investigation, coincidentally staffed by many current or former employees of the law firm that represents Clinton and the DNC, resulted in no indictments or evidence of any such collusion.  If anybody was out to get him it was these guys.  But they came up empty.  And yet you continue to insist you know better and that unproven accusations of collusion are equivalent to guilt of collusion.    

 

Awe, that's cute.  Referencing Mueller; who DID highlight numerous meetings and connections associated with Trump and Russia - was purposely watered down by Bill Barr.  And tell us - All Pro - why hasn't that fully unredacted report been released?

 

But what is also cute - you purposely fail to mention that the GOP's own Senate Report highlighted all of the collusion, as well!

 

140+ meetings with Russians

Campaign data shared with Russians

Coordinated WikiLeaks dumps with Russians

 

On 4/16/2022 at 7:22 PM, DRsGhost said:

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

 

You want to know what sealed it?

 

First he said this:

 

 

And then Traitor in Chief realized he F'd over US intelligence - he misspoke:

 

 

 

 

 

F'n idiots

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by BillStime

[The Frankish Reich]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff

 

Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.

[Doc]

No simps, he didn't collude with Russia.  Hence the reason nothing has happened to him since he left office.  Again, you don't just let someone off the hook for treason just because he is no longer President.  In fact you go after him full force because he is no longer President.  Try as you might, you'll never get over that fact and just look stupid continuing to parrot the lies your masters told you and you continue to believe.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

Awe, that's cute.  Referencing Mueller; who DID highlight numerous meetings and connections associated with Trump and Russia - was purposely watered down by Bill Barr.  And tell us - All Pro - why hasn't that fully unredacted report been released?

 

But what is also cute - you purposely fail to mention that the GOP's own Senate Report highlighted all of the collusion, as well!

 

140+ meetings with Russians

Campaign data shared with Russians

Coordinated WikiLeaks dumps with Russians

 

 

 

You want to know what sealed it?

 

First he said this:

 

 

And then Traitor in Chief he realize he F'd over US intelligence - he misspoke:

 

 

 

 

 

F'n idiots

 

 

Meeting with foreigners is not illegal.  Especially given private business arrangements.

Sharing what campaign data?  With what Russians?  

Wikileaks posted e-mails and correspondence on publicly available media.  They did not direct anything specifically to any campaign or any organization or share anything privately with anyone that wasn't made public.  And stated clearly Russian government or Russian nationals was not the source.  

 

Continue living in your fantasy.

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Meeting with foreigners is not illegal.  Especially given private business arrangements.

Sharing what campaign data?  With what Russians?  

Wikileaks posted e-mails and correspondence on publicly available media.  They did not direct anything specifically to any campaign or any organization or share anything privately with anyone that wasn't made public.  And stated clearly Russian government or Russian nationals was not the source.  

 

Continue living in your fantasy.

Yeah really? Fantasy?  lmao
 

Roger Stone: Trump adviser found guilty on all counts in WikiLeaks hacking case

 

ignorance is fn bliss

[The Frankish Reich]

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Yeah really? Fantasy?  lmao
 

Roger Stone: Trump adviser found guilty on all counts in WikiLeaks hacking case

 

ignorance is fn bliss

Correct. It's not like there were no prosecutions - and findings of guilt - here.

 

Of course what we have in response is the typical "whataboutism."

 

Yes, the whole Hillary-Fusion-Steele-Perkins Coie thing stinks, and I think it's pretty clear that she was deep into digging up dirt on Trump.

 

But there's a kind of "see, they set up Trump!" thing going on here that assumes that Trump was somehow pure as the driven snow until evil deep state operatives set him up. It's also pretty clear that he and his minions were trying like hell to get dirt on Hillary from Russian state sources. That's why the Bannon quote (above in this thread) is so telling ... that's what one of Trump's key insiders thought of the whole mess, until of course Trump weirdly pardoned him for a completely unrelated offense, and Bannon rewarded him by coming back home to Trumpland.

 

If you want to deflect blame by going to the old "politics is a dirty business," you won't get any argument from me. But that's not going to convince me or anyone other than those in the echo chamber that Trump was just a fine loyal American doing patriotic things ...

[All_Pro_Bills]

15 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Yeah really? Fantasy?  lmao
 

Roger Stone: Trump adviser found guilty on all counts in WikiLeaks hacking case

 

ignorance is fn bliss

You're saying one man's conviction on a specific charge proves everyone else is guilty of whatever you want to make up?  You should learn how the law works in real life. 

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Correct. It's not like there were no prosecutions - and findings of guilt - here.

 

Of course what we have in response is the typical "whataboutism."

 

Yes, the whole Hillary-Fusion-Steele-Perkins Coie thing stinks, and I think it's pretty clear that she was deep into digging up dirt on Trump.

 

But there's a kind of "see, they set up Trump!" thing going on here that assumes that Trump was somehow pure as the driven snow until evil deep state operatives set him up. It's also pretty clear that he and his minions were trying like hell to get dirt on Hillary from Russian state sources. That's why the Bannon quote (above in this thread) is so telling ... that's what one of Trump's key insiders thought of the whole mess, until of course Trump weirdly pardoned him for a completely unrelated offense, and Bannon rewarded him by coming back home to Trumpland.

 

If you want to deflect blame by going to the old "politics is a dirty business," you won't get any argument from me. But that's not going to convince me or anyone other than those in the echo chamber that Trump was just a fine loyal American doing patriotic things ...

Couldn’t have said it better my self.

 

The cult continues to play the “Trump is a victim card” and completely dismisses the fact that Trump and his mob clearly colluded with Russia.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff

 

Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.

That article is four+ years old.   Mueller has come, babbled about and gone to where old spies go, Bannon is still rolling along and hasn't flipped on the alleged treason, and Don Jr has not yet cracked, like an egg, as predicted.  When is the explosive best seller going to ROCK the world? 

 

We've also learned that Obama and Biden were read into intelligence reports that the H. Clinton campaign was knuckles deep in the Steele dossier in early 2016.  

 

Speaking of that, and given your feelings on Trump and the case of the Curious Case of Disappearing Collusive Collusion, why do you think Obama/Biden didn't acknowledge the Clinton role in the Steele dossier back when they first learned of it?   The country was being torn apart, the Pro-Trumpers calling foul and the Pro-Clintonista's pointing fingers an accusing everyone not like them being treasonous.  Wouldn't you think that information should have been shared for the greater good? 

[BillsFanNC]

20 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

You're saying one man's conviction on a specific charge proves everyone else is guilty of whatever you want to make up?  You should learn how the law works in real life. 

 

Well if we want to use the morons logic, let's make him live by it.

 

Durham probe has already snared the scalp of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith who pleaded guilty to making false statements and tampering with evidence in the Russiagate scandal.

 

Therefore by the morons standard we can logically and lawfully go right to the top. Comey? Guilty.  Brennan? Guilty. Hillary? Guilty.

 

 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Well if we want to use the morons logic, let's make him live by it.

 

Durham probe has already snared the scalp of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith who pleaded guilty to making false statements and tampering with evidence in the Russiagate scandal.

 

Therefore by the morons standard we can logically and lawfully go right to the top. Comey? Guilty.  Brennan? Guilty. Hillary? Guilty.

 

 

So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.

[BillsFanNC]

37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Correct. It's not like there were no prosecutions - and findings of guilt - here.

 

Of course what we have in response is the typical "whataboutism."

 

Yes, the whole Hillary-Fusion-Steele-Perkins Coie thing stinks, and I think it's pretty clear that she was deep into digging up dirt on Trump.

 

But there's a kind of "see, they set up Trump!" thing going on here that assumes that Trump was somehow pure as the driven snow until evil deep state operatives set him up. It's also pretty clear that he and his minions were trying like hell to get dirt on Hillary from Russian state sources. That's why the Bannon quote (above in this thread) is so telling ... that's what one of Trump's key insiders thought of the whole mess, until of course Trump weirdly pardoned him for a completely unrelated offense, and Bannon rewarded him by coming back home to Trumpland.

 

If you want to deflect blame by going to the old "politics is a dirty business," you won't get any argument from me. But that's not going to convince me or anyone other than those in the echo chamber that Trump was just a fine loyal American doing patriotic things ...

 

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

[Doc]

1 minute ago, DRsGhost said:

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

 

Thanks for saving me the trouble.  It's even worse when you realize that Steele actually got (and not just attempted to and didn't get) his dirt from...Russians.

 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

How do you KNOW wtf info was received at Donny Jr’s meeting? And how do we know this was the FIRST meeting of several?

 

And why are you afraid to answer the questions above?

 

Does it completely blow your arguments out the window?

[All_Pro_Bills]

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

How do you KNOW wtf info was received at Donny Jr’s meeting? And how do we know this was the FIRST meeting of several?

 

And why are you afraid to answer the questions above?

 

Does it completely blow your arguments out the window?

Well you don't know either but you're willing to engage in speculation and conjecture of wrong doing.  Neither of which constitute or substitute for facts much less legal evidence or meet a threshold of burden of proof.  And suggest the meeting raises suspicions of impropriety simply because one of the participants, the lawyer  who first met with Fusion GPS that day was...... wait for it......Russian!  Perhaps the problem here is nothing more complicated than a severe case of xenophobia?

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well you don't know either but you're willing to engage in speculation and conjecture of wrong doing.  Neither of which constitute or substitute for facts much less legal evidence or meet a threshold of burden of proof.  And suggest the meeting raises suspicions of impropriety simply because one of the participants, the lawyer  who first met with Fusion GPS that day was...... wait for it......Russian!  Perhaps the problem here is nothing more complicated than a severe case of xenophobia?

140+ meetings and no one in the cult - including DR will acknowledge it because you’re a bunch of hacks.

 

On 4/16/2022 at 7:22 PM, DRsGhost said:

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

Hacks

[BillsFanNC]

How do we know what was discussed?  I'll go with FBI 302's that contained exculpatory statements about Don Jr. that Mueller conveniently left out of his report.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/muellers-hidden-evidence-translator-exonerated-don-jr

 

Quote

 

His account to the FBI undercut the false collusion narrative.

 

“Samochornov could not speak about other occasions, but said there was no discussion about the 2016 United States presidential election or collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign at the meeting,” the FBI reported.

“There was no smoking gun, according to Samochornov. There was not a discussion about dirt on Hillary Clinton. Samochornov did not think Hillary Clinton was mentioned by name at the meeting," the FBI report added. "Samochornov had not heard Veselnitskya say anything about having ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskya did not offer any materials during the meeting and no papers were exchanged.”

 

 

[wnyguy]

3 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

How do we know what was discussed?  I'll go with FBI 302's that contained exculpatory statements about Don Jr. that Mueller conveniently left out of his report.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/muellers-hidden-evidence-translator-exonerated-don-jr

 

 

Now there you go letting truth and facts get in the way of a good story. I blow my nose at you.

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

How do we know what was discussed?  I'll go with FBI 302's that contained exculpatory statements about Don Jr. that Mueller conveniently left out of his report.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/muellers-hidden-evidence-translator-exonerated-don-jr

 

 

 

So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.

[wnyguy]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

 

So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.

Did you read what was posted above or just ignore it?

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Did you read what was posted above or just ignore it?

Let DR fight his own battles - Thanks

[wnyguy]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Let DR fight his own battles - Thanks

Why............ you!

[BillsFanNC]

As if there is a "battle" to fight with @BillStime.

 

I only see your drivel when others quote it, so thankfully it's very little.

 

You're a clown. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

43 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

So Don Jr. set up a meeting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign agent. The meeting happened and no dirt was offered or discussed.

 

This is apparently treasonous. Or at least a guy from the right said it was....so in this singular case his opinion is truth baby!

 

Hillary paid a firm who used a foreign agent to make up ***** about Trump out of thin air that led this entire nation into a farcical charade for four years.

 

And this is merely "a thing that stinks." 

 

You're right people are going to go to "whataboutism."

 

What about consistency and principles?

The “whataboutism” is the easy layup answer for those lazy folk who want to draw a line in the sand, stomp their feet and declare “I don’t want to talk about that!”.   The challenge here is there really seem to be no rules in politics, so everything is on the table.  
 

Frankish opted to super-size that silliness with the old “Trump is pure as the driven snow” deflection, something his supporters say as often as you see a unicorn trotting in midtown Manhattan during rush hour.  
 

I’ll ask you a question I asked Frankish earlier today.  He hasn’t responded and perhaps chooses not to engage. 
 

Shortly after Trump was elected, during the height of the original Big Lie, the outgoing admin was briefed on the Clinton Campaign being intricately involved in the Steele dossier fiasco.  At that point in time, dem leadership was casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election, suggesting a coup had occurred, and fomented stories of Russians on the WH lawn.   
 

Millions believed that narrative, and using Frankish’s hyperbolic commentary, felt Hillary Clinton was pure as the driven snow and lost only because of Russian interference and Trump’s treasonous behavior.   There was considerable strife in the country as a result, citizens distrustful of fellow citizens.   America,mit seemed at the time, was coming apart at the seams.  
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection, to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  
 

I didn’t ask Frankish, but will direct a second question to you.   With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

[BillStime]

20 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

As if there is a "battle" to fight with @BillStime.

 

I only see your drivel when others quote it, so thankfully it's very little.

 

You're a clown. 

 

So now that you have seen the questions - there is no reason not to address them...

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

29 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The “whataboutism” is the easy layup answer for those lazy folk who want to draw a line in the sand, stomp their feet and declare “I don’t want to talk about that!”.   The challenge here is there really seem to be no rules in politics, so everything is on the table.  

 

But you don't mind DR playing that same game, right?

 

[Doc]

39 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The “whataboutism” is the easy layup answer for those lazy folk who want to draw a line in the sand, stomp their feet and declare “I don’t want to talk about that!”.   The challenge here is there really seem to be no rules in politics, so everything is on the table.  
 

Frankish opted to super-size that silliness with the old “Trump is pure as the driven snow” deflection, something his supporters say as often as you see a unicorn trotting in midtown Manhattan during rush hour.  
 

I’ll ask you a question I asked Frankish earlier today.  He hasn’t responded and perhaps chooses not to engage. 
 

Shortly after Trump was elected, during the height of the original Big Lie, the outgoing admin was briefed on the Clinton Campaign being intricately involved in the Steele dossier fiasco.  At that point in time, dem leadership was casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election, suggesting a coup had occurred, and fomented stories of Russians on the WH lawn.   
 

Millions believed that narrative, and using Frankish’s hyperbolic commentary, felt Hillary Clinton was pure as the driven snow and lost only because of Russian interference and Trump’s treasonous behavior.   There was considerable strife in the country as a result, citizens distrustful of fellow citizens.   America,mit seemed at the time, was coming apart at the seams.  
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection, to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  
 

I didn’t ask Frankish, but will direct a second question to you.   With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them? 

 

Who knows exactly, but it's either collusion or disinterest, neither of which is a good look for them and is inexcusable.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

But you don't mind DR playing that same game, right?

 

DR is long gone from this website, friend.  
 

I said what I said, and it applies to everyone, myself included.   However, as in politics, certain rules apply.   Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself.  It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. 
 

When you direct a question to me, I (usually) try to answer directly. I realize I’m not always on topic, may drift a bit, or write a mini-manifesto.   If I have a follow up question, the easy answer is for you to respond “whataboutism!.  

 

In this case, I acknowledge your feelings about the Durham investigation, your feelings about bombshells and your absolute belief that Trump broke the law and for reasons unknown or unshared has yet to be prosecuted.  You could be correct.     I have acknowledged listening to the original complaint, being somewhat willing to keep an open mind as Pelosi et al pursued the Russia angle, and ultimately decided that the entire fiasco was political in nature.  It is inconceivable to me—in spite of the things that bother you—that 4 years and $40m could end with such a thud when Mueller made whatever case he was trying to make.  I could be wrong, but I’d place the odds at 1 in 10,000. 
 

So there you.  
 

I asked two questions earlier today, and would be interested in your thoughts as a Trump hater and Russia purist.  Here is a summary: 
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection (Clinton and Steele), to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  They were briefed in 2016. 
 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/10/07/john-brennan-confirms-he-briefed-obama-on-russia-election-scheme-n2577629

With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

48 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection, to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  
 

 

I think it would be incumbent upon a President not to be neck deep in such an affair from the beginning, but that ship had sailed for Obama. As Obama was going out the door he was too busy having Susan Rice drafting memos stating that everything related to Russia gate was done "by the book."

 

https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/susan-rices-now-infamous-memo-was-blatant-bid-to-cover-obamas-butt/

 

Hillary wasn't supposed to lose, that's really what everything here is about. Post election 2016 had the outgoing Obama administration scrambling in a massive clean up operation. There was no way he was ever going to come clean about the Clinton connection because that would eventually lead to the Obama connection.

 

 

48 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I didn’t ask Frankish, but will direct a second question to you.   With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

 

I don't think they knew, or more importantly I don't think they wanted to know if there was a Clinton connection as the story was breaking. Heck, they still can't be bothered to report on the DNC/Clinton connection to this day. I think those media outlets have sources in the IC that leak to "journalists" who without even a thought towards independently verifying anything, dutifully parrot what their sources tell them to. And then it takes months to years for real journalists doing real journalism to uncover what actually went on.

 

 

[BillStime]

38 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

DR is long gone from this website, friend.  
 

I said what I said, and it applies to everyone, myself included.   However, as in politics, certain rules apply.   Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself.  It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. 
 

When you direct a question to me, I (usually) try to answer directly. I realize I’m not always on topic, may drift a bit, or write a mini-manifesto.   If I have a follow up question, the easy answer is for you to respond “whataboutism!.  

 

In this case, I acknowledge your feelings about the Durham investigation, your feelings about bombshells and your absolute belief that Trump broke the law and for reasons unknown or unshared has yet to be prosecuted.  You could be correct.     I have acknowledged listening to the original complaint, being somewhat willing to keep an open mind as Pelosi et al pursued the Russia angle, and ultimately decided that the entire fiasco was political in nature.  It is inconceivable to me—in spite of the things that bother you—that 4 years and $40m could end with such a thud when Mueller made whatever case he was trying to make.  I could be wrong, but I’d place the odds at 1 in 10,000. 
 

So there you.  
 

I asked two questions earlier today, and would be interested in your thoughts as a Trump hater and Russia purist.  Here is a summary: 
 

Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection (Clinton and Steele), to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on?  They were briefed in 2016. 
 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/10/07/john-brennan-confirms-he-briefed-obama-on-russia-election-scheme-n2577629

With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?  
 

 

 

 

 

If Obama broke the law - indict him.

 

I do not care what left wing media reports or does not report.  

 

Just like you don’t care what right wing media reports or does not report.

 

[BillStime]

32 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

I think it would be incumbent upon a President not to be neck deep in such an affair from the beginning, but that ship had sailed for Obama. As Obama was going out the door he was too busy having Susan Rice drafting memos stating that everything related to Russia gate was done "by the book."

 

https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/susan-rices-now-infamous-memo-was-blatant-bid-to-cover-obamas-butt/

 

Hillary wasn't supposed to lose, that's really what everything here is about. Post election 2016 had the outgoing Obama administration scrambling in a massive clean up operation. There was no way he was ever going to come clean about the Clinton connection because that would eventually lead to the Obama connection.

 

 

 

I don't think they knew, or more importantly I don't think they wanted to know if there was a Clinton connection as the story was breaking. Heck, they still can't be bothered to report on the DNC/Clinton connection to this day. I think those media outlets have sources in the IC that leak to "journalists" who without even a thought towards independently verifying anything, dutifully parrot what their sources tell them to. And then it takes months to years for real journalists doing real journalism to uncover what actually went on.

 

 

 

 

So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.