gneiss rocks
Well-known member
So Mueller lied and the big bad Russians were our guys but you don't care because of the source?
Spygate: the FBI/DoJ/DNC collusion and abuse of power
- Thread starter Qcity
- Start date
So Mueller lied and the big bad Russians were our guys but you don't care because of the source?
gneiss rocks
Well-known member
You do realize that even if Trump would have fired Mueller and invoked executive privilege, it would not be obstruction as he is well within his rights to do so...but somehow talking about it is? You are lost in the woods again...
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
The President is above the law. Dems can pass emergency carbon taxes and ignore Congressional inquiries on anything....enjoy the ride.
That's what Obama taught us.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
So with Trump you are now on board?
SWMCinci
Well-known member
The Democrats are incredible selective. They do not want to prosecute people that have defrauded citizens out of trillions of dollars of tax money. They don't want to prosecute people that ignore the laws that are inconvenient to them. They don't want to address the fraud and waste perpetrated by the elected officials of this country that also ignore the laws that are inconvenient. Why would the President NOT be above the law?
Obama set the precedent.
Stop trying to make it sound like Trump is doing something new.
gneiss rocks
Well-known member
This gets pretty good.
The Dems must think people are so dumb. Bringing this guy out of the woodwork??? How do they think this guy has any relevance in any way is beyond demeaning to our intelligence... it is like a circus sideshow. LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7xgBrAkHTM
The Dems must think people are so dumb. Bringing this guy out of the woodwork??? How do they think this guy has any relevance in any way is beyond demeaning to our intelligence... it is like a circus sideshow. LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7xgBrAkHTM
Wow, that is what you call a verbal evisceration.
Dean has no business testifying on this matter. Hell the republicans should match the democrats for irrelevance and bring in Ted Nugent as an expert! He would at least be a lot more entertaining then John Dean.
Purplemojo
Well-known member
As long as he brings his bow and a match.
And his guitar! He could sing "I got you in a strangle hold baby" to the democrats as part of his comments on the upcoming Barr investigation of the coup plotters.
The trap is closing and it's a lot bigger then we thought. Here's a copy of a DOJ letter sent to Nadler:
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/...eview.of.intelligence.activities.-.nadler.pdf
The key part is right at the top where the letter describes the extent of Durham's investigation:
The review is broad in scope and multifaceted, and is intended to illuminate open questions regarding the activities of US and Foreign Intelligence services as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals.
I'll translate: look out FBI, NSA, CIA & DOJ as well as the British, Australian & Italian Intelligence agencies. Also better keep your heads down Glen Simpson, Fusion GPS and a bunch of ex Obama Administration folks - They're coming for you.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/...eview.of.intelligence.activities.-.nadler.pdf
The key part is right at the top where the letter describes the extent of Durham's investigation:
The review is broad in scope and multifaceted, and is intended to illuminate open questions regarding the activities of US and Foreign Intelligence services as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals.
I'll translate: look out FBI, NSA, CIA & DOJ as well as the British, Australian & Italian Intelligence agencies. Also better keep your heads down Glen Simpson, Fusion GPS and a bunch of ex Obama Administration folks - They're coming for you.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
"non-governmental organizations and individuals"
.......to also include the democrat national committee and clinton et.al.
gneiss rocks
Well-known member
This might even be better.
Listen carfully to the last 2 min Harry/ Happy ...this is the Truth and it is coming out.
Why did the dems get this guy out there just to be dunked on over and over...they are in panic mode and getting desperate and grasping at straws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmrSmMiPBls
Listen carfully to the last 2 min Harry/ Happy ...this is the Truth and it is coming out.
Why did the dems get this guy out there just to be dunked on over and over...they are in panic mode and getting desperate and grasping at straws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmrSmMiPBls
The last two minutes provide a succinct summary of where we are, and I look forward to the beginning of charges being filed.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
So we have moved from No Collusion to Collusion is not bad...everyone is doing it as Trump disagrees with his FBI appointee on whether the FBI should be engaged if a foreign government wants to help his campaign. Open invite folks if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Jim Jordan.....LOL!
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
I realize that you are all having fun with your conspiracy theory...but this is all deflection. The FBI noted in its FISA application that Steele (who is referred to as "Source #1" in the application) was a prior FBI source, the FBI assessed him as reliable, and disclosed to the FISA court that he had been compensated for his work and had conducted research re Trump's ties to Russia in connection with the 2016 campaign. The FBI deemed him to be credible.
Moreover, the FBI notes in conclusion, starting on page 56, that the basis for this certification includes ... and then we have SIX full pages of redactions. None of Steele's info was redacted, so it stands to reason that there was other information that, in addition to Steele's information, formed the basis of the application. This is a warrant to investigate - there is no requirement that actions are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or even some lower evidentiary standard. The probable cause standard is one in which it must only be shown that there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime. That is not even a "more likely than not" standard.
You look like fools dying on this hill. The feds were more than justified in their surveillance efforts.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf
Moreover, the FBI notes in conclusion, starting on page 56, that the basis for this certification includes ... and then we have SIX full pages of redactions. None of Steele's info was redacted, so it stands to reason that there was other information that, in addition to Steele's information, formed the basis of the application. This is a warrant to investigate - there is no requirement that actions are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or even some lower evidentiary standard. The probable cause standard is one in which it must only be shown that there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime. That is not even a "more likely than not" standard.
You look like fools dying on this hill. The feds were more than justified in their surveillance efforts.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Here is a good thread describing the depths that Trump will go...
As the president plunges into a sea of what-aboutism, pulling Fox News talking heads after him, let's recall what it is actually about a crime was committed, a very serious crime: a computer hack. It's no less a burglary for stealing digital rather than physical property. Same crime as Watergate. (2)
All the way back in the summer of 2016, everybody knew who committed this crime: Russian military intelligence. Claims that maybe it was an "inside job" etc. were floated in bad faith by untruthful people - but everybody knew, the Trump campaign very much included. (3)
When Donald Trump Jr. accepted his famous Trump Tower meeting, he was hoping to receive the proceeds of a crime. He was disappointed in that hope, but that's what he hoped. (4)
And when the proceeds of the crime did begin to be posted on the WikiLeaks site later in the summer of 2016 and -devastatingly - less than 1 hour after the reporting of the "Access Hollywood" tape in October 2016, everybody understand that this was Putin acting to help Trump (5)
None of this bears any resemblance to "oppo research" - information obtained lawfully by asking questions, reading archives, etc. It was crime, no less criminal for being outsourced to foreigners beyond the reach of US prosectors (6)
The Mueller report found insufficient evidence to convict anyone on the Trump campaign of culpability in the crime. But it stressed: the crime was committed by Russian military intelligence to help Trump, and the Trump campaign knowingly welcomed that help (7)
If the Trump campaign had flown a private investigator to Moscow to interview people about the (bogus) Uranium One Clinton story ... nobody would object. That is oppo research. If they trawled old Arkansas police records in search of something discrediting ... again, research (8)
What fellow Republicans first and then Democrats later hired Christopher Steele to do - interview people, collect rumors, sift through them - falls into this former category. The quality of Steele's work you can dispute. He committed no crimes in course of doing it. (9)
Trump Jr's visitors in June 2016 purported to deliver - and Trump's actual helpers later in the year did actually deliver - the proceeds of crimes. In full light of day, and with Trump on video urging them onward. (10)
The Trump campaign was absolved of criminal culpability by Mueller in large part on issue o intent. Did they truly understand they were being invited to participate in a crime? Did they truly wish to participate? And could that be proven beyond reasonable doubt? (11)
That's why President Trump's words to ABC were so important. He was asked, now that you have full knowledge of all that was at issue - including the crime committed by the Putin regime by hacking Americans - would you receive that information again? Trump answered YES. (12)
Trump confessed the thing Mueller could not prove. (END)
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As the president plunges into a sea of what-aboutism, pulling Fox News talking heads after him, let's recall what it is actually about ... (1)</p>— David Frum (@davidfrum) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1139169758236950528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As the president plunges into a sea of what-aboutism, pulling Fox News talking heads after him, let's recall what it is actually about a crime was committed, a very serious crime: a computer hack. It's no less a burglary for stealing digital rather than physical property. Same crime as Watergate. (2)
All the way back in the summer of 2016, everybody knew who committed this crime: Russian military intelligence. Claims that maybe it was an "inside job" etc. were floated in bad faith by untruthful people - but everybody knew, the Trump campaign very much included. (3)
When Donald Trump Jr. accepted his famous Trump Tower meeting, he was hoping to receive the proceeds of a crime. He was disappointed in that hope, but that's what he hoped. (4)
And when the proceeds of the crime did begin to be posted on the WikiLeaks site later in the summer of 2016 and -devastatingly - less than 1 hour after the reporting of the "Access Hollywood" tape in October 2016, everybody understand that this was Putin acting to help Trump (5)
None of this bears any resemblance to "oppo research" - information obtained lawfully by asking questions, reading archives, etc. It was crime, no less criminal for being outsourced to foreigners beyond the reach of US prosectors (6)
The Mueller report found insufficient evidence to convict anyone on the Trump campaign of culpability in the crime. But it stressed: the crime was committed by Russian military intelligence to help Trump, and the Trump campaign knowingly welcomed that help (7)
If the Trump campaign had flown a private investigator to Moscow to interview people about the (bogus) Uranium One Clinton story ... nobody would object. That is oppo research. If they trawled old Arkansas police records in search of something discrediting ... again, research (8)
What fellow Republicans first and then Democrats later hired Christopher Steele to do - interview people, collect rumors, sift through them - falls into this former category. The quality of Steele's work you can dispute. He committed no crimes in course of doing it. (9)
Trump Jr's visitors in June 2016 purported to deliver - and Trump's actual helpers later in the year did actually deliver - the proceeds of crimes. In full light of day, and with Trump on video urging them onward. (10)
The Trump campaign was absolved of criminal culpability by Mueller in large part on issue o intent. Did they truly understand they were being invited to participate in a crime? Did they truly wish to participate? And could that be proven beyond reasonable doubt? (11)
That's why President Trump's words to ABC were so important. He was asked, now that you have full knowledge of all that was at issue - including the crime committed by the Putin regime by hacking Americans - would you receive that information again? Trump answered YES. (12)
Trump confessed the thing Mueller could not prove. (END)
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As the president plunges into a sea of what-aboutism, pulling Fox News talking heads after him, let's recall what it is actually about ... (1)</p>— David Frum (@davidfrum) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1139169758236950528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Looks like you are starting to get pretty nervous about the bombs that are about to be dropped........ rightly so. The investigations underway into the genesis of the Russia hoax are ALL-ENCOMPASSING.
About to get dicey for the left.
Stick with that version Happy. It will really look good on you when it blows up in your face.
MentorGrad2002
Well-known member
The comments Trump made in that interview were beyond stupid. That's a self inflicted wound right there. Big mistake.
There's a reason why even his allies like Graham are putting him down for it. Gotta be objective here even though I like most of what he has done and would never vote democrat. He fell for the liberal hack trap question
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
There's a reason why even his allies like Graham are putting him down for it. Gotta be objective here even though I like most of what he has done and would never vote democrat. He fell for the liberal hack trap question
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
Are you going to hang FISA judges and Rosenstein for issuing a warrant to investigate? Come on you are falling for the PR strategy...there is no real investigation of wrong doing. Maybe they tighten the procedures for a FISA warrant going forward.
Last edited:
SWMCinci
Well-known member
So if I were to point out the Hannity has been correct on various stories, that means everything that comes out of his mouth has to be treated as reliable and true? That sure saves a lot of effort and provides a bunch of material that is of dubious credibility. Must be true because Happy says work from the past means everything has to be good.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
If you have mutliple sources you get a warrant to investigate. (even if one of those sources is Hannity)