AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 9, 2018 7:07:56 GMT -5
The term I use is "UniParty". Though I do see the roles as "Wanna be dictators" and "Useful idiots for wanna be dictators"-- I've never made the argument that this was exclusive to the Democratic Party.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 9, 2018 8:08:51 GMT -5
I get you probably love this conspiracy tale because it paints poor Trump as an innocent victim and you get to blame Obama and Hillary for things. But its still BS. Trump hires criminals and men of questionable character even when he is told not to. That can only be blamed on him.
The only thing readily apparent is you and others are willing to push BS no matter what because you are too afraid to acknowledge reality. Obama said nothing about Russia until after the election. The dossier had no noticeable impact on the election or even perceptions of Trump that I noticed. Even here on this board, the fixation was on the salacious, not on Russian collusion. And that's people who didn't like Trump.
We don't know everything. Not even Mueller. To me this is much ado about very little. Manafort was found out which is good. All I can guess is all this screaming and mis-direction from the WH and other pockets means Trump is involved in money laundering or other things he's been able to keep under wraps and he's now worried that will end soon. Will we catch him? IDK. Will it be a big deal or not? TBD.
i would say that Obama was probably the "cleanest" president we have had since Carter. there are a lot of bad things you can say about him, but none involve his business dealings or his family matters. using the toothpaste analogy, this was a defective tube that has no contents. you will NEVER get Obama for this. EVER.It isn't likely, but never say NEVER.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 9, 2018 8:46:08 GMT -5
On one hand, a corrupt, self-entitled cadre of globalist elites with designs on world domination and Orwellian dystopianism. On the other hand, an anarchistic, vengeful populist mob eager to tear down key institutions and any semblance of established order. Choices, choices...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,180
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Feb 9, 2018 8:49:53 GMT -5
It's disgraceful that anyone would defend a cadre of elites within government that believe they're entitled to act against our duly elected leaders "for our own good". We don't have government by permanent administrative bureaucracy- and you all know it. The pretzel shapes you all are twisting yourselves into to rationalize this would be amusing if it weren't so sad. The fact is you're just rationalizing because it was your side, and you feel your side is morally superior and justified in doing so. Were the shoe on the other foot and the exact same suggestions were being made (and carried out) by the deep state against Obama, you would see it differently. The world I think that describes such people best: unprinicpled. By the way: if I didn't find this on DJT's Twitter account- can you tell me where it might have been reported? You've been totally OK with officials stonewalling Obama, so I'm not sure what moral high ground you think you have. This is a big nothing as the senator just wanted to talk to Steele and the tweet trail has been known for awhile.
www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-hypes-questionable-texts-from-mark-warner-that-republicans-read-months-ago
The Fox News report alleges Mark Warner texted lobbyist Adam Waldman, a D.C. lobbyist, in an effort to get in touch with Russia dossier author Christopher Steele.
In its report, Fox News said the messages “were turned over to the Senate panel by Waldman last September.” They say they were “obtained from a Republican source” and “are all marked ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ and are not classified.”
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,457
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 9, 2018 8:50:55 GMT -5
You can always tell when your conspiracy theory has jumped the shark when it starts requiring the participation by an entire industry. First it was everyone in the FBI, then the DOJ, now we're supposed to agree that all the news media outlets meet together in some dark warehouse under cover of night to decide what stories they'll print and which ones they'll ignore, just so they can fuck with Trump.
I'd say at this point no less than 10% of the American population has to be involved in this secret back room collusion to impeach the president. Astonishing feat, since we can't hold a meeting at work in which we can get every attendee on the same page, and that's usually no more than 10 or 12 people.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,180
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Feb 9, 2018 8:53:44 GMT -5
On one hand, a corrupt, self-entitled cadre of globalist elites with designs on world domination and Orwellian dystopianism. On the other hand, an anarchistic, vengeful populist mob eager to tear down key institutions and any semblance of established order. Choices, choices... I don't think its anywhere near that dire. The US has its issues but its really screwing up if the goal had been world domination. On the other hand, the second thought is pretty spot on for some. Not all of the populists are that extreme, but some certainly are.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,457
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 9, 2018 8:54:31 GMT -5
On one hand, a corrupt, self-entitled cadre of globalist elites with designs on world domination and Orwellian dystopianism. On the other hand, an anarchistic, vengeful populist mob eager to tear down key institutions and any semblance of established order. Choices, choices... We live in interesting times, don't we?
Isn't that some famous curse? "May you live in interesting times?"
Bet you're jealous you're stuck up there with universal health care, your polite citizens and your kind, friendly PM who wears entertaining socks.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,180
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Feb 9, 2018 9:00:56 GMT -5
You can always tell when your conspiracy theory has jumped the shark when it starts requiring the participation by an entire industry. First it was everyone in the FBI, then the DOJ, now we're supposed to agree that all the news media outlets meet together in some dark warehouse under cover of night to decide what stories they'll print and which ones they'll ignore, just so they can fuck with Trump.
I'd say at this point no less than 10% of the American population has to be involved in this secret back room collusion to impeach the president. Astonishing feat, since we can't hold a meeting at work in which we can get every attendee on the same page, and that's usually no more than 10 or 12 people.
I think the big issue is in this time of the Internet, many of us do not see most of the stories out there. We just see the popular ones and confirmation bias means some folks actually think the top stories on web pages is all there is. Yesterday I found articles on ISIS because I looked for them. They haven't been on MSN and other places I looked at for news stories, but they existed. Not everything is going to get play as a top story. That's reality not a conspiracy.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,180
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Feb 9, 2018 9:03:05 GMT -5
i would say that Obama was probably the "cleanest" president we have had since Carter. there are a lot of bad things you can say about him, but none involve his business dealings or his family matters. using the toothpaste analogy, this was a defective tube that has no contents. you will NEVER get Obama for this. EVER.It isn't likely, but never say NEVER. OK. Its unlikely Virgil will ever be linked to conspiracy against the US, but I can't rule it out.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,457
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 9, 2018 11:15:05 GMT -5
I don't think it's a widespread, well thought out conspiracy. I think it's a lot of favors, CYA, and lack of knowledge among key insiders. Just because people were involved doesn't necessarily mean they know everything that was going on or would have participated in it if they did. Once you're in it's difficult to get out though. If you look back at the media involvement most knew about the dossier but refused to publish it until there was an FBI investigation into it. Steele and Fusion GPS had to work hard to get it in the press and eventually broke through by calling on an old friend, Isikoff. That suggests the media is still following some standards. Once that occurred a lot of outlets picked up the story by repeating it. You can see that happen over and over again where a story that is widespread goes back to a single media outlet using anonymous leaks. However, so many media outlets worked with Fusion GPS that they weren't inclined to look too critically after the story broke. What's interesting to me is how much of this was in the news over a long time ago but didn't gain any traction. For example last summer there were reports of the DNC contacting Ukrainian operatives to get information for the dossier. Recently wikileaks tweeted an email in May 2016 between Chalupa (used to work in the WH for the Clintons) and someone at the DNC about connecting Isikoff to the Ukrainians about big information that was going to break on Trump. This week we learned that the Clinton campaign didn't just pay for the dossier, they provided some of the information in it. That's huge. Winer admitted in the WAPO that he fed information from Sidney Bluementhal and Cody Shearer to Steele for the dossier when he worked in the State Department. That's also huge. I guess the thing that confuses me on the dossier was that, when it was handed over, it was presented as 'things sources have said' - not as 'proof.'
Steele and others had gathered up stuff from various sources, and GPS ranked them from 'pretty solid' to 'unlikely' based on how many sources reported on each one.
It was presented as raw data that needed to be analyzed, which is what the FBI does - which is what Mueller is doing.
So - if it was only a list of information reported back from sources, all of it needing validating, does it really matter that people on the Clinton campaign might have provided some of the information? Or really, what any of the sources are, if they're wrong? The whole purpose of the Mueller probe is to investigate not only things stated in the dossier, but many other indications (such as the Facebook and Twitter fake accounts) that indicated that Russia might be meddling in our election. He's supposed to be tracing each rumor back, validating it's reliability, and coming to conclusions about what is 100% fact and what's likely horseshit.
Since the dems were involved in their own investigation of Trump (just as the GOP was similarly looking for dirt on Clinton - this is just what opponents do, during an election) no doubt they picked up on some dirt and maybe that got added into the GPS dossier. It should be investigated just like all the other dossier information, and rejected or accepted on it's own merits. I don't understand why this is a 'huge' deal.
It also goes back to my original question about the Mueller investigation - if Trump and his associates didn't do anything wrong, why are they so worked up about the investigation? It should absolve them of everything.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,377
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 9, 2018 11:34:14 GMT -5
Is anyone keeping track how many times the title of this thread has changed?
If I remember correctly, the title of the 'Mittmentum' thread was changed 20 plus times during its run.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,842
|
Post by kadee79 on Feb 9, 2018 11:54:04 GMT -5
Is anyone keeping track how many times the title of this thread has changed? If I remember correctly, the title of the 'Mittmentum' thread was changed 20 plus times during its run. Nope...too hard to keep up with, besides which I don't read anything the OP posts anyway...only reponses!
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,265
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 9, 2018 11:56:23 GMT -5
I don't think it's a widespread, well thought out conspiracy. I think it's a lot of favors, CYA, and lack of knowledge among key insiders. Just because people were involved doesn't necessarily mean they know everything that was going on or would have participated in it if they did. Once you're in it's difficult to get out though. If you look back at the media involvement most knew about the dossier but refused to publish it until there was an FBI investigation into it. Steele and Fusion GPS had to work hard to get it in the press and eventually broke through by calling on an old friend, Isikoff. That suggests the media is still following some standards. Once that occurred a lot of outlets picked up the story by repeating it. You can see that happen over and over again where a story that is widespread goes back to a single media outlet using anonymous leaks. However, so many media outlets worked with Fusion GPS that they weren't inclined to look too critically after the story broke. What's interesting to me is how much of this was in the news over a long time ago but didn't gain any traction. For example last summer there were reports of the DNC contacting Ukrainian operatives to get information for the dossier. Recently wikileaks tweeted an email in May 2016 between Chalupa (used to work in the WH for the Clintons) and someone at the DNC about connecting Isikoff to the Ukrainians about big information that was going to break on Trump. This week we learned that the Clinton campaign didn't just pay for the dossier, they provided some of the information in it. That's huge. Winer admitted in the WAPO that he fed information from Sidney Bluementhal and Cody Shearer to Steele for the dossier when he worked in the State Department. That's also huge. I guess the thing that confuses me on the dossier was that, when it was handed over, it was presented as 'things sources have said' - not as 'proof.'
Steele and others had gathered up stuff from various sources, and GPS ranked them from 'pretty solid' to 'unlikely' based on how many sources reported on each one.
It was presented as raw data that needed to be analyzed, which is what the FBI does - which is what Mueller is doing.
So - if it was only a list of information reported back from sources, all of it needing validating, does it really matter that people on the Clinton campaign might have provided some of the information? Or really, what any of the sources are, if they're wrong? The whole purpose of the Mueller probe is to investigate not only things stated in the dossier, but many other indications (such as the Facebook and Twitter fake accounts) that indicated that Russia might be meddling in our election. He's supposed to be tracing each rumor back, validating it's reliability, and coming to conclusions about what is 100% fact and what's likely horseshit.
Since the dems were involved in their own investigation of Trump (just as the GOP was similarly looking for dirt on Clinton - this is just what opponents do, during an election) no doubt they picked up on some dirt and maybe that got added into the GPS dossier. It should be investigated just like all the other dossier information, and rejected or accepted on it's own merits. I don't understand why this is a 'huge' deal.
It also goes back to my original question about the Mueller investigation - if Trump and his associates didn't do anything wrong, why are they so worked up about the investigation? It should absolve them of everything.
I think you highlight an important point. But it goes deeper than that. There has been a systematic effort from the WH to invalidate claims because of where they originated, and not on whether or not the claims are valid. Further - the supposed origin of claims has been shifted to facilitate invalidating them. However, this seems a one-way street. When spurious claims are made against Hillary or Obama, they have to be researched endlessly and factually disproven. Even then, they resurface time and time again in the hope that repetition will win over opinions, despite factual inaccuracy.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,180
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Feb 9, 2018 12:01:14 GMT -5
I feel like maybe this is the whole crux of the problem. I think it's an issue for a political candidate to use unverified gossip they created/dug up (possibly illegally) to and their political connections to launch an investigation into another campaign. Lives have been severely impacted by this. I think it's a huge abuse of government power. OTOH, a lot of people seem to think this is a perfectly acceptable way to operate. I'd be worked up about an investigation into me that wasn't based on a crime but on someone hating me. That's a witch hunt - an investigation in search of a crime. It's especially galling when it's launched by someone who has committed so many crimes herself and had them ignored or downplayed. But if this is the way that campaigns typically operate why has the Clinton campaign disowned it until forced to? Why has the FBI/DOJ dragged their feet at every step of the way when it comes to disclosing their actions? Two more high level officials who had FISA/Clinton email investigation roles resigned this week. The FBI should properly vet whatever information they get regardless of the intention of the supplier. There isn't an investigation targeted for Trump. There is an investigation into Russian collusion. They are different. If it was purely a Trump investigation why in the heck wasn't he the first person Mueller investigated and the last one?
Truth is no matter what Hillary's intentions are, it is clear Trump is doing his best to investigate Hillary again as President. I don't know why that isn't considered worse. Hillary can't formally investigate Trump, only the FBI and the DOJ can which tend toward Republican. This is not a witch hunt like Benghazi. Its very different. Trump isn't on the stand, Trump hasn't even been interviewed.
I don't think this campaign nor Presidency is anything usual. Trump and the GOP spread untrue trash about Hillary all during the campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if she had wanted him investigated, but the simple truth is she can't do it on the federal level. Only the FBI and DOJ can. Trump has committed many crimes. Probably quite a few we do not know about and probably some we never will. I can't see Trump as the victim here. He beat the Hillary horse to get elected and he continues to beat it to make people feel sorry for him.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2018 12:06:24 GMT -5
i repeat: it doesn't matter if the evidence is paid for, or who pays for it.
let's say that i am filthy in some business deal. let's say that one of my competitors, who is clean as a whistle and hates me because i am filthy, hires a private investigator to follow me around and dig up dirt. let's say that the PI catches me red handed doing something criminal.
the logic here is that because that person hates me, and because the PI was paid to dig up dirt, that there is something wrong with that evidence, or that the evidence is questionable. and obviously that is complete rubbish.
what IS true is that the evidence EARNS SCRUTINY. if that is the case that Trump supporters want to make here: that there is sufficient cause to scrutinize the evidence- THEN BY ALL MEANS, SCRUTINIZE IT. in fact, you hereby have my permission to vet, peruse, and dissect that evidence to an atomized degree. but it is still evidence.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2018 12:11:01 GMT -5
NOTE: if some of you are getting hung up on the analogy because of who is dirty and who is clean as a whistle, you can switch those two. if the dirt is dug up by someone dirty on someone who is clean as a whistle, that will INDEED merit EVEN MORE scrutiny. but AGAIN, it is STILL evidence. this is why i keep asking about the Steele dosssier: has any of it been shown to be false, yet? the quality of the evidence DOES matter. is it 10% accurate? is it 90% accurate? let's find out.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,265
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 9, 2018 12:11:34 GMT -5
Glenn Simpson said in his testimony that his client's goal was to get an investigation launched into the Trump campaign. They provided whatever BS it took until that happened. This wasn't altruism or patriotism. let's parse this out. Is this a statement of fact? According to Fusion GPS, a routine inquiry led to such information as made Steele feel this was a "crime in progress" that needed reporting. can you provide support that simpson stated that information was indeed fabricated? Or are you embellishing based on your perceived notions that lay behind the first statement? this is your opinion, seemingly based on the preceding supposition. In short, you are dismissing information due to your perceptions on where it came from, rather than treating an allegation as being in need of investigation to either support or discredit the claim.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2018 12:17:20 GMT -5
Is this a statement of fact? According to Fusion GPS, a routine inquiry led to such information as made Steele feel this was a "crime in progress" that needed reporting. even if it IS true, Simpson had an economic incentive to make that happen. and Clinton had a political incentive. why should they NOT want that? he was getting paid to dig up dirt, she could use that dirt, so.....the dirtier the better. i really don't understand the issue with this. if Trump is clean, no issue.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,265
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 9, 2018 12:22:52 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2018 12:27:48 GMT -5
Steele and Fusion GPS had to hide the origins of the dossier in order to get the investigation. did they? i don't see any evidence of that. nor do i see any that they FELT they had to.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,265
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Feb 9, 2018 12:39:28 GMT -5
Steele and Fusion GPS had to hide the origins of the dossier in order to get the investigation. They, the Clinton campaign, and the FBI apparently all viewed the origins as a problem. They used it to get a FISA warrant, and then the existence of the FISA warrant was used to give the dossier further weight in the public mind. Nothing in it has been proven, or likely will be. Not when multiple top level law enforcement officials have said they are not able to confirm anything other than what was publicly known when it was written. OTOH parts of it have been disproven. I can't follow your thoughts here - Why on earth would the Clinton campaign care about the origins? they would be trying to use information for the election, debates, ads, etc. They might have concerns on a misstep if using false information, but I can't see how the origin would make any other difference to them. Further - your sentence makes is sound like the campaign was directly involved in getting the FISA warrant? Is that really what you are alleging? In terms of the FBI, the would need to determine the merit of the information - as do with countless tips and allegations that they receive. Either there was information that had merit worth acting upon, or there wasn't. Finally, was not a judge was presented with grounds for issuing the warrant - and determined that the grounds were sufficient.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2018 12:57:46 GMT -5
not too interested in NR as a source. got anything else?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 9, 2018 13:47:04 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 9, 2018 13:57:54 GMT -5
i would say that Obama was probably the "cleanest" president we have had since Carter. there are a lot of bad things you can say about him, but none involve his business dealings or his family matters. using the toothpaste analogy, this was a defective tube that has no contents. you will NEVER get Obama for this. EVER.It isn't likely, but never say NEVER. Donald Trump isn't going to run for President Donald Trump isn't going to release his financial statements Donald Trump is never going to be the GOP nominee Donald Trump is never going to win the general election Donald Trump is crazy, he's a nut, he's a narcissist, he's paranoid- there's no evidence Obama was spying on Trump or that Trump tower was being surveilled. Donald Trump is crazy, there's no evidence that Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party had anything to do with this dossier. Shall I continue? Heavy hitters are going down. Not long ago, I would have said there's no way Hillary sees the inside of a prison cell. Today? I'm hard pressed to come up with a scenario where Hillary Clinton doesn't face multiple criminal counts, several of them extremely serious. Obama? Probably not. I think it's safe to say that in addition to being a Democrat, 'black privilege' will play the biggest role in that. I don't see the country having the stomach to indict, let alone actually convict the first black President. That being said, when the dust settles from all of this there will not be a swamp creature left with the stones to even breathe such a scheme outloud, and Obama's legacy will be permanently tainted. Hillary is crookeder than a dog's hind leg- that we know, but so is Obama-- and in the end, ALL of this was designed to protect Obama.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,180
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Feb 9, 2018 14:04:06 GMT -5
"Donald Trump is crazy, he's a nut, he's a narcissist, he's paranoid- there's no evidence Obama was spying on Trump or that Trump tower was being surveilled. "
This is still true. Trump is not on the wiretap list. Prove otherwise if you can.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 19, 2024 10:40:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 14:08:31 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 9, 2018 14:11:17 GMT -5
I'm really loathe to slow down and go back and dumb it down, but it occurs to me that those on the left are literally incapable of seeing what's right in front of them. That is the purpose of this thread- and while I can't stop and go back and explain every little thing- you missed a YUGE-- yea, "THE" point of this one. Every once in awhile, you all should quit Googling a response and actually read what I post. You missed the salient point: Now, compare to Peter Strzok's famous text to his lover-girl Lisa Page: Now, consider who the author of the article is- and consider the context.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 9, 2018 14:13:55 GMT -5
What the actual fuck are you talking about? We absolutely know- as in there is absolute proof which no one disputes. Read the spin. There's no denial- only rationalizations.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 19, 2024 10:40:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 14:15:16 GMT -5
Sorry, not playing.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,180
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Feb 9, 2018 14:20:21 GMT -5
What the actual fuck are you talking about? We absolutely know- as in there is absolute proof which no one disputes. Read the spin. There's no denial- only rationalizations. If there was absolute proof why have you never ever posted it? Its a RW talking point assumption based on wiretaps of Manafort and Page who are not Trump. Are not even Trump Jr. or Eric.
Try again.
|
|