SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Nunes, a member of Trumps transition team. Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Seen sneaking out of the White House. It's so obvious that he's in Trump's pocket I'm surprised even you don't see it. More alligators in the swamp. 

[mmhmm]

Feb 20, 2018 15:33:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

A GREAT fuckin' question:
lawandcrime.com/opinion/does-mueller-indictment-mean-clinton-campaign-can-be-indicted-for-chris-steele/

Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted For Christopher Steele?

Who cares? That's past. This is present. It's 2018. The campaigns are old news; however, crimes that may involve those currently in office are, indeed, current. Clinton holds no office.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 20, 2018 15:52:26 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Nunes, a member of Trumps transition team. Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Seen sneaking out of the White House. It's so obvious that he's in Trump's pocket I'm surprised even you don't see it. More alligators in the swamp. 

#FakeNews

Honestly- you are embarrassing yourselves here. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 20, 2018 15:56:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:33:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

A GREAT fuckin' question:
lawandcrime.com/opinion/does-mueller-indictment-mean-clinton-campaign-can-be-indicted-for-chris-steele/

Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted For Christopher Steele?

Who cares? That's past. This is present. It's 2018. The campaigns are old news; however, crimes that may involve those currently in office are, indeed, current. Clinton holds no office.

You realize that literally, EVERYTHING is in the past? Including this post.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Feb 20, 2018 15:56:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:52:26 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Nunes, a member of Trumps transition team. Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Seen sneaking out of the White House. It's so obvious that he's in Trump's pocket I'm surprised even you don't see it. More alligators in the swamp. 

#FakeNews

Honestly- you are embarrassing yourselves here. 

Nice try. But a fail. Nunes is Trump's boy.

[happyhoix]

Feb 20, 2018 15:56:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:52:26 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Nunes, a member of Trumps transition team. Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Seen sneaking out of the White House. It's so obvious that he's in Trump's pocket I'm surprised even you don't see it. More alligators in the swamp. 

#FakeNews

Honestly- you are embarrassing yourselves here. 

If I quoted extensively from the Daily Caller and the Conservative Nuthouse I'd be a little cautious on calling out another poster for fake news.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

First of many "CYA" stories which are doubtless forthcoming: www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-weissmann-20180216-story.html

Um, yeah- rather understated: 

Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann has a reputation for hard-charging tactics — and sometimes going too far

It's largely a fawning article- which ignores some obvious problems in Weissmann's past:

• In 1997 Andrew Weissmann was officially reprimanded by a judge in the Eastern District of New York for withholding evidence.
  
• Weissmann was reported to the Department of Justice Inspector General and Senate Judiciary Committee for alleged “corrupt legal practices.”
  
• A formal letter from U.S. Attorney Eastern District of New York Zachary Carter requested the judge to remove Weissman’s name, according to documents.
  
• Civil rights and Criminal Defense Attorney David Schoen said Weissmann needs to be investigated for alleged past misconduct in court cases.
  
  More specifically, Weissmann withheld evidence to a court that would have helped the other side in a criminal case, which is required by law. In that previous case: 

Evidence suggested that Scarpa was involved in a personal relationship with his FBI handler, Lindley DeVecchio. DeVeccio, who was also a witness in a case connected to the Persico case. Weissmann had DeVecchio testify against Michael Sessa, a captain in the Colombo family, despite knowing DeVecchio was under investigation by the FBI for his relationship with Scarpa. Weissmann and his team failed disclose that to the courts and presented him as a solid witness in the case, according to Schoen and court documents.

Read more: www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/andrew_weissmann_robert_muellers_dirty_cop.html#ixzz57gVl5qWb

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 20, 2018 16:00:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:56:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

#FakeNews

Honestly- you are embarrassing yourselves here. 

If I quoted extensively from the Daily Caller and the Conservative Nuthouse I'd be a little cautious on calling out another poster for fake news.

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?


"But the source!" (Ad Hominem) is not an argument.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 20, 2018 15:59:38 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:56:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

#FakeNews

Honestly- you are embarrassing yourselves here. 

Nice try. But a fail. Nunes is Trump's boy.

Nope. You posted fake news.

[happyhoix]

Feb 20, 2018 16:10:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:00:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

If I quoted extensively from the Daily Caller and the Conservative Nuthouse I'd be a little cautious on calling out another poster for fake news.

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?


"But the source!" is not an argument.

 The information is not correct - and you would know that, if you read anything other than those kinds of far right/conspiracy type websites.

Try reading Time magazine, or Fox News - the news part, not the talking heads. It would really open your eyes.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?





"But the source!" is not an argument.

Oh? So fake news sources count? You say you want an informed discussion yet provide questionable biased sources. There are intelligent, free thinking people here who you put down as a group. You play the CoC well. Guess what, we get you. 

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Feb 20, 2018 16:12:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:59:38 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Nice try. But a fail. Nunes is Trump's boy.

Nope. You posted fake news.

No you post fake news. Ball is in your court.   Hope you know when to stop. 

[mmhmm]

Feb 20, 2018 15:57:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:56:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Who cares? That's past. This is present. It's 2018. The campaigns are old news; however, crimes that may involve those currently in office are, indeed, current. Clinton holds no office.

You realize that literally, EVERYTHING is in the past? Including this post.

Oh, puhleeze, Paul. I'm not one of those you can play word games with - really, I'm not. If you want to let the Clinton crap take up residence in your head until hell freezes, it's okay by me. That doesn't make it relevant today. It isn't. Shoot those old darts at those who are out there slavering to believe them, mmkay?

[mmhmm]

Feb 20, 2018 16:10:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:00:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

If I quoted extensively from the Daily Caller and the Conservative Nuthouse I'd be a little cautious on calling out another poster for fake news.

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?


"But the source!" (Ad Hominem) is not an argument.

I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line.

[billisonboard]

Feb 20, 2018 16:10:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:00:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

If I quoted extensively from the Daily Caller and the Conservative Nuthouse I'd be a little cautious on calling out another poster for fake news.

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?


"But the source!" (Ad Hominem) is not an argument.

Which is why I love to go to original material and compare it to what is posting in your sources.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sessions announces DOJ probe into FBI's "mishandling" (um, yeah...total involvement with) the Clinton created dossier.

pjmedia.com/trending/ag-sessions-fbis-use-anti-trump-dossier-obtain-fisa-warrant-will-investigated/

Plus:  How do you bribe a DOJ official? You pay Fusion GPS to hire his wife. How does said agent not get caught? He does get caught: 

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Official Bruce Ohr Hid Wife’s Fusion GPS Payments From Ethics Officials

dailycaller.com/2018/02/14/exclusive-doj-official-bruce-ohr-hid-wifes-fusion-gps-payments-from-ethics-officials/
Bruce Ohr, the Department of Justice official who brought opposition research on President Donald Trump to the FBI, did not disclose that Fusion GPS, which performed that research at the Democratic National Committee’s behest, was paying his wife, and did not obtain a conflict of interest waiver from his superiors at the Justice Department, documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation show.

The omission may explain why Ohr was demoted from his post as associate deputy attorney general after the relationship between Fusion GPS and his wife emerged and Fusion founder Glenn Simpson acknowledged meeting with Ohr. Willfully falsifying government ethics forms can carry a penalty of jail time, if convicted.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired Fusion GPS to gather and disseminate damning info about Trump, and they in turn paid Nellie Ohr, a former CIA employee with expertise in Russia, for an unknown role related to the “dossier.” Bruce Ohr then brought the information to the FBI, kicking off a probe and a media firestorm.

The DOJ used it to obtain a warrant to wiretap a Trump adviser, but didn’t disclose to the judge that the DNC and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign had funded the research and that Ohr had a financial relationship with the firm that performed it — which could be, it turns out, because Ohr doesn’t appear to have told his supervisors. Some have suggested that the financial payments motivated Bruce Ohr to actively push the case.
For 2014 and 2015, Bruce Ohr disclosed on ethics forms that his wife was an “independent contractor” earning consulting fees. In 2016, she added a new employer who paid her a “salary,” but listed it vaguely as “cyberthreat analyst,” and did not say the name of the company.

The instructions require officials to “Provide the name of your spouse’s employer. In addition, if your spouse’s employer is a privately held business, provide the employer’s line of business.” As examples, it gives “Xylophone Technologies Corporation” and “DSLK Financial Techniques, Inc. (financial services).” The dollar amount does not need to be disclosed. “Report each source, whether a natural person or an organization or entity, that provided your spouse more than $1,000 of earned income during the reporting period,” they say.

1 to 5 years in prison for each offense.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 20, 2018 16:41:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:10:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?


"But the source!" (Ad Hominem) is not an argument.

Which is why I love to go to original material and compare it to what is posting in your sources. 

You haven't so far.

[Deleted]

Feb 20, 2018 15:56:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Feb 20, 2018 15:33:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

A GREAT fuckin' question:
lawandcrime.com/opinion/does-mueller-indictment-mean-clinton-campaign-can-be-indicted-for-chris-steele/

Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted For Christopher Steele?

Who cares? That's past. This is present. It's 2018. The campaigns are old news; however, crimes that may involve those currently in office are, indeed, current. Clinton holds no office.

Wait so what do you mean by this?
Does it mean you don't want to know if our fed gov under one party spied on the opposition party without good cause?
Or does it mean it's ok with you if they spied on the opposition without good cause?
Or does it mean you have not seen enough evidence that they spied so forget about it.
Yah, it's over but If we are all lucky we might even get to vote again someday.
I'd like to see anything shady on either side brought into the light and corrected as needed .
You know what they say about sunlight.

[djAdvocate]

You realize that literally, EVERYTHING is in the past? Including this post.

not everything is in the past.  the Trump presidency would be an example.
it will linger on way after i post this, unfortunately.
our existence is another example.  it is squarely in the present.
and then there is the death that awaits us all.  that is not in the past, either.

so, yeah, bullshit as usual.

having dispensed with that, we are going to deal with the present whether
you like it or not.  you can go on prosecuting the past if you like.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2018 16:37:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:10:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?


"But the source!" (Ad Hominem) is not an argument.

I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line.

moreover, it is not ad hominem since a #fakenews organization is not a person.

but there is something more fundamental at play here.  this little game about "address the argument and not the news source" is not going to work for any of us any more.  we are not going to comb through your 99% bullshit sources to find the 1% truth in them.  just as YOU are not going to believe the NYT, we are not going to believe conservativeshithouse, yourdelusionalunkle, or brightfart.  nor are we going to trust "your sources".  and it is not because we don't want to address the truth, or because we are in denial.  it is because we have finite lives, and we won't waste them on sources that have no interest in telling the truth.  period.

you can rail against that position all day and night.  it won't change.  so you have the choice: you can keep posting sources that we will ignore, or you can use ones that we won't.  but don't blame us when we do what we all agree that we are going to do.  we have very good reasons for doing it.

[Deleted]

Did you see/read S Sanders latest. That roller coaster made me want to vomit.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I can not watch Sanders. I had trouble with Spicer but he finally couldn't lie anymore. 

[tallguy]

Feb 20, 2018 17:11:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:37:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line.

moreover, it is not ad hominem since a #fakenews organization is not a person.

but there is something more fundamental at play here.  this little game about "address the argument and not the news source" is not going to work for any of us any more.  we are not going to comb through your 99% bullshit sources to find the 1% truth in them.  just as YOU are not going to believe the NYT, we are not going to believe conservativeshithouse, yourdelusionalunkle, or brightfart.  nor are we going to trust "your sources".  and it is not because we don't want to address the truth, or because we are in denial.  it is because we have finite lives, and we won't waste them on sources that have no interest in telling the truth.  period.

you can rail against that position all day and night.  it won't change.  so you have the choice: you can keep posting sources that we will ignore, or you can use ones that we won't.  but don't blame us when we do what we all agree that we are going to do.  we have very good reasons for doing it.

The need to offer bull**** sources is directly related to the knowledge that truth does not work for your argument.  

Some people have standards.  Some don't.  

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Feb 20, 2018 17:11:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:37:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line.

moreover, it is not ad hominem since a #fakenews organization is not a person.

but there is something more fundamental at play here.  this little game about "address the argument and not the news source" is not going to work for any of us any more.  we are not going to comb through your 99% bullshit sources to find the 1% truth in them.  just as YOU are not going to believe the NYT, we are not going to believe conservativeshithouse, yourdelusionalunkle, or brightfart.  nor are we going to trust "your sources".  and it is not because we don't want to address the truth, or because we are in denial.  it is because we have finite lives, and we won't waste them on sources that have no interest in telling the truth.  period.

you can rail against that position all day and night.  it won't change.  so you have the choice: you can keep posting sources that we will ignore, or you can use ones that we won't.  but don't blame us when we do what we all agree that we are going to do.  we have very good reasons for doing it.

 But I don't think he'll stop. He has no trouble posting to himself. 

[Deleted]

While you all keep playing his game, he'll keep it up. Negative or positive attention. Both work for him. 

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Feb 20, 2018 17:57:57 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

While you all keep playing his game, he'll keep it up. Negative or positive attention. Both work for him. 

I know and usually do ignore him. There are days he'll have 5 long posts without comments. This must be his forum. 

[billisonboard]

Feb 20, 2018 16:59:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:41:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Which is why I love to go to original material and compare it to what is posting in your sources. 

You haven't so far.

Yes I have. Latest time was yesterday in this thread: Reply #1172 posted yesterday at 11:02am

[dezii]

Feb 20, 2018 16:37:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:10:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I have instructed readers on this before: The only question is whether it is correct information or not?


"But the source!" (Ad Hominem) is not an argument.

I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line.

"Some choose not to even view what you offer."........

[dezii]

Feb 20, 2018 17:11:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:37:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line.

moreover, it is not ad hominem since a #fakenews organization is not a person.

but there is something more fundamental at play here.  this little game about "address the argument and not the news source" is not going to work for any of us any more.  we are not going to comb through your 99% bullshit sources to find the 1% truth in them.  just as YOU are not going to believe the NYT, we are not going to believe conservativeshithouse, yourdelusionalunkle, or brightfart.  nor are we going to trust "your sources".  and it is not because we don't want to address the truth, or because we are in denial.  it is because we have finite lives, and we won't waste them on sources that have no interest in telling the truth.  period.

you can rail against that position all day and night.  it won't change.  so you have the choice: you can keep posting sources that we will ignore, or you can use ones that we won't.  but don't blame us when we do what we all agree that we are going to do.  we have very good reasons for doing it.

Amen brother, Amen....or better yet..."uh-main"...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 20, 2018 17:11:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 20, 2018 16:37:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line.

moreover, it is not ad hominem since a #fakenews organization is not a person.

but there is something more fundamental at play here.  this little game about "address the argument and not the news source" is not going to work for any of us any more.  we are not going to comb through your 99% bullshit sources to find the 1% truth in them.  just as YOU are not going to believe the NYT, we are not going to believe conservativeshithouse, yourdelusionalunkle, or brightfart.  nor are we going to trust "your sources".  and it is not because we don't want to address the truth, or because we are in denial.  it is because we have finite lives, and we won't waste them on sources that have no interest in telling the truth.  period.

you can rail against that position all day and night.  it won't change.  so you have the choice: you can keep posting sources that we will ignore, or you can use ones that we won't.  but don't blame us when we do what we all agree that we are going to do.  we have very good reasons for doing it.

I get it. You're willfully ignorant. That's why even as the Russia Collusion Delusion unwinds, the Mueller investigation implodes, and now 17 some odd high ranking federal government agents of the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies resign, are fired, or re-assigned-- you will be saying none of it happened because I posted it with a link to Breitbart. Well, if the mainstream press wasn't busy hyping fake Russian anti-Trump rallies instead of real news, I'd post a link to one of your preferred #FakeNews sites... www.hannity.com/media-room/media-collusion-cnn-and-msnbc-promoted-russia-backed-anti-trump-rally/

At one point, MSNBC host Alex Witt even asks who “organized this rally?”



“Right now, this is lots of different groups of people who have come together,” responds the reporter, “with no, necessarily, official leader, and that’s been some of the criticism.”



Watch the media “collude” with Russia below:

www.mrctv.org/videos/flashback-cnn-and-msnbcs-enthusiastic-coverage-russian-sponsored-anti-trump-rally

Michael Moore is a STOOGE for Russia, too: 



Let us not forget this from earlier in this thread- as a reminder:

American Pravda: 'Project Veritas' Catches CNN Producer Admitting Russia Story Is "Mostly Bullshit," "About Ratings"

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/27/american_pravda_project_veritas_catches_cnn_producer_admitting_russia_story_is_bullshit_about_ratings.html