SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[Opti]

May 22, 2018 10:29:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 22, 2018 9:56:22 GMT -5 Opti said:

Says the man creating his own circus narrative. Was it that hard to follow for you that Happyhoix and I are mocking Trump?

I know what you're doing. But countering Paul's barrage of articles and... shall we say... great exuberance, isn't well accomplished with vague indictments of Pres. Trump and right-wing punditry.

If I may be so bold: The readership here, down to a man, knows how little you think of Pres. Trump, Mr. Hannity, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Jones, FOX News, the CTH, et al. What you want to do is break away from the right's stereotype of the left as spurned babes howling, giggling, or lobbing ad hominems when confronted with facts you can't rebut, and instead present counterfactuals, rebuttal articles, and the like. Happy has the right idea with #1876. You, Demin, and I (with my satire in #1878) are presently just part of the circus.

I have no stake in what Paul is saying, and have no particular objection to any of it, hence I presently don't mind being part of the circus. I get the impression that you do consider Paul's conclusions, mirroring those of the pundits you're deriding, dangerously wrongheaded. Hence do something about it. This thread has far too much "Paul is crazy. The right is crazy. This is all a conspiracy theory." ipse dixit. Are you here to clown around or are you here to see that truth prevails?

The truth will prevail eventually. But this is much like Pizza-gate. It is actually hard to prove certain lies aren't true, because of how they are spun. So given my still limited internet, its really not worth the massive effort it would be to do so for me. Paul won't change his mind, because he has an emotional vested interest IMO in seeing pretty much anything that Trump says as true. No matter how silly or contradictory it is. Reason is not effective with most Trump supporters. Most of his base are with him for purely emotional reasons which is why it never mattered that he fleshed out his policies in advance.

And if the bolded is really true about what some of the right believes, they've emotionally sold themselves a story to make certain they will never need to embrace a truth they don't want to. Because what most of Trump supporters, Trump, and the vast network of RW Trump supporters and enablers are doing are putting out fake stories. Not facts. Fake narratives. *It is all conspiracy theory. There's nothing I can do about that. That's all its ever been.*

[Opti]

For you Virgil, here are some facts I have presented several times to virtually no effect.

Fact 1) While the one text hinted at needing an insurance policy, no text was ever found stating that an insurance policy existed. None. No text or email exists stating it was deployed either. And there was no text or email stating what the insurance policy was.

But that didn't stop the spin machine, because they don't give a crap about facts and reality so they keep putting out lie #2,

Lie #2) The insurance policy is using the FBI and the DOJ against President Trump

this goes with

Lie #1) Trump himself was spied on while campaigning. His phone was bugged in Trump Tower. Everything was about him, its not about Russia.

Fact #2) Trump still can't show any proof his phone was bugged or that he was the Target. And that's because it doesn't exist. The only provable targets are those associated with Russia, most of them with Russia trails way before Trump even knew them or hired them.

This leads me to my growing suspicion-

Trump purposely hired these people with known Russia ties to be used as deflection in his future. He knew he'd need smokescreens so he set them up early. Perhaps he even knew they were under investigation and found that to his liking. He knew their phones would be tapped, not his, but that would be enough to sell his victim story to the susceptible. This would also explain why he purposely hired Flynn in spite of all the warnings he got.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Apparently the White House Communications Dept. is going to get a clearing out of the lower level employees to stop the leaks. 

www.politico.com/story/2018/05/22/trump-communications-team-changes-603417

[happyhoix]

Journalist Leslie  Stahl was talking to Trump off the record in the lead up to the election, when Trump kept trash talking the 'lying media.' She asked him why he did that and he said that if he keeps demeaning and debasing journalism, when a journalist says something negative about Trump, no one will believe the news report.

That's his MO - slander someone to demean and discredit them so his base will not believe what they say. He's turned that tactic on the FBI now, by turning an investigation of the potential Russian collaborators trying to influence his campaign into an investigation against him, personally, and demanding an investigation of the government office that is investigating him, which is dangerously close to creating a Constitutional crisis.

The amazing thing to me is that polls show 61% of the America public know Trump is almost always being less than truthful, and yet so many Americans are buying his bullshit 'they were spying on me!' tale.

 

[thyme4change]

Sad part is, no matter what happens, many won't believe it. If they can't find an implanted spy, some will insist there was a cover up, while others will say the whole thing was fabricated whole cloth. If Trump is not found to be in collusion, some will be sure they just couldn't find the proof. If they put enough pieces together to get some form of collusion by someone close to Trump, some will claim that deep state went too far. It really is unfortunate that we will be divided on this forever. My grandchildren will be given a historical perspective that will likely become the generally accepted story. Will I be the old Grandma who tries to tell them the history they are being told is not correct?

[OldCoyote]

May 22, 2018 11:25:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 22, 2018 0:11:23 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Do you recall the response you sent me over my saying I wasn't voting for Trump, I was voting against Hillary!

Under no uncertain terms you expressed your hatred for Trump.

yeah, what does that blather have to do with my assertion?  nothing.

i recall everything with perfect clarity, oc.  i recall that i voted absentee because i was in Costa Rica at the time of the election.  i recall that i would rather have voted for YOU than the guy who won, which is really saying something.  and i also recall that i didn't vote for Clinton, for what it is worth.  i don't recall ever saying that you were voting against Hillary, but i am sure others did.  after all, you voted for asshole in the primary- and yeah- i found that utterly offensive.  still do. 

but it doesn't change the fact that i was still debating who to vote for one week before i handed in my ballot.  you asked the question as if it were rhetorical. 

it wasn't.

With all your clarity, you should easily recall that I was "Fucking Stupid to support Trump"!

I bid you a "Good Day" Signed off.

[Tennesseer]

May 23, 2018 8:40:48 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Journalist Leslie  Stahl was talking to Trump off the record in the lead up to the election, when Trump kept trash talking the 'lying media.' She asked him why he did that and he said that if he keeps demeaning and debasing journalism, when a journalist says something negative about Trump, no one will believe the news report.

That's his MO - slander someone to demean and discredit them so his base will not believe what they say. He's turned that tactic on the FBI now, by turning an investigation of the potential Russian collaborators trying to influence his campaign into an investigation against him, personally, and demanding an investigation of the government office that is investigating him, which is dangerously close to creating a Constitutional crisis.

The amazing thing to me is that polls show 61% of the America public know Trump is almost always being less than truthful, and yet so many Americans are buying his bullshit 'they were spying on me!' tale.

 

Trump admitted he attacks press to shield himself from negative coverage, 60 Minutes reporter says

[tallguy]

May 23, 2018 9:04:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

May 22, 2018 11:25:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, what does that blather have to do with my assertion?  nothing.

i recall everything with perfect clarity, oc.  i recall that i voted absentee because i was in Costa Rica at the time of the election.  i recall that i would rather have voted for YOU than the guy who won, which is really saying something.  and i also recall that i didn't vote for Clinton, for what it is worth.  i don't recall ever saying that you were voting against Hillary, but i am sure others did.  after all, you voted for asshole in the primary- and yeah- i found that utterly offensive.  still do. 

but it doesn't change the fact that i was still debating who to vote for one week before i handed in my ballot.  you asked the question as if it were rhetorical. 

it wasn't.

With all your clarity, you should easily recall that I was "Fucking Stupid to support Trump"!

I bid you a "Good Day" Signed off.

Thank you for admitting it.  Most of his supporters still won't.  Kudos.   

[OldCoyote]

May 23, 2018 9:47:09 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 23, 2018 9:04:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

With all your clarity, you should easily recall that I was "Fucking Stupid to support Trump"!

I bid you a "Good Day" Signed off.

Thank you for admitting it.  Most of his supporters still won't.  Kudos.   

In spite of your spin, that was DJ comment to me.

[Opti]

May 23, 2018 9:04:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

May 22, 2018 11:25:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, what does that blather have to do with my assertion?  nothing.

i recall everything with perfect clarity, oc.  i recall that i voted absentee because i was in Costa Rica at the time of the election.  i recall that i would rather have voted for YOU than the guy who won, which is really saying something.  and i also recall that i didn't vote for Clinton, for what it is worth.  i don't recall ever saying that you were voting against Hillary, but i am sure others did.  after all, you voted for asshole in the primary- and yeah- i found that utterly offensive.  still do. 

but it doesn't change the fact that i was still debating who to vote for one week before i handed in my ballot.  you asked the question as if it were rhetorical. 

it wasn't.

With all your clarity, you should easily recall that I was "Fucking Stupid to support Trump"!

I bid you a "Good Day" Signed off.

OK. You recalled that, but apparently you've forgotten what DJ was advocating for much of the election season - voting third party. He didn't vote Trump, I'm fairly certain he didn't vote for Hillary since she goes against his one issue ... so enlighten us, who do you think he voted for? When in your opinion did he decide?

While Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were the popular third party choices, there were lots of other third party candidates as well.

[OldCoyote]

May 23, 2018 9:59:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 23, 2018 9:04:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

With all your clarity, you should easily recall that I was "Fucking Stupid to support Trump"!

I bid you a "Good Day" Signed off.

OK. You recalled that, but apparently you've forgotten what DJ was advocating for much of the election season - voting third party. He didn't vote Trump, I'm fairly certain he didn't vote for Hillary since she goes against his one issue ... so enlighten us, who do you think he voted for? When in your opinion did he decide?

While Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were the popular third party choices, there were lots of other third party candidates as well.

I knew he was not voting for Trump,,  the argument all along in who was undecided between Hillary and Trump in the week before the election.

Or was he influenced by those Russian Facebook ads??

If you voted for a third party candidate for President, thinking it will some how change politics.

PM me, I will give you a P.O. box to send money for a orphanage, in North Phoenix,,,, Yes, It will go to the right person orphan!

In a way that thing get misconstrued around here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Since mom and dad are both passed ,,,,,,,, that makes me an orphan,,

Keep those contribution coming

[Opti]

May 23, 2018 10:22:22 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

May 23, 2018 9:59:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

OK. You recalled that, but apparently you've forgotten what DJ was advocating for much of the election season - voting third party. He didn't vote Trump, I'm fairly certain he didn't vote for Hillary since she goes against his one issue ... so enlighten us, who do you think he voted for? When in your opinion did he decide?

While Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were the popular third party choices, there were lots of other third party candidates as well.

I knew he was not voting for Trump,,  the argument all along in who was undecided between Hillary and Trump in the week before the election.

Or was he influenced by those Russian Facebook ads??

If you voted for a third party candidate for President, thinking it will some how change politics.

PM me, I will give you a P.O. box to send money for a orphanage, in North Phoenix,,,, Yes, It will go to the right person orphan!

In a way that thing get misconstrued around here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Since mom and dad are both passed ,,,,,,,, that makes me an orphan,,

Keep those contribution coming

That may be your argument, but that should not be 'the argument'. The support for third party candidates more than doubled compared to the 2012 election. Quite a few people voted third party to voice their displeasure at the two party candidate choices.

[Tennesseer]

May 23, 2018 10:22:22 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

May 23, 2018 9:59:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

OK. You recalled that, but apparently you've forgotten what DJ was advocating for much of the election season - voting third party. He didn't vote Trump, I'm fairly certain he didn't vote for Hillary since she goes against his one issue ... so enlighten us, who do you think he voted for? When in your opinion did he decide?

While Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were the popular third party choices, there were lots of other third party candidates as well.

I knew he was not voting for Trump,,  the argument all along in who was undecided between Hillary and Trump in the week before the election.

Or was he influenced by those Russian Facebook ads??

If you voted for a third party candidate for President, thinking it will some how change politics.

PM me, I will give you a P.O. box to send money for a orphanage, in North Phoenix,,,, Yes, It will go to the right person orphan!

In a way that thing get misconstrued around here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Since mom and dad are both passed ,,,,,,,, that makes me an orphan,,

Keep those contribution coming

[Actor Clifton] Webb never married and had no children. He lived with his mother until her death at age 91 in 1960, leading Noël Coward to remark, apropos Webb's grieving, "It must be terrible to be orphaned at 71."[7]

Actor Clifton Webb

[Virgil Showlion]

May 23, 2018 2:03:40 GMT -5 Opti said:

For you Virgil, here are some facts I have presented several times to virtually no effect.

Fact 1) While the one text hinted at needing an insurance policy, no text was ever found stating that an insurance policy existed. None. No text or email exists stating it was deployed either. And there was no text or email stating what the insurance policy was.

But that didn't stop the spin machine, because they don't give a crap about facts and reality so they keep putting out lie #2,

Lie #2) The insurance policy is using the FBI and the DOJ against President Trump

this goes with

Lie #1) Trump himself was spied on while campaigning. His phone was bugged in Trump Tower. Everything was about him, its not about Russia.

Fact #2) Trump still can't show any proof his phone was bugged or that he was the Target. And that's because it doesn't exist. The only provable targets are those associated with Russia, most of them with Russia trails way before Trump even knew them or hired them.

This leads me to my growing suspicion-

Trump purposely hired these people with known Russia ties to be used as deflection in his future. He knew he'd need smokescreens so he set them up early. Perhaps he even knew they were under investigation and found that to his liking. He knew their phones would be tapped, not his, but that would be enough to sell his victim story to the susceptible. This would also explain why he purposely hired Flynn in spite of all the warnings he got.

I agree your two facts are facts.

Your two "lies" are speculation. Absent speculation, the strongest assertion you can make is, "While the FBI/DoJ conspiracy theory is consistent with the evidence, so too are other theories that have the relevant individuals acting in good faith in the best interests of the security of the United States. In particular, all evidence that would speak to the ill intent of these individuals is circumstantial; it doesn't constitute proof."

Your final paragraph is likewise pure speculation.

I'm not ragging on you for rejecting Paul's speculation. My admonishment is twofold: i) don't play the hypocrite by mocking Paul for his inexplicable certainty when you're going to speculate on fact with equal certainty, which is 90% what you've been doing whether you realize it or not, and ii) deconstruct Paul's argument using legitimate and reasoned counterarguments. It doesn't matter whether he's persuaded by them, he isn't your audience and he's not the only one you're trying to persuade. The jokes, appeals to incredulity, attacks on sources, ad hominems, etc., while they may give you the warm fuzzies, hurt your side of the argument.

I've said it before: this thread is surreal. Paul's certainty in the ill intent of the actors at the FBI/DoJ, the death of the Mueller inquiry, an imminent victory for Pres. Trump: surreal. Your express certainty in the good intent of the actors, the great and terrible things that will be forthcoming from the inquiry, and the imminent fall of Pres. Trump: surreal. Your ability to look at exactly the same murky pool of facts and speculate your way to polar opposite conclusions: surreal.

It's a poker game. One of you is holding ace high, the other is holding a pair of threes, and you're both betting like you've got a royal flush.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 23, 2018 1:45:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

It is actually hard to prove certain lies aren't true, because of how they are spun.

It's hard to prove they aren't true because you can't prove they aren't true.

You've got an incomplete miasma of facts (and always will, as far I can tell), you're filling in the substantial voids with speculation and asserting your hypothesis with undue zeal and certainty.

I stand by my poker analogy.

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2018 8:40:48 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Journalist Leslie  Stahl was talking to Trump off the record in the lead up to the election, when Trump kept trash talking the 'lying media.' She asked him why he did that and he said that if he keeps demeaning and debasing journalism, when a journalist says something negative about Trump, no one will believe the news report.

That's his MO - slander someone to demean and discredit them so his base will not believe what they say. He's turned that tactic on the FBI now, by turning an investigation of the potential Russian collaborators trying to influence his campaign into an investigation against him, personally, and demanding an investigation of the government office that is investigating him, which is dangerously close to creating a Constitutional crisis.

The amazing thing to me is that polls show 61% of the America public know Trump is almost always being less than truthful, and yet so many Americans are buying his bullshit 'they were spying on me!' tale.

 

the only problem with this tactic is that his mob doesn't determine legal outcomes for him.

[happyhoix]

May 23, 2018 9:08:39 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 23, 2018 8:40:48 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Journalist Leslie  Stahl was talking to Trump off the record in the lead up to the election, when Trump kept trash talking the 'lying media.' She asked him why he did that and he said that if he keeps demeaning and debasing journalism, when a journalist says something negative about Trump, no one will believe the news report.

That's his MO - slander someone to demean and discredit them so his base will not believe what they say. He's turned that tactic on the FBI now, by turning an investigation of the potential Russian collaborators trying to influence his campaign into an investigation against him, personally, and demanding an investigation of the government office that is investigating him, which is dangerously close to creating a Constitutional crisis.

The amazing thing to me is that polls show 61% of the America public know Trump is almost always being less than truthful, and yet so many Americans are buying his bullshit 'they were spying on me!' tale.

 

Trump admitted he attacks press to shield himself from negative coverage, 60 Minutes reporter says

Thank you for finding that...

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2018 9:04:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

May 22, 2018 11:25:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, what does that blather have to do with my assertion?  nothing.

i recall everything with perfect clarity, oc.  i recall that i voted absentee because i was in Costa Rica at the time of the election.  i recall that i would rather have voted for YOU than the guy who won, which is really saying something.  and i also recall that i didn't vote for Clinton, for what it is worth.  i don't recall ever saying that you were voting against Hillary, but i am sure others did.  after all, you voted for asshole in the primary- and yeah- i found that utterly offensive.  still do. 

but it doesn't change the fact that i was still debating who to vote for one week before i handed in my ballot.  you asked the question as if it were rhetorical. 

it wasn't.

With all your clarity, you should easily recall that I was "Fucking Stupid to support Trump"!

I bid you a "Good Day" Signed off.

i don't recall saying that.  i don't generally comment on people's intelligence, because i think everyone who posts here is intelligent.  if i did say that, i apologize, because that is totally unlike me.

however, i do recall calling you a traitor, or something like that, for saying that you supported the criminal email hacking which started this whole charade.  this was about the time of the Arizona primary.  although i regret the rage with which i said it (i genuinely lost my temper), i don't regret the outrage.  it was utterly justified, as it turns out.

[Deleted]

He said it well this morning:


James Comey (@comey) · Twitter

twitter.com/Comey

Dangerous time when our country is led by those who will lie about anything, backed by those who will believe anything, based on information from media sources that will say anything. Americans must break out of that bubble and seek truth.

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2018 10:22:22 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

May 23, 2018 9:59:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

OK. You recalled that, but apparently you've forgotten what DJ was advocating for much of the election season - voting third party. He didn't vote Trump, I'm fairly certain he didn't vote for Hillary since she goes against his one issue ... so enlighten us, who do you think he voted for? When in your opinion did he decide?

While Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were the popular third party choices, there were lots of other third party candidates as well.

I knew he was not voting for Trump,,  the argument all along in who was undecided between Hillary and Trump in the week before the election.

that is not how you phrased it, oc.  you said "undecided".  i was undecided.

but if you meant "undecided between Hillary and Trump", i would not have responded to your post.

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2018 10:22:22 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

If you voted for a third party candidate for President, thinking it will some how change politics.

PM me, I will give you a P.O. box to send money for a orphanage, in North Phoenix,,,,

pardon me, but since when did voting for mainstream candidates "change politics"?

[happyhoix]

May 23, 2018 8:42:59 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sad part is, no matter what happens, many won't believe it. If they can't find an implanted spy, some will insist there was a cover up, while others will say the whole thing was fabricated whole cloth. If Trump is not found to be in collusion, some will be sure they just couldn't find the proof. If they put enough pieces together to get some form of collusion by someone close to Trump, some will claim that deep state went too far. It really is unfortunate that we will be divided on this forever. My grandchildren will be given a historical perspective that will likely become the generally accepted story. Will I be the old Grandma who tries to tell them the history they are being told is not correct?

Trump demands a surface show of loyalty from his minions and kids, but there have been reports that quite a few people at the WH are in panic mode at how Trump is pushing up against a Constitutional crisis by demanding an investigation of the committee that is investigating him.  I think the only way Trump's hard core supporters will ever believe he's crooked is if one of those supposedly loyal minions videotapes or audio tapes Trump saying some really incriminating shit, and then makes it pubic, motivated by the need to get such a corrupt person out of the WH.

Even then, there will be some core supporters who will go to their graves thinking Trump was a victim. Every strong man has his admirers.

 

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2018 11:29:52 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 23, 2018 8:42:59 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sad part is, no matter what happens, many won't believe it. If they can't find an implanted spy, some will insist there was a cover up, while others will say the whole thing was fabricated whole cloth. If Trump is not found to be in collusion, some will be sure they just couldn't find the proof. If they put enough pieces together to get some form of collusion by someone close to Trump, some will claim that deep state went too far. It really is unfortunate that we will be divided on this forever. My grandchildren will be given a historical perspective that will likely become the generally accepted story. Will I be the old Grandma who tries to tell them the history they are being told is not correct?

Trump demands a surface show of loyalty from his minions and kids, 

actually, this is how Trump works in general: transactionally.  and that is a real problem for a president, imo.

[happyhoix]

May 23, 2018 11:09:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 23, 2018 1:45:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

It is actually hard to prove certain lies aren't true, because of how they are spun.

It's hard to prove they aren't true because you can't prove they aren't true.

You've got an incomplete miasma of facts (and always will, as far I can tell), you're filling in the substantial voids with speculation and asserting your hypothesis with undue zeal and certainty.

I stand by my poker analogy.

This is a temporary miasma of facts.

Even in poker, at some point, the cards have to go on the table. Mueller will finish his investigation and lay out his findings, based on facts. The NY courts will finish sifting through Cohen's paperwork, and lay out their case in court, if they have one.

 

Sure there will be a hard core following of voters who won't believe anything negative anyone says about Trump. When Trump leaves office, he'll be able to make a good living selling steaks and TV programming to his hard core faithful. But I think when the cards are on the table, most voters will find the DOJ more believable than Trump.

[happyhoix]

BBC discovered Ukrainian president paid either 400K or 600k to Cohen because regular lobbyists could only get a 'photo op' with Trump - and he wanted an actual meeting.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ukraine-paid-trump-lawyer-for-talks/ar-AAxHnkC

"Poroshenko's inner circle were shocked by how dirty this whole arrangement [with Cohen] was."

That's our WH - so dirty we shock the Ukrainians.

When Cohen flips and starts talking about how much of the Ukrainian 'gift' ended up in Trump's wallet, it will be a sad day at the WH.

 

[Opti]

May 23, 2018 10:52:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 23, 2018 2:03:40 GMT -5 Opti said:

For you Virgil, here are some facts I have presented several times to virtually no effect.

Fact 1) While the one text hinted at needing an insurance policy, no text was ever found stating that an insurance policy existed. None. No text or email exists stating it was deployed either. And there was no text or email stating what the insurance policy was.

But that didn't stop the spin machine, because they don't give a crap about facts and reality so they keep putting out lie #2,

Lie #2) The insurance policy is using the FBI and the DOJ against President Trump

this goes with

Lie #1) Trump himself was spied on while campaigning. His phone was bugged in Trump Tower. Everything was about him, its not about Russia.

Fact #2) Trump still can't show any proof his phone was bugged or that he was the Target. And that's because it doesn't exist. The only provable targets are those associated with Russia, most of them with Russia trails way before Trump even knew them or hired them.

This leads me to my growing suspicion-

Trump purposely hired these people with known Russia ties to be used as deflection in his future. He knew he'd need smokescreens so he set them up early. Perhaps he even knew they were under investigation and found that to his liking. He knew their phones would be tapped, not his, but that would be enough to sell his victim story to the susceptible. This would also explain why he purposely hired Flynn in spite of all the warnings he got.

I agree your two facts are facts.

Your two "lies" are speculation. Absent speculation, the strongest assertion you can make is, "While the FBI/DoJ conspiracy theory is consistent with the evidence, so too are other theories that have the relevant individuals acting in good faith in the best interests of the security of the United States. In particular, all evidence that would speak to the ill intent of these individuals is circumstantial; it doesn't constitute proof."

Your final paragraph is likewise pure speculation.

I'm not ragging on you for rejecting Paul's speculation. My admonishment is twofold: i) don't play the hypocrite by mocking Paul for his inexplicable certainty when you're going to speculate on fact with equal certainty, which is 90% what you've been doing whether you realize it or not, and ii) deconstruct Paul's argument using legitimate and reasoned counterarguments. It doesn't matter whether he's persuaded by them, he isn't your audience and he's not the only one you're trying to persuade. The jokes, appeals to incredulity, attacks on sources, ad hominems, etc., while they may give you the warm fuzzies, hurt your side of the argument.

I've said it before: this thread is surreal. Paul's certainty in the ill intent of the actors at the FBI/DoJ, the death of the Mueller inquiry, an imminent victory for Pres. Trump: surreal. Your express certainty in the good intent of the actors, the great and terrible things that will be forthcoming from the inquiry, and the imminent fall of Pres. Trump: surreal. Your ability to look at exactly the same murky pool of facts and speculate your way to polar opposite conclusions: surreal.

It's a poker game. One of you is holding ace high, the other is holding a pair of threes, and you're both betting like you've got a royal flush.

The lies aren't speculation Virgil. Are you even reading the same thread I am? Lie #2 is repeated by more than just Paul and Trump.

Lie #1 is a yuge talking point of Trump and parts of the Trump supporting RW. You'd need to be intentionally ignorant to pretend it does not exist. And perhaps you are conflating my views with all those other non conservative folks. I do not know what will happen. I suspect. But there is a lot of obvious stupid and theories that are simply crazy. Like weaponizing the FBI by Obama, when he had the easier route of just making a big deal of Russian collusion before the election.

The truth is there are very few facts out there. And that's probably as it should be because the investigation is still in process. Most of what is out there is speculation. Even in mainstream media. But it is obvious you aren't really remembering what only I write, if you think at all I have certainty on what will come out of the investigation. I have no certainty of how it will affect Trump. The bolded is incorrect, but it is easy to confuse various posters and miss what isn't said. I don't feel everyone has good intent, but I do feel the bad intent on the part of Trump and the WH is far greater than anything out there except for perhaps the GOP establishment Trump enablers.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

My original post is established fact now.

All attempts to explain it away are evidence of cognitive dissonance.

Continued discussion of the Trump Russia collusion investigation as anything other that a Witch Hunt, and coverup as far as I am concerned can no longer be taken seriously.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Impromptu presser.

The term "spygate" has been coined.

As you know, once Trump names it, he then destroys it.

President Trump Makes a Statement Upon Departure

[billisonboard]

May 23, 2018 16:16:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...

... as far as I am concerned ...

Thanks for letting us know.

[billisonboard]

Hey, a new thread title! 

(just thought I would document the timing of this latest change)