Politicspolitics

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 01:33 PM

Stone arrest, Russian hackers and Wikileaks and collusion

From what I understand from his arrest and the many talking heads on MSM, Russian hackers accessed the DNC emails, gave them to Wikileaks, and Stone reached out to Assange.

I’m no lawyer but it would seem the government will now have to prove in court, and under cross examination that it was Russian hackers and not a DNC insider.

I can already imagine our gov will claim it can’t disclose how it knows it was Russian hackers or how they know they were affiliated with Putin and or the Kremlin, but they will have to refute the many groups that have already determined it could not have been Russian hackers- download size, time stamps, and such.

The truth is out there, and maybe it was Russian hackers, but Wikileaks does know how they got them and from whom.

Remember, this arrest is about lying to Congress and the FBI, what happens if it is discovered the FBI or people in Congress are lying?

96 replies, 2050 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply Stone arrest, Russian hackers and Wikileaks and collusion (Original post)
Badsamm Jan 2019 OP
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 #1
Badsamm Jan 2019 #2
jh4freedom Jan 2019 #12
Nostrings Jan 2019 #16
jh4freedom Jan 2019 #22
Nostrings Jan 2019 #23
jh4freedom Jan 2019 #31
Nostrings Jan 2019 #32
DDKick Jan 2019 #3
jh4freedom Jan 2019 #11
oflguy Feb 2019 #96
Trevor Jan 2019 #4
kevlar Jan 2019 #17
Nostrings Jan 2019 #18
Trevor Jan 2019 #20
Nostrings Jan 2019 #21
Trevor Jan 2019 #27
Nostrings Jan 2019 #30
Trevor Jan 2019 #33
Nostrings Jan 2019 #34
Trevor Feb 2019 #35
Nostrings Feb 2019 #36
Trevor Feb 2019 #37
Nostrings Feb 2019 #38
Trevor Feb 2019 #39
Nostrings Feb 2019 #40
Nostrings Feb 2019 #41
Trevor Feb 2019 #42
Nostrings Feb 2019 #43
Trevor Feb 2019 #44
Nostrings Feb 2019 #45
Trevor Feb 2019 #46
Nostrings Feb 2019 #47
Trevor Feb 2019 #48
Nostrings Feb 2019 #49
Trevor Feb 2019 #50
Nostrings Feb 2019 #51
Trevor Feb 2019 #53
Nostrings Feb 2019 #54
Trevor Feb 2019 #55
Nostrings Feb 2019 #56
Trevor Feb 2019 #57
Nostrings Feb 2019 #58
Trevor Feb 2019 #59
Nostrings Feb 2019 #60
Trevor Feb 2019 #62
Nostrings Feb 2019 #64
Trevor Feb 2019 #65
Nostrings Feb 2019 #66
Trevor Feb 2019 #67
Nostrings Feb 2019 #68
Trevor Feb 2019 #70
Nostrings Feb 2019 #71
Nostrings Feb 2019 #69
Trevor Feb 2019 #61
Nostrings Feb 2019 #63
Trevor Feb 2019 #72
Nostrings Feb 2019 #73
Trevor Feb 2019 #74
Nostrings Feb 2019 #75
Trevor Feb 2019 #76
Nostrings Feb 2019 #77
Trevor Feb 2019 #78
Nostrings Feb 2019 #79
Trevor Feb 2019 #80
Nostrings Feb 2019 #81
Trevor Feb 2019 #82
Nostrings Feb 2019 #83
Trevor Feb 2019 #84
Nostrings Feb 2019 #85
Trevor Feb 2019 #86
Nostrings Feb 2019 #87
Trevor Feb 2019 #88
Nostrings Feb 2019 #89
Trevor Feb 2019 #90
Nostrings Feb 2019 #91
Trevor Feb 2019 #92
Nostrings Feb 2019 #93
Trevor Jan 2019 #19
kevlar Jan 2019 #24
Trevor Jan 2019 #25
kevlar Jan 2019 #26
Trevor Jan 2019 #28
kevlar Jan 2019 #29
fuel Feb 2019 #95
batcat Jan 2019 #5
nolidad Jan 2019 #6
Trevor Jan 2019 #7
nolidad Jan 2019 #8
Trevor Jan 2019 #10
nolidad Jan 2019 #13
Trevor Jan 2019 #14
nolidad Jan 2019 #15
jh4freedom Jan 2019 #9
Badsamm Feb 2019 #52
oflguy Feb 2019 #94

Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 01:36 PM

1. The "truth" is, nothing happened, otherwise St. Mueller would have some actual real

charges filed against some of these people...
the entire moves carries the stench of desperation on the part of Big-Time Bobby.
What a fucking joke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 01:39 PM

2. It is one thing to make accusations as a guest on fake news channels

It’s another thing to make them in court when the defense can subpoena documents, have their own experts, and question the narrative.

Their case is based on Russian hackers, now they have to prove it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 06:01 PM

12. Mueller has the emails & text messages

Which prove that Stone lied to Congress. Stone repeatedly lied to Congress about his attempts to contact WikiLeaks

In May, 2017, Stone sent a letter to the House intelligence committee claiming to have no records of his discussions about WikiLeaks. But now Mueller has the e-mails and text messages of his conversations with his intermediaries and also with members of the Trump campaign.

Roger Stone repeated those assertions in September, 2017 when he appeared before the committee.

In his testimony, Mr. Stone portrayed Randy Credico as his sole intermediary with WikiLeaks and claimed he had merely asked him to confirm that WikiLeaks was releasing more information – not to get the organization to turn over hacked e-mails.

Stone told the Intelligence committee that he only spoke with Credico by telephone, leaving no written communications. In fact, Mr. Mueller has proof that on the very day he told Congress this, Stone and Credico texted no fewer than 30 times.

Robert Mueller states that Stone repeatedly told a reluctant Randy Credico to either lie to Congress and to the FBI, or exercise his fifth amendment right to remain silent – and Stone threatened to either kill him or kidnap his dog if he didn’t.

When the House intelligence committee asked Credico to testify, Stone wrote him: “‘Stonewall it. Plead the fifth. Anything to save the plan’…Richard Nixon.”

Stone also told Credico to pull a “Frank Pentangeli” – a reference to a character in The Godfather: Part II who lies to a congressional committee to cover for a mob boss.

Randy Credico ultimately pleaded the fifth to avoid testifying to Congress. But in emails and texts he tried to convince Stone to come clean to the FBI before investigators discovered Mr. Stone had lied.

Roger Stone responded by threatening to “take that dog away from you.” Randy Credico has a small white fluffy dog named Bianca, which he brought with him when he testified at Mueller’s grand jury last year. Mr. Credico told reporters at that Bianca was his therapy dog.

Roger Stone wrote Credico: "You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends … run your mouth my lawyers are dying to Rip you to shreds.” “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die fucker.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 07:50 AM

16. Allegedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 07:23 PM

22. No longer "allegedly"

"Mueller's team seized 'voluminous and complex' evidence from Roger Stone"
Federal investigators probing Roger Stone seized multiple hard drives containing years of communication records from cellphones and email accounts.
"...investigators grabbed hard drives containing several terabytes of information, including 'FBI case reports, search warrant applications and results (e.g., Apple iCloud accounts and email accounts), bank and financial records, and the contents of numerous physical devices (e.g., cellular phones, computers, and hard drives).'

The FBI is doing what it calls a 'filter review' of the devices, setting aside any evidence that cannot be admissible in court because it is considered privileged."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-s-team-seized-voluminous-complex-evidence-roger-stone-n965426

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 07:24 PM

23. Until it is proven in a court of law, its "allegedly".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 10:35 PM

31. Wrong

Roger Stone has publicly already stated that the raid on his home yielded computers, hard drives, cell phones and that means bank records, voice messages, text messages and emails.
Whether those bank records, voice messages, e-mails and text messages are incriminating or exculpatory will be determined in a court of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 10:38 PM

32. If I were directing the word 'allegedly' at those you'd have a point, though I wasn't.

But you knew that, didn't you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 01:58 PM

3. We already know Hillary paid foreign agents

To throw the election, so it’s not a bad thing correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DDKick (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 05:42 PM

11. From January 20, 2017 till today

There has been nothing stopping the Trump Administration from hiring a different Special Counsel, using Justice Department prosecutors or using U.S. Attorneys appointed by President Trump to investigate Hillary Clinton and/or members of her campaign if the evidence of wrongdoing is there. The same process that is being used to investigate "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" can be used with individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 08:37 PM

96. Thats because Trump hired candy-ass Sessions as AG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 01:59 PM

4. Badsamm writes:

"many groups that have already determined it could not have been Russian hackers- download size, time stamps, and such."

That's been debunked:

"So they manipulated the metadata — that is, they changed the dates — in some of their stolen files to indicate that they were copied by an insider, not hacked by a foreign nation, and then sent to Wikileaks. The date they encoded into the files was July 5, less than a week before Rich’s murder. That fact is viewable to anyone who downloads the zip file and uses the password to do it."

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/08/how-russian-hackers-amplified-seth-rich-conspiracy-until-it-reached-donald-trump-and-cia/150263/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:19 AM

17. It is lefty who has been debunked,

more times than one can count.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:31 AM

18. You're talking to someone who doesn't even read the entirety of his own cites...

And someone who gave his stamp of approval to judicial activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 05:56 PM

20. I read this one

It proved you wrong in an extensive discussion we had. I told you those time stamps could be forged.

It depends what you mean by judicial activism. If you believe the First Amendment protects death threats I don't agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 07:01 PM

21. Nowhere in that report, is any proof contained, only assertions are made.

Thats your typical definition of 'It proved you wrong in an extensive discussion we had'.

Go play, kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:54 PM

27. Asserts facts.

What proof do you want? Mueller put it in his indictments. Computer experts looked at it and concurred. How can somebody who believes the crackpot Seth Rich hoax complain about something not having enough proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 10:34 PM

30. The word 'surmise' was used in the piece, trevor.

"Mueller put it in his indictments."

Indictments are meaningless.


"Computer experts looked at it and concurred."

SOME computer experts.


"How can somebody who believes the crackpot Seth Rich hoax complain about something not having enough proof?"

How can someone who believes in the crackpot 'muh russia' consipracy theory have room to question anyone else?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 10:39 PM

33. Believe in "muh russia conspiracy theory?"

What is that?

Indictments are statements of fact that prosecutors are convinced can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They are hardly meaningless.

All the computer experts the author contacted concurred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 10:53 PM

34. Go play, kid.

"What is that?"

The theory that the trump campaign colluded with the russians to alter the election.


"Indictments are statements of fact that prosecutors are convinced can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They are hardly meaningless. "

Until they ARE proven, they ARE meaningless when it comes to the way YOU are trying to use them.


"All the computer experts the author contacted concurred."

"Surmise". Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 2, 2019, 01:40 AM

35. Surmise

Like you've done with the crackpot Seth Rich conspiracy theory or the debunked time stamp analysis?

I've told you before. Maybe you'll get it this time. I don't take as fact that Trump colluded with Russia. I believe its something that is possible and there are reasons to suspect. That's why it is being investigated, not prosecuted.

If something is alleged in an indictment that suggests its probably true. Nothing is good enough proof for you unless its something for a crackpot conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #35)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 11:59 AM

36. Yes, surmise.

Just about anything that says a leftist is in trouble, you call 'crackpot'.

Your 'debunked time stamp analysys' is rife with speculation. They used the word 'surmise' in it, dumbass.

As I said, you do not understand what you read, you understand it to say what you wish it to say.


"I believe its something that is possible and there are reasons to suspect. That's why it is being investigated, not prosecuted."

Lots of things are possible, but we don't investigate them short of a known crime.

It's being ivestigated to give cover to the guilty and to counter the will of the electorate, no ifs ands or buts about it.

"If something is alleged in an indictment that suggests its probably true. Nothing is good enough proof for you unless its something for a crackpot conspiracy theory."

Oh is that so? I already knew you were ignorant to a pretty large degree, but this niavete on your part too is...we'll, let's just say it would be better if you were faking it for partisan reasons than if it were real.

Meanwhile, you support an investigation based on a crooked FISA warrant based on the Clinton bought and paid for dossier which itself is the biggest set of crackpot theories which can be found in this whole mess.

So please, just shut up with this nonsense.

You are a partisan hacks partisan hack, and you think you can hide that or talk your way around it.

Well, you can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 02:02 PM

37. The word "surmise"

was used about an explanation for Russian motives for creating Seth Rich. It wasn't about the main point of the article.

You were drooling over a potential investigation into the Clinton Foundation. There was no known crime there. You just like your illusion that your kind is special and are to be treated that way.

You don't know what information the Trump investigation is based on. That's secret. You "surmise" that there is a conspiracy involved. That's crackpot.

I don't call anything crackpot unless it deserves to be called that. With Seth Rich, the conspiracy theory runs counter to the unanimous opinion of US intelligence. It ignores that the FBI watched the hack in progress for almost a year. The theory contains the extraordinarily far fetched idea that the Clintons murdered Rich. There's no evidence to that at all.

The FISA warrant has been reviewed and claims that it was crooked haven't held up.

I'm not the one who is a partisan hack. Agreeing with the unanimous opinion of US intelligence is a moderate mainstream position. Believing in a partisan crackpot conspiracy theory instead is partisan hack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 03:12 PM

38. Trevor trevor trevor

" It wasn't about the main point of the article."

The main point of the article was more opinion than fact.


"You were drooling over a potential investigation into the Clinton Foundation."

Cite it big mouth.



"You just like your illusion that your kind is special and are to be treated that way."

Hey, partisan hack. Remember the FBI swat team that took weiner into custody at 6am infront of a leaked to media just like roger stone?

Yeah, me neither.



"You don't know what information the Trump investigation is based on."

I know that its been two years and the best mueller has is process crimes. THAT is a fact, partisan hack.

I KNOW that NO specific crime is given as justification to investigate. THAT is also a fact, partisan hack.



"That's secret."

Secret investigations happen in places like russia, partisan hack.


"You "surmise" that there is a conspiracy involved."

Nope. I KNOW theres a conspiracy. Strzok page texts showed one. Bruce ohrs testimony shows that the fbi knew the dossier was unverified and presented it to the fisa courts anyway, including 2 who are currently on muellers team, one of which was at hillarys party on election night, partisan hack.


"I don't call anything crackpot unless it deserves to be called that."

Yes you do. Every truth you can't handle or admit gets filed under "right wing..." just like the DUer you are.


"With Seth Rich, the conspiracy theory runs counter to the unanimous opinion of US intelligence."


US intelligence isn't automatically trustworthy.


"It ignores that the FBI watched the hack in progress for almost a year."


Wait...you expect us to believe that the FBI monitored the hack for a year but never caught anyone? Theres your niavete showing its ugly head again.

The FBI never examined the server at all, partisan hack.


"The FISA warrant has been reviewed and claims that it was crooked haven't held up. "

You're equivocating. The fisa warrant in question is the original, which has NOT been reviewed or released for public examination, partisan hack.


"I'm not the one who is a partisan hack."

Oh yes, you are a partisan hacks partisan hack.



"Agreeing with the unanimous opinion of US intelligence is a moderate mainstream position."

Agreeing with politicized intelligence is an ignorant, partisan position, and it describes your position perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 05:43 PM

39. You can't get away with lying about what you've said

When a simple search can turn it up in two seconds. "You were drooling over a potential investigation into the Clinton Foundation." https://www.discussionist.com/10151883138

The main point of the article was backed by many facts. How many of the guys who pushed your original time stamps theory have disavowed it now? Normal people decide issues by weighing the points on both sides against each other. There is tons on my side. Nothing is left on yours. Yet you stick with what you had. Mistakes are opportunities to learn. Refusing to recognize when you make a mistake keeps you from learning anything. That strategy explains why you are so wrong so often.

I can't find anything about Weiner's arrest. I found this though: https://nypost.com/2017/09/25/anthony-weiner-gets-hard-time.

You have drawn conclusions about what Mueller has based on a fallacy. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secret investigations happen in America. In fact, its standard for investigations not to be discussed by law enforcement before they are complete. Stop pretending that your side is persecuted when they are facing the same rules as everybody else. We have classified information in America too. That's not just in Russia.

You don't know of a conspiracy. You've been told about E-mails that show investigators didn't like Trump. Investigators are entitled to their own opinions and there is no good reason to believe their opinions influenced their investigations. You are trying to make a point about the dossier being unverified to push your theory. While it was admitted that the dossier wasn't verified that didn't mean that things that were in it weren't verified.

I handle truth I don't like all the time. I'm not like you.

Skepticism is always healthy but we are back to whether we should weigh both sides to decide. On one side you have the entire US intelligence community that has been reviewed by Congress and Trump appointees and is not disputed. On the other side you have what you read on websites for kooks.

The FBI did catch the hackers. They knew all along who it was. Those same people are under indictment now.

The FBI got a copy of the server. That was all that was practical to provide them with. The FBI is completely satisfied with what they got.

The FISA warrant has been reviewed by Congressional Committees. A complaint was sent to the Justice Department IG. It went nowhere.

The intelligence is not politicized. Your side is in power now, yet it is still accepted that Russians were behind the hack. Trump even told his CIA director to look at your time stamp hoax. The CIA director didn't fall for it. Your refusal to accept the truth shows you are the partisan one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 07:23 PM

40. NO. YOU can not get away with lying about what I've said.

"When a simple search can turn it up in two seconds. "You were drooling over a potential investigation into the Clinton Foundation."


You automatically think you understand everything, don't you, partisan hack. I was MOCKING YOU LEFTIES. That whole thread I was mocking you and yours.

All you've done is to show the class that either you dishonestly try to spin, or you aren't smart enough to tell the difference between substantive argument in favor of a thing versus mocking.

This is another of those times you should feel embarassed.


"There is tons on my side."

No there isn't. The only thing on your side is living in a little niave ignorant bubble.





"I can't find anything about Weiner's arrest."

Theres a huge surprise.



"You have drawn conclusions about what Mueller has based on a fallacy. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

No trevor. I conclude what I do based on LOGIC. IF mueller had anything beyond process crimes, it would have leaked by now, like roger stones arrest was leaked by the mueller team/fbi to cnn for political effect.

Now tell me you believe cnn when they say it was just good journalism so I can laugh at your niave ass even more.

"You don't know of a conspiracy. You've been told about E-mails that show investigators didn't like Trump. Investigators are entitled to their own opinions and there is no good reason to believe their opinions influenced their investigations. You are trying to make a point about the dossier being unverified to push your theory. While it was admitted that the dossier wasn't verified that didn't mean that things that were in it weren't verified."

You are either disturbingly niave, disturbingly partisan, or both. We KNOW that the FBI KNEW that the dossier was unverified and that it was misrepresented to the fisa court.

We KNOW that muellers team contains players who KNEW that the dossier was bunk before it was submitted to
the fisa court.


"Stop pretending that your side is persecuted when they are facing the same rules as everybody else."

Really? REALLY? Show me the equal treatment by the fbi trevor, of the hillary team and the trump team.

How many trump teamers have been granted immunity hmm?

How many hillary people were raided guns drawn at O-dark-thirty? How many Trump people?


Things have NOT been fair, things have NOT been even handed.


"I handle truth I don't like all the time. I'm not like you. "

For once you're half right. You're nothing like me, thats a fact, but you run from truith you don't like all the time.


"On one side you have the entire US intelligence community that has been reviewed by Congress and Trump appointees and is not disputed."


You silly silly loon. Of course its disputed. Under the obama presidency, the federal beaurocracy was seeeded with far leftist obama sorts which remained under trump. The heads of the major agencies were politicised. Comey. Clapper. Brennan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 07:49 PM

41. NO. YOU can not get away with lying about what I've said.

"When a simple search can turn it up in two seconds. "You were drooling over a potential investigation into the Clinton Foundation."


You automatically think you understand everything, don't you, partisan hack. I was MOCKING YOU LEFTIES. That whole thread I was mocking you and yours.

All you've done is to show the class that either you dishonestly try to spin, or you aren't smart enough to tell the difference between substantive argument in favor of a thing versus mocking.

This is another of those times you should feel embarassed (you're welcome).


"There is tons on my side."

No there isn't. The only thing on your side is living in a niave ignorant little bubble.



"I can't find anything about Weiner's arrest."

Theres a huge surprise.



"You have drawn conclusions about what Mueller has based on a fallacy. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

No trevor. I conclude what I do based on LOGIC. IF mueller had anything beyond process crimes, it would have leaked by now, like roger stones arrest was leaked by the mueller team/fbi to cnn for political effect.

Now tell me you believe cnn when they say it was just good journalism so I can laugh at your niave ass even more.



"You don't know of a conspiracy. You've been told about E-mails that show investigators didn't like Trump. Investigators are entitled to their own opinions and there is no good reason to believe their opinions influenced their investigations. You are trying to make a point about the dossier being unverified to push your theory.

You are either disturbingly niave, disturbingly partisan, or both. We KNOW that the FBI KNEW that the dossier was unverified and that it was misrepresented to the fisa court.

We KNOW that muellers team contains players who KNEW that the dossier was bunk before it was submitted to the fisa court.

Do you know what "lack of candor" is trevor, when it comes to FBI policy?




"While it was admitted that the dossier wasn't verified that didn't mean that things that were in it weren't verified."

Holy fucking word games batman. It was unverified. If a dossier is unverified, that means the information that it contains is inverified, you cretin.

And, it was misrepresented as something else. Period.

A fisa warrant doesn't get issued if they go to the court saying "by the way, your honor, this is unverified political opposition research"

Think for yourself once in a while, it wont hurt, really!




"Stop pretending that your side is persecuted when they are facing the same rules as everybody else."

Really? REALLY? Show me the equal treatment by the fbi trevor, of the hillary team and the Trump team.

How many Trump teamers have been granted immunity hmm?

How many hillary people were raided guns drawn at O-dark-thirty? How many Trump people?


Things have NOT been fair, things have NOT been even handed.


"I handle truth I don't like all the time. I'm not like you. "

For once you're half right. You're nothing like me, thats a fact, but you run from truith you don't like all the time.


"On one side you have the entire US intelligence community that has been reviewed by Congress and Trump appointees and is not disputed."


You silly silly loon. Of course its disputed. Under the obama presidency, the federal beaurocracy was seeded with far leftist obama sorts which remained under trump. The heads of the major agencies were politicised. Comey. Clapper. Brennan. Koskinen. Napolitano. Yates. And so on and so on and so on.

The intelligence product which they produced was as politicised as yates interfering with a lawful process by the president, as you well know, given you're current equivocation of 'intelligence community' which paints a picture of consensus, versus 3 agencies which is more accurate yet paints no such picture.

You are a partisan hacks partisan hack.



"The FBI did catch the hackers. They knew all along who it was. Those same people are under indictment now."

Look class, its trevor assuming facts not in evidence.




"The FBI got a copy of the server."

Allegedly. You are assuming that as fact when it has not been proven. The only people who know for sure whether its a genuine unaltered copy are the dems, who colluded with russians more than Trumps team did.

Should we trust the dems, trevor? Why?


"That was all that was practical to provide them with."

According to whom? Because of the actions of whom? Oh thats right, the dems, who colluded with russians more than Trumps team did.

Should we trust the dems, trevor? Why?



"The FBI is completely satisfied with what they got."

The partisan FBI is happy with what they've got, oh I'm sure.


"The FISA warrant has been reviewed by Congressional Committees. A complaint was sent to the Justice Department IG. It went nowhere."

The first and original has yet to be disclosed to congress or the public. You're equivocating again. You know as well as we do that there were 4 or more in total.



"The intelligence is not politicized. "

Of course it was politicized. Only a partisan hacks partisan hack would fail to realize it or argue publicly that intelligence doesn't get politicized.



"Your side is in power now, yet it is still accepted that Russians were behind the hack."

*I* am not on any side that has accepted any such thing, you partisan hack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 11:44 PM

42. Now you are lying again.

I remember you getting all excited over Huber. You even insulted me for not knowing about it as soon as you did. You even taunted me about it. It turned out Huber was one more of your many blunders. You were excited in that thread I linked to too. It wasn't substantive argument or mocking. It was celebration about one of your fantasies pretending to come true.

I've given you plenty of reasons why I'm right. None penetrated the denial shell though.

Why are you incapable of believing that Mueller follows the rules? Because it doesn't suit your world view, that's why.

I explained to you how you are being misled about the dossier / verification claims. I guess you aren't smart enough to understand this simple thing. You don't know what all went on with the dossier / FISA because it hasn't all been released. If there was wrongdoing though we could be sure the IG would make that public. He hasn't.

Want to talk about unequal treatment? Hillary had to answer questions. Trump picked which questions he would allow, and only submitted answers in writing after his team of attorneys reviewed them. I'd still be hearing about it if Hillary was given that option.You had to bring up Hillary again.

I handle the truth. I've admitted I was wrong to you. You can't do that, no matter how destroyed you are.

Even if you were right about partisan hacks in control of intelligence under Obama those people are gone now. Still, the Seth Rich theory goes without backers. The new intelligence teams believe in the Russian hack. I haven't heard anybody in Congress dispute it. Even Trump admits it sometimes. Sometimes he doesn't. But Trump is crazy. All three main intelligence agencies believe in the hack.

There is no doubt anymore that the FBI knew who the hackers were. Since it was published by the NYT, both the DNC side and FBI side have confirmed the story. Not in evidence? There is even an indictment of 14 people about it.

"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/11/donald-trump/did-john-podesta-deny-cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/


Once again you refuse to accept reality because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

I didn't say intelligence never get politicized. Trump tries to do it. That intelligence about the hack has been reviewed by many though. Its solid.

Republicans accept the hack theory, at least the elected ones do. That's your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 4, 2019, 04:30 AM

43. No, you're just wrong, as usual.

"I remember you getting all excited over Huber. You even insulted me for not knowing about it as soon as you did. You even taunted me about it. "

Yes, I was mocking you.

See, theres what *actually* happened, and theres what trevor *thinks* happened.



"I've given you plenty of reasons why I'm right."

No. You've given plenty of reasons that you *believe* that you're right.


"Why are you incapable of believing that Mueller follows the rules? Because it doesn't suit your world view, that's why."


Because theres been leaks that could *ONLY* have come from him or his team, for one.

Because he stacked his team with Trump haters and clinton surrogates, for two.


What you just admitted, without realizing it, is that you see those things as fair.

Partisan hack.


"I explained to you how you are being misled about the dossier / verification claims."

No, you explained how you *believe* I am being misled.

You are simply wrong. You are the one thats being misled. YOU are the one thats been lied to. And, like so many leftists, you turn your head and look the other way, and make excuses for those who are substantively lying to you.



"I handle the truth. I've admitted I was wrong to you."


No trevor. You admit token wrongs, just enough to say you can point to them, but that accounts for perhaps half a percent of your uh...incorrectness.


"Even if you were right about partisan hacks in control of intelligence under Obama those people are gone now."

Oh, are they? All of them? What about the ones on muellers team, smart guy?

If the tables were turned and a special prosecutor were investigating hillary or any current presidential type dem, and the same tactics had been used, and the special prosecutors team were made of hillary haters, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it.

"There is no doubt anymore that the FBI knew who the hackers were. Since it was published by the NYT, both the DNC side and FBI side have confirmed the story. Not in evidence? There is even an indictment of 14 people about it."

This is your opinion, not a fact. You don't know that the times is printing correct information. You don't know that the fbi is giving correct information. You also don't know if information is being leaked by the fbi to media, then the fbi using those very media reports to justify investigating, as has already been done with leaks from within the fbi already. We aren't talking hypothetical shit her trevor. If you paid better attention you'd know that.


""We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said."

So you cite a lying leaking political hack fired fbi director as your evidence?

Let me guess. You actually *believe* comey?


""The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server."

Without access to the actual server we have only the word of the dems, who colluded with russians more than Trumps team did, that it contains the same info.

Should we trust the dems, trevor? Why? Answer the question this time instead of running away..


"Once again you refuse to accept reality because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe."

Once again, *I* know how things work in the real world, while you lap up propaganda like a kitty licking up spilt milk.



" That intelligence about the hack has been reviewed by many though. Its solid."

It *can not be* solid trevor, because its based upon unverifiable information and the word of the dnc.


You really are *that* far gone.

I almost feel sorry for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 01:07 AM

44. Yes, I knew you were mocking me about Huber.

Where is Huber now? He was supposed to show up in front of a congressional committee. You were panting about it. Now its definite which one of us was the fool and it was you. He who laughs last....

Before you were saying Mueller is silent so he must not have anything. Now you say he leaks. Get your story straight. My reasons have facts, logic and evidence. They are valid beyond just my belief in them. You are immune to facts, logic and evidence.

I admit I'm wrong when I'm convinced that I am. It has nothing to do with pointing. Its about being a gentleman and being intellectually honest. You know nothing of those things.

Mueller's team is not an intelligence agency. They have managed to build a case against Russian hackers. They do a good job no matter who they vote for. There is no reason to believe their private political opinions influence the way they do their jobs. You think everybody who doesn't confirm your wild conspiracy theories is corrupt. Its you lame excuse that you always use for being wrong all the time.

You have a weird way of looking at things. Of course I don't know for sure that Jesus won't return two minutes from now. How certain can one be about anything? A normal person weighs the available information against other information then uses logic to reach conclusions. Its amazing you get through life with your system of analysis. If the light turns red, does that just mean that its being asserted that its red?

There have been plenty of investigations by Hillary haters. I've never seen you complain about it.

Comey has a great record for telling the truth. Before he recommended not charging Hillary both sides agreed he was untouchable.

Dems did not collude with Russia. More than one contractor was involved in analyzing the DNC computers. The FBI had multiple sources.

Do you ever stop to think about what it would take for that crap you believe to actually be true? Do you think the DNC suddenly came up with a fake server to copy complete with tell tale signs of Russian hacking and all the Seth Rich info deleted? How many people would it take to do that? How would they keep it quiet? Why hasn't anyone come forward about that or your other conspiracy theories? Wouldn't some career prosecutor step forward if partisan hacks were running a fraudulent special counsel investigation? This is a flaw with conspiracy theories. When you ask what it would take for them to be true they quickly grow to giant operations with hundreds or thousands of people. Yet nobody ever spills the beans. Can't you see how stupid that is?

I'm not asking you to trust the Democrats. I'm asking you to use common sense on this one. What you tell yourself is how things work in the real world is just a frame to hang your nonsense conspiracy theories on. Everybody in the world is evil, except you and the righties, right?

The intelligence is not based just on the word of the DNC. You refuse to accept the truth that the FBI watched the operation in real time, well before the DNC even knew about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 04:05 AM

45. Oh really rofl.

Heres some logic for you trevor.

First you said this:

"It wasn't substantive argument or mocking."

Then you said this:

"Yes, I knew you were mocking me about Huber."

Which ones true and which one is the lie, because both can not be true.

Hows that logic work for you, partisan hack?




"Before you were saying Mueller is silent so he must not have anything."

You're misrepresenting, predictably.


"Its about being a gentleman and being intellectually honest. You know nothing of those things."

If you were a gentlemen, you wouldn't misrepresent the words or sentiments of others like you regularly do.

If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't support the modern day left.

Try it on a tourist, maybe they'll buy that line of garbage.



"Mueller's team is not an intelligence agency."

Did someone say they were?




"They have managed to build a case against Russian hackers. "

You don't know that. They weren't even prepared to go to trial trevor, when the russians called that bluff.

Thats your problem, trevor. You see things around you and you are convinced that they mean X when they really mean Y, because you are partisan, stunningly niave, and quite ignorant.




"They do a good job no matter who they vote for."

This is your opinion, based on nothing but partisanship.



"There is no reason to believe their private political opinions influence the way they do their jobs."


There is EVERY reason to believe that political opinions influence the way they do their jobs, unless you're a partisan hack.

Other leftists have admitted that this whole thing is political trevor.

That undercuts your line of bullshit totally and completely.



"You think everybody who doesn't confirm your wild conspiracy theories is corrupt."

Cite it, partisan hack, with emphasis on the word "everybody", don't run away.




"You have a weird way of looking at things. Of course I don't know for sure that Jesus won't return two minutes from now. How certain can one be about anything?"

At least, through this projection, you admit its a religion with you.



"A normal person weighs the available information against other information then uses logic to reach conclusions."


A normal person recognizes that information coming from politicized sources and orgs is unreliable, likely inaccurate, and slanted. A normal person recognizes that you know this is true, because you yourself had to walk back your 'all 17 intel agencies' claim back to 3 agencies...or had you forgotten?



"Its amazing you get through life with your system of analysis. If the light turns red, does that just mean that its being asserted that its red?"

If someone who is untrustworthy says its red, I'll want verification. But not you, you'd step off the curb with your eyes closed, like you usually do here.



"There have been plenty of investigations by Hillary haters. I've never seen you complain about it."

I've complained many times that the investigations against her were toothless, faux, and rigged.



"Comey has a great record for telling the truth. "

And here you go off the rails:

"Comey on Friday asked us all to believe that the man who remembered enough to write a book suddenly had total memory loss, saying “I don’t know” or the equivalent some 245 times. Comey claimed little knowledge of the Steele dossier yet he signed a FISA warrant based on it to spy on candidate and then President Trump all while he knew it was a fraud."




"Dems did not collude with Russia."

The dnc/dems.hillarty camp had more contact with russians than the Trump camp.

The hillary camp *actually* paid for political opposition researchy that came from russians...The very thing all you lefties were accusing the Trump camp of having done.

Those are both FACTS.



"More than one contractor was involved in analyzing the DNC computers."

Meaningless...no, less than meaningless. Left leaning contractor conclusions are untrustworthy.


"The FBI had multiple sources."

The FBI never examined the actual server trevor. They examined a server that the dnc *says* is a copy. What a left leaning contractor says is less reliable than a jailhouse rat looking for a better deal.

Why should we believe the dnc? Answer the question partisan hack.


"Do you ever stop to think about what it would take for that crap you believe to actually be true? Do you think the DNC suddenly came up with a fake server to copy complete with tell tale signs of Russian hacking and all the Seth Rich info deleted? How many people would it take to do that? How would they keep it quiet? Why hasn't anyone come forward about that or your other conspiracy theories?"

Do YOU ever stop to think about things that happen right in front of your eyes?

The dem/dnc side of the aisle set up the fake Kavanaugh debacle, which everyone knows was fake. Not only did they set it up, but feinstein sat on it for maximum political effect instead of going through normal channels. Tried to ruin a good mans life over it too. We don't know how many were involved, but we know that it was done. Nobody has come forward, yet we know that it was done. SOMEHOW, they're managing to keep it quiet, yet we know that it was done.

All for the sake of power.

SO please drop the niave pretense that there are lines that dems/the dnc/the left wont cross, because there simply are not.


"Wouldn't some career prosecutor step forward if partisan hacks were running a fraudulent special counsel investigation?"

Not when they're all hand picked trump haters/hillary lovers, which they are. Remind me trevor, how many came forward about the fake Kavanaugh thing? ZERO.

Riddle me this, partisan hack: Why is someone who went to hillarys party even on muellers team?


" This is a flaw with conspiracy theories. When you ask what it would take for them to be true they quickly grow to giant operations with hundreds or thousands of people."

No. Its a flaw in YOUR very limited thinking, one which has been nurtured and cared for and helped along by the people on your very own side. If I ever hear a sonic boom, I'll check with you to see if your heads been removed from your ass yet.


"I'm not asking you to trust the Democrats."

Yes, you are. You expect others to buy your premises, which in fact have as a built in part, trusting the word of dem/dnc/politicised fbi without verification.

THAT is a fact.

"What you tell yourself is how things work in the real world is just a frame to hang your nonsense conspiracy theories on."

No trevor. What I call 'how things work in the real world' is reading behind the lines to get to actual reality, versus your 'on paper' nonsense. My sensitivites are finely tuned in this regard, while you have none at all, and it shows, bigtime.



"Everybody in the world is evil, except you and the righties, right?"

Keep your words in your own mouth trevor. I said nothing of the sort.


"The intelligence is not based just on the word of the DNC."

Says you.

" You refuse to accept the truth that the FBI watched the operation in real time, well before the DNC even knew about it."

Again, says you.


Like I said, You really are *that* far gone.

I *almost* feel sorry for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 08:08 PM

46. Try thinking

The quote from me you posted was about the website I linked to to prove you were drooling over the Huber hoax. I don't think I'm even on that thread. The time you mocked me was a different time. Two different things, two different observations. Think about it awhile if it doesn't sink in right away.

Here's what I said: "Before you were saying Mueller is silent so he must not have anything."
Here's what you said: "IF mueller had anything beyond process crimes, it would have leaked by now."
See? No difference.

Honesty and being on the left go fine together. Its you side that is filled with lies. I expose them often.

Nostrings writes: "Mueller's team is not an intelligence agency."
Did someone say they were?
Yes, you did: "Even if you were right about partisan hacks in control of intelligence under Obama those people are gone now." "Oh, are they? All of them? What about the ones on muellers team, smart guy?

I know they've built a case against the Russian hackers because they filed an indictment. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't think they had a case. Did you fall for that right wing propaganda about Mueller not being ready? The defendants demanded discovery before that phase in the trial came up. I know that because unlike you, I understand a few things about procedure. Since then discovery has been supplied to the defendants. I don't think you read anything more intelligent than conservative treehouse but right now there is a dispute between the parties because the defendants are publishing what they get from Mueller. Its supposed to be secret. No case was dropped because Mueller wasn't ready, was it? Fool!

I'm basing my observation that the Mueller team is doing a good job because they've produced many indictments and convictions. We've also heard from people they questioned the Mueller's team knows everything. What are you basing your belief that they are following a political agenda on?

Like you asked elsewhere, yes this is another instance of you saying anything you don't agree with is corrupt. No facts to back it up. You asked for other cites? How about just in your last post?

"They weren't even prepared to go to trial trevor, when the russians called that bluff." (assumes a trumped up case was corruptly filed against the Russians) Since you can't find any report of the case being dropped any normal person would conclude that Mueller must have been ready. Maybe not somebody who "see things around you and you are convinced that they mean X when they really mean Y, because you are partisan, stunningly niave, and quite ignorant."

Another cite of a corruption accusation:

"There is EVERY reason to believe that political opinions influence the way they do their jobs, unless you're a partisan hack." No, I'm not a partisan hack. I decide based on evidence. You have none but accuse anyway. That's partisan hackery.

Another cite of a corruption accusation:

"I've complained many times that the investigations against her were toothless, faux, and rigged." Yes, you've complained many times but produced no evidence. "You think everybody who doesn't confirm your wild conspiracy theories is corrupt."

Here's another example: Comey is a corrupt liar. In fact, the entire FBI is corrupt according to you.

Here's another: "Left leaning contractor conclusions are untrustworthy." Where is your evidence that they are left leaning? Of course you think they lied too because according to you everybody you don't agree with is corrupt.

Nostrings writes: "My sensitivites are finely tuned in this regard." No. Your ability to come up with denial based on ridiculous conspiracy theories is well developed. You are filled with anger and hatred because you think everybody is corrupt. Your delusions support each other.

"A normal person recognizes that information coming from politicized sources and orgs is unreliable, likely inaccurate, and slanted" Yes a normal person considers the source of information when weighing it. That doesn't mean every bit of it is false though. If somebody you didn't trust told you the light was red, rather than looking for yourself you would just say that the person must be lying and you would drive right through it.

"Riddle me this, partisan hack: Why is someone who went to hillarys party even on muellers team?"

Agents are allowed to have their own private opinions just like everybody else. If you have evidence this person didn't do their job share it.

You had no answer for how the DNC managed to fool the FBI. Your answer to other things was just, "says you." That's not an answer.

I don't want you to feel sorry for me and I doubt you would be capable of it even if it were warranted. You are too consumed by anger and hatred. You could learn from what I've given you. You might even one day release yourself from the anger / hatred. But you once again completely passed up the opportunities I've given you.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 09:05 PM

47. I don't need to try, I simply DO.

"The quote from me you posted was about the website I linked to to prove you were drooling over the Huber hoax. I don't think I'm even on that thread. The time you mocked me was a different time. Two different things, two different observations. Think about it awhile if it doesn't sink in right away."

Well, since you cited one but not the other, the lack of clarity is on your end trevor.

And you were still wrong, it was ALL mocking.




"Here's what I said: "Before you were saying Mueller is silent so he must not have anything." Here's what you said: "IF mueller had anything beyond process crimes, it would have leaked by now."
See? No difference."

When you remove a qualification which *I* added, you misrepresent *MY* message.

No, they aren't the same.


"Yes, you did: "Even if you were right about partisan hacks in control of intelligence under Obama those people are gone now." "Oh, are they? All of them? What about the ones on muellers team, smart guy?"

Learn some english trevor, and brush up on your history. Was bob mueller in control of intelligence under obama?

Is he gone now? Concede the point then.




"I know they've built a case against the Russian hackers because they filed an indictment. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't think they had a case."


Unless they were doing it to send a public message, thinking the russians wouldn't respond since they're in russia... kind of like...arresting an octogenerian at 0-dark thirty in the morning and tipping off cnn first, which we KNOW was done.




"Did you fall for that right wing propaganda about Mueller not being ready? The defendants demanded discovery before that phase in the trial came up. I know that because unlike you, I understand a few things about procedure."

Well then, mister "I understand a few things about procedure", kindly explain why bob mueller wasn't ready for it, assuming that HE knows more about procedure than you do. Explain why it was a surprise to him, and why his team was caught off guard by it.

Or don't. Thinking people don't actually need your feeble mewlings to come to the correct conclusion.


"No case was dropped because Mueller wasn't ready, was it?"

No one CLAIMED that it was, did they?



"Fool"

That means nothing coming from a partisan hack npc who can not think for himself.




"I'm basing my observation that the Mueller team is doing a good job because they've produced many indictments and convictions."

Indictments and convictions which by and large have nothing to do with their core mission.


"We've also heard from people they questioned the Mueller's team knows everything. What are you basing your belief that they are following a political agenda on?"

The fact that mueller and his team are known partisan operatives, everything that we now know about FBI and DOJ bad behavior regarding the dossier and the fisa courts, the politicisation of the doj, fbi, atf, irs, blm, and just about every other agency under obama, the unlawful unmasking, and worst of all, the conflicts of interest which exist on the part of mueller and his team members.

Plus, I have eyes and can see. It isn't a belief, its a FACT that mueller and his team are following a political agenda.



"Like you asked elsewhere, yes this is another instance of you saying anything you don't agree with is corrupt."

No, this is a case of something being corrupt, me pointing it out, and you running interference for the left, as usual.



"Since you can't find any report of the case being dropped any normal person would conclude that Mueller must have been ready."

If that were true he wouldn't have been surprised by the discovery phase which you seem to think you uh...discovered.




"No, I'm not a partisan hack. I decide based on evidence. You have none but accuse anyway. That's partisan hackery. "


YES, you ARE a partisan hack. You decide based only on evidence which makes your point or which you think you can argue makes your point. You IGNORE evidence like the strzok/page text messages which makes it quite plain, or you pretend it indicates something other than what it plainly indicates and make excuses, and you think nobody can see it because you are niave, partisan, and ignorant.



"Here's another example: Comey is a corrupt liar. In fact, the entire FBI is corrupt according to you."

You're misrepresenting again trevor. Comey is most definitely corrupt. Hes a leaker and a liar.

Quote me saying the entire fbi is. I'll save you the effort: You can't. You just told another lie about me, partisan hack npc.


"Here's another: "Left leaning contractor conclusions are untrustworthy." Where is your evidence that they are left leaning? "

Because the DNC hires right wing contractors? And allows them access to their servers?

This is thin, even for you. You talk a big game about logic, right before abandoning it and saying stupid things like this. We KNOW the partisan DNC will only hire DNC friendly contractors, which is by definition partisan in todays world, you insufferable dumbass.



"No. Your ability to come up with denial based on ridiculous conspiracy theories is well developed. You are filled with anger and hatred because you think everybody is corrupt. Your delusions support each other."

Incorrect again. I admit to some anger because the corrupt continue to get away with it, and some more because they have cheerleaders like you, but you and yours and your corrupt racist party can not make me hate.

Sorry to pop your bubble, chubs.

"If somebody you didn't trust told you the light was red, rather than looking for yourself you would just say that the person must be lying and you would drive right through it."

No, I would look for myself to see if the untrustworthy was either fibbing or telling the truth.

You're the one that has the trouble with skepticism of the narrative, not me, so don't waste my time and yours trying to spin it the other way.

You'll fail.




"Agents are allowed to have their own private opinions just like everybody else. If you have evidence this person didn't do their job share it."

Do you know what a conflict of interest is, trevor, when it comes to FBI/DOJ policy?


"You had no answer for how the DNC managed to fool the FBI. Your answer to other things was just, "says you." That's not an answer."

You provided no proof that they did, just your say so. Just you saying so isn't proof, its "says you".


"I don't want you to feel sorry for me and I doubt you would be capable of it even if it were warranted."

Your grasp on reality around you, when it comes to accuracy, is challenged like that.



"You are too consumed by anger and hatred."

You are too consumed with arrogance, ignorance, niavete, and partisan bias, to judge that in any way that could honestly be called accurate.

You don't know me trevor, so quit pretending that you do.


"You could learn from what I've given you."

Tutelage how to be wrong from you isn't high on my list of priorities trevor.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #47)

Tue Feb 5, 2019, 10:25 PM

48. Mueller was an FBI director under Obama

The FBI has an intelligence role. However, the subject that got us here was whether Russia hacked the DNC and whether the intelligence community assessment of that was unbiased. Mueller played no role in the initial assessment. I have no idea what point you want me to concede.

All that happened initially in the case against the Russian hackers was Mueller's office asked for a brief routine delay. It wasn't granted. Yet the office was able to go on. The office must have been ready, or the case wouldn't still be there. Discovery has taken place since then. Your idea that there was some grand conspiracy to send a message for some unknown reason is preposterous. CNN says they came by the Stone arrest on their own. You'll never believe them but once again I doubt you have any evidence. You say Mueller wasn't ready for the hackers but then say that the case not being dropped is irrelevant. If Mueller wasn't ready he would have lost the case. The defendants asked for discovery before arraignment. It doesn't come out that soon.

The Strzok / Page tests reveal that they didn't like Trump. Few well educated people do. They don't reveal any intentional mishandling of his case. You are trying to make more that what is actually there.

I decide after listening to both sides. Perhaps you are confused because since we are arguing here I only give my side.

What is a conflict of interest depends on who it is applied to and under what circumstances. Simply supporting a candidate for office does not create a conflict. If it did the IG would have ruled on it.

I can read. Your posts reek of hatred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #48)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 12:32 AM

49. Mueller was a hack under obama.

"The FBI has an intelligence role. However, the subject that got us here was whether Russia hacked the DNC and whether the intelligence community assessment of that was unbiased. Mueller played no role in the initial assessment. I have no idea what point you want me to concede."

Your exact words, trevor: ""Even if you were right about partisan hacks in control of intelligence under Obama those people are gone now."

You were just plain wrong. They are NOT gone. One of them is investigating as special counsel, his name is mueller. Mueller hired more partisan hacks to help him. One doesn't hire partisan hacks when one wishes to look to the public as if they are unbiased. One hires partisan hacks when they wish to achieve a partisan outcome.

Perhaps YOU can explain why he hired more partisan hacks, some with intimiate knowledge of the unofficial back channel between Officially-fired-by-the-fbi christopher steel, and the fbi.

Your explanation for this sort of hiring (and for a back channnel to an asset who was fired for being unreliable) is?



"All that happened initially in the case against the Russian hackers was Mueller's office asked for a brief routine delay. It wasn't granted."

If it wasn't granted, it must not have been routine. The courts are well known for bending over backwards for legitimate prosecutorial requests. If you ever spent significant time in court observing actual interaction between prosecutors and judges instead of watching idiot actors portray them them on teevee, you would know that. Like I said, you're ignorant.


"The office must have been ready, or the case wouldn't still be there. Discovery has taken place since then. Your idea that there was some grand conspiracy to send a message for some unknown reason is preposterous."

Thats your opinion. You swallow the narrative like stormy daniels swallows...well...you know...Though the lip service you give the narrative might make even her blush.


"CNN says they came by the Stone arrest on their own. You'll never believe them but once again I doubt you have any evidence."

Look, class, he admits to believing cnn without using those words, so that he can later try to say 'I didn't say that'.

I bet you think you came up with sophistry all on your own.


"You say Mueller wasn't ready for the hackers but then say that the case not being dropped is irrelevant. If Mueller wasn't ready he would have lost the case."

If he was ready he wouldn't have asked for a delay, dumbass.


"The Strzok / Page tests reveal that they didn't like Trump."

They reveal more than that.



"Few well educated people do."


Not that you'd know. Besides, it isn't educated people that have problems with Trump, its the indoctrinated like yourself that wouldn't know a genuine education if it bit their right testicle off, that have the big problem.


" They don't reveal any intentional mishandling of his case. You are trying to make more that what is actually there."

Incorrect.

YOU are trying to make it less than it really is, like the MSM and the dems are, like the narrative tries to do.

They reveal bad behavior, and lack of candor at a bare minimum. I'll ask you again, trevor. Do you know what 'lack of candor' means in terms of doj and fbi policy?




"I decide after listening to both sides."

No you don't. You call anything contrary to your beliefs 'winger', while pretending that the middle and the far left are the two sides in question.

Just like a far leftist would.

"What is a conflict of interest depends on who it is applied to and under what circumstances. Simply supporting a candidate for office does not create a conflict. If it did the IG would have ruled on it."

You're avoiding the question.

WHY was bob mueller hiring anti-trumpers and hillary lovers?


"I can read. Your posts reek of hatred."


You can't read shit. I sit here writing at you wearing a smirk trevor.

You *amuse* me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 11:29 PM

50. I have to tell you again

Mueller was not in charge of intelligence under Obama when it came to Russian hacking. Reread with that fact in mind.

I don't buy your description of partisan hacks. Show me some evidence where their political beliefs affected their job performance. Otherwise, partisan hacks is just another example of you believing everybody who doesn't agree with you is corrupt. By the way, Mueller is a Republican. I heard about 5 members or Mueller's team donated to Democrats or were otherwise identified as favoring Democrats. That doesn't making them flaming activists eager to falsely accuse Trump like you pretend they do.

Still with the far fetched conspiracy theories about why Mueller charged Russian hackers?

More wild swings but never any evidence. Where is your evidence that the Strzok / Page texts reveal more? Post one in which they agree to misperform their duties.

It took a little searching but I found a poll for Trump approval among post graduates. He's at 28% approve and 67% disapprove. Its not just me. That's Pew research, the best in the business.

http://www.people-press.org/2018/10/01/trump-gets-negative-ratings-for-many-personal-traits-but-most-say-he-stands-up-for-his-beliefs/

Trump does best among the poorly educated. "I love the poorly educated," Trump once said. Smarter people aren't fooled by him.

I read Discussionist and listen to right wing radio daily. I get both sides. I often agree with the right. You just don't see it. If you asked my opinions on current issues you'd find I'm just a little left of center. The folks on DU often accused me of being DLC. Search it out under creeksneakers2. You just need to label me because I'm a threat to your poorly founded views.

I'm glad you are having fun. If you are though, I expect your posts to be more good natured, not full of inflammatory condemnations and lies and insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 02:45 AM

51. You say it but it doesn't mean anything.

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2019, 05:03 AM - Edit history (1)

"Mueller was not in charge of intelligence under Obama when it came to Russian hacking. Reread with that fact in mind. "

As fbi director, yes, trevor, he was in charge of some intelligence, perhaps not with russian hacking, but that leaves us with a hack director director of an agency under obama who is *gasp* NOT gone now.

"Even if you were right about partisan hacks in control of intelligence under Obama those people are gone now."

Those are your words. You were wrong. Swing and a miss, partisan hack.




"I don't buy your description of partisan hacks."

I don't buy your assertion, given that I never gave a description.



"Show me some evidence where their political beliefs affected their job performance. Otherwise, partisan hacks is just another example of you believing everybody who doesn't agree with you is corrupt."

The words "plausible deniability" describe a state of affairs intended to cater to ignorant niave people just like you, trevor.



"By the way, Mueller is a Republican."

Lordy lord are you predictable. You can't make any headway on your own so you pilfer Jh4freedoms tactics, presumably with high hopes.

Mccain was a republican. Romney was a republican. Anna navaro claims shes a republican. Jennifer ruben at the wapo claims to be a republican. Never before in the history of our nation, have the terms democrat and republican come to mean less than in the context in which you are attempting to use them.

Swing and another miss, partisan hack.



"I heard about 5 members or Mueller's team donated to Democrats or were otherwise identified as favoring Democrats. That doesn't making them flaming activists eager to falsely accuse Trump like you pretend they do."


5 my ass. What modern day leftist cesspool did you hear that nonsense from within, if not DU?

Andrew A. Weissman (AAW) is a well known activist for dem interests. Thats established fact. He was at hillarys victory party site on election night. It is believed that he is behind the leak of the stone indictment to cnn and there is evidence that indicates it.

AAW was within the information chain of the 'back channel' which Bruce Ohr was administering to the fbi. He was briefed on the unconfirmed nature of the dossier in the summer of 2016 - in other words, he knew and it was his duty to disclose it in any situation where the dossier was relied upon, as was every other fbi employee who knew in a situation where the dossier was relied upon.


""I am so proud," Andrew Weissman, then a top prosecutor in the Justice Department's criminal division, wrote to then-acting Attorney General Yates after the move. "And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects."

The fact that you have weissman here being proud of yates for defying a lawful directive of the President, for which she was rightfully fired, is a HUGE conflict of interest. He shouldn't be involved in ANY investigations where this President is concerned, given that revelation.

Also, publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of mueller's team have previously registered as dems, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation couldn't be found. Nine of the 17 made political donations to dems.

Now, I'll ask you again since you stupidly played the 'mueller is a republican' card:

WHY would mueller hire who he hired if hes a republican in the way YOU asserted he was?





"Still with the far fetched conspiracy theories about why Mueller charged Russian hackers?"

It isn't far fetched trevor.

A supposedly professional, honest prosecutor who is *actually* prepared does not NEED to ask for a delay because they were unprepared.

That is airtight logic, kiddo. No theory there at all. Again, you'd know these things if you spent any significant time observing in court instead of watching actors portray it on teevee.


"More wild swings but never any evidence. Where is your evidence that the Strzok / Page texts reveal more? Post one in which they agree to misperform their duties."

THIS, more than any single other example, illustrates what makes you a partisan hack. Nothing short of a statement which a guilty party would never make, would satisfy your bar for partisan hackery when it comes to people who work against this President.

Thats cool though, I'll make sure you hold that standard when it comes to your political opponents too, and I have a goood memory for that kind of thing, kiddo.



"It took a little searching but I found a poll for Trump approval among post graduates."

Meaningless.



"Trump does best among the poorly educated. "I love the poorly educated," Trump once said. Smarter people aren't fooled by him."

Like I said, he does best among the unindoctrinated. That you can't or wont tell the difference, thats your deficiency, not mine.



"I read Discussionist and listen to right wing radio daily."

Sure you do. Next you'll tell me you understand it too.



"If you asked my opinions on current issues you'd find I'm just a little left of center."

Thats a cute blind to hide behind trevor, and it might have even fooled me 15 years ago.

But not today.

You can claim you are whatever on whatever issue. The fact is, unless you've walked away, you vote dem. Voting dem is WAY WAY WAY left of center. Regardless of whatever you say your personal stances on the issues are, if you vote D, you vote far left.



"Search it out under creeksneakers2."

I knew I recognized your posting style. Lets take a look at some of the doozies you've posted, shall we? Lets have a look:

"Isn't anybody worried?
Our president, who was unable to get 6 major things right the first time the other day, is flirting with nuclear war. Trump has no idea what he is doing. Millions of lives are at stake."

"I believe Trump told Flynn to lie to the FBI."


" Not my president. Look at the word MY. That's not saying he's not president. I don't see many at all saying the results of the election should be overturned. That's acceptance."

"Get rid of most of the military"


LOL


"You just need to label me because I'm a threat to your poorly founded views."

*You* are not a threat to *anything* me, trevor.

You are a mild amusement.



"If you are though, I expect your posts to be more good natured, not full of inflammatory condemnations and lies and insults."

I don't sugar coat anything, for anyone, trevor. Behave like a partisan hack, and I will call you one. Pointing out the truth isn't an insult. If you don't like that, the answer is so simple even you can pull it off: Don't behave like a partisan hack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 12:52 AM

53. Are you bipartisan or non-partisan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 01:17 AM

54. You're dodging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 12:39 AM

55. I asked you a question

Seems like you are the one ducking. You've called me a partisan hack many times. I wonder if you mean that negatively, since you are deep into RW cult loyalty. If you'd like I'll answer the rest of your post when I get the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 01:04 AM

56. Yes you did, you were dodging.

You must protect your bubble, I totally understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #56)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 02:26 AM

57. Standard RW deception tactic.

Accuse your opponent of whatever it is you are doing. Karl Rove was famous for it. Its obvious now that I got you really good on the partisan idea.

You could benefit by reading this:

The political donations made by Robert Mueller's team are not evidence of bias

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bonica-chilton-sen-mueller-investigation-bias-20170728-story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 06:32 AM

58. Actually, trevor, communists are famous for that, aka modern day dems.

Now address the post I made earlier instead of dodging it.

There's a whole bunch you have not addressed.

Finally, you just submitted yet another OPINION piece as if it were something else, which is a standard trevor mistake.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #58)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 12:43 AM

59. The opinion was backed up.

Why are you afraid to admit you are more partisan than me? Do you realize you are the very thing you hate so much? You have addressed anything in the article I gave you. Afraid your assumptions about Mueller's hiring aren't valid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:46 AM

60. Its called an opinion piece for a reason trevor.

"Why are you afraid to admit you are more partisan than me?"

Because I am NOT more partisan than you. My allegiances are to a set of principles more than to any party.


"Do you realize you are the very thing you hate so much?"

I'm not a partisan hack, YOU are.


" You have addressed anything in the article I gave you."

Its an opinion piece, NOT objective fact. Furthermore, theres a whole long post you haven't addressed which comes first, hypocrite partisan hack.



"Afraid your assumptions about Mueller's hiring aren't valid?"

You wont actually address my critique of the hirings, you keep dodging, thats part of what makes YOU a partisan hack.


Lets try this again:


"I heard about 5 members or Mueller's team donated to Democrats or were otherwise identified as favoring Democrats. That doesn't making them flaming activists eager to falsely accuse Trump like you pretend they do."


5 my ass. What modern day leftist cesspool did you hear that nonsense from within, if not DU?

Andrew A. Weissman (AAW) is a well known activist for dem interests. Thats established fact. He was at hillarys victory party site on election night. It is believed that he is behind the leak of the stone indictment to cnn and there is evidence that indicates it.

AAW was within the information chain of the 'back channel' which Bruce Ohr was administering to the fbi. He was briefed on the unconfirmed nature of the dossier in the summer of 2016 - in other words, he knew and it was his duty to disclose it in any situation where the dossier was relied upon, as was every other fbi employee who knew in a situation where the dossier was relied upon.


""I am so proud," Andrew Weissman, then a top prosecutor in the Justice Department's criminal division, wrote to then-acting Attorney General Yates after the move. "And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects."

The fact that you have weissman here being proud of yates for defying a lawful directive of the President, for which she was rightfully fired, is a HUGE conflict of interest, AND demonstrates that he is political and suports 'the resistance'. He shouldn't be involved in ANY investigations where this President is concerned, given that revelation.

Also, publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of mueller's team have previously registered as dems, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation couldn't be found. Nine of the 17 made political donations to dems.

Now, I'll ask you again since you stupidly played the 'mueller is a republican' card:

WHY would mueller hire who he hired if hes a republican in the way YOU asserted he was?


Whats it going to be, partisan hack? Another dodge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #60)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 02:43 AM

62. Principles?

That's a real crock. You principles depend entirely over whether a Republican or Democrat is involved. You are a flaming hypocrite. You have to be to remain so very partisan.

You always call facts assertions or opinions or something like that. That way you can dismiss them without considering them. Considering risks the ideological hypnosis. The "opinion" I gave you was backed up with facts - facts that prove you wrong.

I responded to your crazy post already. Perhaps you've already found my response. You are too weak to play by the same rules you want me to play by. You often fail to respond to me. I responded to you and told you I would. I had to wait until I had the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #62)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 04:05 AM

64. Yes, principles.

"You principles depend entirely over whether a Republican or Democrat is involved."

You're projecting. Again.



"You always call facts assertions or opinions or something like that."

You're the one that posts opinion pieces as if they're not, not me.


"That way you can dismiss them without considering them."

And yet you're the one who dodges or runs when things get tough, as you have multiple times in this thread alone.


"The "opinion" I gave you was backed up with facts - facts that prove you wrong."

Backed up with facts which did not prove what you claim they did. I've tried to tell you, repeatedly, that theres a difference between thinking your right as you continually do, and being right which you frequently are not.



"You are too weak to play by the same rules you want me to play by."

Which is why you've been the one dodging and I haven't, right?

I hope you're convincing yourself, because you aren't convincing anyone else.



"You often fail to respond to me."

No I really don't. In fact, I regularly have the last word in our little exchanges.

You're the one that often fails to respond to me.

You're simply wrong.

Again.

If it were painful like touching a hot burner or sticking your finger in a light socket, maybe that would shake the synapses loose in that head of yours and you'd learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #64)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 12:56 PM

65. From now on, if we continue

I'll note your partisan hypocrisy.

I said the piece I posted was an opinion but it contained facts. Did you address the facts? No. You said I run and dodge. You said I'm wrong. You didn't give me any reason not to believe that since the majority of qualified applicants for the staff position were very likely to have been Democrats its very likely that those chosen would be Democrats. You avoid substance.

You reply to me but that isn't what I mean by responding. Responses should be about the points that were raised, not just insults.

Perhaps you could learn if you family hires a cult deprogramer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:09 PM

66. You'll continue getting your ass kicked. It is inevitable. You simply aren't equipped for this.

"I said the piece I posted was an opinion but it contained facts."

The piece didn't prove what you believe it does.



"You didn't give me any reason not to believe that since the majority of qualified applicants for the staff position were very likely to have been Democrats its very likely that those chosen would be Democrats."

This is such obvious bullshit.

That may explain plain statistical numbers of the pool of those to choose from, but it doesn't explain the choosing of those individuals. Bob mueller didn't just draw numbers from a hat, and those people weren't assigned to him. He CHOSE them. He had a pool of republicans and dems and many many non-political types to choose from, and could have just as easily filled his team with republicans as democrats.

Yet he CHOSE some of the most partisan dems in the pool. Why?



"You avoid substance."

You're the one that began the avoiding, you avoided the contents of my post in post 53 and began dodging repeatedly.


"You reply to me but that isn't what I mean by responding. Responses should be about the points that were raised, not just insults."

Post 53 trevor. Take your own advice, hypocrite, and quit trying project your own deficiencies on to me.


"Perhaps you could learn if you family hires a cult deprogramer."

Again, quit trying to project your deficiencies on to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #66)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:36 PM

67. "Yet he CHOSE some of the most partisan dems in the pool. Why?"

"He had a pool of republicans and dems and many many non-political types to choose from, and could have just as easily filled his team with republicans as democrats."

Go back to the link I gave you. It included this fact: Justice Department rules prohibit taking political affiliation into account when filling career positions at the agency, including those in the special counsel's office.

So we have another fact the ricocheted off the head wall. Mueller couldn't have chosen Republicans. And there is no reason for you to believe that Mueller's staff is as partisan as you claim. Mueller chose highly qualified people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:51 PM

68. Oh good grief. Could you possibly get more ridiculous?

"Go back to the link I gave you. It included this fact: Justice Department rules prohibit taking political affiliation into account when filling career positions at the agency, including those in the special counsel's office."

Justice department rules, in case you had't noticed, trevor, prohibit many things. Yet, we've seen justice department rules broken and bent many many times by the justice department which Trump inherited.

So please don't confuse 'prohibit' with 'prevent'.

You expect us to believe, given a roughly 60 40 dem republican split, that mueller had every legit reason to choose who he chose, and he just happened to by pure chance select a bunch of left wing trump hating/hillary loving types.

"There are no coincidences in Washington"

If you weren't so ignorant and niave you'd understand the truth of that statement.


"So we have another fact the ricocheted off the head wall."

No we don't.


"Mueller couldn't have chosen Republicans."


He COULD have chosen a balanced team. Yet he didn't. You can't argue against that because its the simple plain truth.


"And there is no reason for you to believe that Mueller's staff is as partisan as you claim."

Heres a reason to believe andy weissmann is every bit as partisan as I claim:

"I am so proud," Andrew Weissman, then a top prosecutor in the Justice Department's criminal division, wrote to then-acting Attorney General Yates after the move. "And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects."


Sally yates commited an act of insubordination against the sitting President and was fired for it. Andrew weissman cheered and said he was proud of her for doing it.

Cut and dry buddy.


"Mueller chose highly qualified people."

Mueller chose highly partisan people, 2 of whom were page and strzok before they were outed, I'll remind you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #68)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 05:40 PM

70. Let me try to explain this simple thing

If most of the applicants are Democrats and you want a balanced team you have to choose some Republicans. But doing so is against the rules. So Mueller couldn't do it. Of course, you say Mueller should have broken the rules. Is breaking the rules one of your principles? Its just another one of your conspiracy theory explanations for why the crap you believe can be true.

You keep claiming all of Mueller's team is politically biased. The biggest hole in this is that you can't come up with a case of a prosecution that was launched only for political purposes. You lack evidence for bias by members. Strzok was very qualified when he was hired. When Mueller found out about Strzok's negative opinions of Trump Mueller fired Strzok. That happened well before the public found out anything. Strzok was fired without any evidence that his personal opinions influenced the job he did. So Mueller bent over backwards to keep bias out of his operation. That's the opposite of what you claim.

Coincidences are part of reality. Only conspiracy theorists believe they are always proof of some plot.

You've told me over and over about Weissman's note to Yates. Its brave for a public servant to refuse to carry out an unlawful order. This is how the matter appeared to Weissman. It wasn't a case of him being out to get Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 06:34 PM

71. You tried and failed.

"If most of the applicants are Democrats..."

You've provided no substantiation that there WERE any applicants. You're getting cute with semantics, predictably, and misrepresenting the situation.

Mueller CHOSE the people he chose, from a pool of 94, if we stick only to US attorneys. From a much larger pool if we don't.



"But doing so is against the rules."

You're free to pretend that rules are never broken by the likes of mueller, but you don't get to force the rest of us to share that delusion. Mueller himself has a history of flouting the rules when it suits him, so does weismann.


"You keep claiming all of Mueller's team is politically biased. "

Andrew weissman IS politically biased.



"The biggest hole in this is that you can't come up with a case of a prosecution that was launched only for political purposes."

I can name one right off the top of my head: manafort. The fbi dropped the case as unworthy of prosecution when it was current, and mueller picked it up because it had a political use NOW, that it did not when it was dropped.

So much for your hole.


"You lack evidence for bias by members. "

Strzok page and weissmann all sent and received texts which showed that they were biased.

You're wrong. Again.


"So Mueller bent over backwards to keep bias out of his operation."

No. Mueller at best only attempted to eliminate the appearance of bias. At worst, he dropped a couple of expendables.


"Coincidences are part of reality. Only conspiracy theorists believe they are always proof of some plot."

Only dumbasses use the word 'always' when saying dumb shit like you just said.


"You've told me over and over about Weissman's note to Yates. Its brave for a public servant to refuse to carry out an unlawful order. This is how the matter appeared to Weissman. It wasn't a case of him being out to get Trump."

The assertion that it wasn't a lawful order is a political position which one can only have by taking a political position on the issue that it was over. You're doing that now, and claiming weissman did it then.

That does not not refute my point, trevor, it reinforces it.

One can only see that order as unlawful from a specific political position. I bet you wish you had thought of that before you said what you said and sounded dumb. Again.

Andrew weissman cheered and said he was proud of her insubordinate act. You can characterize it any way you like. What you can't do is turn that insubordinate act in into something other than an insubordinate act.


Andrew weissman said he was proud of sally yates for engaging in an insubordinate act over a HIGHLY partisan issue, for which she was properly legally fired.

And it isn't just me:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-trump-had-to-fire-sally-yates-214715

"If Yates truly felt this way, she should have told the president her conclusions in confidence. If he disagreed, she had one option: resign. Instead, she made herself a political martyr and refused to comply. Trump obliged, and replaced her with the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Dana Boente."

"This is a textbook case of insubordination, and the president was well within his constitutional powers to fire her."

Andy weissman wasn't proud over her doing it the right way, like the above example from politico. No no. He was proud of her making herself a political martyr, just as politico correctly notes that she did. If politico knows the difference between the right way and the wrong way, professional andy weissman knows it too, trevor. You're just being a partisan hack grasping at straws, desperate to preserve your bubble of unreality.


We also have the fact that weissman was briefed about the dossier in july of 2016 through an unofficial back channel which you already admitted was not a part of his official responsibiliies.

All of the above establishes to my satisfaction (and most thinking people for that matter) that he is both a partisan and a member of "the resistance" just like sally yates was, and as such he has no place in muellers investigation.

That establishes in your mind, on the other hand, that theres no bias there at all, no sir.

Nevermind that if the tables were turned, if a right leaning andy weissmann were attempting to special counsel hillary into the ground, you'd be screaming bloody murder and we all everyone here, know it. Including you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #67)


Response to Nostrings (Reply #51)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 02:30 AM

61. You are twisting nonsense around

to try to get away with running away from the point. I told you the intelligence community believes in the hack. You told me the intelligence community was all under Obama and therefore their opinions aren't valid. I told you the guys under Obama are gone now and the intelligence community still believes in the Russian hack. The guys under Obama who believed in the hack are gone now. Mueller has nothing to do with that, other than being a red herring for you to throw in. Now you are desperate for me to respond to such nonsense? What is the point of responding to you if you are just going to sling nonsense?

"Plausible deniability" is some bullshit Oliver North made up to claim he was ordered to do things and at the same time deny that he was ordered. Do you have a boss? Ask him if he would like "plausible deniability." What does any of that have to do with your failure to produce evidence that political considerations played any role in activities under the special counsel?

Mueller is a Republican. That makes you idea that he favors Democrats look silly. Once again, you throw in nonsense. This time about jh4freedom. I don't steal his tactics.

Where is your evidence Weissman is an activist? Donating to a candidate or going to a victory party doesn't make somebody an activist. I think you came up with that term to make it look like Weissman is carrying out a political agenda now. Where is your evidence of that?

The only things I found about Weissman leaking were from RW kooks sites and had no evidence. FBI agents have been fired for leaking recently. If Weissman leaked why isn't he fired?

In 2016 Weissman was the head of the criminal fraud section at the DOJ. As such, he wouldn't be involved with the dossier or the FISA warrant.

Yates' and Weissman's legal opinions about Trump's order weren't upheld by the Supreme Court but the opinions weren't that far out. The lower courts generally ruled against Trump.

Mueller hired Wiessman because they previously worked together. Wiessman's was Mueller's chief counsel at the FBI. Apparently, Mueller liked the job Weissman did. Weissman had a spectacular record as a prosecutor and is well known for being able to flip witnesses. Those are reasons for Mueller to hire him that make far more sense than you conspiracy theory. Mueller's other hires have excellent resumes. Some are particularly noted for their expertise in areas, like money laundering. I gave you evidence to show that anybody else hiring for the investigation likely would have found more Democrats. You poo-pooed it without cause.

Requests for delay in trials are very routine. The fact that they aren't always granted doesn't change the fact that they are routine. You come up with ANOTHER kook conspiracy theory over just that. The special counsel's office had an explanation for why they needed a delay. It had to do with a potential legal challenge that could come since the defendant wasn't properly served. It wasn't over a lack of preparation, like you claim it was. Your "airtight logic" is just more kookery.

Further down you post more nonsense to cover up your inability to produce any evidence to back up your wild claims. You are the one who is indoctrinated with right wing propaganda. A majority voted Democratic in the last two elections. If you think the majority of Americans are far from the center you must be looking at it from a position that is light years to the right

I'm very capable of understanding RW arguments. They are dumbed down to begin with to make impact with their targets.

I'll back up any of the posts you listed. I notice you made no effort to look at my other positions and looked at how they compared with the far left.

Your behavior shows I am a threat to you. You don't let anything penetrate your delusions. You obviously have a huge emotional investment in them.

I don't see you pointing out truth. I see you just flinging insults like an angry hateful person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #61)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 03:54 AM

63. Not at all.

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)

"I told you the intelligence community believes in the hack."

The opinions of the intelligence community you refer to, were first misrepresented by you as 17 agencies, and you had to walk it back to 3 agencies and a cold pizza.

The heads of those agencies at that time were ALL partisan hacks. Go watch clapper or brennan on cnn, or read thier tweets for yourself. They're partisan hacks and NOT trustworthy.




"You told me the intelligence community was all under Obama and therefore their opinions aren't valid."

Just about every agency one can name was politicized under obama to some degree. Would you like me to name the political heads of the orgs and some of their hacks? Comey. Clapper. Brennan. Koskinen. Napolitano. Yates. Ohr. Strzok. Page. Mccabe. Holder (contempt of congress for stonewalling ring a bell trevor?).

The sentiment was that they're not trustworthy without verification, and the usual suspects are fighting every kind of verification any one attempts, just like holder did.




"I told you the guys under Obama are gone now and the intelligence community still believes in the Russian hack."

They can not be gone if one of them is still there serving as special counsel. Thats what you seem not to understand.




""Plausible deniability" is some bullshit Oliver North made up to claim he was ordered to do things and at the same time deny that he was ordered."

Holy fucking shit are you niave.




"Do you have a boss?"

I'm my own boss.




"Mueller is a Republican."

What specifically, do you think that indicates?




"That makes you idea that he favors Democrats look silly."

That he hired a pool of hillary lovers/trump haters/.dem activists is proven fact. He could have hired non-political types but he didn't. You still can't seem explain WHY, if mueller is the kind of republican you say he is, that he would do so.

If you're right, and mueller is the kind of republican you say he is, he doesn't hire that way. if you're wrong, and you are wrong, it looks like what it looks like now.


"Where is your evidence Weissman is an activist? Donating to a candidate or going to a victory party doesn't make somebody an activist. I think you came up with that term to make it look like Weissman is carrying out a political agenda now. Where is your evidence of that?"

Right here:

Andrew A. Weissman (AAW) is a well known activist for dem interests. Thats established fact. He was at hillarys victory party site on election night. It is believed that he is behind the leak of the stone indictment to cnn and there is evidence that indicates it. His initials AAW are on a leaked stone indictment.

AAW was within the information chain of the 'back channel' which Bruce Ohr was administering to the fbi. He was briefed on the unconfirmed nature of the dossier in the summer of 2016 - in other words, he knew and it was his duty to disclose it in any situation where the dossier was relied upon, as was every other fbi employee who knew in a situation where the dossier was relied upon.


""I am so proud," Andrew Weissman, then a top prosecutor in the Justice Department's criminal division, wrote to then-acting Attorney General Yates after the move. "And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects."

The fact that you have weissman here being proud of yates for defying a lawful directive of the President, for which she was rightfully fired, is a HUGE conflict of interest. He shouldn't be involved in ANY investigations where this President is concerned, given that revelation.

Also, publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of mueller's team have previously registered as dems, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation couldn't be found. Nine of the 17 made political donations to dems.


"The only things I found about Weissman leaking were from RW kooks sites and had no evidence."

I doubt you looked very hard.


" If Weissman leaked why isn't he fired?"

Both because being on the SC team offers him a measure of protection, and because it takes time to fire a federal employee. Remember how long it took to fire mccabe?

"Yates' and Weissman's legal opinions about Trump's order weren't upheld by the Supreme Court but the opinions weren't that far out. The lower courts generally ruled against Trump."

Irrelevent. Weissman cheered an act of insubordination and congratulated the perpetrator for it.

You hear that boy? I'll say it again: Andrew weissman cheered an act of insubordination and congratulated the perpetrator for it.

Blatant conflict of interest, and mueller knowingly hired him anyway. Why?




"Mueller hired Wiessman because they previously worked together."

That sounds so plausible, doesn't it?




"Weissman had a spectacular record as a prosecutor and is well known for being able to flip witnesses."

Is that so:

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.


“Absent the good will of his friends Loretta Lynch and Bob Mueller, it is inconceivable that his DOJ or FBI career would be have been resuscitated after the Andersen debacle,” said one former prosecutor. “At the Justice Department, influential friendships mean everything, and can even overcome results that would be career killers for others.”

Yeah, hes real distinguished.

The more you talk, the clearer it becomes that you have no interest in reality, only in protecting your bubble-view of the narrative.



"In 2016 Weissman was the head of the criminal fraud section at the DOJ. As such, he wouldn't be involved with the dossier or the FISA warrant."

Not in his official capacity. Oops, trevor just ran face first into the painful truth:


"Ohr’s briefings, in July and August 2016, included the deputy director of the FBI, a top lawyer for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a Justice official who later would become the top deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller."

"Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ’s fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ’s international operations, and Zainab Ahmad, an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor.

"Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ’s fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ’s international operations, and Zainab Ahmad, an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor."

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425739-fisa-shocker-doj-official-warned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton

Oh but lets not stop at just one source:

In a series of questions about his meetings with Steele, including one on July 30, 2016, and who he shared the information with, Fox News has confirmed the Ohr transcript stated: “Andy McCabe, yes and met with him and Lisa Page and provided information to him. I subsequently met with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and eventually (an FBI agent). And I also provided this information to people in the criminal division specifically Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, Andrew Weissmann.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bruce-ohr-shared-details-about-meetings-with-anti-trump-dossier-author-with-justice-department-colleagues


So like you said:

"In 2016 Weissman was the head of the criminal fraud section at the DOJ. As such, he wouldn't be involved with the dossier or the FISA warrant..."

UNLESS it was for non-official purposes. Whats your excuse going to be this time trevor?



"Those are reasons for Mueller to hire him that make far more sense than you conspiracy theory."

Only if you naively believe them, like you claim to.


"Mueller's other hires have excellent resumes."

We've already established that your judgement as to what constitutes an 'excellent resume' is in error.


"Requests for delay in trials are very routine."

Requests made by uber professional prosecutoirs at the very beginning of the trial because they weren't ready are not.

Again, trevor, the prosecution doesn't ask for delays they don't need, and they generally don't need delays at the beginning of a trial if they're PREPARED. For the third time. Turn off the teevee and go sit in court for a few days if you think i'm wrong. I'm not.

"The special counsel's office had an explanation for why they needed a delay. It had to do with a potential legal challenge that could come since the defendant wasn't properly served. It wasn't over a lack of preparation, like you claim it was."

What the fuck, trevor? What do you think properly serving a defendant is, if not part of the preparation to try a case?

Holy mother of god you are ignorant.



"Your "airtight logic" is just more kookery"

No. Your understanding of the world around you is child-like, ignorant, and niave.



"A majority voted Democratic in the last two elections."

Dishonest dems misrepresented themselves as being something other than what they are.

A number of us predicted that behavior on their part over 2 years ago.

What about it?


"If you think the majority of Americans are far from the center you must be looking at it from a position that is light years to the right "

Here you expose just how far left you are, without even realizing it.


"I'm very capable of understanding RW arguments."

I very much doubt it. I suspect you understand what you've been told that they are, or what you think that they are. You can't tell the difference between substantive argument and mocking though, so your judgement is questionable at best.

" They are dumbed down to begin with to make impact with their targets."

I think you mean they're stripped of excess sophistry and fluff.

It figures you'd see that as dumbed down.


" I notice you made no effort to look at my other positions and looked at how they compared with the far left."

I noticed that when I said you vote dem, you didn't call bullshit.

If you vote for them, I don't CARE what your positions are. You may as well BE them.



"Your behavior shows I am a threat to you."

Your perception is fucked up like that.



"You don't let anything penetrate your delusions."

No, I simply do not accept yours. Its cool, trevor. If you like your delusions you can keep your delusions




"You obviously have a huge emotional investment in them."

Ok doc shoe,

For the record, when you poach others tactics it makes me smile deep inside.


"I don't see you pointing out truth."


For once we agree. I point out the truth and you don't see it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 07:00 PM

72. Don't blame me for 17 intelligence agencies.

That's what the media reported. When that changed I changed. Anyway, the Department of Homeland Security oversees 17 intelligence agencies and they are expected to speak for them as a whole. You have to keep going in circles. You claim that intelligence determinations that Russia was behind the hack because they were from biased Obama chiefs. I let you get away with claiming that. You are avoiding the fact that Trump's chiefs concur, even the CIA director that Trump ordered to look into your supposed download evidence. So its not all just because of bias. You can't refute that so you keep going in circles.

What do you mean by "not in his official capacity?" Do you think there was another conspiracy going on? In your world people must do nothing else but run conspiracies. I don't need an excuse for believing that what appears on the surface is probably what actually happened.

The reasons Mueller had to hire Weissman make sense whether I believe them at all. You can't refute them so you give another of your nothing responses, "That sounds so plausible, doesn't it?"

Your Weissman dirt comes from RW kook sites, as far as I can find.

Assuming that your sources on the Weissman dossier briefing are correct, which is a bit of a leap since Weissman had no reason to be briefed, you still haven't explained what exactly you expect Weissman to have done about it, since he wasn't involved in the FISA application or anything else related to the dossier.

Nostrings writes: "Holy mother of god you are ignorant." You seem to think serving a criminal warrant against a Russian official in Russia is a simple thing. You are ignorant if you believe that. The defendants went to court before the warrant was served. From this you have conjured up a plot.

I understand the world better than a conspiracy theory monger.

I understand that when your posts end up falling apart under scrutiny you claim they were mocking.

blah blah blah If you ever come up with truth I'll be able to see it. Unlike you, I keep an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #72)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 07:47 PM

73. Pointing at you is appropriate. You were still saying 17 after it was walked back by everyone else

And you continued until you were called on it. Now, you say 'the intelligence community' as you have in this thread, to describe 3 of 17 agencies that all head political leadership at the time.

Partisan hack.


"What do you mean by "not in his official capacity?"

Jesus trevor. This MUST be an act. Nobody is THAT stupid.

What I mean by 'not in his official capacity' is: Not as part of his duties or job at the fraud section of the fbi.

You yourself said: "In 2016 Weissman was the head of the criminal fraud section at the DOJ. As such, he wouldn't be involved with the dossier or the FISA warrant".

You left out the word 'officially'. But he was certainly unofficially involved, unless you think bruce ohr lied under oath.

Bruce ohr testified to under oath that weissman was briefed. We already know that this brief was of back channel information (the dossier) from a fired source named christopher steele, who had been fired from the fbi for being unreliable. The briefing obviously wasn't for the criminal fraud dividion, looking at the other players who were briefed.

What we have here, is an employee of the fraud section, AAW, getting briefed on the dossier which is unrelated to his official duties, plain and simple.


"Your Weissman dirt comes from RW kook sites, as far as I can find."

You call anything without a leftist slant, like mainstream right leaning publications such as American Thinker "kook" and "winger".

That shows just how far left you are.

"Assuming that your sources on the Weissman dossier briefing are correct, which is a bit of a leap since Weissman had no reason to be briefed, you still haven't explained what exactly you expect Weissman to have done about it, since he wasn't involved in the FISA application or anything else related to the dossier."

You say weissman had no reason to be briefed. You can not know that. You can only know that he had no OFFICIAL reason to be briefed. Why would he be briefed unofficially about something unrelated to his position or duties at the fbi in the first place trevor?

Because he is a bad actor, thats why.


"The defendants went to court before the warrant was served."

Serving the warrant properly is part of preparing to try a case. Thats a fact.

Mueller was either incompetent about serving it (thats where you will plant your flag) or he was under the impression that he russians would not bother since they were in russia and have zero reason to care either way ...and he didn't expect to have the case go to trial, which is far more likely.



"I understand the world better than a conspiracy theory monger."

If that helps you sleep at night, you just go ahead and keep telling yourself that. If you like your delusions you can keep your delusions.

In reality, you only understand what the leftist npc talking points tell you.


"I understand that when your posts end up falling apart under scrutiny you claim they were mocking."

I understand that you can't tell the difference between substantive discussion and mocking.


"blah blah blah If you ever come up with truth I'll be able to see it."

Says you. You do nothing but deny the truth all the live long day.


"Unlike you, I keep an open mind."

Your 'open mind' sees reason to investigate where none exists for righties, and sees no guilt short of a videotaped signed confession for lefties.

The worst part of it is, like most far leftists, you have 100 percent no clue that most of the rest of the world is 25+ IQ points higher than you and can see and understand every little argument you make and why you make it.

You are transparent to intelligent thinking reasoning people, like myself.

If you doubt it, ask the others posting in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #73)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 08:28 PM

74. I don't remember saying 17 intelligence agencies after it was debunked.

Prove I did.

What I meant when I asked you about your official capacity language was just what do you think the unofficial capacity is? What was the conspiracy this time?

Do you have a transcript of Ohr's testimony? Or is this based on reports from RW members of the committee for RW publications.? Steele was fired for talking to the media, not because he was unreliable.

Since you are incapable of understanding that serving a warrant against Russian officials in Russia is tricky lets look at this another way. Do you actually believe that the Special Counsel's office made up fictional indictments to file against a dozen Russians since they thought Russians would never respond? That's ridiculous. What would the Special Counsel's office have to gain with such a dangerous gamble?

American Thinker is a kook site. Its the kind of place where people who believe in fictional indictments go for information.

I know the other righties here don't think highly of me. How do you think you would get rated on DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #74)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 09:52 PM

75. Everyone else does.

"Prove I did. "

I don't have to prove you did. I was there, I remember it. So do others.


"What I meant when I asked you about your official capacity language was just what do you think the unofficial capacity is? What was the conspiracy this time?"

Since it was an unofficial information channel, that led to the unofficial briefing, having to do with the clinton paid for dossier (oppo research against Trump) how about you tell me what possible legitimate reasons or purpose there could have been for the unofficial channel OR the unofficial briefing, and why both remained unofficial in spite of it.

"Steele was fired for talking to the media, not because he was unreliable."

One who talks to the media again, after talking to them once and having their ass chewed, is unreliable, but I will concede that point.


"Do you actually believe that the Special Counsel's office made up fictional indictments to file against a dozen Russians since they thought Russians would never respond? "

No. I believe the SCO made up real indictments, believing that the russians would never respond.

You do understand that the russians are under no actual legal threat, and did not even have to respond, right?

Whether you did or didn't know that, mueller certainly did. He was caught with his pants down and unprepared.

Failing to properly serve the defendants is BY DEFINITION poor preparation, trevor. THAT is why his request was denied. The failure was on his part, not that of the defendants.


"That's ridiculous"

No more ridiculous than admitting that as a party you're going soft on one of your own for political reasons and throwing black people under the back of the bus:

https://www.discussionist.com/10151937116

No more ridiculous than what the left ginned up to try and destroy Kavanaugh.

No more ridiculous than holder stonewalling to the point he was held in contempt.

No more ridiculous than grossly misrepresenting yourselves to win elections.

No more ridiculous than being offended when someone says gender is biological.

No more ridiculous than being all for catch and release at the border.

No more ridiculous than being racist against white people as a party.

Again, you attempt to create this cozy little bubble where the harsh reality that there are no lines which dems and anti-trumpers will not cross, can't give you a sad.

"What would the Special Counsel's office have to gain with such a dangerous gamble?"

The same thing they had to gain by dredging up the manafort case which the fbi dropped previously, the same thing they had to gain by leaking to cnn and sending 20+ swat members to a gray haired old mans house with cnn filming, the same thing they had to gain by hiring partisan prosecutors:

Doing political damage.

I've already demonstrated motive. Means and opportunity are self explanitory.


"American Thinker is a kook site."

Because your npc talking points say that if you say that it is so, then it is so.

American thinker is mainstream right, not kookville. That you think otherwise, again, demonstrates your DU level of partisan hackery, since thats exactly what THEY would say.


"Its the kind of place where people who believe in fictional indictments go for information."

Its far more reliable than cnn, trevor, and unlike cnn it doesn't falsely claim to be non-partisan.


"I know the other righties here don't think highly of me"

None of us actually KNOW you trevor. We only KNOW how you behave.

Most of us have seen this sort of behavior before, many times, and understand both how you argue and why you argue the way you do. Your actual position (as opposed to whatever you might try to falsely claim) can be extrapolated from the things you say, and how you say them.

When you attempt to create plausible deniabilty for those you politically support, no matter how you try to shade it, we see it . When you spin, we see it. When you equivocate, we see it. When you misrepresent, we know it. When you continue a talking point well after its been debunked, we recognize it. When you change the language as a response, to something which is still a misrepresentation intended to add more credibility than is due, we remember that too.

Your perception when it comes to this is exactly like those who came before you, ignorant and full of assumptions about the people you're dealing with and the things they say. Ask anyone in the thread, they'll all tell you the same thing: That that is the unvarnished truth. And not because of 'who you are', but how you behave.


"How do you think you would get rated on DU?"


I was a DUer for the better part of 12 years trevor. A daily poster, in fact. I used to enjoy thrashing posters like you over there, under DU rules that are made to give advantage to leftist loons.

As to how I would be rated on DU? Thats super easy. I'd be rated as the far right, just like anyone else that doesn't completely carry whatever is the most current water, for the dem party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #75)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 10:41 PM

76. No proof, no explanation

a laundry list of all your gripes against Democrats for decades, groundless insults, etc.

Perhaps your wildest lie in a while was that the Manafort prosecution was because of partisanship. Manafort was convicted and could have been convicted on more. He was Trump's campaign manager and will linked to Russian intelligence. It would have been super malpractice not to go after him.

Your Mueller not prepared theory is ridiculous. The case is being prosecuted now. How does someone "make up" "real indictments?" Your defense for this one is all about being stubborn and nothing about logic.

I hope they find a way for all those guys in VA to resign without handing the state over to the GOP.

AmericanThinker is a kook site. Any normal rational person would see that.

Your pals here see what they want and expect to see, not what is actually there. You even hallucinated a car suddenly speeding up in a video.

I'm not that big on defending Democrats. I'm mostly interested in debunking RW propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 12:07 AM

77. Says partisan hack trevor.

"a laundry list of all your gripes against Democrats for decades, groundless insults, etc. "

Red herring.


"Perhaps your wildest lie in a while was that the Manafort prosecution was because of partisanship. Manafort was convicted and could have been convicted on more."

It is't a lie.

The politically driven nature is bleedingly, blatantly obvious.

Literally the only things materially different between when the fbi dropped the case and when mueller picked it up years later, are the political ways in which the case can be used, and the people doing the prosecuting, and the Trump connection.

THAT is a fact, trevor. One you simply can not argue with.


"He was Trump's campaign manager and will linked to Russian intelligence."

Neither of those things are a crime, and the only thing materially different from when the fbi dropped it and when mueller picked it up was a connection to Trump.

THAT is another fact, trevor, that you can not argue with.


"It would have been super malpractice not to go after him."

Then WHY trevor wasn't it "super malpractice" when the fbi dropped the case the first time?

What condition didn't exist then that existed when mueller picked up the case?

The connection to Trump, thats what.





"Your Mueller not prepared theory is ridiculous. "

It isn't a theory, its a fact. Its the prosecutors JOB as part of preparing to try his case, to properly serve the defendant. If he fails to do so, thats nobodys fault but his own, and a text book example of poor preparation. He asked for a delay and was smacked down.Thats a matter of public record trevor.

That he was unprepared in that fashion indicates he didn't expect the russian response at that time, or that professional bobby isn't so professional after all, or both.


"AmericanThinker is a kook site."

No it isn't.

You're just that far left, and now you've shown the entire class that, but you're too dunning kruger to realize it.



"Any normal rational person would see that. "

How would you know? You're a far leftist partisan hack. Thats about as far from rational or normal as it gets, short of being institutionalized.


"Your pals here see what they want and expect to see, not what is actually there."

Yeah, the problem is everyone else, not trevor. Trevor is right and everyone else is wrong.

Now you're starting to sound like the far leftist DUer we all knew you were a long time ago.


"You even hallucinated a car suddenly speeding up in a video."

Actually, it was audible on the audio, not that you could be bothered to have your facts correct.


"I'm not that big on defending Democrats."

Uh huh. Sure you're not:

"I hope they find a way for all those guys in VA to resign without handing the state over to the GOP."

You, trevor, are a far left partisan hack.




You can't even seem to remember the contradictory things you say in the very same post, trevor. Other of my long term sparring partners actually learned, but you, you're going backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 08:16 PM

78. The difference with Manafort

was that he became a key witness in an important investigation. You may not like it but that's how it works. Prosecutors go after potential witnesses and try to flip them. It happens every day. Once again you think anybody who is on your side should get special treatment breaks.

Mueller was working to achieve service.

AmericanThinker is openly partisan. So somebody who is in the middle would recognize its not a valid source of information. It wouldn't take a far lefty to do it, which by the way, I'm not. Is there a class here? I don't see one. We've stuck on this thread after everybody else left. If you want to, you can continue to pretend you aren't alone. I understand you are scared.

If it was audible on the video it would have shown up in the visuals. If the murderer stomped on the gas the car would have accelerated. The murderer had a capable defense and if there was anything on the video that would have cleared him it would have been shown to the jury. Since not one juror heard / saw it and I didn't hear / see it you must have hallucinated it. Face that. You see only that which you want to and expect to see.

If I was a partisan hack like you are I wouldn't want the folks in VA to resign at all. In fact, if I was flaming partisan, like you are, I would deny that anything happened at all, like you would. I was a big fan of Al Franken but I said he should resign.

I'm not the only one who is right. But right wingers generally are wrong very often.

How many sparring partners have you had? Are you sure that they didn't just see how impossible your mind is to penetrate and give up? I shudder to think you ever convinced a normal person of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #78)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:07 PM

79. Because trevor says so? No.

"was that he became a key witness in an important investigation. You may not like it but that's how it works. Prosecutors go after potential witnesses and try to flip them. It happens every day. Once again you think anybody who is on your side should get special treatment breaks."



Except that not a single witrness has been flipped, dumbass. See...again, you would know this if you read something other than far left nonsense. When a prosecutor attempts to "flip" a witness, the goal is to get the witness to plead guilty to something which implicates a main target on the official record. THAT hasn't happened a single time, we know because we are able to see the public record when it comes to these.

Manafort did NOT plead guilty to a crime that implicated a main target, therefore was not flipped, because he could not have been a witness to collusion which never happened. Furthermore, the FBI has said Trump is not a target, so who is it that you assert that mueller was trying to flip people on? Did the fbi lie when it said Trump wasn't a target?

Your problem is, you don't actually THINK about any of this.



"AmericanThinker is openly partisan."

I never said they weren't partisan. I said they weren't KOOK partisan.


"So somebody who is in the middle would recognize its not a valid source of information."

That would be an opinion. American thinker makes assertions like any other news outlet, and like any other news outlet, their assertions are either true or false independent of what anyone thinks. What someone "recognizes" when it comes to their opinion of American Thinker is irrelevant.

You keep trying to substitute opinion for fact trevor. Its a bad habit. Or maybe you just can't tell the difference.


"It wouldn't take a far lefty to do it, which by the way, I'm not."

Oh yes you are. You signed your name endorsing judicial activism, defend dems relentlessly and presumably vote for them. You can't run from it now.


"Is there a class here? I don't see one."


Your ignorance is flaring up again. You also don't see the oxygen in front of your face, but it is there as well.



"If it was audible on the video it would have shown up in the visuals. If the murderer stomped on the gas the car would have accelerated. The murderer had a capable defense and if there was anything on the video that would have cleared him it would have been shown to the jury. Since not one juror heard / saw it and I didn't hear / see it you must have hallucinated it. Face that. You see only that which you want to and expect to see. "


If you want to discuss that issue, start a separate thread and I'll be happy to. This thread isn't about that though.


"If I was a partisan hack like you are I wouldn't want the folks in VA to resign at all."

If? IF? You already experessed your partisan hackery in that regard:

"I hope they find a way for all those guys in VA to resign without handing the state over to the GOP."

You said that trevor, remember?


"In fact, if I was flaming partisan, like you are, I would deny that anything happened at all..."

Cute, but you already admitted your partisan hackery 4 sentences up.


"I'm not the only one who is right."

You are very seldom correct about most things. Your view of the world and the way things work is niave, sophomoric, and stunted by your glaring ignorance.


"How many sparring partners have you had?"

Thousands.


"Are you sure that they didn't just see how impossible your mind is to penetrate and give up?"

Yes, trevor, I'm sure.



"I shudder to think you ever convinced a normal person of anything."

I shudder to think you think you're representative of normal people.

"Normal" people aren't ignorant niave partisan hacks, but you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:24 PM

80. 'I never said they weren't partisan. I said they weren't KOOK partisan."

Who raised you? Weren't you taught that half the truth isn't the truth? Why would somebody want to read something that isn't true if they aren't a kook?

Here's one that is totally nuts and it sounds like you.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/russian_interference_didnt_happen.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:33 PM

81. That is what I said.

"Who raised you?"

Who programs you?


"Weren't you taught that half the truth isn't the truth?"

Weren't you, mister "all 17 agencies" walked back to "the intelligence community" when its actually 3 of 17 whos heads were all hyper-politicized at the time?





"Here's one that is totally nuts and it sounds like you."

You keep making the mistake, trevor, of thinking that all it takes is for you to call something "nuts" to make it "nuts".

This is a common far leftist hack misconception, but reality doesn't bend to those whims.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #81)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:35 PM

82. No

Its just plain nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #82)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:38 PM

83. Again, you aren't the arbiter of what is or isn't true.

You saying that something is so doesn't make it so.

I imagine that tends to keep you awake at night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #83)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:44 PM

84. I get to say what I think is true.

So do you. What's the difference, other than I'm not a kook?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #84)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:48 PM

85. Yes, just like the opinion pages you cite do.

The difference is, you're a npc partisan hack who has demonstrated to the satisfaction of almost everyone that he can not think for himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #85)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:51 PM

86. If all you can come up with are insults

why not come up with some fresh ones occasionally? I can respond on topic so I, unlike you, must be able to think for myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 11:04 PM

87. I imagine you really believe I say that as an insult and not a genuine observation.

Truth be told, I feel a tiny bit sorry for you if anything...but you do make even that difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 11:10 PM

88. No. They are insults.

Insults from a kook. Somebody who feels sorry for somebody doesn't insult that person all the time, so that was more bullshit from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 11:13 PM

89. No, they're actually observations.

"Somebody who feels sorry for somebody doesn't insult that person all the time, so that was more bullshit from you."

One calls out the bad behavior, even of those who one loves, trevor.

Since I don't love you, and I don't know you, all I can do is feel a little sorry for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 11:20 PM

90. You told me before that your outbursts of anger

were because you didn't like me. You make no sense. Sober up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 11:48 PM

91. You're lying again trevor.

What I said was:

"I admit to some anger because the corrupt continue to get away with it, and some more because they have cheerleaders like you..."

https://www.discussionist.com/10151924903#post47


This is one of the reasons why I feel a tiny bit bad for you. You aren't even aware of what you've been reduced to, but the lying makes it hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #91)

Tue Feb 12, 2019, 11:45 PM

92. No.

I asked you if there was something wrong with you because you were expressing such anger and hatred. You said there was nothing wrong with you, that you just communicated that way because you didn't like me. That's what you said. Now you change it. Mixed up!

I don't know I've been reduced because I haven't been reduced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #92)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 10:29 AM

93. Doubling down on a lie doesn't make your lie true.

"I asked you if there was something wrong with you because you were expressing such anger and hatred."

Incorrect. You said this:


"You are filled with anger and hatred because you think everybody is corrupt."


That isn't a question, its an assertion.

"You said there was nothing wrong with you, that you just communicated that way because you didn't like me. That's what you said."

You're lying. What I said was this:

"I admit to some anger because the corrupt continue to get away with it, and some more because they have cheerleaders like you... "

THAT is a direct quote.

You are terrible at this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 05:52 PM

19. Never by you.

You don't provide anything but insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:46 PM

24. A cop out.

You can't handle discussions that do not rely on opinion, narrative, supposition or lies.

What you call insults are most often accurate descriptions.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:48 PM

25. No. They are just stupid insults.

Often the same ones over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:51 PM

26. Nope.

Accurate.

Don't rely on me, others reach the same conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:55 PM

28. Other wingers

Normal people don't become wingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 09:57 PM

29. Sure, it's everyone else.

Typical lefty bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #24)


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 02:02 PM

5. I suspect it was an insider that downloaded the DNC emails and gave them to

WikiLeaks. I also suspect that individual is now six feet under. Messing with the Clintons and their Clinton Machine can be hazardous to your health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 02:16 PM

6. Lying to congress while not under oath is not a crime.

Lying under oath is perjury!

Podesta should be the one arrested for letting his password he so loosely guarded while in Russia!

A candidate reaching out to ANYBODY with oppo research is no crime!

When will the GOP fight back against these bogus charges!

Candidates and anyone with them influence elections all the time- that is what campaigning is!

what Mueller needs to find and will not ever- is the crime of attempting to alter the outcome of an election! That is a crime!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 02:41 PM

7. Lying to Congress while not under oath is still a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 03:09 PM

8. Only if it is in direct misleading to pertinent facts of a case.

(1) Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true

So if it can be shown that speaking to congress in an unsowrn informal session (one not under oath) is defacto perjury if a person is lying- then yes. Otherwise no!

IOW if you are just sitting down speaking to congress people and lying through your teeth about something you are involved in- it is not a crime! If you are testifying before Congress and lie- it is considered perjury- but if Congress overlooked to swear you in- there is more than a reasonable chance the testimony is inadmiisable for them not swearing you in, just like the police not reading you your miranda rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2019, 05:59 PM

13. Hate to tell you this-

but lying to congress in committee or full session is perjury!

Lying to congress in informal session is just a personal sin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 30, 2019, 06:20 PM

14. I just looked at the law.

It appears you are right. Glad you told me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 31, 2019, 07:31 AM

15. You are welcome!

With all the charged atmosphere surrounding Trump, we have to look hard at what is going on to seperate fact from partisanship with Mueller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2019, 03:25 PM

9. The charges against Stone

Have to do with his TESTIMONY before the House Select Committee on Intelligence and nothing more. He is charged with obstructing a congressional investigation, witness tampering and making false statements. That is what the Office of the Special Counsel will have to prove to judge and/or jury. Did he obstruct, did he tamper and did he make false statements.
The FBI and people in Congress have not been indicted therefore they don't have to orove anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 02:50 AM

52. So much nothingburger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 10:33 AM

94. Assange has already said his source was NOT Russians

He's never been known to lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics