Politicspolitics

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 12:51 PM

If a special counsel is appointed to investigate fisa/spying, I want this fella.





Just WOW.

80 replies, 850 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 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply If a special counsel is appointed to investigate fisa/spying, I want this fella. (Original post)
Nostrings Apr 23 OP
JanetS Apr 23 #1
Gunslinger201 Apr 23 #2
Trevor Apr 23 #3
DP46 Apr 23 #5
Trevor Apr 24 #8
DP46 Apr 24 #12
Trevor Apr 24 #13
AmandaCMatthews Apr 28 #34
Nostrings Apr 23 #6
Trevor Apr 24 #9
Nostrings Apr 24 #11
Trevor Apr 24 #14
Nostrings Apr 24 #15
Trevor Apr 24 #16
Nostrings Apr 24 #17
Trevor Apr 25 #20
Nostrings Apr 25 #22
Trevor Apr 25 #23
Nostrings Apr 25 #24
Trevor Apr 25 #25
Nostrings Apr 25 #26
Trevor Apr 25 #27
Nostrings Apr 26 #29
Trevor Apr 28 #30
kevlar Apr 25 #19
MeatSandwich Apr 24 #7
Trevor Apr 24 #10
Carl Apr 25 #18
Trevor Apr 25 #21
Carl Apr 25 #28
Trevor Apr 28 #31
GoldwatersSoul Apr 28 #32
Trevor Apr 28 #35
GoldwatersSoul Apr 28 #39
Carl Apr 28 #36
MeatSandwich Apr 28 #37
Trevor Apr 28 #38
MeatSandwich Apr 30 #40
Trevor May 1 #41
MeatSandwich May 2 #42
Trevor May 2 #43
MeatSandwich May 13 #45
Trevor May 13 #46
Carl May 13 #47
Trevor May 13 #48
Carl Tuesday #49
Trevor Tuesday #52
Carl Tuesday #53
Trevor Tuesday #54
Carl Tuesday #55
Trevor Tuesday #56
Carl Wednesday #57
Trevor Wednesday #59
Carl Wednesday #63
Trevor Wednesday #61
Carl Wednesday #64
Trevor Thursday #65
Carl Thursday #67
Trevor Thursday #68
Carl Friday #69
Trevor Friday #70
Carl Saturday #71
Trevor Saturday #72
Carl Saturday #73
Trevor Saturday #74
Carl Saturday #75
Trevor Saturday #76
Carl Saturday #77
Trevor Saturday #78
Carl Saturday #79
MeatSandwich Tuesday #50
Trevor Tuesday #51
MeatSandwich Sunday #80
Nostrings Wednesday #58
Trevor Wednesday #60
Nostrings Wednesday #62
Trevor Thursday #66
oflguy Apr 23 #4
AmandaCMatthews Apr 28 #33
Salaam May 2 #44

Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 01:05 PM

1. I 2nd that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 02:05 PM

2. Huber is already on the case

John Huber, who will investigate the FBI, is a special counsel in every way but name

John W. Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, can convene a grand jury, issue subpoenas, collect evidence and order witnesses to testify — all the usual powers a federal prosecutor has — as he delves into whether the FBI abused its powers when it sought permission and then carried out wiretapping of a Trump campaign figure, or whether it trod too lightly in pursuing questions about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/1/john-huber-us-attorney-leading-fbi-investigation-s/

Barr has been briefed by Huber

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:41 PM

3. Digenova is a core member of the vast right wing conspiracy.

There is no way on Earth he would run an honest investigation. That's probably why you want him so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:23 PM

5. Well, that's really tough shit for Lefty isn't it?

We'll just have to be sure that anyone investigating is as unbiased as Strokh, Page, Comey, et. al. are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:29 PM

8. DiGenova is way worse than them.

I see you don't care if your side is wrong but plenty of voters would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:41 PM

12. Sure, he speaks out on TV, the other side lies through their teeth

I'd rather know where someone is actually coming from, than have a flock of lying Lefty pieces of shit pretending to be "neutral" and doing everything to sink an administration with a "back up plan".

One is honest disagreement,m the other is being a lying piece of shit.

But I don't expect you're capable of grasping the difference.

Now don't you have some pedophiles and rapists to get registered to vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:58 PM

13. The difference is

diGenova lies and says crazy conspiratorial nonsense. The guys you hate are normal people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 12:58 AM

34. ...crazy conspiratorial nonsense. Read the damn

Clinton/Steele/Obama/Comey/DNC Dossier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:42 PM

6. And there it is. Trevor is a believer in the VRWC.

He'll do his job, which is why I want him, and what terrifies you and your far left buddies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:32 PM

9. He was in charge of investigating GHW Bush

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

and let him off even though GHWB was guilty He wouldn't do anything like his job. That's why you want him. No sense of right and wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:35 PM

11. Try again, this time in some dialect of english, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:33 PM

14. Sorry, I'll edit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:50 PM

15. Thats better...

Of course, you're expecting everyone to agree with the substitution of your opinion of the event you describe for that of the AG whos job it actually is to make that determination.

Kind of like you dems are doing now with 'muh obstruction'.

"No sense of right and wrong."

I don't hear anything from you about "right and wrong" when it comes to the demands that the dems are making.

Now you'll reply 'legal explanation', and I'll ding you for moving the goal posts from subjective "right and wrong" to "legal", and everyone will have a big laugh watching history repeat itself, yet again.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:03 PM

16. If Dems tried to have, let's say

Richard Ben Venista as a special counsel I'd agree with Republicans that he's too partisan to be suitable. But then, I have a sense or right and wrong.

I also haven't agreed yet with calls for impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:42 PM

17. If you had a sense of right and wrong...

"Richard Ben Venista as a special counsel I'd agree with Republicans that he's too partisan to be suitable."

You wouldn't use terms like republican and democrat in the context that you are, and, you'd admit that muellers team consisted of many exactly like Richard Ben Venista or worse...but you can't admit that, particularly now that you've gone and said what you've gone and said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 07:58 PM

20. Mueller's team was staffed with top of the line career professionals.

I haven't heard a single example of them being unfair to Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 08:20 PM

22. "top of the line career professionals" like andrew weissman, peter strzok and lisa page.

As we've previously established, nothing short of a signed in triplicate confession presented at a live press conference would convince you of bad behavior of anyone under your banner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 08:23 PM

23. If the IG says they did something wrong

I'll probably believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 08:36 PM

24. Thats pretty funny.

Not your post per se, but the fact that it demonstrates that you need someone you trust in authority to determie if someone under YOUR banner misbehaves, while you seem able to make up your own mind quite freely when it comes to people under mine.

Yes indeed, very funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #24)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 08:56 PM

25. When I have the facts I make up my own mind.

When I don't have facts I have to trust somebody, or not trust somebody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #25)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 09:07 PM

26. Is that an admission that you do NOT have the facts about your own people?

And an assertion that you do about the opposition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #26)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 09:23 PM

27. Neither one as a rule.

Its case by case. Sorry. No admission,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 12:50 AM

29. Its an admission that in this case you do not have the facts about your own side.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 12:04 AM

30. I have as many facts about the people on both sides as you do.

And they are all cluttered out by misinformation, like yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 01:41 PM

19. The irony...

"No sense of right and wrong."

Is being a reality challenged liar a requirement for being a lefty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:13 PM

7. And Mueller is a devout never-Trumper. His report reflects that.

I noticed the Dems just loved him a week or so ago. What happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:34 PM

10. Mueller was very fair with Trump.

His report reflect the facts as they saw them. Dems still back Mueller. We like fairness, unlike some here who would love to cheat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 12:51 PM

18. Really?

All democrats have done for the last 2 weeks is bitch that Mueller did not "get" the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #18)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 08:11 PM

21. I haven't heard a single one blame Mueller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:11 PM

28. You post at the DUmpster.

Don't play the no true Scotsman thing with me.

Nadler has accepted the report?
The impeachment stupidity is because democrats think Mueller did the job they thought he was going to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 12:30 AM

31. Nobody blames Mueller

They blame Barr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 12:42 AM

32. For what???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 01:20 AM

35. Describing the report as more favorable to Trump

than it actually was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 09:36 PM

39. The report..

Doesn't actually describe a crime. It describes a potential crime that never happened during the investigation of a hoax. The fact that Barr had to say a thing is laughable. He should have wiped his ass with it and threw it to the reporters.

The release of the report was exactly what I said it would be. Liberals seeking info to lob bombs at Trump. Funny thing. While the stuff in the report are the investigations findings. Like all investigations, they have to have proof or they may not really have happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 04:47 AM

36. Go back and read your fellow DUmp ilk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 02:17 PM

37. Not even close to being fair. Volume II is full of inuendo (not facts). It was a clear shot at the

President. For example: Using the President's texts (tweets) as an example of possible obstruction is just ludicrous. No prosecutor in their right mind would attempt to do such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 05:36 PM

38. I didn't read that part yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #38)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 01:56 PM

40. Washington Post. I didn't waste my time reading that garbage opinion piece.

As a practicing federal prosecutor, I know exactly what conspiracy to obstruct entails. Think about something out loud, or even blowing off steam to a subordinate doesn't come close to obstruction. The FACTS are CLEAR. The President did nothing to obstruct the investigation. As a matter of fact (public record), he complied in every way. I wouldn't give two cents for any lawyer that says otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #40)

Wed May 1, 2019, 07:05 PM

41. I think you need to "practice" more

before becoming a prosecutor. The president did not comply in every way. For one thing, he refused to sit for a live interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #41)

Thu May 2, 2019, 11:58 AM

42. He provided written answers to interogatories.

He wasn't *required* to sit for an interview. He could have been subpoenaed if Mueller really wanted that to happen. Clearly, Mueller accepted the written answers as sufficient for his purpose. Opposing counsel does this all the time; work out a deal. That's what Mueller did. After 20 years of doing this, I think I have enough practice.


Added for clarity:

Note is says deposed *or* answer written questions. Again, an extremely common practice in federal courts.

"U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as E.W. Priestap, to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #42)

Thu May 2, 2019, 07:14 PM

43. You said this:

" As a matter of fact (public record), he complied in every way." He didn't. So you are wrong, Mr. Prosecutor. Mueller said he felt that if he issued a subpoena it would be in court for years. On top of that Trump tried to get the special counsel fired and tried to pass on lies about that. In fact, if you read the second part of the Mueller probe, there was an extensive effort by Trump to thwart the investigation.

Now they are trying to block legitimate oversight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #43)

Mon May 13, 2019, 04:13 PM

45. You are so wrong, yet again.

If Mueller thought he had a chance with a subpoena, he would have sent it. The courts would have shut him down in a minute. Secondly, there is no legal reason for the President to sit for an interview once he sends written answers. I tried, but you apparently didn't read, what I sent in my first reply. Written interrogatories are sent all the time in lieu of face to face interviews. Perfectly legitimate and perfectly acceptable. Just ask the FEDERAL court I quoted.

Finally, the President could have fired Mueller any time he wanted to. "For any reason or no reason at all." To quote the former Director of the FBI, James Comey. It was well within his Article II powers. The fact that far left types like yourself don't like that, is not our problem.

As to blocking legitimate oversight, if by making available a very minimally redacted report to Congress, which no a single Democrat has taken the time to read. I'll repeat that, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT has taken the time to read, then I guess he is certainly trying to block their oversight. This is ALL theater for the Democrats. And now, Adam Schiff says there should be no investigation of Biden's son in reference to a one billion dollar deal with China. It just gets better all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #45)

Mon May 13, 2019, 06:40 PM

46. Maybe you don't believe Mueller but he says what I told you.

"Mueller decided not to subpoena Trump to avoid a lengthy court fight"

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-mueller-subpoena-20190417-story.html

What is usual practice shouldn't apply to this case because of its importance. If Hillary was allowed to just answer written questions with the help of her lawyers the right would have gone even more insane than they already are.

It Trump had the legal authority to fire Mueller that doesn't mean he would have gotten away with it. There would be a serious attempt at impeachment, possibly a successful one. Firing Mueller would be a gross abuse of power.

I don't know all about the Biden's son with China scandal. I know the one about the Ukraine has been debunked.

I read your posts. You refused to to read my link. You think you know everything but it doesn't look like you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #46)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:44 PM

47. Hillary got a softball interview after they already decided to exonerate her despite evidence.

Go ahead and try to impeach over a phony investigation,just do it.
Firing Mueller would have been a nothing if done.

Bidens scandal has not been debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #47)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:20 PM

48. 'The end of his presidency,' 'suicide': Some GOP senators warn Trump on firing Mueller

I get my conclusions from facts. You just believe what your emotions tell you. Witness:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the Fox Business Network on Tuesday that he had "confidence" in the special counsel and that "it would be suicide for the president to fire Mueller."

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said he thought Trump was "too smart" to get rid of Mueller. "I think it would provoke some sort of reaction by Congress. I think he knows that," Kennedy said on CNN's "New Day," adding that "the president can't just fire Mr. Mueller. He's got to direct Mr. Rosenstein to fire him, and I don't think Mr. Rosenstein would do it."

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said it would be "inappropriate" for Trump to dismiss either Mueller or Rosenstein. "I think it would be a massive mistake for the president to do anything to interfere with this investigation," said Corker, adding, "he knows most every Republican senator feels that way."

And Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also said Tuesday that he didn't think Trump was likely to dismiss either man because he knew "it would be the beginning of the end of his presidency."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/end-his-presidency-suicide-some-gop-senators-warn-trump-firing-n864431

If you want to start believing in facts try reading the transcripts of GOP grilling FBI agents on the Hillary interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #48)

Tue May 14, 2019, 05:21 AM

49. Talk in politics is meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #49)

Tue May 14, 2019, 08:48 PM

52. What does have meaning to you, other than your world view without foundation?

I think all the comments I shared with you show something. So did whoever published the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #52)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:09 PM

53. Your comments are 90% opinion offered as fact.

Everyone is aware of that,you also know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #53)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:13 PM

54. This is a discussion place.

Its even called Discussionist. There is nothing wrong with sharing opinions. I pass my opinions as the truth. So does everybody. There is no alternative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #54)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:17 PM

55. You pass your opinions as proven fact.

They rarely are or are correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #55)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:22 PM

56. Anything I say is proven fact is proven fact.

If you don't agree you are welcome to refute and show your evidence but you choose not to do that and to insult instead. I don't think you can back up what you say. That's why you play it this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #56)

Wed May 15, 2019, 05:02 AM

57. Did I not just call you on it the other day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #57)

Wed May 15, 2019, 07:22 PM

59. I didn't say it was proven fact.

Are you pretending you won again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #59)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:01 PM

63. Bullshit,you posted things as if a fact,when I asked if you had inside info to know you admitted

it was just an opinion.

It is right there in the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #55)

Wed May 15, 2019, 07:53 PM

61. Link to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #61)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:02 PM

64. I did,read the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #64)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:35 PM

65. You haven't linked to anything where I described something that wasn't a fact as a fact.

So you are the one giving an opinion that is not a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #65)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:18 PM

67. Read the thread I linked to,where you had to admit your posts were just your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #67)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:22 PM

68. Sure, I admitted that.

I never said it was fact. When asked I admitted it was my opinion. Not a speck of dishonesty there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #68)

Fri May 17, 2019, 04:54 AM

69. Yes you did,everyone can read the overall exchange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #69)

Fri May 17, 2019, 10:44 PM

70. Fine with me if they read it.

I don't think the rest will misperceive it like you have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #70)

Sat May 18, 2019, 04:53 AM

71. Better yet here it is.

"Response to PrescientWon. (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2019, 02:03 PM

Trevor (6,999 posts)
5. Horowitz will probably find some wrongdoing.

They always do. He's not going to find the whole thing was an outright fraud and he definitely isn't going to find a plot to spy or a coup."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #71)

Sat May 18, 2019, 01:24 PM

72. OK. I bookmarked it.

We'll get to find out if I'm right.

You can't count that as me passing off an opinion as fact because its a prediction. Everybody knows predictions aren't facts.

If it turns out I'm right and most of the RW Discussionist crew turns out to be wrong are you going to hassle them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #72)

Sat May 18, 2019, 04:25 PM

73. Like all your posts,you asserted it as a fact and not a prediction or opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #73)

Sat May 18, 2019, 04:49 PM

74. Do you think I should label every post as fact or opinion?

Who does that? Do you do that? A reasonably intelligent person can tell the difference just by looking at what is said. Predictions obviously are not facts. Are you not a reasonably intelligent person?

You come up with so many garbaqe reasons to attack me. Yet you seldom if ever attack anyone on your side. We are supposed to respect disagreement. This is America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #74)

Sat May 18, 2019, 06:12 PM

75. Now comes the pissy act.

There are plenty that challenge things from conservatives that are asserted as "facts" from both sides of the aisle,
Note those that comment on whatever Q stuff is.

You endlessly make flat out statements that often prove wrong with never even an obligatory "imo" ora qualifier that such as "I doubt" or "I don`t believe" as part of them.This is part of the reason few take what you post as anything other then parroting propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #75)

Sat May 18, 2019, 07:13 PM

76. You are lying again.

In this one I doubted myself but it turned out later I was right the first time.

https://www.discussionist.com/10151627613#post29

https://www.discussionist.com/10151852077#post11

https://www.discussionist.com/10151944715#post10

Response #5 in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #76)

Sat May 18, 2019, 07:35 PM

77. What the fuck does that have to do with what I said?

"Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 11:55 PM

Trevor (7,016 posts)
10. Since you want it so bad.

Lets start with the first paragraph. Hiring Steele wasn't Hillary's idea. The idea came from Fusion GPS, who hired Steele to look into Trump's business practices in Russia. While working on that Steele was given the dossier information. It was Steele, not Hillary, who decided to notify the FBI. There is no reason to believe that Steele did not believe the information he provided was valid. This started out as a request for opposition research in general but nothing specific about a fabricated dossier was planned. The idea wasn't to get Trump out of the race, although when a campaign purchases opposition research they hope they will get something that is really effective. Trump engaged in opposition research too. His campaign was willing to even collude with Russia to get it. There was nothing illegal about seeking opposition research.

So your author engages in gross dishonesty to promote a kook conspiracy theory. All the people involved weren't working together. Its crazy to think they were. I don't know why you want this trash refuted line by line. It starts out nuts and doesn't get any better at all."




Since then he has stated he did not know how true any of it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #77)

Sat May 18, 2019, 08:46 PM

78. I responded to what you said

"You endlessly make flat out statements that often prove wrong with never even an obligatory "imo" ora qualifier that such as "I doubt" or "I don`t believe" as part of them.This is part of the reason few take what you post as anything other then parroting propaganda."

How did we get on to me arguing with Nostrings about his crazy conspiracy theory? What I said is according the the current best available facts. I still stand by it. Could it be wrong? That's always possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #78)

Sat May 18, 2019, 10:58 PM

79. You picked three posts out of the dozens that are otherwise and you think that proves what I wrote

was wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #46)

Tue May 14, 2019, 10:27 AM

50. Trying to talk to you (a non-lawyer) is like talking to a brick wall.

"It Trump had the legal authority to fire Mueller that doesn't mean he would have gotten away with it."

Not "legal authority" His sole plenary power under Article II of the US Constitution. And yes, "for any reason, or no reason at all."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #50)

Tue May 14, 2019, 08:45 PM

51. Impeachment is in the constitution too.

Others felt Trump would have had to get Rosenstein or some replacement for him to do the actual firing.

If you don't like discussing this with me because you think I don't know enough or that I should just take your word for everything you are welcomed to stop. I'm not a lawyer but I took a lot of undergraduate law and I think I'm conversant enough for a message board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #51)

Sun May 19, 2019, 02:48 PM

80. I tried to (even with an example) explain that written answers to interrogatories

were more than acceptable and used consistently in federal courts (and others as well). If you want to go on a tangent and tell me I'm wrong, have at it. But, I'm not the one that's wrong here. Look, I don't doubt that you have some learned knowledge when it comes to the law. A lot of folks have a very good working knowledge without having a law degree. And even though Mueller put out some verbose reasoning, he knows that there's not a chance in hell he'd prevail in a fight over a sit down interview versus a set of written answers.

"I'm not a lawyer but I took a lot of undergraduate law and I think I'm conversant enough for a message board."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #46)

Wed May 15, 2019, 03:17 PM

58. Mueller hadn't a crime to point to in issuing a subpoena.

How do you suppose that would have went over in court trevor?

The math of that question is what mueller based his decision on, so the previous poster was 100 percent correct when he said " As a matter of fact (public record), he complied in every way."

Otherwise you're basically arguing that anything Trump didn't volunteer was non-compliance, which is a very totalitarian position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #58)

Wed May 15, 2019, 07:29 PM

60. Mueller didn't need a crime to issue a subpoena

Mueller requested a live interview. Trump refused. So Trump didn't comply in every way. Its that simple. Your issue about voluntary isn't relevant. Complied in every way means giving all he was asked for.

You are leaving out the entire second half of the Mueller report that was all about Trump's resistance to complying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #60)

Wed May 15, 2019, 08:13 PM

62. In order to get a court to side with him, it would certainly help.

"Mueller requested a live interview. "

Requests are optional, not mandatory.

"Trump refused."

'Waaaaa. Trump didn't do something he wasn't required to do! Impeach!'

It wasn't required. Like when they ask to change the TPS on my tires and theres nothing wrong with them and I decline because it isn't NECESSARY OR REQUIRED.

"So Trump didn't comply in every way."

He complied in every way with everything that was legally required of him, and thats all he HAD to do.


Period end of story.

". Your issue about voluntary isn't relevant."

Thats your opinion, and an ignorant one at that. "Comply" implies requirement and submission to authority in its most commonly used definition.

Law enforcement tazers people if they do not comply.

Law enforcement does not not tazer someone for non-compliance if they have given no order or command to comply with.


"Complied in every way means giving all he was asked for."

Incorrect. The word you're looking for is "submit", because thats what it is to give everything someone asks without question. You're complaining becase he did not submit. Boo effing hoo trevor. THAT is the reason he was elected.

He gave all he was REQUIRED to, which IS compliance. When you put new license tabs on your car, you come into compliance with the law. That doesn't change because a police officer requests to search your car and you denied consent. You're still in compliance, because you complied, which is defined as doing everything that is REQUIRED.


"You are leaving out the entire second half of the Mueller report that was all about Trump's resistance to complying."

Incorrect, as usual. The entire second half of the Mueller report that was all about Trump's resistance to SUBMITTING - to a politically generated action designed to harm and/or end his presidency - which he has NO DUTY to play along with beyond complying with all legal requirements which he did.


Do you ever tire of being wrong, boy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #62)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:00 PM

66. Definition of comply

Definition of comply. complied; complying. intransitive verb. 1 obsolete : to be ceremoniously courteous. 2. : to conform, submit, or adapt (as to a regulation or to another's wishes) as required or requested. comply with federal law. the devices comply with industry standards

verb (used without object), com·plied, com·ply·ing. to act or be in accordance with wishes, requests, demands, requirements, conditions, etc.; agree (sometimes followed by with): They asked him to leave and he complied. She has complied with the requirements. Obsolete. to be courteous or conciliatory.

https://search.aol.com/aol/search?q=definition%20comply&s_it=loki-keyword

I'm usually not the one who is wrong but if I am that's OK with me because if I learn I'm wrong it means I learned something and I'll be wrong less often in the future. Admitting mistakes is a key to learning. Without that, you remain ignorant and really are wrong much more often. You are a good example and you proved it again here, with your cooked up definition of comply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:48 PM

4. THATs the way to tell that fucking bitch off!

More people should call out these fucking lying Leftists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 12:50 AM

33. The guy I want is Tom Fitten of Judicial Watch

JD has already done more than anyone to fight IN THE COURTS to get the actual records of what has been going on since forever. They’re responsible for getting records and documents proving that from Obama on down, some serious and ugly stuff was pulled with the intent to ensure The Clinton Creature won. By hook or by crook, so to speak.

This is how the last election (and events running up to it) has affected everyone in this country. I freaking donated to, and joined JW. I believe that they have performed a very valuable public service. If not for Fitton and JW, there would be a LOT we wouldn’t know about, and I don’t just mean the last election.

In my mind there are two real big heros in all this mess. Obviously I make my feelings known about JW. But Admiral Mike Rogers, IMO, deserves a fucking medal for stepping up to the plate and doing what needed to be done to prevent the hijacking of a presidential election. He knew something wasn’t right. And he kept looking and outsmarting the bastids who were trying to get him fired, who just happen to be up to their earlobes in this FISA mess.

****
Citing unnamed U.S. officials, the Post reported that Defense Secretary Ash Carter and outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recommended last month that Obama remove Rogers, with Carter having concerns about Rogers' performance and Clapper's case driven largely by his and Carter's recommendation that leadership of Cyber Command and the NSA be split. Clapper also reportedly prefers that the NSA be led by a civilian.

Per an official, the report said it had been expected that Rogers would be removed from his position in tandem with a shift in the leadership structure of the two agencies before the Nov. 8 presidential election.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-20/nsas-mike-rogers-on-his-recommended-firing-im-accountable-for-my-actions

****

That man had courage and dignity. A rare trait in politics, or anything else for that matter, these days.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2019, 07:22 PM

44. Digenova is a clown.

Perfect for the GOP clowns in DC.

Could they get Alex Jones too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics