Politicspolitics

Sat May 11, 2019, 09:36 PM

Mueller knew over a year ago his whole investigation was bogus

He needs to answer for conducting a bogus investigation

Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/

69 replies, 1074 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 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mueller knew over a year ago his whole investigation was bogus (Original post)
oflguy May 2019 OP
Gamle-ged May 2019 #1
oflguy May 2019 #2
fuel May 2019 #46
Trevor May 2019 #3
oflguy May 2019 #5
Trevor May 2019 #8
oflguy May 2019 #9
Trevor May 2019 #10
oflguy May 2019 #11
Trevor May 2019 #12
oflguy May 2019 #13
Nostrings May 2019 #14
Trevor May 2019 #15
Nostrings May 2019 #17
Trevor May 2019 #19
Nostrings May 2019 #20
Trevor May 2019 #21
Nostrings May 2019 #22
Trevor May 2019 #23
Nostrings May 2019 #24
Trevor May 2019 #26
Nostrings May 2019 #27
Trevor May 2019 #28
Nostrings May 2019 #29
Trevor May 2019 #54
Nostrings May 2019 #55
Trevor May 2019 #56
kevlar May 2019 #57
Carl May 2019 #58
Trevor May 2019 #59
Carl May 2019 #61
Trevor May 2019 #63
Nostrings May 2019 #60
Trevor May 2019 #62
Nostrings May 2019 #64
Trevor May 2019 #65
Nostrings May 2019 #66
Trevor May 2019 #67
Nostrings May 2019 #68
fuel May 2019 #47
DavesNotHere May 2019 #4
Gunslinger201 May 2019 #6
oflguy May 2019 #7
BlackhawkNation May 2019 #16
oflguy May 2019 #18
Nostrings May 2019 #25
fuel May 2019 #48
jh4freedom May 2019 #30
jh4freedom May 2019 #31
kevlar May 2019 #32
jh4freedom May 2019 #33
kevlar May 2019 #34
jh4freedom May 2019 #35
kevlar May 2019 #36
KittyCatIdiots May 2019 #37
Muddling Through May 2019 #38
KittyCatIdiots May 2019 #39
Muddling Through May 2019 #42
Muddling Through May 2019 #40
KittyCatIdiots May 2019 #41
kevlar May 2019 #43
KittyCatIdiots May 2019 #44
fuel May 2019 #50
fuel May 2019 #52
fuel May 2019 #51
fuel May 2019 #53
fuel May 2019 #49
fuel May 2019 #45
DavesNotHere May 2019 #69

Response to oflguy (Original post)

Sat May 11, 2019, 10:04 PM

1. The corrupt, criminal Democratic party and minions can rely on one hope only, and that is...

.. that the monumental extent of their crimes, when proven beyond the possibility of a doubt, will STILL seem to the American people SO hard to believe, that the due and fitting punishments will be diminished to the point where the Democratic party can survive, albeit badly weakened...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #1)

Sat May 11, 2019, 10:36 PM

2. Mueller knew the Steele Dossier was bogus

ALL the FISA warrants were illegal and Mueller knew it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #1)


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Sat May 11, 2019, 11:05 PM

3. Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #3)

Sun May 12, 2019, 03:29 AM

5. Yeah, amazing, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #5)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:04 AM

8. If the entire investigation was based on nothing but the dossier you might have something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:06 AM

9. The Steele Dossier was the reason used to obtain the FISA warrants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:25 AM

10. Not the only reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:28 AM

11. Tell that to the judges that granted the FISA warrants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:41 AM

12. You tell them they granted an unlawful warrant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #12)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:51 AM

13. I don't need to, they already know it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #12)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:53 AM

14. Does that mean you now accept that misrepresentations* were made on the warrant application?

*The deliberate kind

Or are you digging in deeper for a long period of denial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #14)

Sun May 12, 2019, 12:09 PM

15. Neither

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #15)

Sun May 12, 2019, 12:38 PM

17. I suppose there is always remaining silent, knowing we were right and you were wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #17)

Sun May 12, 2019, 02:05 PM

19. You know by now I'm a gentleman

When I'm proven wrong I admit it.

If it comes back no deliberate fraud will you admit you were wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #19)

Sun May 12, 2019, 02:59 PM

20. There is zero chance of it coming back as "no deliberate fraud".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #20)

Sun May 12, 2019, 03:09 PM

21. Going to hide from that?

I didn't hide but some of us have integrity. Then you give me a link to something from the treehouse which is maybe the kookiest of the RW kook sites and tell me there is zero chance its wrong. If there is zero chance you are wrong why won't you vow to admit it if you are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Sun May 12, 2019, 03:18 PM

22. Hide from what?

"I didn't hide but some of us have integrity. "

I'm surprised you can say the word without your tongue bursting into flame.

"Then you give me a link to something from the treehouse which is maybe the kookiest of the RW kook sites..."

Apparently you didn't bother to read any of it. Its well sourced and well researched (not that I'd expect you'd know the difference).

And, as we've established, you're so far left that anything center right is far right to you.

"If there is zero chance you are wrong why won't you vow to admit it if you are?"

Because theres no "if" there. I'm NOT wrong. You may as well be asking me to admit it if I'm a girl, while I knowing fullwell, having checked the plumbing many times in this life, am NOT a girl.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #22)

Sun May 12, 2019, 03:23 PM

23. I read it

I even read it once here before you sent it to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #23)

Sun May 12, 2019, 04:02 PM

24. Then clearly, based on the things you say, you did not understand it,

Either through ignorance or deliberateness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #24)

Sun May 12, 2019, 10:49 PM

26. Did you read it?

For one the whole thing is based on the conclusions of two people called Undercover Huber and Rosie Memos.

Did you notice a highly sophisticated complex plot is described, then later the article says: "All of it suggests something of a scramble, rather than a carefully prepared plan to take Papadopoulos into custody."

Then later it goes on to say: "That operational collapse is why the FBI agents were “scrambling” at the airport and why they had no pre-existing criminal complaint. The entrapment’s success was contingent upon the cash."

For all your rejection of information as not factual its funny you buy this far fetched explanation. Mueller's team was after Papadopoulos for about a year by then. They sure had the lying charge ready. That's no doubt what they picked him up for. They may not have had the documents with them but they didn't have to come up with some new theory. They didn't need to entrap Papadopoulos because they already had something to charge him with. Please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #26)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:02 PM

27. I did.

"For one the whole thing is based on the conclusions of two people called Undercover Huber and Rosie Memos."

So what? Do they need a badge and a special dem-ok-id for being deemed correct by you?

"Did you notice a highly sophisticated complex plot is described, then later the article says: "All of it suggests something of a scramble, rather than a carefully prepared plan to take Papadopoulos into custody."

If you have another explanation of why they were LOOKING for popadopolous without a warrant, take your shot.

"For all your rejection of information as not factual its funny you buy this far fetched explanation."

In the coming days trevor, you'll see what is and isn't far fetched.

"They sure had the lying charge ready. That's no doubt what they picked him up for."

Oh, they had it all set up but didn't have a warrant ready for what you claim they surely were picking him up for?




"They may not have had the documents with them but they didn't have to come up with some new theory."

Lord you are niave.


"They didn't need to entrap Papadopoulos because they already had something to charge him with. Please!"

You have your sequence of events very out of order, which is unsurprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #27)

Sun May 12, 2019, 11:10 PM

28. I have another possible explanation

They only learned Papadopoulos would arrive at that airport shortly before they went to pick him up. Occam's razor, I win.

Its normal to weigh the credibility of sources before believing what they tell you. How much weight do you give to Undercover Huber and Rosie Memos?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #28)

Mon May 13, 2019, 12:34 AM

29. Thanks for playing.

"They only learned Papadopoulos would arrive at that airport shortly before they went to pick him up. Occam's razor, I win. "

If they already had him for lying, they'd have the warrant, sealed or not, ready.

They didn't.

You lose. Thanks for playing.


"Its normal to weigh the credibility of sources before believing what they tell you."

Yes, but as everyone here knows, the scale you weigh with is faulty.


"How much weight do you give to Undercover Huber and Rosie Memos?"

Far more weight than I give you or your left wing denialist sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #29)

Mon May 13, 2019, 07:13 PM

54. There are infinite other explanations for why the warrant wasn't there.

They didn't need it. They picked him up and filed in the morning. I win.

You say I weigh with fault? I give you articles from the most respected newspapers in the world or even original court documents and you dismiss them on sight. Yet, you'll believe any kook source that tells you what you want to hear. That's the only thing that makes a difference to you - whether you WANT to believe it. Pathetic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #54)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:01 PM

55. No, there really are not.

"They didn't need it."

So mueller and his clowns can just go arrest whomever they want without warrants now?

And you lot think Trump is a dictator type?


"They picked him up and filed in the morning. I win."

But you don't win. That isn't an explanatiuon why they picked h9im up without a warrant, or why they went into customs to get him.

"I give you articles from the most respected newspapers in the world..."

Respected by whom? And so what? Popularity has no bearing on factuality or truthiness. Only factuality and truthiness have bearing on factuality and truthiness.


"...even original court documents and you dismiss them on sight."

Dismiss them on sight when its a far left source or opinion piece, which it is 9 out of ten times with you.

The other 1 of those ten times, I have to be the one to point out that what you cite doesn't mean what you *think* it means.

"Yet, you'll believe any kook source that tells you what you want to hear"

Oh look, trevor is projecting, showing everyone that anything that doesn't parrot his chosen narrative is a "right wing kook" sight.


"That's the only thing that makes a difference to you - whether you WANT to believe it. Pathetic!"

Yep. Pure projection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #55)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:38 PM

56. When can police arrest a suspect without an arrest warrant?

https://sfcriminallawspecialist.com/blog/When-can-police-arrest-a-suspect-without-an-arrest-warrant/

Not dictators. They filed the next day.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are the most respected by academics and people who are professionals in the industry. That means they have credibility. That doesn't mean everything in them is true, because like everybody else they make mistakes. They do take their accuracy very seriously, unlike RW kook sites who don't give a damn if what they publish is true or not.

I, unlike you, don't have a permanent chosen narrative. I go case by case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #56)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:44 PM

57. Laughable.

"That means they have credibility."

It absolutely does not.

You are a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #56)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:45 PM

58. Both are leftist fake news garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #58)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:49 PM

59. Maybe you think that way because you don't like facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #59)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:00 PM

61. Or actually have seen what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #61)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:09 PM

63. You've read about mistakes they made.

You don't follow them all the time when they are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #56)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:51 PM

60. Typical. Generic unspecific response.

"Not dictators. They filed the next day. "

So they can just go around picking people up and filing the next day?

That seems a bit out of order.


"The New York Times and the Washington Post are the most respected by academics and people who are professionals in the industry."

Meaningless. Academics are 98 percent useless, and professional people in the MSM industry close to the same.

In any case, its irrelevant. Both the Wapo and the NY times have been wrong wrong wrong for two years plus. They have been wrong about trump/russia this whole time, and they were wrong about hillary being a shoe-in before that.

Maybe that is due some respect in your view, but it certainly is NOT in mine.

"That doesn't mean everything in them is true, because like everybody else they make mistakes."

Mistakes don't cover them both being blatantl;y, excessively partisan slanted to the far left.

"They do take their accuracy very seriously, unlike RW kook sites who don't give a damn if what they publish is true or not."

Sure they do trevor.

Like the accuracy they had in mind when they tried to blame the gifford shooting on Palin?

Like the accuracy of sara jong?



You are whats commonly known as "Wrong".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #60)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:06 PM

62. Dismissals by cherry picking

Dictators was the unspecific response. It was from you.

You also flat out dismiss academics and people with experience. They interrupt your separate reality because they know what they are talking about.

The warrantless arrest seems out of order to you because you don't know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #62)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:49 PM

64. Cherry picking? Those two are representative of the typical behavior of both outlets.

"Dictators was the unspecific response. It was from you."

No, dictators was a specific response to a specific action: Arresting someone for political purposes without a warrant and worrying about paperwork later.

THAT is what happened trevor.

"You also flat out dismiss academics and people with experience."

People with *genuine* experience, such as Lara Logan, people with brilliant minds like Victor Davis Hanson I do not dismiss, YOU do. But then you do focus much more on the who than the what. It may never have occured to you, but thats a tell.

"They interrupt your separate reality because they know what they are talking about."

And here we get to one of the biggest differences between me and you trevor. I am capable of telling the difference between people that *sound* like they know what they're talking about to people such as yourself, and people that genuinely *do* know what they're talking about.

You simply are not.

"The warrantless arrest seems out of order to you because you don't know better.:

No, trevor. The warrantless arrest seems out of order to me because I *do* know better. I *know* that if they already had him on a crime, they'd have no trouble at all swearing out a warrant like they did with so many others.

They expected to find him with 10k cash in customs, because they knew about the money before he even touched down in the usa - THAT is why they were in customs in the first place, and why they showed up there without a warrant.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #64)

Mon May 13, 2019, 10:32 PM

65. Another flaw in your CT

"They expected to find him with 10k cash in customs, because they knew about the money before he even touched down in the usa - THAT is why they were in customs in the first place, and why they showed up there without a warrant. "

According to your article the $10,000 was given to Papadopoulos over a month before he was picked up. Wouldn't they have timed it closer if they wanted to catch him with it? You would think a month and a half later he probably wouldn't still have it. And I checked it out and Papadopoulos was fully cooperating with the SC's office long before they picked him up. So there goes the motive in your CT.

You ignore all the times my sources are right and collect it every time they make a mistake. That's cherry picking.

I've given you a link. Arrests without warrants are common. Why can't you handle that? If that's a dictatorship we've been under a dictatorship for a long time. Nothing about the arrest of Papadopoulos was political.

Victor Davis Hanson writes right wing propaganda. You think he's brilliant because he tells you what you want to hear. We are both accusing each other of the same thing here, but let me ask you. Why did they just replace Huber? Remember how nasty you were about telling me I was an idiot because I didn't buy your fantasies about Huber? You really got suckered on that one.

I don't know what Lara Logan you are talking about. Do you mean that really hot babe who used to be on 60 Minutes? She got in real trouble once because she suckered into a RW Benghazi hoax.

You can't tell the difference between precious metals and poop. All you see is what you want to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #65)

Mon May 13, 2019, 11:06 PM

66. My article?

"According to your article..."

My article? Or the one you've chosen to attribute to me?

"...the $10,000 was given to Papadopoulos over a month before he was picked up."

"Wouldn't they have timed it closer if they wanted to catch him with it?"

Timed it closer to what trevor? Papadopoulos was entering the country for the first time since receiving the 10k.


"You ignore all the times my sources are right and collect it every time they make a mistake. That's cherry picking."

Yes, I do ignore the sports section and the weather reports and the teevee schedule, movie listings, classifieds, and obituaries.

On everything else, particularly that which is political, they are untrustworthy far left partisan liars.


"Arrests without warrants are common."

Oh? How about arrests without warrant, or indictment, or criminal complaint?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/08/secret-hearing-mueller-trump-probe-244653


" Nothing about the arrest of Papadopoulos was political. "

Trevor, you stupid shit, the reason that they were looking at him in the first place, was POLITICAL.

The reason the special counsel was there TO look at him, was POLITICAL.

Bloody hell are you niave.




"Victor Davis Hanson writes right wing propaganda."

Because trevor says so.


"You think he's brilliant because he tells you what you want to hear. "

No, I think He is brilliant because he *genuinely* is brilliant. Like I said, you wouldn't know the difference.


"We are both accusing each other of the same thing here"

Yes but I'm right and you are wrong.


"Why did they just replace Huber?"

Who said they replaced huber?


"Remember how nasty you were about telling me I was an idiot because I didn't buy your fantasies about Huber?"


Quote it or it didn't happen.

"She got in real trouble once because she suckered into a RW Benghazi hoax."

The one where people died trevor, under the watch of obama and hillary? That was no hoax, it happened.


"You can't tell the difference between precious metals and poop."

Actually, dumbass, I handle more precious metals on a regular basis, than you likely will the entire rest of your life. Platinum, gold, alloys.

Go ahead, talk some more as if you have any grasp of who or what I am.

It amuses me.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #66)

Mon May 13, 2019, 11:47 PM

67. Nostrings writes: "Timed it closer to what trevor? Papadopoulos was entering the country for the fir

st time since receiving the 10K."

You started off with a conspiracy theory. It makes no sense because the timing is way off. Can't you get that? You were pushing a line that there was an entrapment scheme. It would be very unlikely that Papadopoulos would still be carrying the $10K a month and a half after when you say they were behind giving it to him.

You first gave me the link: " There is zero chance of it coming back as "no deliberate fraud".

https://www.discussionist.com/10151994916

Not that the one has anything to do with the other you were trying to prove. But still, you've been defending that kook tale all night in between insulting me.

You ignore my sources all the time, not just the sports section. I doubt you even read all of what I give you. You have no idea how accurate they are. Just your prejudice.

Trevor says so is more reliable than Nostrings says so.

The prosecution of Papadopoulos wasn't political. It started with career people at the FBI. It only looked political to you because it made your hero look bad.

They filed a criminal complaint the next day. From that you deduce this wild CT.

They replaced Huber. "Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry"

https://www.discussionist.com/1014462666

You have a poor memory. Don't you remember arguing about Huber with me? One of these days I'm going to search it out and show you all the times I've been right and you've been wrong.

Benghazi happened but Logan ran RW propaganda about how it happened. She got caught and left the show for about 8 months.

I don't know who you are and I really don't care. I have enough experience with you to tell what you are.

I'm glad if I amuse you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #67)

Tue May 14, 2019, 12:49 AM

68. You are something else.

"It makes no sense because the timing is way off."

What timing? They have no control over when popadop comes back.

Only popadop does, regardless of when he got the money.

That whole line of thinking is bad.

" It would be very unlikely that Papadopoulos would still be carrying the $10K a month and a half after when you say they were behind giving it to him."

Thats an opinion: yours.

That and 2.76 will get you a gallon of gas.

"You ignore my sources all the time, not just the sports section."

Incorrect., I see whats written and I see by whom, and I reject it, usually on lack of substance or on premise built on assumptions, which you eagerly regurgitate after being spoonfed by the very msm thats been lying to you and wrong about so much in the last two years (and you still defend them).

"Trevor says so is more reliable than Nostrings says so."

No, its not. Not even close, in fact. If trevor said it was going to be sunny all week, I'd carry an umbrella and trevor would be all wet, as usual.


"The prosecution of Papadopoulos wasn't political."

Yes, it was. It completely was.

"It started with career people at the FBI."

Far left wing talking point and language. The "career people" that chose to prosecute chose to do so for political reasons, and were appointed to the positions they were in, for political reasons.

That isn't even debatable at this point.

Wray has been busted covering for them. Strzok, page, mccabe, comey, brennan, clapper, yates, they all have some major splainin to do.


"It only looked political to you because it made your hero look bad. "

My hero? Hardly. I don't want the governments powers used on ANY political campaigns left or right. Recognizing that they have misused their powers doesn't make the victim of that abuse my hero trevor, thats left wing math. YOU GUYS think that way, right leaning folks do not.

"They replaced Huber. "Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry"

I don't see anyone saying "replaced" except you, and I'm not aware of huber being tasked specifically on the origins of the russia inquiry.

I think you're trying to submit your opinion as fact. If I'm right, you wont be able to substantiate the assertion of 'replaced'.

Ready? Set? Go. Substantiate that assertion if you can.

"You have a poor memory."

Incorrect, as usual. I have an exceptional memory.


"Don't you remember arguing about Huber with me?"


I do remember that, but I do not remember claiming that huber was tasked to investigate the origins of the russia investigation.

You're making that claim up out of thin air and trying to lay it at my feet.


"One of these days I'm going to search it out and show you all the times I've been right and you've been wrong. "

Do it. I dare you.


"Benghazi happened but Logan ran RW propaganda about how it happened. She got caught and left the show for about 8 months."

I imagine that is your perception, which is unsurprising.

"I have enough experience with you to tell what you are."

You are not capable of thinking and understanding on your own, and your feeble mewlings just reinforce that sad fact. The obvious way you take everything the left says at face value while questioning everything right is as obvious as it is with the msm, which is to say, blatantly bleedingly obvious except to those who engage in it and are therefore blind to it - again, thats you.

If you were ever removed from that for a long enough time, you'd come back to it after time and be ashamed of what you once were.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #5)


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2019, 12:36 AM

4. So this was interesting...

"In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10."

We now know Steele was shopping this to the press before the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2019, 04:15 AM

6. I figured it was Bogus when they hand picked HIS Team

Including Strozk and Page

Yep...Mueller was the Obstruction of Justice....tied up the truth for 2 years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #6)

Sun May 12, 2019, 07:58 AM

7. They knew the Steele dossier was bogus before they used it to obtain the FIRST FISA warrant

to spy on Trump's campaign, meaning every FISA warrant was illegal

People need to go to jail

I could never understand why judges that knew they were lied to didn't do anything about it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Sun May 12, 2019, 12:23 PM

16. When a FISA request

comes to the judge requesting to spy on the opposing Presidential campaign, and, regardless of what was presented, you would think a judge would ask some questions about the request.

It would take both parties to be in on the conspiracy.

The FISA judges are going down as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackhawkNation (Reply #16)

Sun May 12, 2019, 01:09 PM

18. Great point

Why would a federal judge allow himself or herself to be used as an asset to spy, for political gain, on private citizens that are a candidate or working for a candidate for president of the United States?

I'm not familiar with FISA Court proceedings (precious few people are) enough to be able to accuse these judges of being dirty. We know we had dirty cops in the FBI and CIA. Were federal judges dirty also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #18)

Sun May 12, 2019, 04:03 PM

25. Or spied on and leveraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #6)


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2019, 01:38 AM

30. Can you imagine the uproar there would have been

If Democrats had hired Mueller instead of Trump Justice Department Republicans? Whew! And the Senate Republicans are still giving credence to Mueller’s investigation by issuing a new subpoena to Donald Trump Junior to testify about the Trump Tower Russia meeting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2019, 01:42 AM

31. Americans still dont believe Trump

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). April 28-May 1, 2019. N=900 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.3.
Based on what you have seen, read, or heard about the information available so far from the Mueller report, would you say it does or does not clear Donald Trump of wrongdoing? If you are unsure, please say so."
It does clear Trump: 29%
It does not clear Trump: 42%
Unsure: 29%
http://www.pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #31)

Mon May 13, 2019, 01:20 PM

32. Unfortunately for you

your propaganda has zero effect on facts and people who consume them.

Lefty zombies will believe any old narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #32)

Mon May 13, 2019, 01:38 PM

33. Im thinking that Americans who care at all about this issue do believe:

1) That the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, was the person responsible for hiring and supervising Robert Mueller. President Trump never fired Rosenstein and Rosenstein never fired Mueller.

2) That the Senate Intelligence Committee is chaired by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican, and Senator Burr issued the subpoena last week for Donald Trump Junior to testify about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, thus keeping the Russia collusion narrative alive even after the submission of the Mueller Report.

Since it is an established fact that 53% of American voters voted for the Democrat in last November’s election, those who would believe those facts stated above are more than enough for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #33)

Mon May 13, 2019, 01:43 PM

34. I'm thinking as always you are full of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #34)

Mon May 13, 2019, 01:51 PM

35. Yeah I knew that a few facts would shut you up.

Like always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #35)

Mon May 13, 2019, 02:51 PM

36. Except your facts don't.

Your propaganda is transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #36)


Response to KittyCatIdiots (Reply #37)

Mon May 13, 2019, 02:54 PM

38. In before cowardly self-delete

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #38)


Response to KittyCatIdiots (Reply #39)

Mon May 13, 2019, 02:55 PM

42. Not as transparant as your cowardice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #38)

Mon May 13, 2019, 02:55 PM

40. D*mn, I'm Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #40)


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #40)

Mon May 13, 2019, 04:14 PM

43. Awwwww

Did the irrelevant coward offer up a reply only you got to see?

I feel left out.......NOT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #43)


Response to kevlar (Reply #43)


Response to kevlar (Reply #36)


Response to kevlar (Reply #34)


Response to kevlar (Reply #34)


Response to kevlar (Reply #32)


Response to oflguy (Original post)


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Tue May 14, 2019, 04:21 PM

69. Par for the course. Patrick Fitzgerald knew who leaked Plames name

Just days into his investigation, but went on for another few years anyway. He never even charged the guy who did it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics