• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI lacked corroboration for Page wiretap; discredited dossier writer Steele ID’d as Yahoo source

Athanasius68 said:
And if Cruz or Jeb had won the nomination, would Trump jr had been as civic minded?
Click to expand...

They would have approached those campaigns, not DJT Jr. Your hypothetical doesn't make any sense, its not internally consistent.
 
JasperL said:
There is a long list of acts that might get someone fired or removed or demoted from a high profile investigation like this one, but that don't support the allegation of corrupt wrongdoing. What act related to their jobs as FBI investigators are you suggesting is corrupt? Did anyone ignore evidence in favor of Trump, or fabricate evidence to harm him or others in the campaign?
Click to expand...

In every case they were removed from the investigation first. I know you are playing ignorant to support your argument but its getting quite old.
 
Vern said:
My goodness OC, you just don’t get to pretend you don’t know who I’m talking about when I say “Trump lied about why Don Jr was meeting the Russians”. Its beyond dishonest. But lets face it, you’re running out of deflections and dodges. I’ve consistently stated "Trump lied about why Don Jr was meeting the Russians”. its just not possible to not know which trump I was referring to. But OC, what proves you’re being dishonest is you already replied to that statement with an obedient “nuh uh” in post 671. it didnt "confuse" you then. and if that didn’t prove you were being dishonest I've posted the blurb (with link) to you twice. The blurb clearly stated “the president disagreed” and goes on to describing trump, the president, dictating a lie to Hope Hicks.

Now OC, maybe you really didn’t know which trump. The conservative brain is designed to protect itself from reality. So if you weren’t being intentionally dishonest then you need to recognize your inability to grasp simple points and act accordingly. You need to reread my posts several times and speak up when you still cant grasp a simple point. So in case you still don’t get it, you don’t need to tell me again what don jr’s meeting was about. The point is that trump, the president, lied about don jr's meeting. This is just one of the many facts we know that makes it perfectly acceptable to believe trump is guilty of collusion and obstruction.
Click to expand...

Asinine discussion has been bolded to more easily identify the times you bait per post.

Addressed previously and known as a fact: The Russians alleged the meeting would be about dirt on the Clinton campaign---specifically illegally financing their campaign with Russian national money (NYT sourced and gleaned from email chains from DJT Jr and an entertainment mogul used as a go between). The meeting was actually about repeal of the Magintsky acts as the Russians had nothing of value---it was a screen for their lobbying efforts. The meeting lasted all of 20 minutes because there was no interest in their bad faith evidence.

Now you claim to know you have a lie, but you don't so I keep asking so you can provide what the lie is when both items can be true---the campaign met to hear illegal wrongdoing regarding the Clinton campaign, AND it really was about Russian adoptions. This is a well reported point of fact. You are making a key omission to suit your argument, hence your argument is incorrect.

Note: I discuss this evenly and stay about the topic, I do not indicate you are lying, obeying your democrat masters, have a liberal brain or whatever brand of nonsense you have dreamed up for the discussion---I expect the same respect in turn. I give decent treatment to you, I expect the same back.
 
OpportunityCost said:
In every case they were removed from the investigation first. I know you are playing ignorant to support your argument but its getting quite old.
Click to expand...

I'm not playing ignorant. And it's hilarious that I ask you for a corrupt act, you say they were fired, which is NOT evidence of a corrupt act, then claim I'm just pretending to be ignorant.

You also say they were "removed from the investigation first" which I take it to mean before they could do something corrupt. OK, and that's evidence the FBI/Mueller is corrupt because these people were fired/removed/demoted before they could do anything to harm or taint the investigation?

I don't understand what point you're making. Normally, firing someone BEFORE they impair or corruptly influence an investigation would speak in FAVOR of the integrity of the organization who fired/demoted/removed these individuals, but you're arguing the opposite.

Weird....
 
OpportunityCost said:
Asinine discussion has been bolded to more easily identify the times you bait per post.
Click to expand...
instead of feeding your butthurt, you should have bolded the part where I again stated you dont need to tell me what the meeting was about.

So in case you still don’t get it, you don’t need to tell me again what don jr’s meeting was about. The point is that trump, the president, lied about don jr's meeting.

Telling me again what the meeting is about is only slightly less asinine than your repeated "which trump?" posts. Trump, the president (in case you try the "which trump" thing again) lied about the point of the meeting. He dictated a statement to Hope Hicks claiming it was about adoptions. there is simply no honest reason for you to continue to not grasp that point but for you I'll try one more time.

Don Jr met with russians to get dirt on hillary
Trump, the president (in case you try the "which trump" thing again) claimed it was about adoptions
 
JasperL said:
I'm not playing ignorant. And it's hilarious that I ask you for a corrupt act, you say they were fired, which is NOT evidence of a corrupt act, then claim I'm just pretending to be ignorant.

You also say they were "removed from the investigation first" which I take it to mean before they could do something corrupt. OK, and that's evidence the FBI/Mueller is corrupt because these people were fired/removed/demoted before they could do anything to harm or taint the investigation?

I don't understand what point you're making. Normally, firing someone BEFORE they impair or corruptly influence an investigation would speak in FAVOR of the integrity of the organization who fired/demoted/removed these individuals, but you're arguing the opposite.

Weird....
Click to expand...

What's weird is you don't find the removal of people driving the investigation to offer a hint of corruption of wrongdoing. I cant prove anything because its all being held secret as part of the investigation. Do you think Strozk didn't do something wrong? How about Ohr?
 
Vern said:
instead of feeding your butthurt, you should have bolded the part where I again stated you dont need to tell me what the meeting was about.

So in case you still don’t get it, you don’t need to tell me again what don jr’s meeting was about. The point is that trump, the president, lied about don jr's meeting.

Telling me again what the meeting is about is only slightly less asinine than your repeated "which trump?" posts. Trump, the president (in case you try the "which trump" thing again) lied about the point of the meeting. He dictated a statement to Hope Hicks claiming it was about adoptions. there is simply no honest reason for you to continue to not grasp that point but for you I'll try one more time.

Don Jr met with russians to get dirt on hillary
Trump, the president (in case you try the "which trump" thing again) claimed it was about adoptions
Click to expand...

Actually, the point is that he did not. Its been reported what happened on both sides and I have given you the links. Whether you choose to accept the truth presented to you is up to you.

Don Jr met to get dirt on Hillary.
The meeting WAS about adoptions because the Russians lied about what they had and what they wanted to discuss.

Please, what is false about those two above sentences?
 
OpportunityCost said:
What's weird is you don't find the removal of people driving the investigation to offer a hint of corruption of wrongdoing. I cant prove anything because its all being held secret as part of the investigation. Do you think Strozk didn't do something wrong? How about Ohr?
Click to expand...

You're moving the goal posts on me. The question was whether or not the actions of those two led me to believe "the FBI" as an organization was corrupt, and I made a point of answering that the actions of a few individuals do not damn an organization, and even provided a nice analogy using Nunes, Trump and "the GOP." That's especially true when I haven't even seen an actually corrupt act by either guy alleged.

But I said they "did something wrong" and I'm going to waste no time defending them. At the least they acted unprofessionally which might be fine if you're in the Minneapolis office chasing anonymous bad guys, but cannot be tolerated in D.C. investigating high profile political figures. They made their bed and are appropriately paying the price.

And your standard is oddly one sided here, too. There isn't a more partisan, biased person involved in these investigations than Nunes, who was on Trump's transition team, for goodness sake. So he was biased in favor of defending Trump, and his actions proved he was acting to defend Trump over and over, and yet you have no words for him, and you sure as hell aren't concluding that because Nunes is a partisan hack that "the GOP" is corrupt, even though Ryan has seen the HPSCI reputation in tatters, and did NOTHING to replace Nunes with someone not an obvious Trump ass kisser.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Actually, the point is that he did not. Its been reported what happened on both sides and I have given you the links. Whether you choose to accept the truth presented to you is up to you.

Don Jr met to get dirt on Hillary.
The meeting WAS about adoptions because the Russians lied about what they had and what they wanted to discuss.

Please, what is false about those two above sentences?
Click to expand...

Oc, on first appearance, your post seems worthy of a debate forum. The problem is I remember your first "tactic" was to ignore my posts and your second was to post "which trump?" (I still get a chuckle out of that). Now you now seem to be trying to "limit" the discussion to what you think you can "spin". Lets begin shall we. Yes we know don jr went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary. We know that because don jr gave us the emails.

The email exchange Trump Jr. released, in chronological order

But what you conveniently ignore is that don jr lied to us about the meeting at first.

In his statement, Donald Trump Jr. said: “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ut-the-russia-meeting/?utm_term=.2b3be586a1f3

And we know this "statement" was dictated by trump (which trump?). I've already posted that link which probably explains why you would like to "limit" the discussion. So lets discuss your "mean ole Russians lied and tricked don jr into a meeting that was really about adoptions". First, "dirt" was discussed (unless don jr is lying again). Second, you say "adoptions" as if it was some perfectly innocent discussion which again you think the mean ole Russians tricked don jr into. Do me a favor, say this out loud "the Russians promised something nefarious to trick don jr into a perfectly innocent meeting." (say it in a whiny high pitched voice for real laughs). But it was about "adoptions because of the sanctions" which means it was about sanctions. That doesn't make it better. so lets review

Don jr lied about what the meeting was about
trump (which trump?) dictated the statement

And here's the best part OC, the meeting proves that the conservative "uranium one" narrative is a lie. If there was dirt to be had on that, the Russians would have had it. Sometimes what people don't say is more telling than what the do say.
 
JasperL said:
You're moving the goal posts on me. The question was whether or not the actions of those two led me to believe "the FBI" as an organization was corrupt, and I made a point of answering that the actions of a few individuals do not damn an organization, and even provided a nice analogy using Nunes, Trump and "the GOP." That's especially true when I haven't even seen an actually corrupt act by either guy alleged.

But I said they "did something wrong" and I'm going to waste no time defending them. At the least they acted unprofessionally which might be fine if you're in the Minneapolis office chasing anonymous bad guys, but cannot be tolerated in D.C. investigating high profile political figures. They made their bed and are appropriately paying the price.

And your standard is oddly one sided here, too. There isn't a more partisan, biased person involved in these investigations than Nunes, who was on Trump's transition team, for goodness sake. So he was biased in favor of defending Trump, and his actions proved he was acting to defend Trump over and over, and yet you have no words for him, and you sure as hell aren't concluding that because Nunes is a partisan hack that "the GOP" is corrupt, even though Ryan has seen the HPSCI reputation in tatters, and did NOTHING to replace Nunes with someone not an obvious Trump ass kisser.
Click to expand...

You don't replace committee chairs like that. You are asking for far more than is ever decided outside of an election cycle.
 
Vern said:
Oc, on first appearance, your post seems worthy of a debate forum. The problem is I remember your first "tactic" was to ignore my posts and your second was to post "which trump?" (I still get a chuckle out of that). Now you now seem to be trying to "limit" the discussion to what you think you can "spin". Lets begin shall we. Yes we know don jr went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary. We know that because don jr gave us the emails.

The email exchange Trump Jr. released, in chronological order

But what you conveniently ignore is that don jr lied to us about the meeting at first.

In his statement, Donald Trump Jr. said: “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ut-the-russia-meeting/?utm_term=.2b3be586a1f3

And we know this "statement" was dictated by trump (which trump?). I've already posted that link which probably explains why you would like to "limit" the discussion. So lets discuss your "mean ole Russians lied and tricked don jr into a meeting that was really about adoptions". First, "dirt" was discussed (unless don jr is lying again). Second, you say "adoptions" as if it was some perfectly innocent discussion which again you think the mean ole Russians tricked don jr into. Do me a favor, say this out loud "the Russians promised something nefarious to trick don jr into a perfectly innocent meeting." (say it in a whiny high pitched voice for real laughs). But it was about "adoptions because of the sanctions" which means it was about sanctions. That doesn't make it better. so lets review

Don jr lied about what the meeting was about
trump (which trump?) dictated the statement

And here's the best part OC, the meeting proves that the conservative "uranium one" narrative is a lie. If there was dirt to be had on that, the Russians would have had it. Sometimes what people don't say is more telling than what the do say.
Click to expand...

That sure is a lot of verbiage to say you agree with what I stated. Bye, Vern.
 
JasperL said:
I deleted the comment because I've addressed this point many times, including yesterday, and you just ignore my points as if I don't make them. So if you want to have a conversation, fine. If not, also fine. What I'm not going to do is write out replies, have you ignore every word, then address the same crap again.
Click to expand...

The truth is, you are being dishonest so you won't have to acknowledge the FACT that the FBI deceived the FISA court concerning the Steele dossier.

The FBI knew when they submitted the FISA application that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were the ones who financed the dossier. This isn't disputed by anyone, not even the FBI. It's accepted as fact by every democrat and every republican in DC. Not even that blow-hard Adam Schiff is disputing that it's a fact.

Here's the bottom line... When those "in the know" in Washington DC, including your political allies, accept it as fact that the FBI knew before hand that the DNC and Clinton campaign financed that dossier, that leaves you with no standing in the matter, and no honest, legitimate basis for dismissing it... Doing so destroys your credibility, renders your views on the matter meaningless and makes you a certified political hack.

The FBI knew... They omitted that fact and deceived the court about that dossier, in order to obtain a warrant to spy on an American citizen under false pretenses, directly violating the 4th amendment of the constitution... Something for reasons I will never understand, you are willing sell your soul in order to cover up.

.
 
I'm not playing ignorant
Click to expand...

you sure aren't

established fact:

at least 4 of mueller's minions worked with him at wilmer hale

manafort and jarvanka are rep'd by lawyers from wilmer hale

weissman is former wilmer hale, he praised yates for boldly standing athwart the president on the muslim ban

mueller chose weissman to investigate trump while at the same time "the pitbull" was donating to his opponent, attending her "victory party" on election nite, and applauding yates for defying the man he was investigating

mueller countenances hrc donors from wilmer hale prosecuting trump associates rep'd by wilmer hale

ohr met steele and simpson and concealed his meetings from the bureau

nellie worked for glenn, and bruce deliberately hid her employer on his disclosure

aaron zelby, mueller's cos at the fbi, another wilmer hale alum, rep'd justin cooper who testified he destroyed hrc's mobiles (under subpoena at the time) with a hammer

clintonemail.com was registered to cooper, not hrc

mueller chose a lawyer to investigate trump who had just defended the hrc associate responsible for destruction of evidence under subpoena

mueller really messed up, his mandate requires extreme probity for his findings to have any meaning

he plays right in their hands
 
I haven't even seen an actually corrupt act by either guy alleged
Click to expand...

lisa page is not a guy

caught again

you don't know what you're talking about

you need to link, that's where your self respect is

it's gotta be pretty dark down there for anyone not to see lisa's a girl

she and pete were lovers, remember?

LOL!

There isn't a more partisan, biased person involved in these investigations than Nunes
Click to expand...

he has his ax, no doubt

but his case is, tho complicated, pretty straight forward

it's all facts, a couple hundred of em

i've laid an awful lot of it out there

yet you're still unfamiliar with nunes' own narrative

astonishing

party on, poser
 
the actions of a few individuals do not damn an organization
Click to expand...

a few individuals

LOL!

deputy director fbi

chief of criminal fraud doj

2 deputy AG's

cos to fbi director

fbi general counsel

chief counterespionage fbi

chief counterintel fbi

asst AG for natl security

fbi director public affairs

sure, just a couple or few of folks or peeps or homeys or...

secret society

LOL!

how do ostriches breath?
 
Grim17 said:
The truth is, you are being dishonest so you won't have to acknowledge the FACT that the FBI deceived the FISA court concerning the Steele dossier.
Click to expand...

No, it's just that I've learned better than to be a gullible lemming. If you want to do that, that's your business, but I'm tired of you calling me dishonest, ignoring my comments, then accepting what you heard from Sean Hannity or Devin Nunes as a FACT then wondering why the rest of us don't believe people who everyone acknowledges are partisan, lying hacks.

Like I said, you can address my points or not. If you can't or won't that is fine.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That sure is a lot of verbiage to say you agree with what I stated. Bye, Vern.
Click to expand...

Oh OC, as I suspected you were trying to limit the discussion to only what you thought you could spin. Thanks for proving me right. Your inability to have an honest and intelligent discussion forces you to look for any excuse to cowardly deflect. And fyi, I only agree with the part that don jr went to get dirt on Hillary. You of course are obediently ignoring that don jr lied about that and trump (which trump?) dictated the lies.

Anyhoo, I don’t know the Russians lied. According to don jr “dirt” was discussed so your “wah wah the Russians promised something nefarious to trick don jr into a perfectly innocent meeting" (again, say it in a high pitched whiny voice for effect) isnt even true. Oh and your ignoring the best part, don jr’s meeting proves the conservative “uranium 1” narrative is also a lie.
 
Vern said:
Oh OC, as I suspected you were trying to limit the discussion to only what you thought you could spin. Thanks for proving me right. Your inability to have an honest and intelligent discussion forces you to look for any excuse to cowardly deflect. And fyi, I only agree with the part that don jr went to get dirt on Hillary. You of course are obediently ignoring that don jr lied about that and trump (which trump?) dictated the lies.

Anyhoo, I don’t know the Russians lied. According to don jr “dirt” was discussed so your “wah wah the Russians promised something nefarious to trick don jr into a perfectly innocent meeting" (again, say it in a high pitched whiny voice for effect) isnt even true. Oh and your ignoring the best part, don jr’s meeting proves the conservative “uranium 1” narrative is also a lie.
Click to expand...

Bolded again highlighted, just the facts, please.

Everyone at the meeting agreed to the content of the meeting. I guess they are all lying, its funny though, five plus people usually don't agree on the same set of lies, which leaves them telling the truth as improbable as that may be, but likely.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bolded again highlighted, just the facts, please.

Everyone at the meeting agreed to the content of the meeting. I guess they are all lying, its funny though, five plus people usually don't agree on the same set of lies, which leaves them telling the truth as improbable as that may be, but likely.
Click to expand...

OMG you two...
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bolded again highlighted, just the facts, please.

Everyone at the meeting agreed to the content of the meeting. I guess they are all lying, its funny though, five plus people usually don't agree on the same set of lies, which leaves them telling the truth as improbable as that may be, but likely.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm, that’s odd, you didn’t want “just the facts” when I posted that Don Jr lied and that trump (which trump?) dictated the lie. Anyoo, they discussed “dirt” on Hillary just as don jr’s emails said they would. Discussing sanctions after discussing “dirt” doesn’t make it a lie. But we can both agree they didn’t discuss “uranium 1” because there was nothing to discuss.
 
Vern said:
Mmmmm, that’s odd, you didn’t want “just the facts” when I posted that Don Jr lied and that trump (which trump?) dictated the lie. Anyoo, they discussed “dirt” on Hillary just as don jr’s emails said they would. Discussing sanctions after discussing “dirt” doesn’t make it a lie. But we can both agree they didn’t discuss “uranium 1” because there was nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...

We can agree they didn't discuss it because they didn't discuss it.
 
Vern said:
Mmmmm, that’s odd, you didn’t want “just the facts” when I posted that Don Jr lied and that trump (which trump?) dictated the lie. Anyoo, they discussed “dirt” on Hillary just as don jr’s emails said they would. Discussing sanctions after discussing “dirt” doesn’t make it a lie. But we can both agree they didn’t discuss “uranium 1” because there was nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...

You know it's funny, everyone who does any research finds some questionable **** in Hillary's record, but nothing very prosecuteable, but the mantra, that constant "but Bengazi, but Bengazi", or "but uranium one", and they drill ya with that obver and over un til it become "common knowledge" that she committed these heinous crimes and some imaginary deep state came and fixed it all. You don't need any facts, you don't need anything but to parrot garbage enough until people just accept it.
 
MTAtech said:
While you assert there is no evidence, you have no idea what Mueller has that isn’t being released. That’s how criminal cases work. Prosecutors don’t tell the press what they have cooking.
Stop with the absurdity.
Click to expand...
:lamo
You should heed what the other person was told instead of ridiculously trying to fling it back at me.


There is no credible evidence of a Manchurian Candidate.
Had Mueller has any such credible evidence you could bet your sweet bippy that he would have already presented it to Congress and recommended that the Manchurian be removed before he damages the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom