|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 18, 2018 14:07:40 GMT -6
apnews.com/fbb5249a489a4b3b9e6146a45064500c/AP-Interview:-Top-Republican-says-Russia-probe-difficultFor much of the last two years, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr has been the Russia investigator who is seen but rarely heard on Capitol Hill. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, the North Carolina Republican opened up about the investigation that has now consumed 19 months of his life. He says it has been “frustrating as hell” and much more difficult than he originally envisioned. But he says the integrity of the investigation — and its importance to the institution of the Senate — is something he has labored to protect. ...... “Burr said there is “no factual evidence today that we’ve received” on collusion or conspiracy between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign. But he said he’s still open on the issue and hasn’t personally come to any final conclusions, since the investigation isn’t finished.” Adding to this: apnews.com/fbb5249a489a4b3b9e6146a45064500c/AP-Interview:-Top-Republican-says-Russia-probe-difficultBurr won’t give a timeline for the end of the investigation or a final report, which could create fissures in the panel’s so-far bipartisan unity. Many Democrats are likely to disagree that there is no evidence of collusion, if that is the committee’s final conclusion.“I am sure there will be people at the end of this who feel that we came to a conclusion that they vehemently disagree with,” Burr said. “I know that from a committee’s integrity standpoint we’ve got to prove what we find. And if you can’t prove it then we can’t make the claim.” …Lankford says it’s possible the final report will split the committee.
“The hardest part is when staff starts going through all of the details and writes the last report,” Lankford says. “And then we start having people say, I won’t say that. That’s the threat.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 18, 2018 14:19:19 GMT -6
Anonymous sources at work again: www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-18/white-house-counsel-cooperating-extensively-obstruction-probe-spent-30-hoursWhite House counsel Donald McGahn II, has been quietly cooperating "extensively" with special counsel Robert Mueller in his probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to an explosive New York Times report published Saturday afternoon. www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.htmlSources told the Times that McGahn has had at least three voluntary interviews with Mueller's team totaling 30 hours, in which he discussed accounts of multiple episodes at the center of Mueller's probe into whether President Trump obstructed justice, as well as the president’s furor toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged McGahn to respond to it. For a lawyer to share so much with investigators scrutinizing his client is unusual. Lawyers are rarely so open with investigators, not only because they are advocating on behalf of their clients but also because their conversations with clients are potentially shielded by attorney-client privilege, and in the case of presidents, executive privilege. Among the episodes McGahn reprotedly discussed with investigators is Trump’s firing last year of former FBI Director James Comey and the president's repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of the special counsel despite his recusal from Russia probes. McGahn was also centrally involved in Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, himself which investigators might not have discovered without him. Commenting on the report, Solomon L. Wisenberg, a deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation "which did not have the same level of cooperation from President Bill Clinton’s lawyers", said that "a prosecutor would kill for that. Oh my God, it would have been phenomenally helpful to us. It would have been like having the keys to the kingdom.” ...... Of note, McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Trump overstep his legal authorities.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 18, 2018 14:23:57 GMT -6
apnews.com/fbb5249a489a4b3b9e6146a45064500c/AP-Interview:-Top-Republican-says-Russia-probe-difficultFor much of the last two years, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr has been the Russia investigator who is seen but rarely heard on Capitol Hill. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, the North Carolina Republican opened up about the investigation that has now consumed 19 months of his life. He says it has been “frustrating as hell” and much more difficult than he originally envisioned. But he says the integrity of the investigation — and its importance to the institution of the Senate — is something he has labored to protect. ...... “Burr said there is “no factual evidence today that we’ve received” on collusion or conspiracy between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign. But he said he’s still open on the issue and hasn’t personally come to any final conclusions, since the investigation isn’t finished.” Wow...a person on the right with some integrity who hasn't already come to a conclusion as to his innocence BEFORE an investigation is complete, simply because none has been found yet, no people have been indicted, and nothing has been leaked. That's refreshing as we don't see that much common sense with the three talking points listed above being parroted daily by Trump's followers.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 18, 2018 14:42:55 GMT -6
apnews.com/fbb5249a489a4b3b9e6146a45064500c/AP-Interview:-Top-Republican-says-Russia-probe-difficultFor much of the last two years, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr has been the Russia investigator who is seen but rarely heard on Capitol Hill. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, the North Carolina Republican opened up about the investigation that has now consumed 19 months of his life. He says it has been “frustrating as hell” and much more difficult than he originally envisioned. But he says the integrity of the investigation — and its importance to the institution of the Senate — is something he has labored to protect. ...... “Burr said there is “no factual evidence today that we’ve received” on collusion or conspiracy between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign. But he said he’s still open on the issue and hasn’t personally come to any final conclusions, since the investigation isn’t finished.” Wow...a person on the right with some integrity who hasn't already come to a conclusion as to his innocence BEFORE an investigation is complete, simply because none has been found yet, no people have been indicted, and nothing has been leaked. That's refreshing as we don't see that much common sense with the three talking points listed above being parroted daily by Trump's followers. You’re not still crying about Nunes commenting on the HoR investigation that has been over for months now, are you? You remember last week when you were worried about Nunes making partisan comments while being on a bi-partisan committee? And you were worried that would have an impact on that committee’s investigation. That had been over for months. Remember that? lol
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 18, 2018 14:54:06 GMT -6
apnews.com/fbb5249a489a4b3b9e6146a45064500c/AP-Interview:-Top-Republican-says-Russia-probe-difficultFor much of the last two years, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr has been the Russia investigator who is seen but rarely heard on Capitol Hill. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, the North Carolina Republican opened up about the investigation that has now consumed 19 months of his life. He says it has been “frustrating as hell” and much more difficult than he originally envisioned. But he says the integrity of the investigation — and its importance to the institution of the Senate — is something he has labored to protect. ...... “Burr said there is “no factual evidence today that we’ve received” on collusion or conspiracy between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign. But he said he’s still open on the issue and hasn’t personally come to any final conclusions, since the investigation isn’t finished.” Wow...a person on the right with some integrity who hasn't already come to a conclusion as to his innocence BEFORE an investigation is complete, simply because none has been found yet, no people have been indicted, and nothing has been leaked. That's refreshing as we don't see that much common sense with the three talking points listed above being parroted daily by Trump's followers. I don't disagree with either you nor Burr, but the fact that in a town with more leaks than a soaker hose, nothing has come out should give anyone pause. Just waiting for all of those screaming "rule of law" to accept a final a report that exonerates Trump
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 18, 2018 16:20:44 GMT -6
apnews.com/fbb5249a489a4b3b9e6146a45064500c/AP-Interview:-Top-Republican-says-Russia-probe-difficultFor much of the last two years, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr has been the Russia investigator who is seen but rarely heard on Capitol Hill. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, the North Carolina Republican opened up about the investigation that has now consumed 19 months of his life. He says it has been “frustrating as hell” and much more difficult than he originally envisioned. But he says the integrity of the investigation — and its importance to the institution of the Senate — is something he has labored to protect. ...... “Burr said there is “no factual evidence today that we’ve received” on collusion or conspiracy between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign. But he said he’s still open on the issue and hasn’t personally come to any final conclusions, since the investigation isn’t finished.” Wow...a person on the right with some integrity who hasn't already come to a conclusion as to his innocence BEFORE an investigation is complete, simply because none has been found yet, no people have been indicted, and nothing has been leaked. That's refreshing as we don't see that much common sense with the three talking points listed above being parroted daily by Trump's followers. Careful, your bias is showing. The Senate is still investigating, however, after 19 months they still haven’t found anything factual evidence of Trump or his campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia. Also, there was this piece: Both Burr & Lankford mention how the Democrats on their committee may not like their findings & the eventual final report & that it could “split the committee “. Interesting as this alludes to the fact that the Democrats on the committee are not really after the truth, only the truth that they want & agree with. If this one does like the House and finds no collusion or conspiracy existed between Trump & Russia, that would be half of the initial investigations reaching the same conclusion. Talk about hurting the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 18, 2018 18:54:55 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/18/papadopoulos-wire-mueller/George Papadopoulos did not wear a wire as a part of a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, his wife says. Papadopoulos’ plea deal last year touched off speculation that the former Trump aide wore a wire and spied on other Trump campaign associates. CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin confidently asserted at the time that Papadopoulos was spying on former Trump associates for months. George Papadopoulos’ plea deal in October 2017 with the special counsel’s office sparked intense speculation that the former Trump campaign adviser helped the Russia investigation by wearing a wire. Cable news pundits and legal analysts weighed in on the matter shortly after Papadopoulos’ plea agreement was revealed on Oct. 30, suggesting that documents submitted by Mueller’s team indicated that Papadopoulos was likely spying on other Trump campaign alumni as part of his plea agreement. “What this says to me is that Papadopoulos between July and October was wearing a wire,” Toobin told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer after Papadopoulos’ plea deal was revealed. Toobin said that “the only reasonable explanation” of Mueller’s court filings was that Papadopoulos “was recording conversations secretly with people who were subjects and targets of this investigation.” ...... But Toobin’s theory was all but disproved on Friday in a court filing submitted by Mueller’s team. In the document recommending that Papadopoulos face up to six months in jail for lying to the FBI, Mueller asserted that Papadopoulos did not provide “substantial assistance” to the investigation.Papadopoulos met with prosecutors four times between his arrest and plea agreement, according to the Mueller filing. There is no mention of Papadopoulos actively spying for prosecutors. Instead, he is portrayed as cooperating reluctantly, providing information only when asked about emails and text messages that investigators had obtained through search warrants and subpoenas.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 18, 2018 19:04:39 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-18/fbi-dealt-blow-dc-judge-must-address-measures-taken-verify-steele-dossierFBI Dealt Blow By DC Judge; Must Address Measures Taken To Verify Steele Dossier Profile picture for user Tyler Durden by Tyler Durden Sat, 08/18/2018 - 18:33 5.5K SHARES TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint The FBI has been dealt a major blow after a Washington DC judge ruled that the agency must respond to a FOIA request for documents concerning the bureau's efforts to verify the controversial Steele Dossier, before it was used as the foundation of a FISA surveillance warrant application and subsequent renewals. US District Court Judge Amit Mehta - who in January sided with the FBI's decision to ignore the FOIA request, said that President Trump's release of two House Intelligence Committee documents (the "Nunes" and "Schiff" memos) changed everything. www.scribd.com/document/386451281/FBI-Foia-RulingConsidering that the FBI offered Steele $50,000 to verify the Dossier's claims yet never paid him, BuzzFeed has unsuccessfully tried to do the same to defend themselves in a dossier-related lawsuit, and a $50 million Soros-funded investigation to continue the hunt have turned up nothing that we know of - whatever documents the FBI may be forced to cough up regarding their attempts to verify the Dossier could prove highly embarrassing for the agency. f Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the offer. Ultimately, he was not paid. -NYT
www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html?mtrref=t.co&gwh=A06562774535E261D98D82CADF93A803&gwt=pay&_r=1
What's more, forcing the FBI to prove they had an empty hand will likely embolden calls to disband the special counsel investigation - as the agency's mercenary and politicized approach to "investigations" will be laid all the more bare for the world to see. Then again, who knows - maybe the FBI verified everything in the dossier and it simply hasn't leaked.
That said, while the FBI will likely be forced to acknowledge the documents thanks to the Thursday ruling, the agency will still be able to try and convince the judge that there are other grounds to withhold the records.
In January, Mehta blessed the FBI's decision not to disclose the existence of any records containing the agency's efforts to verify the dossier - ruling that Trump's tweets about the dossier didn't require the FBI and other intelligence agencies to act on records requests.
"But then the ground shifted," writes Mehta of Trump declassifying the House memos. "As a result of the Nunes and Schiff Memos, there is now in the public domain meaningful information about how the FBI acquired the Dossier and how the agency used it to investigate Russian meddling."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 18, 2018 19:15:58 GMT -6
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump I allowed White House Counsel Don McGahn, and all other requested members of the White House Staff, to fully cooperate with the Special Counsel. In addition we readily gave over one million pages of documents. Most transparent in history. No Collusion, No Obstruction. Witch Hunt! 6:12 PM - Aug 18, 2018 39.2K 25.6K people are talking about this Ryan Nobles ✔ @ryanobles NEW: William Burck, attorney for Don McGahn responds to @nytimes article on his clients interviews with the Special Counsel: 7:05 PM - Aug 18, 2018 1,002 551 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 18, 2018 20:03:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Aug 18, 2018 20:15:19 GMT -6
Wow...a person on the right with some integrity who hasn't already come to a conclusion as to his innocence BEFORE an investigation is complete, simply because none has been found yet, no people have been indicted, and nothing has been leaked. That's refreshing as we don't see that much common sense with the three talking points listed above being parroted daily by Trump's followers. Careful, your bias is showing. The Senate is still investigating, however, after 19 months they still haven’t found anything factual evidence of Trump or his campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia. Also, there was this piece: Both Burr & Lankford mention how the Democrats on their committee may not like their findings & the eventual final report & that it could “split the committee “. Interesting as this alludes to the fact that the Democrats on the committee are not really after the truth, only the truth that they want & agree with. If this one does like the House and finds no collusion or conspiracy existed between Trump & Russia, that would be half of the initial investigations reaching the same conclusion. Talk about hurting the narrative. Lol, his “bias is showing.” Irish is one of the most dangerous people on this board, railing against hypocrisy as he hypocritically points it out. But, he listens to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, just let him tell you...it’s fucking dangerous. Pro tip: Watch out for that snake in the grass... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 18, 2018 21:43:26 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/18/papadopoulos-wire-mueller/George Papadopoulos did not wear a wire as a part of a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, his wife says. Papadopoulos’ plea deal last year touched off speculation that the former Trump aide wore a wire and spied on other Trump campaign associates. CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin confidently asserted at the time that Papadopoulos was spying on former Trump associates for months. George Papadopoulos’ plea deal in October 2017 with the special counsel’s office sparked intense speculation that the former Trump campaign adviser helped the Russia investigation by wearing a wire. Cable news pundits and legal analysts weighed in on the matter shortly after Papadopoulos’ plea agreement was revealed on Oct. 30, suggesting that documents submitted by Mueller’s team indicated that Papadopoulos was likely spying on other Trump campaign alumni as part of his plea agreement. “What this says to me is that Papadopoulos between July and October was wearing a wire,” Toobin told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer after Papadopoulos’ plea deal was revealed. Toobin said that “the only reasonable explanation” of Mueller’s court filings was that Papadopoulos “was recording conversations secretly with people who were subjects and targets of this investigation.” ...... But Toobin’s theory was all but disproved on Friday in a court filing submitted by Mueller’s team. In the document recommending that Papadopoulos face up to six months in jail for lying to the FBI, Mueller asserted that Papadopoulos did not provide “substantial assistance” to the investigation.Papadopoulos met with prosecutors four times between his arrest and plea agreement, according to the Mueller filing. There is no mention of Papadopoulos actively spying for prosecutors. Instead, he is portrayed as cooperating reluctantly, providing information only when asked about emails and text messages that investigators had obtained through search warrants and subpoenas. After I saw Toobin I knew it was complete bullshit. The problem here is these people know that they can just throw anything out there and it will get attention no matter how bogus it really is.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 18, 2018 23:56:25 GMT -6
Careful, your bias is showing. The Senate is still investigating, however, after 19 months they still haven’t found anything factual evidence of Trump or his campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia. Also, there was this piece: Both Burr & Lankford mention how the Democrats on their committee may not like their findings & the eventual final report & that it could “split the committee “. Interesting as this alludes to the fact that the Democrats on the committee are not really after the truth, only the truth that they want & agree with. If this one does like the House and finds no collusion or conspiracy existed between Trump & Russia, that would be half of the initial investigations reaching the same conclusion. Talk about hurting the narrative. Lol, his “bias is showing.” Irish is one of the most dangerous people on this board, railing against hypocrisy as he hypocritically points it out. But, he listens to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, just let him tell you...it’s fucking dangerous. Pro tip: Watch out for that snake in the grass... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk He’s not smart enough to hide it. I’m sure gaucho, NN, 8thGrade and our other friendly libs think he’s a moderate but he’s just a Never Trumper at best and a liberal at next to best. He slinks away when asked pointed questions and will pop up in other threads or a few pages later. His game is so tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 19, 2018 8:32:48 GMT -6
Wow...a person on the right with some integrity who hasn't already come to a conclusion as to his innocence BEFORE an investigation is complete, simply because none has been found yet, no people have been indicted, and nothing has been leaked. That's refreshing as we don't see that much common sense with the three talking points listed above being parroted daily by Trump's followers. I don't disagree with either you nor Burr, but the fact that in a town with more leaks than a soaker hose, nothing has come out should give anyone pause. Just waiting for all of those screaming "rule of law" to accept a final a report that exonerates Trump If Mueller's investigation comes out clean, I will be perfectly fine with the results. There's a huge difference between those who accept and trust LE officials (the most of them....yes there are bad actors) and trust that if charges were to be brought they'd be based on evidence they believe merits a charge and those (and i'm not saying you specifically) who hate the left so much and love Trump so much (but deny they do) that they WANT him to be innocent and so everything is "what about Clinton" or that EVERYONE involved in this investigation is on the take and works for left in some way. I don't want someone to be charged for something they didn't do. Period. I also don't want someone getting away with something because of the position they hold. That is what is wrong with most of the world. I am probably more bothered by Trump's continual lying about things pertaining to this case than I am if "collusion" actually happened or not. No, it's not cool to work with foreign enemies to defeat a political opponent (not saying he did), but it's much worse, in my estimation, to lie about things pertaining to the whole situation when people are attempting to find the truth (and the truth might very well be he did nothing wrong.....but I think most "normal" people would be suspicious becuase he/Jr. has lied so much about it, if it were anyone esle, those people would be saying, "well if you didn't do anything wrong, why are guys lying so much about it?"). So, if at the end they show he didn't do anything wrong, I'm good with that. As much as I dislike him from a character standpoint, I don't want innocent people to be found guilty of something they didn't do. But I also don't like the attempt to thwart something you don't like just because you can by lying, attacking LE agents, the media (and don't get me wrong, I know they have they lean heavily against him but they've been right on a lot of stuff about him too).
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 19, 2018 9:14:37 GMT -6
Careful, your bias is showing. The Senate is still investigating, however, after 19 months they still haven’t found anything factual evidence of Trump or his campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia. Also, there was this piece: Both Burr & Lankford mention how the Democrats on their committee may not like their findings & the eventual final report & that it could “split the committee “. Interesting as this alludes to the fact that the Democrats on the committee are not really after the truth, only the truth that they want & agree with. If this one does like the House and finds no collusion or conspiracy existed between Trump & Russia, that would be half of the initial investigations reaching the same conclusion. Talk about hurting the narrative. Lol, his “bias is showing.” Irish is one of the most dangerous people on this board, railing against hypocrisy as he hypocritically points it out. But, he listens to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, just let him tell you...it’s fucking dangerous. Pro tip: Watch out for that snake in the grass... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 19, 2018 9:36:03 GMT -6
Lol, his “bias is showing.” Irish is one of the most dangerous people on this board, railing against hypocrisy as he hypocritically points it out. But, he listens to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, just let him tell you...it’s fucking dangerous. Pro tip: Watch out for that snake in the grass... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss Why do you insist on painting people into a corner
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 19, 2018 10:01:40 GMT -6
That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss Why do you insist on painting people into a corner Really? I haven't said crap to him in forever. He comes out, doesn't even say anything about anything I've posted but makes a critical post about me to another poster, calls me a hypocrite, calls me "dangerous" lol, mocks that I've stated I like Jordan Peterson as if I'm only saying that to give the appearance that I'm moderate (and all that is fine with me, i can take it) and you come back with, "why do I insist on painting people into a corner?" Are you really that dense and one sided? Geez...talk about the pot and kettle.
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Aug 19, 2018 10:04:44 GMT -6
That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss Why do you insist on painting people into a corner It's either that or cut off one of his ears.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Aug 19, 2018 10:07:32 GMT -6
That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss Why do you insist on painting people into a corner Above, he now says it’s not whether Trump colluded or did anything wrong, it’s what he’s said about it. Now, it’s not a verifiable crime we will hang him over (bc we can’t), it’s our opinion of his words that will do him in. Blatant shifting (and weakening) of the goalposts, because the real motive is not justice or love of country, it’s hatred for Trump. His complete opposition to this man causes him to draw the same deluded conclusions he criticizes diehard Trump loyalists of. Exactly the same. But, he can’t see that. Another thing he can’t see is that it’s not about Trump the man, for most. It’s a movement to reset some of the ultra progressive bs, and return things to a normalcy we all once enjoyed. Thus, the entire focus on Drumpf bad is so misplaced it’s basically a diversion tactic. Using it as a basis for disliking the policies or wanting him removed from office is mind boggling and completely intellectually dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 19, 2018 10:11:44 GMT -6
Why do you insist on painting people into a corner Above, he now says it’s not whether Trump colluded or did anything wrong, it’s what he’s said about it. Now, it’s not a verifiable crime we will hang him over (bc we can’t), it’s our opinion of his words that will do him in. Blatant shifting (and weakening) of the goalposts, because the real motive is not justice or love of country, it’s hatred for Trump. His complete opposition to this man causes him to draw the same deluded conclusions he criticizes diehard Trump loyalists of. Exactly the same. But, he can’t see that. Another thing he can’t see is that it’s not about Trump the man, for most. It’s a movement to reset some of the ultra progressive bs, and return things to a normalcy we all once enjoyed. Thus, the entire focus on Drumpf bad is so misplaced it’s basically a diversion tactic. Using it as a basis for disliking the policies or wanting him removed from office is mind boggling and completely intellectually dishonest. There are a fringe 10% who believe that bullshit. Hell, the meeting with the Russian lawyer PROVED there was no collusion and that it was a set up. The same segment will always believe that. It is solely to undercut and delegitimize his Presidency. I wish he wasnt auch a blowhard about every possible thing. It clouds up his polices- that by and large - are working very well
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 19, 2018 10:35:20 GMT -6
Above, he now says it’s not whether Trump colluded or did anything wrong, it’s what he’s said about it. Now, it’s not a verifiable crime we will hang him over (bc we can’t), it’s our opinion of his words that will do him in. Blatant shifting (and weakening) of the goalposts, because the real motive is not justice or love of country, it’s hatred for Trump. His complete opposition to this man causes him to draw the same deluded conclusions he criticizes diehard Trump loyalists of. Exactly the same. But, he can’t see that. Another thing he can’t see is that it’s not about Trump the man, for most. It’s a movement to reset some of the ultra progressive bs, and return things to a normalcy we all once enjoyed. Thus, the entire focus on Drumpf bad is so misplaced it’s basically a diversion tactic. Using it as a basis for disliking the policies or wanting him removed from office is mind boggling and completely intellectually dishonest. There are a fringe 10% who believe that bullshit. Hell, the meeting with the Russian lawyer PROVED there was no collusion and that it was a set up. The same segment will always believe that. It is solely to undercut and delegitimize his Presidency. I wish he wasnt auch a blowhard about every possible thing. It clouds up his polices- that by and large - are working very well Boots, Can you please tell Oil, since it seems he prefers to not discuss things directly, that I'm on record all the way back to LT saying I doubt Trump "colluded" with Russia? But that objstruction of justice (which is what i was referring to with the lying) that involve this issue might very well be "verifiable" crimes that he might be charged with by Mueller? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2018 11:00:37 GMT -6
Tom Fitton: He needs to be held accountable. And I’d like to see Mr. Mueller on his list of witnesses for Congress. Why isn’t he being brought in and asked about how he was hired, the scope of his work, how he administers his office, why he can’t find and Republicans to hire, what was he doing with Peter Strzok that he let him out and then he hid that information on the reason that he kicked him off his team for four months? Basic questions.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 19, 2018 13:04:00 GMT -6
To paraphrase you. If the people are guilty and you have solid evidence then why fabricate the evidence and try to frame people? This is not an investigation with a crime but an investigation trying to find one. The purpose of this investigation has been obvious for while. To use your in the real world example this is akin to the cops planting coke on someone.
And I'm not a Trump apologist. I don't like everything he does. But, if I was being attacked with this pile of bullshit I don't know what I'd be doing.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2018 13:23:36 GMT -6
Above, he now says it’s not whether Trump colluded or did anything wrong, it’s what he’s said about it. Now, it’s not a verifiable crime we will hang him over (bc we can’t), it’s our opinion of his words that will do him in. Blatant shifting (and weakening) of the goalposts, because the real motive is not justice or love of country, it’s hatred for Trump. His complete opposition to this man causes him to draw the same deluded conclusions he criticizes diehard Trump loyalists of. Exactly the same. But, he can’t see that. Another thing he can’t see is that it’s not about Trump the man, for most. It’s a movement to reset some of the ultra progressive bs, and return things to a normalcy we all once enjoyed. Thus, the entire focus on Drumpf bad is so misplaced it’s basically a diversion tactic. Using it as a basis for disliking the policies or wanting him removed from office is mind boggling and completely intellectually dishonest. There are a fringe 10% who believe that bullshit. Hell, the meeting with the Russian lawyer PROVED there was no collusion and that it was a set up. The same segment will always believe that. It is solely to undercut and delegitimize his Presidency. I wish he wasnt auch a blowhard about every possible thing. It clouds up his polices- that by and large - are working very well It’s similar to what Burr & Lankford mentioned in the article I linked. That the investigation is not done, but after 19 months they have not found any factual evidence of collusion or collaboration between Trump, his campaign & the Russians. They then mentioned how the Democrats may not like the final report & how it could split the committee. That shows that it’s not about finding the truth of the matter, simply that some are looking for their version of the truth and anything less than that is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 19, 2018 13:37:32 GMT -6
Lol, his “bias is showing.” Irish is one of the most dangerous people on this board, railing against hypocrisy as he hypocritically points it out. But, he listens to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, just let him tell you...it’s fucking dangerous. Pro tip: Watch out for that snake in the grass... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss Haven’t you previously said that you were not on LT during the election? Yes. Yes you did. Exactly. At least as an Indy, I admit a conservative view. I don’t recall Irish ever being outraged by the Obama lying even though he admitted that they all lie. Lol I wasn't on LT when Obama was president.
Still waiting for him to come get my guns though.
Are you lying about being critical of Cruz during the campaign or lying about not being on LT when Obama was President? LOL
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 19, 2018 13:52:27 GMT -6
That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss Haven’t you previously said that you were not on LT during the election? Yes. Yes you did. I wasn't on LT when Obama was president.
Still waiting for him to come get my guns though.
Are you lying about being critical of Cruz during the campaign or lying about not being on LT when Obama was President? LOL Man you need to pay attention more. Just like your fail earlier today, "where are the jobs" article, I never said I wasn't on here during THAT (2008/2012 or when he wasn't a lame duck president) election genius. My saying I wasn't on here during the election is in response to the numerous whatabouters on this forum who say, "what about Obama/Clinton" were you complainaing about them? In response to that, I've stated that I was not on this forum when those things were occuring (I was on the football forum but never venutred into politics forum). So, another epic fail for ya. And....if LT was still accessible you could go back and see that I'm on record saying I dislike Hillary so much that if a gun was put to my head, I'd vote for Trump over her (however, that was before I realized what a pathological liar he is and can't be trusted so really....they're two sides of the same coin.) And nice try on "the trap" you're trying to put me in by joining the time frame of the campaign/Cruz and the fact that Obama was still president. You got me! Lol. And even so, I doubt i would have found myself here when Obama was president and commenting on his issues. I don't defend any of the things you guys whine about with him or Hillary becuase a lot of them are true. But at the same time my gift and contribution to this site is not to be a part of the conservative circle jerk where everything "we" do is righteous and superior and everything the other side does is evil and lowly; my gift is to yell at people like you to wake you out of your stupor to realize that there's no one side better than the other. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 19, 2018 13:55:54 GMT -6
Haven’t you previously said that you were not on LT during the election? Yes. Yes you did. Are you lying about being critical of Cruz during the campaign or lying about not being on LT when Obama was President? LOL Man you need to pay attention more. Just like your fail earlier today, "where are the jobs" article, I never said I wasn't on here during THAT election genius. My saying I wasn't on here during the election is in response to the numerous whatabouters on this forum who say, "what about Obama/Clinton" were you complainaing about them? In response to that, I've stated that I was not on this forum when those things were occuring (I was on the football forum but never venutred into politics forum). So, another epic fail for ya. And....if LT was still accessible you could go back and see that I'm on record saying I dislike Hillary so much that if a gun was put to my head, I'd vote for Trump over her (however, that was before I realized what a pathological liar he is and can't be trusted so really....they're two sides of the same coin.) And nice try on "the trap" you're trying to put me in by joining the time frame of the campaign/Cruz and the fact that Obama was still president. You got me! Lol. And even so, I doubt i would have found myself here when Obama was president and commenting on his issues. I don't defend any of the things you guys whine about with him or Hillary becuase a lot of them are true. But at the same time my gift and contribution to this site is not to be a part of the conservative circle jerk where everything "we" do is righteous and superior and everything the other side does is evil and lowly; my gift is to yell at people like you to wake you out of your stupor to realize that there's no one side better than the other. You're welcome. Nope. Now you’re lying to cover a blatant lie. The Political Asylum could be shortened to TPA but not LT. LT= LandThieves. You clearly said you didn’t post on LT when Obama was President. Lying liar. Holy moly that was fun!!! You only posted on the Football board on LT but posted that you disliked Hillary? On the football forum? Bwahahahahaha
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 19, 2018 13:59:34 GMT -6
Man you need to pay attention more. Just like your fail earlier today, "where are the jobs" article, I never said I wasn't on here during THAT election genius. My saying I wasn't on here during the election is in response to the numerous whatabouters on this forum who say, "what about Obama/Clinton" were you complainaing about them? In response to that, I've stated that I was not on this forum when those things were occuring (I was on the football forum but never venutred into politics forum). So, another epic fail for ya. And....if LT was still accessible you could go back and see that I'm on record saying I dislike Hillary so much that if a gun was put to my head, I'd vote for Trump over her (however, that was before I realized what a pathological liar he is and can't be trusted so really....they're two sides of the same coin.) And nice try on "the trap" you're trying to put me in by joining the time frame of the campaign/Cruz and the fact that Obama was still president. You got me! Lol. And even so, I doubt i would have found myself here when Obama was president and commenting on his issues. I don't defend any of the things you guys whine about with him or Hillary becuase a lot of them are true. But at the same time my gift and contribution to this site is not to be a part of the conservative circle jerk where everything "we" do is righteous and superior and everything the other side does is evil and lowly; my gift is to yell at people like you to wake you out of your stupor to realize that there's no one side better than the other. You're welcome. Nope. Now you’re lying to cover a blatant lie. The Political Asylum could be shortened to TPA but not LT. LT= LandThieves. You clearly said you didn’t post on LT when Obama was President. Lying liar. Holy moly that was fun!!! I'm sure it was probably the best thing that's happened in your life all week. Bravo.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 19, 2018 14:04:51 GMT -6
Nope. Now you’re lying to cover a blatant lie. The Political Asylum could be shortened to TPA but not LT. LT= LandThieves. You clearly said you didn’t post on LT when Obama was President. Lying liar. Holy moly that was fun!!! I'm sure it was probably the best thing that's happened in your life all week. Bravo. Hahahahaha!!! Irish: I didn’t post on LT when Obama was President Irish: oilsooner defended me when I was critical of Cruz during the campaign Irish: I was critical of Hillary in LT but I never posted in the Pol forum, only Football Forum El Oh El Man alive this is literally the best thing to happen to me in the last 30 minutes or so. Sweet Irish, just another lying liar with a bad memory.
|
|
|
Post by kingswitz on Aug 19, 2018 19:43:13 GMT -6
That's right, Oil,...I am dangerous. But not really. This is a message board, man....how dangerous you think I am and in what way could I be dangerous? You just get upset becuase I criticize your guy and your whataboutisms don't work on me as a defense against my criticisms of Trump becuase I won't defend the people you criticize and often agree. Kind of takes all of the oxygen out of the room and I think that bothers you somewhat. I've said before and I'll say it again: you were one of my biggest fans when I was criticizing Cruz for his political manuevering during the campain(you even defended me against Cub and that other Cruz dude that followed me around all the time). Now that I apply the same criticisms (mostly about a gross lack of charcter) to Trump, I'm "dangerous" lol. And I don't even know who Dave Rubin is, so that's false. I said in your thread I like Jordan Peterson (read his book, might go see him in Dallas in October and was even listening to him when I came here to this site today), Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan. But I also like Bill Maher. But the one thing I can say I've never done is vote for a person that belongs to the delusional, emotional, illogical and evil party you love to rail against. Just pubs. Can you say the same thing? Until next time.....beware the Irish.....Hisssssssssssssssssss Haven’t you previously said that you were not on LT during the election? Yes. Yes you did. I wasn't on LT when Obama was president.
Still waiting for him to come get my guns though.
Are you lying about being critical of Cruz during the campaign or lying about not being on LT when Obama was President? LOL Good catch! lulz
|
|