Russiagate

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Translation - you know you are wrong but can't admit it.

Nope - 

[DJL 232]

21 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Nope - 

So, nope you can't admit it.     Mic Drop.  Boom goes the dynamite.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Nope - 

But yep. You’re claiming that Trump was wiretapped by Obama despite there being no evidence or assertions in your source to support that, and you’re claiming bias in favour of Hilary despite the fact that she was publicly investigated during the election.

 

You must see how off base you are right now, surely?

[yobnoc 142]

11 hours ago, rushmc said:

 Funny how everything that article was true then as it is now 

So...speaker of the house is Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes is the chairman of the intel committee still? 

Words matter. Will you admit you’re wrong? Even if it’s just one little thing I’m pointing out in this case?

Edited May 7, 2019 by yobnoc
Error - see? Not that hard!

[yobnoc 142]

11 hours ago, rushmc said:

 My biased beliefs. That’s a classic !

Like how well-sourced journalism you disagree with is “fake news,” but you’re cool with an anonymously sourced article that plays to your bias. Yep, classic...

*one-handed clap*

[rushmc 18]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

Like how well-sourced journalism you disagree with is “fake news,” but you’re cool with an anonymously sourced article that plays to your bias. Yep, classic...

*one-handed clap*

Lol

 

you complaining about anonymous sources makes the irony meter explode.

 

 Given the fact that leaks by anonymous sources was used to falsely get FISA warrants .

 

 Well done grasshopper .

[DJL 232]

59 minutes ago, rushmc said:

Lol

you complaining about anonymous sources makes the irony meter explode.

 Given the fact that leaks by anonymous sources was used to falsely get FISA warrants .

 Well done grasshopper .

Prove it.  First, explain what it takes to get a FISA and next explain how anonymous sources were what got it.

[normiss 622]

On 5/6/2019 at 1:34 PM, kallend said:

Second request:

Please provide a link to any post I wrote claiming that Trump is paranoid.  There is a search function at the top of the page.

FBI Director Chris Wray said Tuesday that he does not consider court-approved FBI surveillance to be "spying" and said he has no evidence the FBI illegally monitored President Donald Trump's campaign during the 2016 election.

[yobnoc 142]

4 hours ago, rushmc said:

Lol

 

you complaining about anonymous sources makes the irony meter explode.

 

 Given the fact that leaks by anonymous sources was used to falsely get FISA warrants .

 

 Well done grasshopper .

I'm not complaining.  I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your judgement.

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, normiss said:

FBI Director Chris Wray said Tuesday that he does not consider court-approved FBI surveillance to be "spying" and said he has no evidence the FBI illegally monitored President Donald Trump's campaign during the 2016 election.

Its not illegal if its an order.

[normiss 622]

17 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Its not illegal if its an order.

Neither the former nor latter half of that sentence is accurate in any way.

[yobnoc 142]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

Neither the former nor latter half of that sentence is accurate in any way.

Um...in this country, it's not illegal if it's signed off by the courts.  The judiciary decides whether something is legal or not. Congress might make laws, but the Judicial branch decides if they're legal. 

The simple way the sentence was portrayed, I'll give you that it wasn't exactly clear enough.  As in: military orders can be illegal, and are required by oath to be disobeyed if they are illegal in nature.  Nuremburg comes to mind.  Presidential orders and executive branch orders can be illegal; take Mnuchin ordering that David Dennison's taxes not be handed over.  That's an illegal order.  It flies in the face of a law that has been upheld by the Judiciary in the past.  Hopefully DT's cronies that he installed in the supreme court have some sense of integrity left to uphold precedent and rule in favor of law and order, but I doubt it.

[normiss 622]

17 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Um...in this country, it's not illegal if it's signed off by the courts.  The judiciary decides whether something is legal or not. Congress might make laws, but the Judicial branch decides if they're legal. 

The simple way the sentence was portrayed, I'll give you that it wasn't exactly clear enough.  As in: military orders can be illegal, and are required by oath to be disobeyed if they are illegal in nature.  Nuremburg comes to mind.  Presidential orders and executive branch orders can be illegal; take Mnuchin ordering that David Dennison's taxes not be handed over.  That's an illegal order.  It flies in the face of a law that has been upheld by the Judiciary in the past.  Hopefully DT's cronies that he installed in the supreme court have some sense of integrity left to uphold precedent and rule in favor of law and order, but I doubt it.

Judiciary doesn't "decide" regarding any spying. Investigations aren't spying. They also don't give orders. Orders can be illegal.

 

[yobnoc 142]

21 minutes ago, normiss said:

Judiciary doesn't "decide" regarding any spying. Investigations aren't spying. They also don't give orders. Orders can be illegal.

 

Right, I think we're on the same page but we're reading different paragraphs.  The Judiciary signed off on a legal warrant to perform surveillance on an individual (Carter Page) who was suspected of being in bed with the Russian Government in their efforts to sabotage our election process.  He also happened to be a part of the campaign for a presidential candidate.  That's not spying; that's doing the job of protecting our country from all enemies - foreign and domestic.

[rushmc 18]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Its not illegal if its an order.

 It is illegal if it’s based on faulty  information 

Edited May 8, 2019 by rushmc

[rushmc 18]

56 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Right, I think we're on the same page but we're reading different paragraphs.  The Judiciary signed off on a legal warrant to perform surveillance on an individual (Carter Page) who was suspected of being in bed with the Russian Government in their efforts to sabotage our election process.  He also happened to be a part of the campaign for a presidential candidate.  That's not spying; that's doing the job of protecting our country from all enemies - foreign and domestic.

 I love watching you guys dance around the definition of a word to try and make a case. It’s funny as hell

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, rushmc said:

 I love watching you guys dance around the definition of a word to try and make a case. It’s funny as hell

I haven't been posting here long, but from what I can tell, you sidestep and dance around every attempt to get you to clarify your position.  That's called trolling.  You come in, stir the pot, and never provide any specific answers to probing questions on your positions.  I think I'm going to join the growing group of people who put you on "ignore," as soon as I figure out how to do so.

[normiss 622]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

Right, I think we're on the same page but we're reading different paragraphs.  The Judiciary signed off on a legal warrant to perform surveillance on an individual (Carter Page) who was suspected of being in bed with the Russian Government in their efforts to sabotage our election process.  He also happened to be a part of the campaign for a presidential candidate.  That's not spying; that's doing the job of protecting our country from all enemies - foreign and domestic.

Pretty much my point.

No spying, nothing illegal, nothing "ordered" to do....anything illegal.

So his sentence meant nothing.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

11 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I haven't been posting here long, but from what I can tell, you sidestep and dance around every attempt to get you to clarify your position.  That's called trolling.  You come in, stir the pot, and never provide any specific answers to probing questions on your positions.  I think I'm going to join the growing group of people who put you on "ignore," as soon as I figure out how to do so.

No kidding. 

If you 'hover' over his avatar pic, a box with some user info will pop up.
At the bottom of that is a couple 'buttons'. One is "Ignore User."

Probably the biggest improvement of the upgrade.

[DJL 232]

11 hours ago, rushmc said:

It is illegal if it’s based on faulty  information 

Can you name the faulty information?  You keep using the singular tense and now you've said it was anonymous sources and faulty.  There was an entire book of information used to obtain the FISA, are you saying that it was all from one single anonymous source?  I'm going to guess this is another question you can't answer hope will get lost long enough for you to forget before saying the exact same thing two pages from now.

[yobnoc 142]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

No kidding. 

If you 'hover' over his avatar pic, a box with some user info will pop up.
At the bottom of that is a couple 'buttons'. One is "Ignore User."

Probably the biggest improvement of the upgrade.

Oh I figured it out with haste.  Took me about 30sec.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Just in. I'm thinking that this move pretty much guarantees the House will have to move to an impeachment hearing. Trump may or may not understand and want that as part of his re-election strategy.

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/barr-contempt-mueller-report/h_f677b79348a74773806928740abb438f

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

But...
But...
But...

The Mueller report exonerated Trump. He said so. Barr said so.

 

If it shows he did nothing wrong, why wouldn't he release it?

[kallend 1,623]

Meanwhile, Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer started his prison sentence this week.

Why would an executive who only hires the "best people" have a criminal for his personal lawyer?

[ryoder 1,384]

9 minutes ago, kallend said:

Meanwhile, Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer started his prison sentence this week.

Why would an executive who only hires the "best people" have a criminal for his personal lawyer?