Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bluerules009

How many of you think we need to have a new special counsel to look into corruption in our Justice department and FBI?

Do we need a new special counsel to investigate corruption in the Justice department, use of FISA courts and the FBI?   

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we need a new special counsel to investigate corruption in the Justice department, use of FISA courts and the FBI?



Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, happycamper said:

You and soup literally just did

I apologize for ripping you because of shyt retro did.  Please consider yourself ripped for the shyt you did.

Hugs to you and the Dems for your consistency in all you do.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pokebball said:

I apologize for ripping you because of shyt retro did.  Please consider yourself ripped for the shyt you did.

Hugs to you and the Dems for your consistency in all you do.

What, you're butthurt because I constantly call out democrats for their responsibility in segregation and racial housing disparity?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, happycamper said:

What, you're butthurt because I constantly call out democrats for their responsibility in segregation and racial housing disparity?

You conclude this makes you objective here, on this issue?  Obviously, it doesn't.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happycamper said:

Well, yeah. The Trump weasels included "the dude who invented lobbying" and "a traitorous general" and "Michael Cohen". 

You purposely ignore the FBIs misleading the FISA court that started this shit show.  We have no clue how damaging that was to the rule of law...... and you are not interested.  I shouldn't be suprised.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jackrabbit said:

You purposely ignore the FBIs misleading the FISA court that started this shit show.  We have no clue how damaging that was to the rule of law...... and you are not interested.  I shouldn't be suprised.

 

Here's a decent read by the WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-exposes-spy-chiefs-11553555713

 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pokebball said:

You conclude this makes you objective here, on this issue?  Obviously, it doesn't.

Objective? I have no skin in the game, I've said and still say that impeachment would be the worst possible end to the Trump presidency, and overall I've remained mum on this investigation cuz, well, there's been a lot of nothing and now more nothing.

What, do you think that you have an objective point of view or something?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

You purposely ignore the FBIs misleading the FISA court that started this shit show.  We have no clue how damaging that was to the rule of law...... and you are not interested.  I shouldn't be suprised.

 

Except that it didn't. You really have to stop repeating the same thing over and over again as though it's somehow going to magically make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, retrofade said:

Except that it didn't. You really have to stop repeating the same thing over and over again as though it's somehow going to magically make it true.

Now that your fantasy is over....there is nothing more to see here....right?   I've not gotten one honest response on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jackrabbit said:

Now that your fantasy is over....there is nothing more to see here....right?   I've not gotten one honest response on this thread.

"Completely agreeing with everything Jack is saying" seems to be the only thing you ever consider "honest".

Dude... other people honestly believe things that are different from what you believe. It isn't dishonesty or a conspiracy; it's like people are different or something. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Objective? I have no skin in the game, I've said and still say that impeachment would be the worst possible end to the Trump presidency, and overall I've remained mum on this investigation cuz, well, there's been a lot of nothing and now more nothing.

What, do you think that you have an objective point of view or something?

There’s been something...  and that something is that there was no collusion.  That’s pretty significant considering the narrative pushed by Dems and the media the last 2 years.  Not at all surprised you’d be dismissive of that though.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jackrabbit said:

Now that your fantasy is over....there is nothing more to see here....right?   I've not gotten one honest response on this thread.

What do you consider an "honest response"? One that agrees with your premise?

Without having all the info, much of which is still classified, none of us can say for certain if the FISA court was illegally misled. That's my "honest response".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is I can call out Trump as the asshole he is. I can even understand how some hate him. He is a brash arrogant prick that I would not want to work for. I voted against Hillary, not for him. But, since he is our elected president, I try to separate his dumb shittiness from his policies which I mostly agree with. 

I did the same with Obama, an intelligent mostly personable guy, who had dumb ass policies. 

I worry more about policy decisions than persona although it would be great if good character and good policies were both in alignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Literally all of that is horseshit. 

  1. I hoped that if Trump had committed criminal acts conspiracy that the investigation would bring him down via indictment or impeachment, so I suppose you're partially correct there. I can't speak for anyone else though. 
  2. The FBI didn't concoct "Russian Collusion". The investigation began when they received intelligence from other Five Eyes nations that Russia was working to undermine our elections and that a Trump campaign advisor --- Papadapolous --- had been bragging to an Australian diplomat that they had advance knowledge of a Russian hack of emails that would damage the Clinton campaign. This was a counterintelligence investigation and was kept secret... if they really wanted to damage Trump and prevent him from winning the election, they could have leaked what they were doing. 
  3. No spying on Trump campaign officials took place.
  4. Carter Page had long departed the campaign prior to the FISA application. 
  5. The "insurance policy" text message is taken very much out of context. However, I can see that it does look bad given everything else.
  6. Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire and the 25th Amendment as the FBI and DoJ were trying to figure out what his motivations were for firing Comey and what they needed to do next. Rosenstein says that it was sarcastic, McCabe says it was serious... the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. If you read interviews with people who witnessed it, they say that it was because the situation was unsettling, not that they were trying to perpetrate a coup. That's nonsense.
  7. Go read the IG report that said there was no political bias in the Hillary investigation. Further, if they really wanted to protect her, Comey wouldn't have made any statement about her conduct. 

You accuse me of having bought into a "collusion" conspiracy theory, but you believe that the deep state is trying to stage a coup because they hate Trump. 

You are so full of shit. It’s no wonder you have been wrong for the last 2 years. You can’t even get basic facts right. 

Nornally most people when completely wrong and embarrassed as you are about a topic usually fade into the background for awhile to lick their wounds. See @jackmormon for an example of this. You on the other hand double down on the stupid and incorrect. Bold strategy Cotton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rebelbacker said:

You are so full of shit. It’s no wonder you have been wrong for the last 2 years. You can’t even get basic facts right. 

Nornally most people when completely wrong and embarrassed as you are about a topic usually fade into the background for awhile to lick their wounds. See @jackmormon for an example of this. You on the other hand double down on the stupid and incorrect. Bold strategy Cotton. 

Please tell me which of my points there are factually incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Literally all of that is horseshit. 

  1. I hoped that if Trump had committed criminal acts conspiracy that the investigation would bring him down via indictment or impeachment, so I suppose you're partially correct there. I can't speak for anyone else though. 
  2. The FBI didn't concoct "Russian Collusion". The investigation began when they received intelligence from other Five Eyes nations that Russia was working to undermine our elections and that a Trump campaign advisor --- Papadapolous --- had been bragging to an Australian diplomat that they had advance knowledge of a Russian hack of emails that would damage the Clinton campaign. This was a counterintelligence investigation and was kept secret... if they really wanted to damage Trump and prevent him from winning the election, they could have leaked what they were doing. 
  3. No spying on Trump campaign officials took place.
  4. Carter Page had long departed the campaign prior to the FISA application. 
  5. The "insurance policy" text message is taken very much out of context. However, I can see that it does look bad given everything else.
  6. Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire and the 25th Amendment as the FBI and DoJ were trying to figure out what his motivations were for firing Comey and what they needed to do next. Rosenstein says that it was sarcastic, McCabe says it was serious... the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. If you read interviews with people who witnessed it, they say that it was because the situation was unsettling, not that they were trying to perpetrate a coup. That's nonsense.
  7. Go read the IG report that said there was no political bias in the Hillary investigation. Further, if they really wanted to protect her, Comey wouldn't have made any statement about her conduct. 

You accuse me of having bought into a "collusion" conspiracy theory, but you believe that the deep state is trying to stage a coup because they hate Trump. 

Are you claiming you DID NOT buy into the collusion conspiracy theory?  Without going back and rereading, my impression is you fully bought in. 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Please tell me which of my points there are factually incorrect. 

You’re wrong on everything except 4 and 6. 

Youve been consistently wrong on everything concerning this for two years. You based your opinions on things that aren’t true but yet you refuse to recognize it. That’s why I stopped bantering with you. Even now after your theories have been thoroughly debunked you still cling to what you think you know even though you are wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rebelbacker said:

You’re wrong on everything except 4 and 6. 

Youve been consistently wrong on everything concerning this for two years. You based your opinions on things that aren’t true but yet you refuse to recognize it. That’s why I stopped bantering with you. Even now after your theories have been thoroughly debunked you still cling to what you think you know even though you are wrong. 

 

No, I'm not actually.

Congressional testimony from multiple sources, as well as many news reports from multiple sources, places the origin of "Crossfire Hurricane" --- the Trump/Russia counterintelligence investigation --- began on July 31st, 2016 as a result of information received from Australia re: Papadopoulos. Two agents were dispatched to London to meet with Ambassador Alexander Downer and to have him describe his meeting with Papadopoulos. This is further established by the minority response to the infamous Nunes memo, where they state outright that the investigation began on July 31st and that it was due to Papadopoulos talking about "dirt" on Hillary in the form of emails. They had previously received information about Russian attempts to undermine our election, and were aware of the DNC/DCCC hacks. All of that is well established. If you'd like to dispute it, please let me know what is inaccurate. 

To the best of my knowledge from public reporting and Congressional testimony, no spying of Trump campaign officials took place. The closest would be Flynn being caught talking to Kislyak as a result of Kislyak's communications being monitored, not the reverse. Or I suppose you could argue that the four sub-inquiries --- thought to be thought to be Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Manafort --- that had been started as part of Crossfire Hurricane could count, but there's nothing that would indicate they were actively "spying" on any of them. Further, even if "spying" was taking place, that still requires one to buy into the notion that Crossfire Hurricane started as a way to try and spy on the Trump campaign, which is already established as being incorrect. The only other way we can get to "spying" is Papadopoulos' story about meeting with an FBI informant, which is still not "spying". 

I'll stipulate to the "insurance policy", as there's no real point in arguing it. To my obviously biased view, it looks a lot worse than I think it actually was, but I can see the argument on the other side. 

Finally.... from the IG Report into the Hillary email investigation.

95tEkN3.png

 

So, to sum up. The investigation didn't start because of supposed FISA abuses, but because of Papadopoulos blabbing things to Alexander Downer. There are only very tenuous links to "spying" on the Trump campaign, and it's reaching to define them as such. The IG Report said that the decisions regarding the Hillary email investigation were not affected by bias or other improper considerations. Certain individuals were cited for having political bias, but the decisions made were not.  So you got me on the insurance policy text message, but the rest of what I said is backed up by facts. 

How would you like to attempt to impugn my character next? :P I may have been wrong about what happened regarding Trump/Russia, but I've still done a whole lot of reading on the subject and am very aware of the timeline and context of most things. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Are you claiming you DID NOT buy into the collusion conspiracy theory?  Without going back and rereading, my impression is you fully bought in. 

I don't know how I can make this more plain. I personally believed that there was coordination between the Trump campaign and connected parties and Russian interests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, retrofade said:

I don't know how I can make this more plain. I personally believed that there was coordination between the Trump campaign and connected parties and Russian interests. 

What led you to believe that?  Were you just trusting the media?

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...