Another Lie debunked-IG report concludes FBI did not spy on trump campaign

[g5000]

It is inappropriate to call Redfish a conservative.

I agree, a patriotic american citizen would be more accurate. In my long voting history I have voted R, voted D, and voted I. I have always voted for the person that I believed would be best for the job regardless of party.

Unlike you, who is so blinded by partisan hate that you would vote for the devil himself if he carried a D behind his name.

As to Clinton and Epstein, there is proof that he used Epstein's plane, eyewitnesses say he was on the island more than once. Will we ever know the full truth? probably not since Epstein was "suicided" just before he was about to spill it on a lot of powerful deep state people.

You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you.

Pathological!

coming from you, that claim has zero significance. being called a liar by one of the most blatant liars on USMB is meaningless.

but like all liberals, your task here is to hurl insults and accuse others of what you do 24/7/365.

You are a joke, the clown prince of USMB, better watch out rightwinger is making a play for your title followed closely by care4 and seawitchey.

Did you think everyone has already forgotten I busted you wide open like a watermelon in this topic, liar?

You have a mental illness. A sickness.

thinking that you did that is a symptom of your mental illness. You never have and never will, you are a joke, a fool, a partisan idiot.

You claimed several times the Washington Post and New York Times reported Clinton had flown to Epstein's island 27 times.

You were unable to prove that, because those articles don't exist. In fact, I provided a New York Times article which reported Clinton NEVER visited the island. I even provided the flight logs and asked you to point out Clinton's flights to the island.

You couldn't do it. You know why? Because you believed a hoax, and stupidly parroted it.

You were caught in a lie. Busted wide open.

That you can't admit it demonstrates just how disgraceful your character is.

You have a sickness. A mental illness.

You can deny you were busted all day long, but that does not make it any less true. You told a lie, and got caught red handed.

Now you are just showing how utterly lacking in integrity you are.

 

[g5000]

This is exactly why I can't stand Trump and his idiot followers.

 

[Redfish]

This is exactly why I can't stand Trump and his idiot followers.

because he and we expose your lies and corruption and the lies and corruption of the DC deep state and the lying media.

the truth is your enemy, not me.

you embarrass yourself on this board everyday with your partisan talking points and lies.

Hillary lost, get the fuck over it.

 

[Care4all]

You put me on ignore when I keep knocking down your tin foil conspiracies with facts.

you have posted nothing but unsupported dem/lib talking points, not the first fact. this morning you stupidly claimed that the hillary campaign did not pay for the dossier when there is clear evidence that they did. YOU are a blatant liar and propagandist for the lying dems and the lying media.

Wrong, guppy. I’ve provided actual facts while you have stated your feelings.

Hillary Clinton paid for legal opposition research. She did nothing illegal...unlike Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/13/732340501/fact-check-foreign-interference-and-opposition-research-are-not-the-same

and now you cite NPR as a legitimate source, I give up, you are either terminally stupid or totally brainwashed, or both.

Paying a foreign entity for dirt on your opponent is not illegal???? WTF is wrong with you?

But are you actually trying to claim, that if a Campaign caters a luncheon for campaign purposes or potential donors, and writes it off as a designated campaign expense,

if the caterer had a bunch of Mexicans that he paid to make the burritos and Rice and beans for the campaign luncheon,

this campaign would be breaking campaign finance law, because it was Mexican citizens that the Campaign indirectly paid through the Caterer, to help them with their campaign function?

where in the USA do Mexican citizens run catering services?

your attempt at analogy is a good try, but I must give you an F. Sorry.

Where did I say the Mexicans ran it? They simply were paid by the American caterer, to make the food. I give you an F for comprehension of what you read!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, you "paraphrased"? So you admit that you lied when you claimed that I said those things?

Why would I when I didn't lie?

Yeah...you don't lie...you just "paraphrase"...pretend it's something I said and then accuse me of telling a lie! You're a piece of work, Faun!

Lying con tool, when you say, "to believe my version of events you have to accept that the Clinton campaign paid for a sleazy political trick to be played on Hillary's opponent.
Now which do you think is more likely," with absolutely no actual evidence to back that up -- it's the same as had you said, you just have to take my word for it.

No, it's not the same...which is why you're a liar when you claim that it is, Faun! Only a moron would change someone else's words and then accuse them of lying! But you're too stubborn to admit that...aren't you! It's easier to accuse someone of lying every time they post...than to refute what it is they said with an intelligent reply!

LOL

Of course it's the same. You saying, "to believe my version of events you have to accept...," while you offer zero evidence to corroborate your version of events, is you saying, take my word for it. Your lack English comprehension is not my problem, lying con tool.

I gave a choice of two things and then asked which was more believable. Somehow you translated that into "take my word for it"...yet you think "I" have a problem with English comprehension? Stick with calling me a "lying con tool", Faun! It's sophomoric but at least you don't come across as a complete buffoon!

 

[Oldstyle]

you have posted nothing but unsupported dem/lib talking points, not the first fact. this morning you stupidly claimed that the hillary campaign did not pay for the dossier when there is clear evidence that they did. YOU are a blatant liar and propagandist for the lying dems and the lying media.

Wrong, guppy. I’ve provided actual facts while you have stated your feelings.

Hillary Clinton paid for legal opposition research. She did nothing illegal...unlike Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/13/732340501/fact-check-foreign-interference-and-opposition-research-are-not-the-same

and now you cite NPR as a legitimate source, I give up, you are either terminally stupid or totally brainwashed, or both.

Paying a foreign entity for dirt on your opponent is not illegal???? WTF is wrong with you?

We know, no source is good enough for you, but that’s because you’re a tin foil conspiracy theorist.

the clinton campaign through Fusion GPS paid Russians to create the dossier of lies about Trump and timed its release in an attempt to damage him just before the election. They failed but the illegality of what they did remains.

Will anyone ever be held to account for it? probably not and we should all be very concerned about that.

One, no Russians were paid for the dossier.
Two, it wasn’t released before the election.
Three, there’s nothing illegal about paying for opposition research.

You're right on point One but that's only because Steele made up the stuff that's in the dossiers all the while claiming that it came from his Russian "sources".

You're dead wrong on point Two. Mother Jones did an article on the dossiers a week before the election and then multiple other media outlets reported on that story. The timing was perfect for a political smear job...get it out right before people head off to vote...but don't give the opposition enough time to expose it as a political dirty trick!

There is nothing illegal about paying for "opposition research" but this wasn't just research...this was a coordinated effort to smear the opposition candidate using people sympathetic to you in both the FBI and the main stream media! It isn't "illegal", Cofax...but it sure is SLEAZY!!!

 

[Seawytch]

Except I have done nothing but provided facts to counter your wild conspiracy theories. There is as much evidence linking Trump to Epsten as there is Clinton to Epstein.

Really, show us. the flight plans show Clinton as a passenger 27 times, Trump zero.

Trump banned Epstein from his properties.

so, bring the evidence or STFU

No trips to the island as you and liar Trump claimed.

No wittle fishy, that is what Trump said what happened. Trump lies multiple times an hour.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-falling-out

vanity fair-------------wow, that proves it!!!!

are you really that stupid?

No, but you certainly are. The article has links...something you never provide.

links to lies--------------yeah that proves it.

you continue to display your ignorance.

I'm sorry Trumpian acolyte, your projection doesn't work. Everyone can see how deluded and 100% fact free you are.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I agree, a patriotic american citizen would be more accurate. In my long voting history I have voted R, voted D, and voted I. I have always voted for the person that I believed would be best for the job regardless of party.

Unlike you, who is so blinded by partisan hate that you would vote for the devil himself if he carried a D behind his name.

As to Clinton and Epstein, there is proof that he used Epstein's plane, eyewitnesses say he was on the island more than once. Will we ever know the full truth? probably not since Epstein was "suicided" just before he was about to spill it on a lot of powerful deep state people.

You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you.

Pathological!

coming from you, that claim has zero significance. being called a liar by one of the most blatant liars on USMB is meaningless.

but like all liberals, your task here is to hurl insults and accuse others of what you do 24/7/365.

You are a joke, the clown prince of USMB, better watch out rightwinger is making a play for your title followed closely by care4 and seawitchey.

Did you think everyone has already forgotten I busted you wide open like a watermelon in this topic, liar?

You have a mental illness. A sickness.

thinking that you did that is a symptom of your mental illness. You never have and never will, you are a joke, a fool, a partisan idiot.

You claimed several times the Washington Post and New York Times reported Clinton had flown to Epstein's island 27 times.

You were unable to prove that, because those articles don't exist. In fact, I provided a New York Times article which reported Clinton NEVER visited the island. I even provided the flight logs and asked you to point out Clinton's flights to the island.

You couldn't do it. You know why? Because you believed a hoax, and stupidly parroted it.

You were caught in a lie. Busted wide open.

That you can't admit it demonstrates just how disgraceful your character is.

You have a sickness. A mental illness.

You can deny you were busted all day long, but that does not make it any less true. You told a lie, and got caught red handed.

Now you are just showing how utterly lacking in integrity you are.

Stuff it liar.
"
BILL’S DOUBLE TROUBLE
Bill Clinton seen walking off with a woman on each arm during a stay at Jeffrey Epstein’s private Caribbean Island, court docs claim"

Clinton ‘walked off with woman on each arm on Epstein's island’

 

[Faun]

Why would I when I didn't lie?

Yeah...you don't lie...you just "paraphrase"...pretend it's something I said and then accuse me of telling a lie! You're a piece of work, Faun!

Lying con tool, when you say, "to believe my version of events you have to accept that the Clinton campaign paid for a sleazy political trick to be played on Hillary's opponent.
Now which do you think is more likely," with absolutely no actual evidence to back that up -- it's the same as had you said, you just have to take my word for it.

No, it's not the same...which is why you're a liar when you claim that it is, Faun! Only a moron would change someone else's words and then accuse them of lying! But you're too stubborn to admit that...aren't you! It's easier to accuse someone of lying every time they post...than to refute what it is they said with an intelligent reply!

LOL

Of course it's the same. You saying, "to believe my version of events you have to accept...," while you offer zero evidence to corroborate your version of events, is you saying, take my word for it. Your lack English comprehension is not my problem, lying con tool.

I gave a choice of two things and then asked which was more believable. Somehow you translated that into "take my word for it"...yet you think "I" have a problem with English comprehension? Stick with calling me a "lying con tool", Faun! It's sophomoric but at least you don't come across as a complete buffoon!

LOL

Lying con yool, the two choices were your claim versus mine, followed by you asking, "now which do you think is more likely?" Since you were promoting your claim over mine, that can only mean you found your claim believable, not mine.

That means you're saying your claim is believable. But you offer no proof whatsoever to backup your claim. That's the same as you saying, take my word for it, since you presented no evidence other than you saying it.

 

[lennypartiv]

<< Obama ‘Had to Know’ of Spying >>

Trump: Obama 'Had to Know' of Spying, Clinton 'Should Be in Jail'

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah...you don't lie...you just "paraphrase"...pretend it's something I said and then accuse me of telling a lie! You're a piece of work, Faun!

Lying con tool, when you say, "to believe my version of events you have to accept that the Clinton campaign paid for a sleazy political trick to be played on Hillary's opponent.
Now which do you think is more likely," with absolutely no actual evidence to back that up -- it's the same as had you said, you just have to take my word for it.

No, it's not the same...which is why you're a liar when you claim that it is, Faun! Only a moron would change someone else's words and then accuse them of lying! But you're too stubborn to admit that...aren't you! It's easier to accuse someone of lying every time they post...than to refute what it is they said with an intelligent reply!

LOL

Of course it's the same. You saying, "to believe my version of events you have to accept...," while you offer zero evidence to corroborate your version of events, is you saying, take my word for it. Your lack English comprehension is not my problem, lying con tool.

I gave a choice of two things and then asked which was more believable. Somehow you translated that into "take my word for it"...yet you think "I" have a problem with English comprehension? Stick with calling me a "lying con tool", Faun! It's sophomoric but at least you don't come across as a complete buffoon!

LOL

Lying con yool, the two choices were your claim versus mine, followed by you asking, "now which do you think is more likely?" Since you were promoting your claim over mine, that can only mean you found your claim believable, not mine.

That means you're saying your claim is believable. But you offer no proof whatsoever to backup your claim. That's the same as you saying, take my word for it, since you presented no evidence other than you saying it.

No, that's me asking which is more likely...your claim...or mine! It's not saying "take my word for it". You had two choices and that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend!

 

[Faun]

Lying con tool, when you say, "to believe my version of events you have to accept that the Clinton campaign paid for a sleazy political trick to be played on Hillary's opponent.
Now which do you think is more likely," with absolutely no actual evidence to back that up -- it's the same as had you said, you just have to take my word for it.

No, it's not the same...which is why you're a liar when you claim that it is, Faun! Only a moron would change someone else's words and then accuse them of lying! But you're too stubborn to admit that...aren't you! It's easier to accuse someone of lying every time they post...than to refute what it is they said with an intelligent reply!

LOL

Of course it's the same. You saying, "to believe my version of events you have to accept...," while you offer zero evidence to corroborate your version of events, is you saying, take my word for it. Your lack English comprehension is not my problem, lying con tool.

I gave a choice of two things and then asked which was more believable. Somehow you translated that into "take my word for it"...yet you think "I" have a problem with English comprehension? Stick with calling me a "lying con tool", Faun! It's sophomoric but at least you don't come across as a complete buffoon!

LOL

Lying con yool, the two choices were your claim versus mine, followed by you asking, "now which do you think is more likely?" Since you were promoting your claim over mine, that can only mean you found your claim believable, not mine.

That means you're saying your claim is believable. But you offer no proof whatsoever to backup your claim. That's the same as you saying, take my word for it, since you presented no evidence other than you saying it.

No, that's me asking which is more likely...your claim...or mine! It's not saying "take my word for it". You had two choices and that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend!

Lying con tool, who do you think you're fooling into believing you don't think your claim is not true??

 

[Oldstyle]

No, it's not the same...which is why you're a liar when you claim that it is, Faun! Only a moron would change someone else's words and then accuse them of lying! But you're too stubborn to admit that...aren't you! It's easier to accuse someone of lying every time they post...than to refute what it is they said with an intelligent reply!

LOL

Of course it's the same. You saying, "to believe my version of events you have to accept...," while you offer zero evidence to corroborate your version of events, is you saying, take my word for it. Your lack English comprehension is not my problem, lying con tool.

I gave a choice of two things and then asked which was more believable. Somehow you translated that into "take my word for it"...yet you think "I" have a problem with English comprehension? Stick with calling me a "lying con tool", Faun! It's sophomoric but at least you don't come across as a complete buffoon!

LOL

Lying con yool, the two choices were your claim versus mine, followed by you asking, "now which do you think is more likely?" Since you were promoting your claim over mine, that can only mean you found your claim believable, not mine.

That means you're saying your claim is believable. But you offer no proof whatsoever to backup your claim. That's the same as you saying, take my word for it, since you presented no evidence other than you saying it.

No, that's me asking which is more likely...your claim...or mine! It's not saying "take my word for it". You had two choices and that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend!

Lying con tool, who do you think you're fooling into believing you don't think your claim is not true??

Who do you think you're fooling when you "paraphrase"?

 

[Faun]

LOL

Of course it's the same. You saying, "to believe my version of events you have to accept...," while you offer zero evidence to corroborate your version of events, is you saying, take my word for it. Your lack English comprehension is not my problem, lying con tool.

I gave a choice of two things and then asked which was more believable. Somehow you translated that into "take my word for it"...yet you think "I" have a problem with English comprehension? Stick with calling me a "lying con tool", Faun! It's sophomoric but at least you don't come across as a complete buffoon!

LOL

Lying con yool, the two choices were your claim versus mine, followed by you asking, "now which do you think is more likely?" Since you were promoting your claim over mine, that can only mean you found your claim believable, not mine.

That means you're saying your claim is believable. But you offer no proof whatsoever to backup your claim. That's the same as you saying, take my word for it, since you presented no evidence other than you saying it.

No, that's me asking which is more likely...your claim...or mine! It's not saying "take my word for it". You had two choices and that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend!

Lying con tool, who do you think you're fooling into believing you don't think your claim is not true??

Who do you think you're fooling when you "paraphrase"?

What's the matter, lying con tool? You don't want to answer my question because you realize the answer exposes my paraphrasing accurately depicts your sentiment?

As far as me fooling anyone, I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims and trying to convince the forum to believe me based on nothing but me saying them. That would be you. You're the one claiming Hillary paid Steele to leak his dossier to the press while you're in possession of literal squat to back that up.

 

[Redfish]

you have posted nothing but unsupported dem/lib talking points, not the first fact. this morning you stupidly claimed that the hillary campaign did not pay for the dossier when there is clear evidence that they did. YOU are a blatant liar and propagandist for the lying dems and the lying media.

Wrong, guppy. I’ve provided actual facts while you have stated your feelings.

Hillary Clinton paid for legal opposition research. She did nothing illegal...unlike Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/13/732340501/fact-check-foreign-interference-and-opposition-research-are-not-the-same

and now you cite NPR as a legitimate source, I give up, you are either terminally stupid or totally brainwashed, or both.

Paying a foreign entity for dirt on your opponent is not illegal???? WTF is wrong with you?

But are you actually trying to claim, that if a Campaign caters a luncheon for campaign purposes or potential donors, and writes it off as a designated campaign expense,

if the caterer had a bunch of Mexicans that he paid to make the burritos and Rice and beans for the campaign luncheon,

this campaign would be breaking campaign finance law, because it was Mexican citizens that the Campaign indirectly paid through the Caterer, to help them with their campaign function?

where in the USA do Mexican citizens run catering services?

your attempt at analogy is a good try, but I must give you an F. Sorry.

Where did I say the Mexicans ran it? They simply were paid by the American caterer, to make the food. I give you an F for comprehension of what you read!

OK. let me rephrase the question: where in the USA do mexican citizens work legally in catering services? note the word "legally".

 

[Redfish]

Really, show us. the flight plans show Clinton as a passenger 27 times, Trump zero.

Trump banned Epstein from his properties.

so, bring the evidence or STFU

No trips to the island as you and liar Trump claimed.

No wittle fishy, that is what Trump said what happened. Trump lies multiple times an hour.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-falling-out

vanity fair-------------wow, that proves it!!!!

are you really that stupid?

No, but you certainly are. The article has links...something you never provide.

links to lies--------------yeah that proves it.

you continue to display your ignorance.

I'm sorry Trumpian acolyte, your projection doesn't work. Everyone can see how deluded and 100% fact free you are.

Here are a few FACTS for you

1. Trump beat hillary in 2016
2. Trump will beat whoever the dems run in 2020
3. We have had record low unemployment numbers under Trump
4. the stock market is at record highs
5. Everyone with a 401K or any kind of retirement account has benefitted from that
6. the impeachment crap is nothing but poltical bullshit because the dems know that they cannot beat him and are looking for a talking point for the campaign.
7. If Trump was a democrat the impeachment BS would never have started.
8. You are a partisan idiot.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No trips to the island as you and liar Trump claimed.

No wittle fishy, that is what Trump said what happened. Trump lies multiple times an hour.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-falling-out

vanity fair-------------wow, that proves it!!!!

are you really that stupid?

No, but you certainly are. The article has links...something you never provide.

links to lies--------------yeah that proves it.

you continue to display your ignorance.

I'm sorry Trumpian acolyte, your projection doesn't work. Everyone can see how deluded and 100% fact free you are.

Here are a few FACTS for you

1. Trump beat hillary in 2016
2. Trump will beat whoever the dems run in 2020
3. We have had record low unemployment numbers under Trump
4. the stock market is at record highs
5. Everyone with a 401K or any kind of retirement account has benefitted from that
6. the impeachment crap is nothing but poltical bullshit because the dems know that they cannot beat him and are looking for a talking point for the campaign.
7. If Trump was a democrat the impeachment BS would never have started.
8. You are a partisan idiot.

Do you really want me to parse your facts? I might give you one out of the 8 but all the rest are wrong, your personal opinion or a prediction. Yet you present them as facts. Yes, out of the mouth of the Party of the Rump.

 

[Redfish]

vanity fair-------------wow, that proves it!!!!

are you really that stupid?

No, but you certainly are. The article has links...something you never provide.

links to lies--------------yeah that proves it.

you continue to display your ignorance.

I'm sorry Trumpian acolyte, your projection doesn't work. Everyone can see how deluded and 100% fact free you are.

Here are a few FACTS for you

1. Trump beat hillary in 2016
2. Trump will beat whoever the dems run in 2020
3. We have had record low unemployment numbers under Trump
4. the stock market is at record highs
5. Everyone with a 401K or any kind of retirement account has benefitted from that
6. the impeachment crap is nothing but poltical bullshit because the dems know that they cannot beat him and are looking for a talking point for the campaign.
7. If Trump was a democrat the impeachment BS would never have started.
8. You are a partisan idiot.

Do you really want me to parse your facts? I might give you one out of the 8 but all the rest are wrong, your personal opinion or a prediction. Yet you present them as facts. Yes, out of the mouth of the Party of the Rump.

which ones do you disagree with? bring it!

 

[colfax_m]

We know, no source is good enough for you, but that’s because you’re a tin foil conspiracy theorist.

the clinton campaign through Fusion GPS paid Russians to create the dossier of lies about Trump and timed its release in an attempt to damage him just before the election. They failed but the illegality of what they did remains.

Will anyone ever be held to account for it? probably not and we should all be very concerned about that.

One, no Russians were paid for the dossier.
Two, it wasn’t released before the election.
Three, there’s nothing illegal about paying for opposition research.

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

you are a victim of left wing propaganda.

1. Where’s the evidence that Russians were paid?
2. The dossier was released by Buzzfeed on Jan 10 2017. That was AFTER the election.
3. If it’s illegal to conduct opposition research, can you show me the law that says so?

1. already established, common knowledge
2. it was leaked before the election
3. you libs are accusing Trump of it today, if its not illegal why are you doing that?

1. it’s a common fallacy. You believe it without questioning it. Time to question it. Where’s the evidence?
2. Who leaked it and when?
3. Trump is using government authority to force Ukraine to announce a phony investigation. That’s not opposition research. It’s corruption.

 

[lennypartiv]

Trump is using government authority to force Ukraine to announce a phony investigation. That’s not opposition research. It’s corruption.

Trump is trying to clean things up in Ukraine.