Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light

[Faun]

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

Comey specifically told an audience that he couldn't have gotten away with having Flynn meet with two FBI agents without a lawyer but the Trump people were new and didn't know the ropes (audience laughed). Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview
The fact is Comey knew Flynn should have had a lawyer with him but he told Flynn it wasn't necessary.
Your shit is disingenuous, to say the least.

Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey’s FBI - Washington Examiner

The time has come to cease affording the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team generous benefit of the doubt. A steady stream of unflattering revelations, beginning with a report by the Justice Department's inspector general into egregious FISA abuses last December, has relentlessly pounded the...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crim

I think anyone would instinctively know you don't lie to the cops. I don't know what your point is.

The whole point of a perjury trap is you are asked a bunch of questions and
if any questions are answered in error (i.e. how many windows did your house have that you grew up in?)
then that's considered perjury, even if your intent was not to deceive.
Dirty FBI agents, dirty tactics, dirty liars from Comey and Strzok on down.

FFS, Flynn didn't answer in error. He lied. He was asked if he spoke with the Russian ambassador about Obama's sanctions (on the same day they were imposed) and he said no.

 

[DamnDude]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?

I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

 

[iceberg]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

Oh hell. That's what everyone does to the other side - here, let me refresh your memory.

Tan suit
Using dijon mustard on his burger
Using a binder clip
Eating arugala
How he held his hand during the pledge of allegiene
The "terrorist fist bump"

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

Get a grip.

BUT OBAMA WAH WAH WAH - here we go again. you tell me not to do it and you're diving back to it again like tiny tim to his crutch. do you ever play by your own fucking rules, woman?

and like i said - "well everyone else does it" is the excuse of someone how old again? yes people were petty to obama.

guess what - they were petty to every other president that has ever graced the face of this earth. go dig up some old political cartoons of all presidents and you'll see a whole lot of unflattering crap flying around.

now if you're into the OH THEY DID IT TO US SO I MUST DO IT TO THEM - PAYBACK YARGH!!! fine. i'll be your huckleberry.

women must be believed. biden did it and must be put in jail.

there. now i'm doing what "the other side did" and demanding they play by the rules YOUR FUCKING SIDE uses all the time.

still cool? still a good idea? or is it stupid when i do it and valid when you do - like i believe you're going to say.

we can either continue the "hold my beer" revenge shit or we can grow the fuck up.

whatcha gonna do?

 

[Faun]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

"the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump."

So? Who was the last president to avoid such scrutiny?

 

[iceberg]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

"the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump."

So? Who was the last president to avoid such scrutiny?

if i paypal you a fiver, will you go be a fucknugget for someone else for awhile?

 

[iceberg]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

Oh hell. That's what everyone does to the other side - here, let me refresh your memory.

Tan suit
Using dijon mustard on his burger
Using a binder clip
Eating arugala
How he held his hand during the pledge of allegiene
The "terrorist fist bump"

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

Get a grip.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

 

[Faun]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

You're arguing facts not in evidence. That has yet to be determined.

 

[francoHFW]

"So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed,

Why are they not feeding their children?

no money to buy food? isn't that what poor means? here,


poor
/po͝or,pôr/
Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: poor; comparative adjective: poorer; superlative adjective: poorest

1. 1.
   lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

They are giving away food from local, state and federal sources..How can one not be able to feed their child? If they ever get to the point where I was once because of a health issue and have to get their meals from dumpster diving them I will join their cause.

/——-/ Mortgages or rents, utilities, car insurance.... BTW, since when is it the business owners responsibility to prove their business is a necessity? WTF business is it of some bureaucrat who decides if you can make a living or not.

I recall when Liberals would be on the front lines demanding people’s liberties restored.

I remember when the government and the president were not so incompetent that we still don't have equipment to protect workers. Great job as always

those employers suck huh? ohhhh wait, you think the goberment is supposed to pay for their supplies? hahahaahhahahaha dude, you're in the wrong country, you know that?

"So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed,

Why are they not feeding their children?

no money to buy food? isn't that what poor means? here,


poor
/po͝or,pôr/
Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: poor; comparative adjective: poorer; superlative adjective: poorest

1. 1.
   lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

They are giving away food from local, state and federal sources..How can one not be able to feed their child? If they ever get to the point where I was once because of a health issue and have to get their meals from dumpster diving them I will join their cause.

/——-/ Mortgages or rents, utilities, car insurance.... BTW, since when is it the business owners responsibility to prove their business is a necessity? WTF business is it of some bureaucrat who decides if you can make a living or not.

I recall when Liberals would be on the front lines demanding people’s liberties restored.

I remember when the government and the president were not so incompetent that we still don't have equipment to protect workers. Great job as always

those employers suck huh? ohhhh wait, you think the goberment is supposed to pay for their supplies? hahahaahhahahaha dude, you're in the wrong country, you know that?

a competent government yes.
Your admiration for the greedy idiot rich is noted.

 

[Coyote]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

Oh hell. That's what everyone does to the other side - here, let me refresh your memory.

Tan suit
Using dijon mustard on his burger
Using a binder clip
Eating arugala
How he held his hand during the pledge of allegiene
The "terrorist fist bump"

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

Get a grip.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

 

[iceberg]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

well when speaking to an ASS it's what i'm forced to do. the kind that will read my replies 4 times and still bitch at me that i didn't answer her questions even though every one of those 4 replies had my answer in it. the kind of ass that will say stop doing the BUT SOMEONE ELSE crap - and then do it herself time and time again...annoying huh?

and no i didn't read the rest of your shit. but i'll go ahead and answer like i did cause i'm going to do what you do since that seems to be acceptable.

 

[iceberg]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

Oh hell. That's what everyone does to the other side - here, let me refresh your memory.

Tan suit
Using dijon mustard on his burger
Using a binder clip
Eating arugala
How he held his hand during the pledge of allegiene
The "terrorist fist bump"

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

Get a grip.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

all im saying is you don't follow your own "rules" but get seriously SERIOUSLY asshurt when someone does the very same shit you do.

annoying, isn't it?

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

You mean that phone call where he was attempting to pressure a foreign leader into conducting an investigation on his personal political rival - or, even just ANNOUNCE there was going to be one? And withholding authorized congressional aid as leverage? Abusing his power to seek something that would aid his reelection campaign? Confirmed through sworn testimony of multiple people? That one?

That is the ONE thing he did that I 100% supported impeachment for.

 

[Coyote]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

well when speaking to an ASS it's what i'm forced to do. the kind that will read my replies 4 times and still bitch at me that i didn't answer her questions even though every one of those 4 replies had my answer in it. the kind of ass that will say stop doing the BUT SOMEONE ELSE crap - and then do it herself time and time again...annoying huh?

and no i didn't read the rest of your shit. but i'll go ahead and answer like i did cause i'm going to do what you do since that seems to be acceptable.

That is what I figured, but I wrote out a thoughtful reply anyway. It's your choice to be an ass.

 

[Leo123]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

I'm basing my opinion on the Horowitz report which is the most complete and non-partisan source of information we have.

Oh yeah where he found "apparent errors or inadequately supported facts' in every single FBI Fisa application? Where he said that was indicative of a wider problem.

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

Oh hell. That's what everyone does to the other side - here, let me refresh your memory.

Tan suit
Using dijon mustard on his burger
Using a binder clip
Eating arugala
How he held his hand during the pledge of allegiene
The "terrorist fist bump"

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

Get a grip.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

all im saying is you don't follow your own "rules" but get seriously SERIOUSLY asshurt when someone does the very same shit you do.

annoying, isn't it?

And I'm sure it's annoying to have your hypocrisy pointed out when it comes to Trump.

Trump is not unique when it comes to ridiculous complaints (I could go back to Bush as well) - but he is by far the biggest whiner and supported by a chorus of "how unfair" whiners.

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

I'm basing my opinion on the Horowitz report which is the most complete and non-partisan source of information we have.

Oh yeah where he found "apparent errors or inadequately supported facts' in every single FBI Fisa application? Where he said that was indicative of a wider problem.

Yup. I agree on that. Which is why I agree that the FBI must be reformed.

 

[Leo123]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

You mean that phone call where he was attempting to pressure a foreign leader into conducting an investigation on his personal political rival - or, even just ANNOUNCE there was going to be one? And withholding authorized congressional aid as leverage? Abusing his power to seek something that would aid his reelection campaign? Confirmed through sworn testimony of multiple people? That one?

That is the ONE thing he did that I 100% supported impeachment for.

None of that took place in the phone call. All he did was ask it to be looked into yet, somehow the Democrats spun that into pressuring and tried a fake impeachment-coup that was totally politically monolithic.

 

[Leo123]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

I'm basing my opinion on the Horowitz report which is the most complete and non-partisan source of information we have.

Oh yeah where he found "apparent errors or inadequately supported facts' in every single FBI Fisa application? Where he said that was indicative of a wider problem.

Yup. I agree on that. Which is why I agree that the FBI must be reformed.

Yet you still say the dossier was based on good procedure? Was it right to pass off a partially fake document to the FISA court as verfied?

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

You mean that phone call where he was attempting to pressure a foreign leader into conducting an investigation on his personal political rival - or, even just ANNOUNCE there was going to be one? And withholding authorized congressional aid as leverage? Abusing his power to seek something that would aid his reelection campaign? Confirmed through sworn testimony of multiple people? That one?

That is the ONE thing he did that I 100% supported impeachment for.

None of that took place in the phone call. All he did was ask it to be looked into yet, somehow the Democrats spun that into pressuring and tried a fake impeachment-coup that was totally politically monolithic.

There was a lot more than just a phone call, but I don't want to derail this thread - there are others on it. At any rate I supported it.