Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

#4,226
#4,226
Mick said:
Conservatives wrote all the reports, all the redaction's and all the rewrites. But it's not over until they can bastardize the facts by keeping it ongoing to promote the same narrative.
Click to expand...
This tactic of so-called "gaslighting" is hard to get used to. Nothing can be taken at face value anymore. Nothing is literal. I'm seeing conservatives (including Sen. Marsha Blackburn) claiming on Twitter that the IG report made "a key finding" that FBI agents were motivated to initiate the Russian probe out of a bias against Trump. The report simply doesn't say that. It says just the opposite.
 
#4,227
#4,227
BowlBrother85 said:
How would you know why the report states what it does? Did you help to compile it? There is no evidence cited which confirms a bias on the behalf of the investigators. To say otherwise, is being dishonest about what the report actually says. Conservatives don't get to rewrite the report to serve their own agenda, just because it doesn't say what you want it to.
Click to expand...
The evidence I cite is the communication between Deep State actors bragging about and celebrating their bias. All the report says is that it found no verbal or documented evidence.

Simply put, the report says there were numerous violations but the suspects weren’t thinking bad thoughts while commiting them.
 
#4,228
#4,228
BowlBrother85 said:
This tactic of so-called "gaslighting" is hard to get used to. Nothing can be taken at face value anymore. Nothing is literal. I'm seeing conservatives (including Sen. Marsha Blackburn) claiming on Twitter that the IG report made "a key finding" that FBI agents were motivated to initiate the Russian probe out of a bias against Trump. The report simply doesn't say that. It says just the opposite.
Click to expand...
Post-truth politics - Wikipedia

"A defining trait of post-truth politics is that campaigners continue to repeat their talking points, even when media outlets, experts in the field in question, and others provide proof that contradicts these talking points. "

We are witnessing the whole Republican party employ this which amplifies it tenfold. It's all they have. It's why those incapable of discerning facts from the voluminous amounts of repetitive talking points designed to demonize have an emotional reaction when presented with the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#4,231
#4,231
BowlBrother85 said:
This tactic of so-called "gaslighting" is hard to get used to. Nothing can be taken at face value anymore. Nothing is literal. I'm seeing conservatives (including Sen. Marsha Blackburn) claiming on Twitter that the IG report made "a key finding" that FBI agents were motivated to initiate the Russian probe out of a bias against Trump. The report simply doesn't say that. It says just the opposite.
Click to expand...
This impeachment sham going on and you're going to mention gaslighting from a tweet?

Lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, ajvol01 and BigOrangeD
#4,235
#4,235
ajvol01 said:
Thread
Click to expand...

You won't find the word "hoax" anywhere in the IG report, which also concluded that the origin of the Russian probe was legitimate in it's purpose and found no evidence of a politically motivated bias on the part of FBI agents - a frequent talking point from Republicans over the last 2 years. Trump still talks about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page at his rallies. Comey and McCabe have also been targets of his. The mistakes and omissions cited in the report are attributed to lower level staff.

That was a better effort, but Conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters are still including things which simply aren't in the report. You are presuming, speculating and surmising a great deal now ... which is exactly what Conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters say we shouldn't be doing with the impeachment probe.
 
#4,236
#4,236
BowlBrother85 said:
You won't find the word "hoax" anywhere in the IG report, which also concluded that the origin of the probe was legitimate in it's purpose and found no evidence of a politically motivated bias on the part of FBI agents - a frequent talking point from Republicans over the last 2 years. Trump still talks about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page at his rallies. Comey and McCabe have also been targets of his. The mistakes and omissions cited in the report are attributed to lower level staff.

That was a better effort, but Conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters are still including things which simply aren't in the report. You are presuming, speculating and surmising a great deal now ... which is exactly what Conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters say we shouldn't be doing with the impeachment probe.
Click to expand...
Peter Strozk to Lisa Page “We’ll stop” a Trump presidency.

No bias eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, FallCreekVols, BigOrangeD and 2 others
#4,238
#4,238
The report couldn't prove bias because they would never admit it. You expected these people to say "oh yes our decisions were based due to us hating Trump" Good lord you leftists live in fantasy land. Of course they were biased, why else did they lie so many times
 
#4,241
#4,241
volfanjustin said:
The report couldn't prove bias because they would never admit it. You expected these people to say "oh yes our decisions were based due to us hating Trump" Good lord you leftists live in fantasy land. Of course they were biased, why else did they lie so many times
Click to expand...
Do you understand you are applying your same argument against impeachment, but to make your case now? I wouldn't expect Trump to say, "Hey, Volodomyr! I have a quid-pro-quo for you!" There is no doubt that intent and a person's motivations can be tough things to prove... sometimes that works in your favor, and sometimes it doesn't.
 
#4,244
#4,244
BowlBrother85 said:
Do you understand you are applying your same argument against impeachment, but to make your case now? I wouldn't expect Trump to say, "Hey, Volodomyr! I have a quid-pro-quo for you!" There is no doubt that intent and a person's motivations can be tough things to prove... sometimes that works in your favor, and sometimes it doesn't.
Click to expand...
If you are going to impeach a President you damn well better have something more than maybe he was asking for a quid pro quo.
If Horowitz asked them if they had a bias, did you expect them to say yes?

Why were there 17 lies found? You think those were accidents?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallCreekVols
#4,246
#4,246
BigOrangeD said:
Correct, it adds to it. Durham can subpoena. Horowitz could only speak with those still employed. Durham can take it much further.
Click to expand...
Correct. BB doesn't understand Durham is the man with the brass balls, not Horowitz. Horowitz is a foundation for Durham that shows everything started on illegal warrants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallCreekVols and BigOrangeD
#4,247
#4,247
volfanjustin said:
If you are going to impeach a President you damn well better have something more than maybe he was asking for a quid pro quo.
If Horowitz asked them if they had a bias, did you expect them to say yes?

Why were there 17 lies found? You think those were accidents?
Click to expand...
No, and Trump knew better than to admit to a quid-pro-quo. And give me a break about lies... Trump has given multiple reasons for why the military aid was withheld and even lied about a phone call with Sondland in September that he never actually had. Why was Trump lying if he had nothing to hide?
 
#4,248
#4,248
BowlBrother85 said:
No, and Trump knew better than to admit to a quid-pro-quo. And give me a break about lies... Trump has given multiple reasons for why the military aid was withheld and even lied about a phone call with Sondland in September that he never actually had. Why was Trump lying if he had nothing to hide?
Click to expand...
There was no lie because no aid was withheld
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top