TrumPutinGate

#27,876
#27,876
Mick said:
Come on bham, if you can't back up you statement "he's been right about"?, just say so. No need for the whataboutisms.
Click to expand...

I can, I'm just not going to go back and pull the articles. If you can't debunk some of the interesting questions he raises why not just say so instead of attacking his credibility.

Hint, there are some links in his article.
 
#27,877
#27,877
volinbham said:
I can, I'm just not going to go back and pull the articles. If you can't debunk some of the interesting questions he raises why not just say so instead of attacking his credibility.

Hint, there are some links in his article.
Click to expand...
Hint, You can't debunk a question.
Is The Russia Investigation Really Another Watergate? Opinion
FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet opinion
The damning proof of innocence that FBI likely withheld in Russian probe opinion
You want me to go on and see him cite more of his own opinion pieces.
 
#27,878
#27,878
Mick said:
Hint, You can't debunk a question.
Is The Russia Investigation Really Another Watergate? Opinion
FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet opinion
The damning proof of innocence that FBI likely withheld in Russian probe opinion
You want me to go on and see him cite more of his own opinion pieces.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute - you posted a link as to why the Hill lists his articles as "opinion contributor" even though he in fact is doing reporting then you post articles of his that contain actual reporting (listing information from sources) and you say they aren't news because the Hill lists his articles as "opinion contributor"?

I'm guessing you didn't read any of those because if you had you would see reporting in them.

Oh and you can certainly explain why they are not interesting questions that the public should get an answer to. But I'm guessing you cannot explain why they are not interesting questions since they don't make Trump look bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and DC_Vol
#27,879
#27,879
lawgator1 said:
Conclusion of what?

All I know so far is that a man who is increasingly apparent is a Trump solider, released his characterization of the conclusions. This is a man who has previously been shown in a similar position to intentionally mischaracterize such things, then work to delay the truth until nothing can be done about it.
Click to expand...

What exactly is it that makes him a “Trump soldier”?

Mueller conducted his inquisition for two years and charged exactly zero people with crimes related to collusion. His report exonerated Trump as well.

If he had the goods to charge obstruction he would have done it. He punted to the AG to give the rabid collusophiles griping fodder. It was Mueller’s job to find it, prove it, and charge it.
 
#27,880
#27,880
volinbham said:
Wait a minute - you posted a link as to why the Hill lists his articles as "opinion contributor" even though he in fact is doing reporting then you post articles of his that contain actual reporting (listing information from sources) and you say they aren't news because the Hill lists his articles as "opinion contributor"?

I'm guessing you didn't read any of those because if you had you would see reporting in them.

Oh and you can certainly explain why they are not interesting questions that the public should get an answer to. But I'm guessing you cannot explain why they are not interesting questions since they don't make Trump look bad.
Click to expand...

I can say release the whole report but you would be against it. The public wants answers and we should get them. But I'm guessing you cannot explain why we shouldn't get them since they will make Trump look bad. By you stance, only the questions you want answered should be made public.
 
#27,881
#27,881
Mick said:
I can say release the whole report but you would be against it. The public wants answers and we should get them. But I'm guessing you cannot explain why we shouldn't get them since they will make Trump look bad. By you stance, only the questions you want answered should be made public.
Click to expand...

You got the answer: two year investigation into Russian collusion that ended with zero charges related to collusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and volfanjustin
#27,882
#27,882
Mick said:
I can say release the whole report but you would be against it. The public wants answers and we should get them. But I'm guessing you cannot explain why we shouldn't get them since they will make Trump look bad. By you stance, only the questions you want answered should be made public.
Click to expand...

This is a complete fabrication and deflection from my question.

As for the whole report I'm fine with as much being released as the law allows. I could give 2 craps what it means for Trump. Demanding the law be broken if that's what it takes to release the whole report demonstrates a complete lack of belief in the rule of law at the expense of getting political opponents.

To repeat, if the entire report can be released legally I'm all for it.

Now on to the questions from the Solomon piece - which are you against being answered?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tumscalcium
#27,883
#27,883
Y
DC_Vol said:
You got the answer: two year investigation into Russian collusion that ended with zero charges related to collusion.
Click to expand...
You knew the end wasn’t going to be good enough, I said from the beginning the end of the “investigation” was the worst possible thing for the far left
 
#27,884
#27,884
volinbham said:
This is a complete fabrication and deflection from my question.

As for the whole report I'm fine with as much being released as the law allows. I could give 2 craps what it means for Trump. Demanding the law be broken if that's what it takes to release the whole report demonstrates a complete lack of belief in the rule of law at the expense of getting political opponents.

To repeat, if the entire report can be released legally I'm all for it.

Now on to the questions from the Solomon piece - which are you against being answered?
Click to expand...
You still haven't backed up the claim the author "he's been right about" anything. You also know the law does allow for the full release of the report. The AG has the authority to do it even with the Grand Jury testimonies.
 
#27,885
#27,885
Mick said:
You still haven't backed up the claim the author "he's been right about" anything. You also know the law does allow for the full release of the report. The AG has the authority to do it even with the Grand Jury testimonies.
Click to expand...

All this to avoid the article I posted and the questions it proffered.
 
#27,886
#27,886
Mick said:
You still haven't backed up the claim the author "he's been right about" anything. You also know the law does allow for the full release of the report. The AG has the authority to do it even with the Grand Jury testimonies.
Click to expand...
Can’t wait for tomorrow’s round of liberal disappointment followed by excuses and conspiracy theories pushed by the DNC media which you all will repeat here all day
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and C-south
#27,891
#27,891
volinbham said:
They should be, no? (the answers made public).

Why attack Solomon for asking those questions? Aren't they important questions?
Click to expand...
No, if charges are not filed, amiright?

If shady stuff went down, I would like to know. The main thing I will be looking for in the redacted report is the avenues of inquire. Which rabbit holes did they go down only to come up empty handed.
 
#27,892
#27,892
there's as much evidence of shady stuff on the investigative side as there is on the collusion side. Horowitz and Huber thankfully are looking into it and Barr at least is interested in getting answers (Comey was not and Sessions checked out).

from the beginning I've said that it's entirely possible that both sides were bad actors but the battle lines seem to be one side totally bad; other side totally good.

The biggest question if one is party agnostic is did one party use the power of government to investigate/set up the opposition party. I'm not claiming they did but that would be the biggest abuse of power in our Republic's history. Seems to be too little interest in seeking answers to that question because of Trump hate.
 
#27,893
#27,893
volinbham said:
there's as much evidence of shady stuff on the investigative side as there is on the collusion side. Horowitz and Huber thankfully are looking into it and Barr at least is interested in getting answers (Comey was not and Sessions checked out).

from the beginning I've said that it's entirely possible that both sides were bad actors but the battle lines seem to be one side totally bad; other side totally good.

The biggest question if one is party agnostic is did one party use the power of government to investigate/set up the opposition party. I'm not claiming they did but that would be the biggest abuse of power in our Republic's history. Seems to be too little interest in seeking answers to that question because of Trump hate.
Click to expand...
Think of this possibility: The Russians tried to compromise the Trump campaign with the TT meeting. The Russian lawyer knew that Steele was doing opposition research for the Clinton campaign and met with him after the TT meeting. From there Putin just sat back to watch what he created. Kinda like Lardass from Stand by Me.
 
#27,894
#27,894
Mick said:
Think of this possibility: The Russians tried to compromise the Trump campaign with the TT meeting. The Russian lawyer knew that Steele was doing opposition research for the Clinton campaign and met with him after the TT meeting. From there Putin just sat back to watch what he created. Kinda like Lardass from Stand by Me.
Click to expand...

I believe it’s far more likely the meeting with the attorney was set into motion by the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump.
 
#27,895
#27,895
Sarah Carter just said an Avalanche (D5) is coming in a couple of months and will go all the way to the top of the Obummer Administration. It appears that the storm is coming folks. DIMs are just about out of ammo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#27,898
#27,898
BigOrangeD said:
Sarah Carter just said an Avalanche (D5) is coming in a couple of months and will go all the way to the top of the Obummer Administration. It appears that the storm is coming folks. DIMs are just about out of ammo.
Click to expand...
Will believe it when I see it, to date dems are teflon
 
#27,899
#27,899
DC_Vol said:
I believe it’s far more likely the meeting with the attorney was set into motion by the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump.
Click to expand...
Well, nobody ever accused you of having the mental capacity above an earthworm.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top